Hi Vedantha, welcome to the forum. Some lengthy posts there!
QUOTE (VedanthaTheTruth @ Jul 4 2008, 08:42 AM)

'Nucular' date='Jun 16 2008, 03:07 PM' post='2346943']
Said " Most conceptions of a supreme deity regard It as 'omnipresent' (i.e. existing everywhere at once) "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir, I want to ask something about this..........Your statement was not precise & informative - It was pessimistic & Speculative. Not useful for any here to proceed with.
Any way.......I ask you some Question in Relation to this.......Pls Tell me
1) What is the Smallest Element - with which the whole Universe is Made up of ? ?
Let's say the 'quark', if you're asking what is the smallest known particle of matter. It's hard to give another answer without clarification to your question.
QUOTE
2) Do you believe that " Matter or Substance or Particle " is OmniPresent ? Existing Everywhere at Once ?
No. At least, not in any practical or 'real' sense (perhaps some might argue for probability wave immanence, but I doubt it's a useful idea).
QUOTE
3) What do you Understand by Mathematical Number : 1 - Look I am an Engineering Graduate & I know what is 1. But there is something I learnt about 1 after I read about Religion & GOD ok ?
I don't know how to answer your question. There are many possible answers. The smallest positive integer? Unity? Which branch of mathematics? I hope you tell me what you learnt about the number.
QUOTE
Nucular Said "Omnipresence may or may not be defined in relation to whether God is considered to be part of, distinct from, inside or outside the universe. "
NO. Mr. English Language Omnipresence means Present Everywhere.........that is all. No Exceptions.
As Such Equivalen words in Most Languages mean the same. No Exceptions.
I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I said "defined
in relation to", not "defined
as".
However, the point may link to your next point, so let me quote you and I'll return to it:
QUOTE
There is Nothing Called Inside or Outside the Universe.
When we Say Univese we have Covered everything.
Nothing Called out side the Universe.............Universe Includes Space, Heavens, Planets, Matter, Suns or Stars, Moons, Meteors, Light, Air, Water, Fire, Land, Sky or Space, Sound, Energy etc.
And there is Nothing Apart from this in Universe...........so by the Word Universe it is defined as Everything.
And when the Question of Omni Presence come..........we can say...........Everywhere in the Universe. Need Not Mention - out of Universe.
That depends. Working strictly with the definition of the English word, then you are right. But sometimes we can be constricted by language (one of the reasons physics uses the language of mathematics, rather than our woefully incomplete tongue). Defining 'the universe' as 'Everything' tells us nothing about what that actually includes. We are here, in the
known universe, made up of spacetime, energy and matter. We know that spacetime is finite, and at present our definition of the universe pretty much coincides with 'the extent of spacetime' since we have neither the knowledge nor the tools right now to extend that definition. Whether there may be things
other than the known universe - other, similar 'universes', a 'metaverse', previous and subsequent 'universes', today we can only theorise and speculate. But our language around such concepts is, as you can see, imprecise. It's not the terms which are important, it's the meaning they carry. So, if we're talking about 'God being outside the universe', I don't know if that
is a meaningful statement, but I do know that it implies that God is
distinct from that which we are at the moment calling 'the universe' (this expanse of spacetime, energy and matter). Whether your definition of universe includes a God if there is one, doesn't tell us anything about the concepts behind the language. Perhaps a better nomenclature to employ would be 'known universe' instead of 'universe', and 'universe' instead of 'metaverse'. The language, as I said, isn't important so long as we all know what we're talking about.
In terms of omnipresence, generally I would think it is assumed that that means 'occupying every point in time and space'. Without spacetime, there is no location anyway, and so the concept of omnipresence is meaningless.
QUOTE
Nucular Said " well, I'm sure there are many potential answers that can be dreamed up by believers in various versions of all of this.
Maybe some will claim the great big empty universe is our playground of the future. I certainly hope it is, God-given or not "
Naturally - Nucular u are right to Predict it.
Our house with a few room can be called as Play Ground Sometimes.
Our School Can be Called Play Ground some times.
Our streets where we Live can be Called Playground sometimes.
Then People are Playing all Over the Country - For them Nations are Playgrounds......
But Mr. Nucular. Not all Places are Our Play Grounds.
A Chemical Laboratory, A Power Plant, A Uranim Enrichment area, A Volcanic Mountain etc..........are certain Places on Earth Which cannot be Play Grounds.
Such is also the Case with Universe.
All the above mentioned Play Ground are to be ensured to be Made Safe to Play.
Then it is evident that those Places have been Explored, Studies, Analysed to be fit..........and then Called PlayGrounds.
Similarly - Universe can be called PlayGround. But Nucular - Universe has Still to be Explored - to be Studied & Analysed to be Fit for Living - If Possible - other wise No.
But Gods Point of View............He has Given Mankind A Brain Genious Enough to Expolore the Universe & Adopt the Place right for Him.........Anyway he has always reminded the Mankind to Realize the Divinity & Universal Unity of the SOUl.
It may be the language barrier, Vedantha (I mean no offence, but I'm guessing English isn't your first language), but my last comment was intended to be flippant. By 'playground' I meant nothing more than a place for us to explore.
QUOTE
Pls Post something that is Clear & Informative.
Even Now. I am not clear what was your objective of Posting your message.
The only point of that post was to question Arkan's suggestion that God may have to
travel, which would be unnecessary for an omnipresent Being, which many would claim God is. Nothing else.
As someone who doesn't believe in God, it's a hypothetical discussion from my point of view, but an interesting one nonetheless.