[050319 cg] I agree that there is ONE G-d (another name for the Singularity) and ALL that is, is the substance and essence of the ONE G-d. The 'illusion' is OUR belief in the separateness of 'things'. The ONE G-d is and we call this 'the Universe', and this 'our mind', and this 'another', etc. And still there is only ONE G-d.

I agree that there is ONE G-d (the Singularity), but I do not ascribe the characteristic of consciousness to G-d. We, sentient beings, hold consciousness in high regard (and our egos as supremely important) and project that onto G-d. I am not arguing that G-d is material, nor am I arguing that G-d is not consciousness. I am stating that G-d is beyond the duality of materiality/consciousness, that G-d is the foundation of all 'things', both physical and mental.

[050319 cck] I am not sure I can agree with you that your One God is another name for what I call The Singularity. It all depends on how you define your god.  

If you will agree that the only definition of god is "First Cause," without describing any other attributes, then your God and The Singularity are the same. But if you add attributes beyond Consciousness then you are leaving the confines of The Singularity and describing only the god that exists in your own mind. The god you have created for yourself to believe in. Any attributes assigned to your god, are the attributes you have assigned. And that is the problem.

You and Dan; and just about everyone else, argue over the attributes of god. You all disagree because you are each arguing about a different god. You and Dan are not talking about the same god. You each envision different attributes for the god you each have chosen to believe in. They are not the same god, each is the god you perceive in your own minds, and each of your gods only exists in your own minds.

There are no answers. There are only choices.

From Act II: page 3:

First Cause:

For us to know what Reality is, we must first know what The First Cause is, but because First Cause; whether you call it God or The Singularity, is both Infinite and Unbound it cannot ever be fully defined. An Unbound Infinity can be anything and everything at anytime, or at 'everytime.'

We cannot say what it is, and we cannot say what it is not, because it can always be more than what we say.

The only thing we can know about The First Cause is what it caused. Since no-thing can exist 'in' First Cause because everything is part of First Cause, any attributes we can assign to the components of any system, are by default, attributes of the system itself. A system cannot assign attributes to it's components that it does not manifest itself!

The only thing we know for certain is We Exist. We do not exist in First Cause, everything is woven from the essence of First Cause, and therefore any attributes we can assign to ourselves are by default also attributes of First Cause.

If we wield Occam's Razor on its sharpest edge by not complicating anything more than necessary, anything we try to append to We Exist is only a further complication and is not necessary. 'We Exist' is not only all we are certain of; it is all that is necessary to explain everything else. The only thing we know exists is the only thing that needs to exist. We are First Cause.

Reality and the Universe thus become an extension of our own attributes. And what are our attributes? The one attribute that defines us is the same attribute that grants us knowledge of our own existence: Consciousness: We Think.

With Poly-Solipsism there is no Duality because there are no "Physical Things." There is only the Consciousness of Mind.

The problem mankind as failed to resolve is how can "Something" issue from "Nothing"? We cannot explain how the Discrete came into existence from a void of Nothingness.

Poly-Solipsism dispenses with the problem of both by recognizing there is no-thing discrete and there never was a void of Nothingness.

 [050320 djs] Interesting. It appears to me that the two of you, cg and cck, have one thing in common, namely: You both appear to think G-d lacks duality, lacks the characteristic of ‘discreteness’.

It is here that I diverge from you both. Symbiotic panentheism is a model of the whole of Reality, a model of G-d, which demonstrates that G-d is both discrete in nature and simultaneously non-discrete in nature.

Symbiotic panentheism embraces the attributes you both make regarding what is but disagrees with your adamant statements of what is not. In short: Where the two of you reject characteristics of G-d, symbiotic panentheism understands such characteristics exist and exist for a reason.  For example, symbiotic panentheism specifically states: Nothingness exists and G-d uses nothingness. Individuated entities of knowing exist, are divine in nature, and interact in a symbiotic manner with G-d. Duality exists. The discrete exists.

In short, symbiotic panentheism would agree with the positive statements you both make as to G-d’s attributes but symbiotic panentheism would argue against the negative statements you both make as to G-d’s attributes.

It makes me think: Which understanding of G-d would most likely be correct, an understanding of G-d with limits defined by man or an understanding of G-d with no limits? Hmmm, perhaps the two of you can clarify for me how it is both of you are so sure the limits you place on G-d are in ‘fact’ an accurate description of G-d.

Regarding: If you will agree that the only definition of god is "First Cause.

I don't know about cg but symbiotic panentheism would not agree that the only definition of G-d is 'First Cause'.