We are the universe

You guys talk some right shit.
The fact that "God" is such an ever changing concept, just goes to show what an utter load of bollocks it all is.
The main fact is no-one knows jack shit and never will, so don't be preaching your bollocks theories acting all high and mighty when you have zero understanding, just as the rest of the human race.

The ignorant only see ignorance
 


1KXRb2p.jpg
 
Says who? No one can say what god is or isn't.

God/gods is a dictionary word. Your definition is not remotely close and doesn't even make sense:

"all-encompassing cosmic energy"

That doesn't even make sense. wtf does all-compassing cosmic energy mean? To me it sounds like you're just saying 'everything' is god, in which case I'd say that's a pointless statement. If that's wrong, it sounds like you're saying god is a person that acts on the universe in it's own personal way.

Spirituality is not something you can define.

Spirituality does have a definition. At the core it's a belief that something exists beyond the physical reality we know of.

You know the saying: "to those who believe, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't, none will suffice."

Sounds like a cop-out and overall shitty quote.

If you believe in something with no explanation, you clearly don't think rationally. The second part is a strawman.
 
If you believe in something with no explanation, you clearly don't think rationally.

Knowledge of transcendentals is supra-rational, knowledge of particulars is rational.

Your mental horizon is limited, whether it be inborn or solidified through certain forms of education, and you project that limited horizon onto the world as if it is absolute.

You also assume that there are only believers (which is understandable, as most of the world is full of believers cherishing their own limited, conditioned conceptions), and not knowers.
 
http://www.worldwisdom.com/uploads/pdfs/27.pdf

But an objection will undoubtedly be raised here: Is it possible to go beyond nature? We do not hesitate to answer plainly: Not only is it possible, but it is a fact. Again it might be said, is this not merely an assertion; what proofs thereof can be adduced? It is truly strange that proof is demanded concerning the possibility of a kind of knowledge instead of searching for it and verifying it for one’s self by undertaking the work necessary for its acquisition. For those who possess this knowledge, what interest can there be in all this discussion? Substituting a “theory of knowledge” for knowledge itself is perhaps the greatest admission of impotence in modern philosophy.

Moreover, all certitude contains something incommunicable. Nobody can truly attain to any knowledge other than by a strictly personal effort; all that one can do for another is to offer him the opportunity and indicate the means by which to attain the same knowledge. That is why it would be vain to attempt to impose any belief in the purely intellectual realm; the best argument in the world could not in this respect replace direct and effective knowledge.

Now, is it possible to define metaphysics as we understand it? No, for to define is always to limit, and that with which we are concerned is, in itself, truly and absolutely unlimited and cannot be confined to any formula or any system.
 
To me it sounds like you're just saying 'everything' is god, in which case I'd say that's a pointless statement.

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The word God usually refers to the single deity in monotheism or the monist deity in pantheism."

Conceptions of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The god of monotheism, pantheism or panentheism, or the supreme deity of henotheistic religions, may be conceived of in various degrees of abstraction:

  • as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category;
  • the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself;
  • the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc.
 
“All metaphysical discussion is profitless unless it causes us to seek within the Self for the true reality. All controversies about creation, the nature of the universe, evolution, the purpose of God, etc., are useless. They are not conducive to our true happiness. People try to find out about things which are outside of them before they try to find out “Who am I?” Only by the latter means can happiness be gained.”

- Sri Ramana Maharshi

ramana_wide.jpg