Logically rationalize God

[xerx]

I don't see how a thought experiment followed by logical deductions on said thought experiment can qualify as "subjective prevarications". I gave three ways in which reality could be schemed based on these logical deductions, and then I depicted criteria in which option C could be fulfilled. I have my own logical deductions on why C is correct in which I haven't shared yet. It is rather jarring, however, how all your opinions seem to be clouded by your own conspicuous religiosity.

nah, I just call it as I see it

[Aylen]

My sister had a medical condition when she was 15/16. She prayed about it all the time, to god, Jesus and the universe to make sure she covered her bases. She was meant to have a surgery that would have changed her life forever (for the worse) but my step dad would not allow it. My sister kept praying. After seeing all kinds of specialists, including going to NYC to see the best, she had some tests and her condition was healed. The doctors called it a miracle (I doubt they were all religious so it was just a word to them) and had no logical explanation for her healing. The condition never returned.

Some things are not meant to be logically rationalized. Whether it was god or her own will that influenced the healing of her body we will never know in this human form. Her faith and belief in something bigger than herself cured her. That is the best explanation I have for it.

[Singu]

Logic can only say that the premise and the conclusion are consistent. But it can't know whether that premise is true or not, or even know where that premise came from. You'll need another premise to know whether that premise is true or not... and you'll need another premise... and it becomes an infinite regress.

So where does that premise come from? And the answer is a bit mysterious, or we could say it comes from "creativity". Saying that "God exists" or "Because of God" is a human answer that comes from human creativity. I mean it's possible that the entire human civilization could have gone without ever coming up with the idea of God. I'd suppose it has actually been that way for a long time. The idea of an almighty monotheistic God is a fairly new idea.

We could also say that we are working from the middle, and not from the start, because there will always be a premise prior to that premise. So there is no "absolutely fundamental premise" that we are working from. It's possible that we have yet to understand the premise prior to "God exists", such as "What is God?".

[Hitta]

nah, I just call it as I see it

No you don't, you are completely invested in it. That's why you are trying to prove atheism to people in a thread in which the creator politely asked nobody to do or to create another thread in order to do so. It actually bothers you that people do not think like you do.

[Computer Loser]

You and I aren’t God.

That’s retarded.

You probably mean humans are made in Gods image; similar to how we’re made in our parents image

But everyone here is human - meaning we aren’t omnipotent beings that can create the universe out of thin air - it’s not that complicated

[Hitta]

You and I aren’t God.

That’s retarded.

You probably mean humans are made in Gods image; similar to how we’re made in our parents image

But everyone here is human - meaning we aren’t omnipotent beings that can create the universe out of thin air - it’s not that complicated

We are God though. God is everything. The self contains everything, ergo, we are God. The self exists as a pseudo dualistic entity in which personal aspects are held tightly in conscious space, and all possibility is layered down into the most unconscious space where we are more consciously aware of some unconscious facets than other more deeply hidden. It is pretty much as Plato and Socrates stated: we do not learn and what we call learning is just the process of recollection. Everything we come into contact with or interact with is already pre-contained within the self.

[xerx]

No you don't, you are completely invested in it. That's why you are trying to prove atheism to people in a thread in which the creator politely asked nobody to do or to create another thread in order to do so. It actually bothers you that people do not think like you do.

I don't care what other people believe.

All I claimed (in this thread, not in yours) is that it's not possible to prove the existence of god empirically (i.e. scientifically). Could we acquire the ability to empirically prove some aspect of god in the future, from a position of enhanced scientific understanding? I don't know, but I'm actually inclined to believe that we can.

For instance, there's a view being seriously entertained by some physicists (like Max Tegmark) called 'Panpsychism,' which argues that consciousness is a fundamental component of the universe—it's something intrinsic to matter and potentially irreducible. The consequence is that even the atoms in your chair might have a kind of primitive consciousness. It's apparent that such a discovery, if it were true, would open the door to inquiries about claims once relegated to the status of 'spiritual mysticism.'



P.S. if this is about that Chewbacca video, I deleted the post.

[End]

If God exists, he's either a powerless wimp or an evil demon. There's too much crazy stuff out there to believe that an omnipotent God is some wise, benevolent entity.

Not really. There's this thing people forget about "God" (at least if we're talking about the Deity of Christianity). God *is* love. He loves you, me, that gray alien on Epsilon Segmentum Obscurus, etc. The key thing everyone just keeps overlooking is that he is also Justice.

Take the true and eternal love out of that equation. Imagine an entity, a deity, of only pure justice, of pure and omnipotent "law" sans any form of "morality" or "compassion" as we would understand it made manifest. Now imagine asking that thing what you deserve (or rather, not being given a choice in regards to having to ask that question of it). If you're not absolutely terrified at the prospect of that reality than you're either a narcissist, a saint, or a total idiot with a complete lack of imagination to boot and as saints are quite rare that kinda narrows it down.

Thankfully, for Christians like me, God is both so we have nothing to truly fear. Further argument on this front will, I regret in jest, require you to pass the Witch test. Key thing to remember about that is that you need not mean a word you type. Hell, you can even ask me to type words I won't mean for shit (i.e. ask me to say/type out the creed of another religion). Save, of course, for anything that hails the prince of this world and/or rejects God. After all, many a martyr were asked to do just that and they gave the correct answer. I will follow in their example.

[Computer Loser]

We are God though. God is everything.

LOL. wtf @Hitta!?

Pantheism the idea that all things are essential and therefore God is wrong


Truthfully pantheism is just disguised atheism using feel good words trying to sound meaningful; in our current modern culture we see things like “law of attraction” “everything is vibrations” and even the “psychedelic crowd” tie in concepts that we are source and we are God.

That’s fucking stupid. Lol.

Yes, we are responsible for our actions, thoughts, and therefore destiny, but to claim we are God is not true. We see this lie plastered everywhere

For all its popularity and ancient pedigree, pantheism is a semantic shell game that shifts the meaning of words without actually saying anything meaningful at all. There are only two possibilities:

1. One can meaningfully (and rightly) say that the universe has a God.

2. One can meaningfully (and incorrectly) say the universe doesn't have a God.

But once you say that the substance of the universe is all that there is, proposing to call that impersonal substance "God" doesn't change the reality you are describing.

God is everything.

Come on bro, the shit I took this morning isn’t God

we do not learn and what we call learning is just the process of recollection. Everything we come into contact with or interact with is already pre-contained within the self.

Sounds cool like the movie "The Matrix," but

it's definitely not true.

Let's use an example, say "justice." (I'll use justice instead of virtue). We are inquiring about the definition of justice and think we have come to understand what it is. When we get to this understanding, how will we know for sure that we have is the correct understanding of justice? That we have fully learned or recollected?

As humans, in our fallen nature, we cannot come to the true knowledge of justice on our own. Instead, it must be revealed to us by God (i.e. His word), because we ourselves aren't God. If God doesn't reveal it to us, can we really say that we understand justice? At the most we can say we have a partial understanding of what justice is. A way around this might be to posit something like the natural law. We can come to the correct understanding of justice because it is found in nature. On this view it is still God revealing justice to us, although not necessarily by means of the Scripture/his word.

The self contains everything, ergo, we are God. The self exists as a pseudo dualistic entity in which personal aspects are held tightly in conscious space, and all possibility is layered down into the most unconscious space where we are more consciously aware of some unconscious facets than other more deeply hidden.

This is slightly delusional thinking.

It is more accurate to say we are born with:

—Tools to learn and discover
—We build our understanding of things from discoveries of the past.
—We can learn more about ourselves, and come to more awareness of who we are underneath.
—We have potential “to grow”

We are, in a sense, "creators", however...

This doesn’t all of a sudden mean we "the Creator" or the higher entity known as God.

At best, we're more like a poor man's version of God. A VERY poor man's version at that. lol

Kinda like this bootleg freeza toy:

The self contains everything, ergo, we are God.

If the self contained everything that’d be awesome though; maybe I actually am Michael Jordan layered deep underneath my subconscious, I'm just unaware. Finally, I can join the NBA!!!

Socrates and plato...

Since you mentioned them,

Philosophers such as Plato had brilliant and influencial ideas, though some were incomplete.

Probably the greatest philosophers ever. I personally liked that they believed in objective truth, in contrast where our world today puts high regard to relative truth.

There were many deep questions pondered at the time.

But a question relevant to our discussion:

If truth and meaning exist independently of our minds, then these things had to come from somewhere or someone.

Plato pondered the same question and concluded that all these forms must come from something that is like them, yet greater than them. He called this “The Good.”

And while Plato’s Good is unlike the Christian God in significant ways, the theory does lay a foundation for a more fully orbed understanding of God as the transcendent yet personal source of all that is good.

Augustine recognized this. He suggested that because the forms are basically ideas, and because ideas cannot exist apart from a mind, then the world of the forms must be present in the mind of God.

Of which, leads me to my final point:

An argument for God from a consciousness/intelligence perspective

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

3. Lets assume it didn't happen by blind chance.

4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

And *the* intelligence greater than us?

GOD.

[ashlesha]

I've gotten what I needed from this thread, so feel entitled to argue away.
(Thanks for drawing attention to my request, though, @Hitta)

[xerx]

Not really. There's this thing people forget about "God" (at least if we're talking about the Deity of Christianity). God *is* love. He loves you, me, that gray alien on Epsilon Segmentum Obscurus, etc. The key thing everyone just keeps overlooking is that he is also [B]Justice.

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't see how a three year old child dying from cancer deserves that fate. An adult with free will being served justice, I can accept, but the wisdom and benevolence of this self-appointed "judge," I just don't see it.

EDIT: I suppose one could conjure up some ad-hoc explanation: the little kid might be a Philosophical Zombie; this might all be part of some larger plan which we don't understand; etc. Regardless, I can't force myself to believe ad-hoc claims at face value without evidence.

[Hitta]

LOL. wtf @Hitta!?

Pantheism the idea that all things are essential and therefore God is wrong


Truthfully pantheism is just disguised atheism using feel good words trying to sound meaningful; in our current modern culture we see things like “law of attraction” “everything is vibrations” and even the “psychedelic crowd” tie in concepts that we are source and we are God.

That’s fucking stupid. Lol.

Yes, we are responsible for our actions, thoughts, and therefore destiny, but to claim we are God is not true. We see this lie plastered everywhere

For all its popularity and ancient pedigree, pantheism is a semantic shell game that shifts the meaning of words without actually saying anything meaningful at all. There are only two possibilities:

1. One can meaningfully (and rightly) say that the universe has a God.

2. One can meaningfully (and incorrectly) say the universe doesn't have a God.

But once you say that the substance of the universe is all that there is, proposing to call that impersonal substance "God" doesn't change the reality you are describing.



Come on bro, the shit I took this morning isn’t God






Sounds cool like the movie "The Matrix," but

it's definitely not true.

Let's use an example, say "justice." (I'll use justice instead of virtue). We are inquiring about the definition of justice and think we have come to understand what it is. When we get to this understanding, how will we know for sure that we have is the correct understanding of justice? That we have fully learned or recollected?

As humans, in our fallen nature, we cannot come to the true knowledge of justice on our own. Instead, it must be revealed to us by God (i.e. His word), because we ourselves aren't God. If God doesn't reveal it to us, can we really say that we understand justice? At the most we can say we have a partial understanding of what justice is. A way around this might be to posit something like the natural law. We can come to the correct understanding of justice because it is found in nature. On this view it is still God revealing justice to us, although not necessarily by means of the Scripture/his word.



This is slightly delusional thinking.

It is more accurate to say we are born with:

—Tools to learn and discover
—We build our understanding of things from discoveries of the past.
—We can learn more about ourselves, and come to more awareness of who we are underneath.
—We have potential “to grow”

We are, in a sense, "creators", however...

This doesn’t all of a sudden mean we "the Creator" or the higher entity known as God.

At best, we're more like a poor man's version of God. A VERY poor man's version at that. lol

Kinda like this bootleg freeza toy:





If the self contained everything that’d be awesome though; maybe I actually am Michael Jordan layered deep underneath my subconscious, I'm just unaware. Finally, I can join the NBA!!!





Since you mentioned them,

Philosophers such as Plato had brilliant and influencial ideas, though some were incomplete.

Probably the greatest philosophers ever. I personally liked that they believed in objective truth, in contrast where our world today puts high regard to relative truth.

There were many deep questions pondered at the time.

But a question relevant to our discussion:

If truth and meaning exist independently of our minds, then these things had to come from somewhere or someone.

Plato pondered the same question and concluded that all these forms must come from something that is like them, yet greater than them. He called this “The Good.”

And while Plato’s Good is unlike the Christian God in significant ways, the theory does lay a foundation for a more fully orbed understanding of God as the transcendent yet personal source of all that is good.

Augustine recognized this. He suggested that because the forms are basically ideas, and because ideas cannot exist apart from a mind, then the world of the forms must be present in the mind of God.

Of which, leads me to my final point:

An argument for God from a consciousness/intelligence perspective

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

3. Lets assume it didn't happen by blind chance.

4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

And *the* intelligence greater than us?

GOD.

This is a completely idiotic post, and completely misunderstands my point. Michael Jordan is not consciously aware of your internal existence. You are not consciously aware of Michael Jordan's internal states. For you to become Michael Jordan, you'd have to completely disengage from yourself, your memories, and everything that makes you you. And deep within your unconscious you already have, you are already Michael Jordan, cause he exists. Everyone exists within everyone else, as we all have a shared unconscious.

Also, pantheism is not disguised atheism. You've been listening to Richard Dawkins too much on that, who has a low IQ.

Also, as xerxes actually stated earlier, quite a few physicists are starting to realize that even non biological matter may have consciousness may be the precursor state. Your shit is actually a form of god, sorry.

You're beliefs and understanding of justice does not mean that you don't have some awareness of other forms on some level. I'm simply saying, that when you come across something that you haven't seen before.. you can perceive it because it is already inherent within you.

[Tonatiuh]

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

Another and in my mind better question is; would another institution make any difference?

[Hitta]

Also, I'd like to note that I don't like the terms conscious and unconscious, because I don't think they are correct. I'm not sure what to replace them with though. For example, a rock has consciousness as all matter has consciousness. It is an almost completely unconscious form of consciousness though...it's just a weird thing to say.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't see how a three year old child dying from cancer deserves that fate. An adult with free will being served justice, I can accept, but the wisdom and benevolence of this self-appointed "judge," I just don't see it.

EDIT: I suppose one could conjure up some ad-hoc explanation: the little kid might be a Philosophical Zombie; this might all be part of some larger plan which we don't understand; etc. Regardless, I can't force myself to believe ad-hoc claims at face value without evidence.

The kid’s a sinner and deserves worse than death — eternal mindwarping torture, in fact. So does everyone else — babies, kids, saints, your neighbor Mike. That’s why you have to be eternally grateful and submissive to God for allowing a privileged few to escape this fate they so richly deserve.

Calvinism’s a hell of a trip, but that’d be your justification for the kid dying. Ain’t it beautiful in its elegance?

[ooo]

x

from V. Mancuso, catholic theologian and philosopher

[BabelFish]

welcome to XVII century enlightenment philosophy.
human's capacity to be a rational being = god. hence natural law must be accessed now not through religious revelation, but through reason.
it's not a coincidence that the big figures in enlightenment (e.g. Kant) had a christian-protestant upbringing, it shows.

what would make up a good modern-day argument?
maybe your best bet would be to go for the unsolved problems in science as a simple but sometimes effective argument.
also, it's a fallacy to state that just because something can't be proven = it does not exist.

In my experience the knowledge of god and the experience of faith is completely devoid of what you can rationally prove through the scientific methods that we have utilized for centuries now.
It's a model we have adopted. Other models of induction exist, btw.
Still, I think god cannot be explain through our self-imposed scientificist way, but through a purely subjective experience.
There's some nice catholic philosophy to read on this. Think Aquinas.
Now, because of my cultural background I am ignorant on all the big minds on oriental religions, such as Buddhism, shintoisim and other religions. that's another place to look into.

tl;dr you're looking in the wrong direction for answers. It probably cannot be proved through what we consider logical and scientific.

[Computer Loser]

Michael Jordan is not consciously aware of your internal existence. You are not consciously aware of Michael Jordan's internal states.

I agree here.

For you to become Michael Jordan, you'd have to completely disengage from yourself, your memories, and everything that makes you you. And deep within your unconscious you already have, you are already Michael Jordan, cause he exists.

So IT IS possible? Possible to become Michael Jordan?

I can morph into a 6'6'' black man and dunk a basketball??? Or just his personality? What do you mean exactly?

I ask because I'm genuinely curious what this actually means and manifests as.



Now that I think about it,

I wouldn't mind transforming into Michael Jackson from Thriller either

Everyone exists within everyone else, as we all have a shared unconscious.

How do we know that besides appeal to authority or quoting a line from plato and what are some examples???

Also, pantheism is not disguised atheism.

And why isn't it? You can't just make statements without backing them up lol

According to you and the definition of Pantheism, there is no one, all powerful God who created the universe, but we are all god instead.... Which is basically atheism + throwing in the word god for no reason:

"You are god!" "We are god!" "Everyone is god!" "we are all divine!"

LOL

It sounds cool and meaningful though, I guess...

Actually, I got a better one:

"You are Michael Jordan!" "We are Michael Jordan!" "Everyone is Michael Jordan!"

WE ARE ALL 6X NBA CHAMPIONS IN OUR MINDS.... WE'RE JUST UNAWARE THAT MICHAEL JORDAN EXISTS WITHIN ALL OF US!!!

You've been listening to Richard Dawkins too much on that, who has a low IQ.

Not sure who that is; I looked him up it says he's an atheist and evolutionary biologist. I'm Christian and I'm skeptical of evolution???

Also, as xerxes actually stated earlier, quite a few physicists are starting to realize that even non biological matter may have consciousness may be the precursor state. Your shit is actually a form of god, sorry.

1. Vague answer
2. Appealing to authority without explaining why my shit is a form of god or has consciousness.

BTW,

Here's the definition of consciousness:

con·scious·ness
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
noun: consciousness
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Explain how my morning shit is awake and aware of its surroundings.

Again I'm genuinely curious.

Feel free to tell me what the scientists say.

Your shit is actually a form of god, sorry.

we have different forms now?

is my shit god or a form of god?

it's a great quote for my signature though

You're beliefs and understanding of justice does not mean that you don't have some awareness of other forms on some level. I'm simply saying, that when you come across something that you haven't seen before.. you can perceive it because it is already inherent within you.

????

Vague bro.

lol

I'm simply saying, that when you come across something that you haven't seen before.. you can perceive it because it is already inherent within you.

For example,

I haven't come across your argument before... and I'm pretty sure it wasn't inherent within me; which is why I'm asking you questions.

But according to you, it is... How????

How do we know when we've perceived something? (My original response/post to you that you didn't address)

[mclane]

These kind of discussions always develop the same way. Apologies to any replies I've ignored in this thread, but the way I see it, it's pretty useless.

Ftr, LSI's and ESE's (Richard Dawkins) often have beef with God due to -Ne /+Ni PoLR.

[Hitta]

I agree here.



So IT IS possible? Possible to become Michael Jordan?

I can morph into a 6'6'' black man and dunk a basketball??? Or just his personality? What do you mean exactly?

I ask because I'm genuinely curious what this actually means and manifests as.



Now that I think about it,

I wouldn't mind transforming into Michael Jackson from Thriller either





How do we know that besides appeal to authority or quoting a line from plato and what are some examples???



And why isn't it? You can't just make statements without backing them up lol

According to you and the definition of Pantheism, there is no one, all powerful God who created the universe, but we are all god instead.... Which is basically atheism + throwing in the word god for no reason:

"You are god!" "We are god!" "Everyone is god!" "we are all divine!"

LOL

It sounds cool and meaningful though, I guess...

Actually, I got a better one:

"You are Michael Jordan!" "We are Michael Jordan!" "Everyone is Michael Jordan!"

WE ARE ALL 6X NBA CHAMPIONS IN OUR MINDS.... WE'RE JUST UNAWARE THAT MICHAEL JORDAN EXISTS WITHIN ALL OF US!!!







Not sure who that is; I looked him up it says he's an atheist and evolutionary biologist. I'm Christian and I'm skeptical of evolution???



1. Vague answer
2. Appealing to authority without explaining why my shit is a form of god or has consciousness.

BTW,

Here's the definition of consciousness:

con·scious·ness
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
noun: consciousness
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Explain how my morning shit is awake and aware of its surroundings.

Again I'm genuinely curious.

Feel free to tell me what the scientists say.



we have different forms now?

is my shit god or a form of god?

it's a great quote for my signature though



????

Vague bro.

lol



For example,

I haven't come across your argument before... and I'm pretty sure it wasn't inherent within me; which is why I'm asking you questions.

But according to you, it is... How????

How do we know when we've perceived something? (My original response/post to you that you didn't address)

No, you are still missing my point. You can't just say.. hey I'm going to become Michael Jordan. You are already Michael Jordan, he exists in your unconscious and you exist in his unconscious. For you to become Michael Jordan, you'd have to drop everything that is you, all of your memories everything that makes you you... and guess what... a part of you has already done that... his name is Michael Jordan.

[Hitta]

I agree here.



So IT IS possible? Possible to become Michael Jordan?

I can morph into a 6'6'' black man and dunk a basketball??? Or just his personality? What do you mean exactly?

I ask because I'm genuinely curious what this actually means and manifests as.



Now that I think about it,

I wouldn't mind transforming into Michael Jackson from Thriller either





How do we know that besides appeal to authority or quoting a line from plato and what are some examples???



And why isn't it? You can't just make statements without backing them up lol

According to you and the definition of Pantheism, there is no one, all powerful God who created the universe, but we are all god instead.... Which is basically atheism + throwing in the word god for no reason:

"You are god!" "We are god!" "Everyone is god!" "we are all divine!"

LOL

It sounds cool and meaningful though, I guess...

Actually, I got a better one:

"You are Michael Jordan!" "We are Michael Jordan!" "Everyone is Michael Jordan!"

WE ARE ALL 6X NBA CHAMPIONS IN OUR MINDS.... WE'RE JUST UNAWARE THAT MICHAEL JORDAN EXISTS WITHIN ALL OF US!!!







Not sure who that is; I looked him up it says he's an atheist and evolutionary biologist. I'm Christian and I'm skeptical of evolution???



1. Vague answer
2. Appealing to authority without explaining why my shit is a form of god or has consciousness.

BTW,

Here's the definition of consciousness:

con·scious·ness
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
noun: consciousness
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Explain how my morning shit is awake and aware of its surroundings.

Again I'm genuinely curious.

Feel free to tell me what the scientists say.



we have different forms now?

is my shit god or a form of god?

it's a great quote for my signature though



????

Vague bro.

lol



For example,

I haven't come across your argument before... and I'm pretty sure it wasn't inherent within me; which is why I'm asking you questions.

But according to you, it is... How????

How do we know when we've perceived something? (My original response/post to you that you didn't address)

Atheism's thesis is that there is no god. There is a god, god is the conscious awareness that precedes the physical reality. Matter exists cause it is precursory in our conscious states due to pseudo dualism of creating an apparent split between two transfinite boundaries. The infinite can not be truly comprehended, when people try to completely explain the nature of reality... there is a circular nature to it, because doing so requires categorization. The brain categorizes and creates boundaries, that is its nature. The brain sees things in a transfinite set, even though everything is just a singularity.

[Hitta]

For example,

I haven't come across your argument before... and I'm pretty sure it wasn't inherent within me; which is why I'm asking you questions.

But according to you, it is... How????

How do we know when we've perceived something? (My original response/post to you that you didn't address)

Because everything you come in contact with is just a re-contextualization. You cannot add true novel information into your processing. Every time you see something new, you give it meaning by configuring it in your brain based on what is already inherent within it. You are taking your conscious processing and pulling new information from your unconscious into your conscious awareness. See my thought experiment above... you apparently didn't read it.

I've used this thought experiment before and will again. A friend brings an object that you've never seen before. It is a completely novel object to you. Yet the moment you view it, you still have a flash bulb thought. At first, you think to yourself "This has curves here, this could be some sort of engine here. These could be nuts, bolts, screws... wings..." Essentially, you are taking what you already know and are applying it to this new object to give it definition. In the future, after examining the object enough using your already inherent rules, you may give it its own distinct category in your mind. You are pretty much already bridging that together from the moment you see it. Essentially everything in your entire life you've ever viewed though has undergone this same examination and categorization. You take what you already know, apply it to the novel object or idea so that you can contextualize the object in your own terms. Everything you see, every person you know... all just manifestations of the self... things that you've contextualized using what is already inherent within from the very beginning of your existence

[Hitta]

I'm not going to get dragged into a long discussion about the nature of science vs. philosophy, so I'll just say that a priori claims, or at least their conclusions, have to be falsifiable to qualify as scientific.

BTW, this is a ridiculous quote. Let's say that I wanted to prove a triangle had 180 degrees.. How the hell would I do a scientific study on this? I mean ok, it isn't scientific... who cares? The whole idea of a priori is that it isn't empirical... it is self evident based on logical reasoning. So should we go around and pretend like triangles don't have 180 degrees because we can't create a real falsifiable hypothesis.

[consentingadult]

Inspired by this (I can delete if preferred):



If you're anyone so inclined, please provide logic in favor of the existence of God.

If you want to share your disagreement or opinion that there's no God, please make another thread! Your viewpoint is valid and your logic is probably sound, but that's not this thread's intention.

Before I can answer, please define "God".

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

I would argue that if the universe cannot have happened randomly, then the same applies to God. Following the logic of your post, we must assume something or someone must have created God. Perhaps he has a mommy and a daddy. Perhaps they have/had mommies and daddies too!

Really, Intelligent Design does not offer a solution to the question of God. Assuming the Universe must have some kind of creator only makes the problem bigger.

[ashlesha]

Before I can answer, please define "God".

I would leave that up to the respondent and how they wish to define it, but I guess that still leaves certain qualifiers I have in mind like responsible for existence, omnipotent, worthy of worship, etc

I had the Christian idea of God in mind, but that's not a prerequisite for the practice.

This said, I've washed my hands of the question (the thread is obviously still open)

Sorry for the vague reply.

[consentingadult]

Here is a machine translation on an article I once wrote, although it is not a logical rationalization:

The Supreme Being

In his Metaphysica Lambda, the Greek philosopher Aristotle went in search of the Unmoved Mover. The idea here was that everything has a cause, but that there must be something that is not the result of something else, because the chain of cause and effect cannot go back to infinity. There is something that is the cause of everything else, but has no cause itself.

If the above sounds too abstract to you: it is about the phenomenon that we tend to call 'God' in today's society. In a more anthropological, general and abstract sense, that is.

Although some philosophers are critical about the concept of the Unmoved Mover, this principle is the starting point for many people to think about God. The question for them is not so much whether there is such a thing as a god, but especially what that god is and how it manifests itself. And that in turn leads to intense discussions, for example between atheists and believers. For example, there are atheists who believe faith in a creating god as unprovable and irrational nonsense. On the other hand, there are believers who find it perfectly logical that this Universe, which appears to be mainly complex in nature (but may not be at all), could never have arisen out of itself, and that something like a creative god (or gods) must have been.

In the scientific debate, a select group in recent years has advocated the so-called Intelligent Design : the idea that certain characteristics of the universe and organisms are best explained as the work of an intelligent "designer". What that intelligent designer then looks like is briefly left out, but it is clear that it complies with the god principle.

There is a lot of criticism to be made about the movement that is referred to as ID and its theories, but for me personally there is only one argument to deal with ID: Intelligent Design pretends to solve a problem: the problem that it involves be the Universe that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory or other scientific insights. This Universe would be so complex in nature that there must be an intelligent something like a god. The existence of a watch also presupposes the existence of a watchmaker, and God is that proverbial watchmaker.

My simple objection is: if I accept the watchmaker's principle, I must also ask myself who the watchmaker's dad and mom are. Then I have to wonder who the parents of that are. And so on and so forth. Intelligent Design does not solve the problem, it creates a new problem! Unless of course you want to claim that God is the cause of all things, but you know for sure that he had no father or mother, let alone grandparents. But what problem does this solve that cannot already be solved by accepting the Universe as an Unmoved Mover? After all, we can reasonably assume that the Universe exists.

Aristotle already said it: anankè dè stènai : it cannot be otherwise or it must end. Either to the series of causes and effects, or to the endless analysis in our search for God, because the scholars unfortunately do not know what exactly he meant. But both interpretations are relevant to this discussion.

For me the solution is simple: as far as I can empirically perceive, the Universe itself is the Unmoved Mover. Any attempt to explain the Universe as the result of something that can be interpreted as a god principle does not solve the problem, but only makes it bigger. And attempts to scientifically explain the Universe as a result of something else are as yet only hypothetical theories for which there is no empirical evidence. The result is that at a certain point, due to a lack of information, we still have to make a choice: anankè dè stènai .

I am fairly happy with the idea that the Universe is the cause of everything that exists but has no cause of its own. Does this mean that I am an atheist? Yes and no: I do not believe that the Universe was created by a creative god, but I do not rule out such a thing as God. According to many people I contradict myself now.

One of the biggest obstacles to understanding reality is that people are inclined to elevate themselves to the measure of all things. Usually unnoticed and without malicious intentions. Without realizing it, we use ourselves as a measuring tape to measure other things. Mathematically, but above all teleologically , because we mainly want to understand the goal-directedness of everything. So we say that an elephant is large and a mouse is small. We implicitly conclude that God has human traits (such as the tendency for purposeful action) and creative power. We believe that the universe is ancient with its 14 billion years. But compared to the cosmic scale of the Universe or the microscopic scale of molecules and atoms, elephants and mice do not differ that much in size. God does not have to be anything that looks like a person or has creative power. And the Universe is perhaps elegantly simple and not ancient, but very young compared to the age it can reach, according to current insights. Insofar as there is already an autonomous existence of such a thing as time, because in my opinion the Universe does not exist in time and space (as most people implicitly assume), time and space exist in the Universe; the Universe is of a higher order than time and space. Our conclusions say much more about our 'ego-centric' natures than about the topics they should be about.

There is a lot to say about the neurotic aspects of believing in a god and higher dimensions. Nonetheless, many people believe in a god, in gods, in multiple dimensions, in life after death, etc. If you are more sociologically or anthropologically inclined, you start to wonder what the intention is. It seems to me to go too far to say that believing is something schizotypal when a very large majority of humanity is concerned with it. Is there a way out of this dilemma?

There is. By considering the divine as something that is a property of the Universe, and not so much something that is equal to it (pantheism) or above or beyond it (theism). If God, like time and space, is of a lower order than the Universe, we can make room for the mysticism that seems to be hidden in existence, without having to get stuck between religion and science, and we take a stand without having to take a stand.

"Yes and no" I answered to the question of whether I am an atheist. You now know why.

[xerx]

BTW, this is a ridiculous quote. Let's say that I wanted to prove a triangle had 180 degrees.. How the hell would I do a scientific study on this? I mean ok, it isn't scientific... who cares? The whole idea of a priori is that it isn't empirical... it is self evident based on logical reasoning. So should we go around and pretend like triangles don't have 180 degrees because we can't create a real falsifiable hypothesis.

"God exists" *is* an empirical claim.

"A euclidean triangle must have 180 degrees" is a theoretical claim that's true by definition. On the other hand, if someone had said that "euclidean triangles exist," it would also be an empirical claim—a speculative one, given that a triangle has never been observed anywhere in nature, and only appears to exist inside the mind.

[sbbds]

To attempt to consider faith rationally or logically is to miss the mark entirely, as shown by Pascal and Kierkegaard. You can only understand faith by experiencing it. Believers and non-believers exist in entirely separate epistemological categories.

Mm, please read my post earlier in this thread. I don't fall into these categories.

[sbbds]

Over reliance on empiricism leads nowhere.

"But time and time again you fail at understanding that hypothesis do not have to be built from the bottom up to be true. For example, if my hypothesis were that Aliens exist, just because the hypothesis isn't falsifiable by modern means does not mean that the hypothesis isn't falsifiable overall. Not knowing how to create a falsifiable test is not an excuse for calling something non-falsifiable. Just because something isn't scientifically falsifiable by modern means does not make it wrong. I don't think you get how hard it is to create an hypothesis which perfectly layers the variables in a way in which creates falsifiability. Also, because something has been tested via hypothesis testing does not mean a causation has been established. And often times, the tests miss the laws that govern both causation and correlation completely, mainly because variables haven't been isolated correctly even though we base the foundations on our society that they have been."

This is not a problem with relying on empiricism, but empiricism not cut with rationalism, which I'd argue isn't empirical at all anyway. A pure empiricist would just be a brain stem creature, or low-tier forumite.

[sbbds]

Ok, I'm going to ramble now.

I've used this thought experiment before and will again. A friend brings an object that you've never seen before. It is a completely novel object to you. Yet the moment you view it, you still have a flash bulb thought. At first, you think to yourself "This has curves here, this could be some sort of engine here. These could be nuts, bolts, screws... wings..." Essentially, you are taking what you already know and are applying it to this new object to give it definition. In the future, after examining the object enough using your already inherent rules, you may give it its own distinct category in your mind. You are pretty much already bridging that together from the moment you see it. Essentially everything in your entire life you've ever viewed though has undergone this same examination and categorization. You take what you already know, apply it to the novel object or idea so that you can contextualize the object in your own terms. Everything you see, every person you know... all just manifestations of the self... things that you've contextualized using what is already inherent within from the very beginning of your existence

So, let's hit the rewind button and go backwards to the moment of your conception. At the beginning of your existence, there had to be a self-learning, self-propagating ideal inherent within you in order to learn. The reality that you exist in now already had to exist in potential disorganized state within you.

So we’ve defined Hitta’s first postulate.
Everything that you interact with, everything that you encounter, all the people that you perceive, this entire thing that you call a universe, and possibly all things you perceive outside the constraints of this universe are , from the smallest to the most largest component, made up of the same syntax.

Now three possibilities arise from this:

A) You cannot experience the entire universe, therefore, every single individual lives in this own perceptual shell that is distinct from the actual universe. I simply do not buy this for some very logical reasons that I will go into one of these days. I actually think Kant dropped the ball here.
B) Your perceptual reality is the universe, you are the only being that truly exists, and therefore you are essentially living in a solipsistic domain. This would require that you created entire personalities inside of yourself. Why are these personalities not real in themselves? This creates a paradox about what is real and what isn’t, specifically if you are not referring to transcendental identities. Why aren’t you just a fake personality that exists within someone else’s perspective reality. In a way this is true in the end, it’s just that the perspective is the transcendent … which leads us to C.
or the one I am fairly certain to be the correct answer

C) Your perceptual reality is the universe, everything within the universe contains the perceptual reality that is the universe, and that all things within the context of the universe share all the identical perceptual components because everything within the universe is written with the same linguistic identity. Tl;dr version: Everything in the universe is the same exact thing and are just complete manifestations of a transcendental identity a.k.a. god.
So exactly how does this occur?
I am the complete manifestation of god. Kassie is the complete manifestation of god. So how exactly does this resolve? There is a duality that exists between the observer and what he observers. Both the observer and the perceptive reality that the observer observes both make up the two transfinite realities that cross together to create the infinite whole.

So to understand what is meant by transfinite reality, one must understand the absurdity of counting. Limits go to infinity but limits themselves can never actually comprise infinity, because they can only show infinity based on the limitations of the observer and the ability of the observer to categorize. For example, if I were to observe 3 chickens, this would require both the internal focus and definition of what is a chicken to actually observe. So, if I were to ask the question, “If I have 3 chickens and 3 chickens are removed, how many chickens do I have left?” The obvious answer would be zero chickens. Somewhere along the way though, perception became fixated on the definition of a chicken… so something is still inherently/unconsciously being added to the mathematical formula. This is how transfinite domains exist differently from the infinite. Transfinite domains can be limitlessly expanded, but they always require internal categorization to do so. Dividing by zero on the other hand, de-contextualizes the number system, as a zero point can really only be understand if categorization is inherent… dividing by zero removes the bounds on the categorization so that you have a unbound number system that exists across unbounded categories... a true unbound state aka infinity.

This is what is meant by transfinite realities in terms of people. You have two main realms that are seemingly limitless in expansion potential that exist over space: observer reality and perceptive reality. That are fixated by pseudo focal categories aka personality characteristics. When something is not present within the observer reality it must exist within the perceptive reality. You also have parts of the observer reality which interact directly with the perceptive reality. If you haven’t figured out what I’m discussing yet, I’m referring to the Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious are the way we orientate god into our own personal status. The entirety of god exists within but is layered all the way from conscious to very very deep conscious. Shared unconscious space is what actually defines the shared physical reality in which we live within. So, to answer the question, me and Kassie are both god that has been layered in an alternate form. The self even has very unconscious awareness of multiversal reality. As the entirety of everything is within god. Tl;dr version: God is essentially the thing that all things are made out of. God cannot be actually pointed to, but only displayed through the pseudo dualism. I am god, you are god, everything is god. God is a transcendent form that can only be expressed via pseudo dichotomies. In actuality, dualism is not real. A monistic duality exists instead.

Best thing I've ever read lol.

A simpler version IMO: We can only exist as our own entity (and perceive it) in contrast with another thing, and a third neutral field or piece of an equation for that contrast/dichotomy and seeming separation with the other thing to be expressed. We also need at least one consciousness to perceive it of course, one more thing. This can all be expressed/condensed as one seamless "process" or interconnected existence too though. Part of why it's often said it's the "Holy Trinity", and a "Fourfold Universe", in some religions...

[Hitta]

"God exists" *is* an empirical claim.

"A euclidean triangle must have 180 degrees" is a theoretical claim that's true by definition. On the other hand, if someone had said that "euclidean triangles exist," it would also be an empirical claim—a speculative one, given that a triangle has never been observed anywhere in nature, and only appears to exist inside the mind.

You've already stated that god can't be logically deduced(which I disagree with.. I think god is pre-contained within the laws of the universe) or god can't be empirically proven(which I'm not sure is completely possible, perhaps you could do something like dig into the origins of human consciousness or something). Instead of going back and forth pretending like you are trying to be helpful in this thread, just go ahead and tell everyone they are wasting their time and move on. For me "God exists" is not an empirical claim... it is a synthetic a priori claim .

[sbbds]

Also I think if I were God, I would find planning and orchestrating everything all the time to be boring af. I would automate myself and make some parts of the universe semi-random, and have lots of different channel options going at the same time eventually, and then I'd just let it run on its own. Why would I want to know the ending?

[xerx]

You've already stated that god can't be logically deduced(which I disagree with.. I think god is pre-contained within the laws of the universe) or god can't be empirically proven(which I'm not sure is completely possible, perhaps you could do something like dig into the origins of human consciousness or something).

Uh, no. I'm completely open to the possibility that our science is woefully incomplete and that certain mystical ideas can be studied empirically at some date in the (far) future. I mean, physicists are openly discussing possibilities like atoms having consciousness, or that we live inside a computer simulation.

Frankly, I hope something like a sentient ultra-consciousness does exist to offer up some answers. But from our current (classical) conception of the universe, it would be erroneous to say that specific metaphysical claims have empirical backing (this is my original point), which is entirely appropriate given that metaphysics literally means beyond physics.

Instead of going back and forth pretending like you are trying to be helpful in this thread, just go ahead and tell everyone they are wasting their time and move on. For me "God exists" is not an empirical claim... it is a synthetic a priori claim .

Which doesn't therefore mean that all synthetic a priori claims are true. A logically consistent system isn't true just because it is logically consistent, making your system of rationalizing God very unpersuasive.

You characterization of empiricism is also complete b.s. This is because empirical knowledge is founded on synthetic a priori claims (think of the use of mathematics in the hard sciences). I think you have this funny conception that empiricism = synthetic a posteriori―it isn't.

[Hitta]

You characterization of empiricism is also complete b.s. This is because empirical knowledge is founded on synthetic a priori claims (think of the use of mathematics in the hard sciences). I think you have this funny conception that empiricism = synthetic a posteriori―it isn't.

Actually, I've already stated otherwise in a previous post. All empiricism has to be based in some sort of intrinsic ideal or an a priori foundation(whether logically accurate or inaccurate). So no, that is not true. I will say that that at least a portion has to be synthetic a posteriori. The only reason I brought the distinction up was that the type of god I'm referring to would be very difficult to scientifically validate even if we increase our scientific capacity 10,000 fold. It's hard to scientifically study something that is intrinsic in every single thing in existence. I believe there could be scientific evidence to back it up in case by case basis, but you are still only studying very definite things and not actually proving the overall point. As such , if you only relied on the scientific/empirical, there would always be doubt. There is nothing to really truly point at and define variables. And while my deductions I feel are logical and a priori , I'd be lying to say that there isn't a posteriori components embedded in there.

[Tearsofaclown]

Also I think if I were God, I would find planning and orchestrating everything all the time to be boring af. I would automate myself and make some parts of the universe semi-random, and have lots of different channel options going at the same time eventually, and then I'd just let it run on its own. Why would I want to know the ending?

Great point that CS Lewis and Chesterton took on. God wants to be surprised. His curse is that he cannot be surprised. He wants to look at something and not see his own reflection in it. But if he tells people to not obey him , and then they disobey, that would be obeying him. It has to be a secret. He wants something that is not him.

Otherwise a great mind has nothing to do and may as well watch his shadow on the wall all day.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. " -Emerson

And that Foo Fighters song:

The only thing I'll ever ask of you
You got to promise not to stop when I say when

<span jsname="YS01Ge" style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif;">

[Tearsofaclown]

Best thing I've ever read lol.

A simpler version IMO: We can only exist as our own entity (and perceive it) in contrast with another thing, and a third neutral field or piece of an equation for that contrast/dichotomy and seeming separation with the other thing to be expressed. We also need at least one consciousness to perceive it of course, one more thing. This can all be expressed/condensed as one seamless "process" or interconnected existence too though. Part of why it's often said it's the "Holy Trinity", and a "Fourfold Universe", in some religions...

This sounds like pluralism by William James. Which rejects Monism. Everything is externally related.


Pragmatically interpreted, pluralism or the doctrine that it is many means only that the sundry parts of reality may be externally related. Everything you can think of, however vast or inclusive, has on the pluralistic view a genuinely "external" environment of some sort or amount. Things are "with" one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything. The word "and" trails along after every sentence. Something always escapes. "Ever not quite" has to be said of the best attempts made anywhere in the universe at attaining all-inclusiveness. The pluralistic world is thus more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom. However much may be collected, however much may report itself as present at any effective centre of consciousness or action, something else is self-governed and absent and unreduced to unity.

Monism, on the other hand, insists that when you come down to reality as such, to the reality of realities, everything is present to everything else in one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness�nothing can in any sense, functional or substantial, be really absent from anything else, all things interpenetrate and telescope together in the great total conflux.

For pluralism, all that we are required to admit as the constitution of reality is what we ourselves find empirically realized in every minimum of finite life. Briefly it is this, that nothing real is absolutely simple, that every smallest bit of experience is a multum in parvo plurally related, that each relation is one aspect, character, or function, way of its being taken, or way of its taking something else; and that a bit of reality when actively engaged in one of these relations simultaneously. The relations are not all what the French call solidaires with one another. Without losing its identity a thing can either take up or drop another thing, like the log I spoke of, which by taking up new carriers and dropping old ones can travel anywhere with a light escort.

For monism, on the contrary, everything, whether we realize it or not, drags the whole universe along with itself and drops nothing. The log starts and arrives with all its carriers supporting it. If a thing were once disconnected, it could never be connected again, according to monism. The pragmatic difference between the two systems is thus a definite one. It is just thus, that if a is once out of sight of b or out of touch with it, or, more briefly, "out" of it at all, then, according to monism, it must always remain so, they can never get together; whereas pluralism admits that on another occasion they may work together, or in some way be connected again. Monism allows for no such things as "other occasions" in reality in "real " or absolute reality, that is.

The difference I try to describe amounts, you see, to nothing more than the difference between what I formerly called the each-form and the all-form of reality. Pluralism lets things really exist in the each-form or distributively. Monism thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational. The all-form allows of no taking up and dropping of connexions, for in the all the parts are essentially and eternally co-implicated. In the each-form, on the contrary, a thing may be connected by intermediary things, with a thing with which it has no immediate or essential connexion. It is thus at all times in many possible connexions, which are not necessarily actualized at the moment. They depend on which actual path of intermediation it may functionally strike into: the word "or" names a genuine reality. Thus, as I speak here, I may look ahead or to the right or to the left, and in either case the intervening space and air and aether enable me to see the faces of a different portion of this audience. My being here is independent of any one set of these faces.

James on God. Like humans, God cannot know all he knows at one time all the time. He is liable to forget. God has a subconscious in a sense that is he unaware of totally and is overlapped by a consciousness.


"God's consciousness," says Professor Royce,[2] "forms in its wholeness one luminously transparent conscious moment" -this is the type of noetic unity on which rationalism insists. Empiricism on the other hand is satisfied with the type of noetic unity that is humanly familiar. Everything gets known by some knower along with something else; but the knowers may in the end be irreducibly many, and the greatest knower of them all may yet not know the whole of everything, or even know what he does know at one single stroke: - he may be liable to forget. Whichever type obtained, the world would still be a universe noetically. Its parts would be conjoined by knowledge, but in the one case the knowledge would be absolutely unified, in the other it would be strung along and overlapped.

[Computer Loser]

Atheism's thesis is that there is no god. There is a god, god is the conscious awareness that precedes the physical reality. Matter exists cause it is precursory in our conscious states due to pseudo dualism of creating an apparent split between two transfinite boundaries. The infinite can not be truly comprehended, when people try to completely explain the nature of reality... there is a circular nature to it, because doing so requires categorization. The brain categorizes and creates boundaries, that is its nature. The brain sees things in a transfinite set, even though everything is just a singularity.

Okay, let's backtrack a little from the Michael Jordan and poop stuff.

Instead, I’ll start here with your definition, because I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

A (simplified and limited) way I’d describe God is that,

A. He's a separate entity from the universe

and that,

B. He’s all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely good.

With that being said, I have 4 questions for you:

--God created matter, but I don’t believe God IS necessarily the matter he created; just like if human beings create toys out of plastic, the toys aren’t human beings. (Not to mention, human beings can't create matter out of thin air).

How do we know this is true?

We know this true because the matter that God created ISN'T all-powerful, all-knowing, and good. Similarly, the toys that have been created by humans are NOWHERE near the complexity of a human, nor do they display ANY forms of consciousness (I highly doubt scientists could ever show this, and I know everyone reading, including you @Hitta, knows this deep down lol)

With that being said,

1. Why do you think the physical world/matter is an extension of god/consciousness versus a product of God? If everything is an extension why can't anything in this world create matter out of thin air or bring things suddenly into physical existence? Why don't inanimate objects show consciousness?

--You believe everything is god.

2. Is there REALLY no difference between a human being and a piece of shit from a cow laying on the grass? Do you seriously believe that deep down?

--Implications on morality

3. If a cow is the same as a human being, and they were both drowning in the ocean, which would you save first and why? How does your definition affect morality? Does justice exist?

--Back to the atheism,

Atheism's thesis is that there is no god. There is a god, god is the conscious awareness that precedes the physical reality. Matter exists cause it is precursory in our conscious states due to pseudo dualism of creating an apparent split between two transfinite boundaries.

4. So if everything is god, is there anything that's NOT god? And if there's nothing that's NOT god, what's the point of using the word "god"?

The infinite can not be truly comprehended, when people try to completely explain the nature of reality... there is a circular nature to it, because doing so requires categorization. The brain categorizes and creates boundaries, that is its nature. The brain sees things in a transfinite set, even though everything is just a singularity.

EXACTLY!

There's no way ANY human being can "figure out" or "comprehend" God, because our brains are LIMITED in capacity. We can only describe him in limited human terms and understanding. We can barely understand anything beyond 3 to 4 dimensions, just trying to comprehend an all-powerful infinite entity is BEYOND pointless.

Compared to God, we ARE PEICES OF SHIT lol, but the pieces of shit are NOT God.

[sbbds]

This sounds like pluralism by William James. Which rejects Monism. Everything is externally related.


Pragmatically interpreted, pluralism or the doctrine that it is many means only that the sundry parts of reality may be externally related. Everything you can think of, however vast or inclusive, has on the pluralistic view a genuinely "external" environment of some sort or amount. Things are "with" one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything. The word "and" trails along after every sentence. Something always escapes. "Ever not quite" has to be said of the best attempts made anywhere in the universe at attaining all-inclusiveness. The pluralistic world is thus more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom. However much may be collected, however much may report itself as present at any effective centre of consciousness or action, something else is self-governed and absent and unreduced to unity.

Monism, on the other hand, insists that when you come down to reality as such, to the reality of realities, everything is present to everything else in one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness�nothing can in any sense, functional or substantial, be really absent from anything else, all things interpenetrate and telescope together in the great total conflux.

For pluralism, all that we are required to admit as the constitution of reality is what we ourselves find empirically realized in every minimum of finite life. Briefly it is this, that nothing real is absolutely simple, that every smallest bit of experience is a multum in parvo plurally related, that each relation is one aspect, character, or function, way of its being taken, or way of its taking something else; and that a bit of reality when actively engaged in one of these relations simultaneously. The relations are not all what the French call solidaires with one another. Without losing its identity a thing can either take up or drop another thing, like the log I spoke of, which by taking up new carriers and dropping old ones can travel anywhere with a light escort.

For monism, on the contrary, everything, whether we realize it or not, drags the whole universe along with itself and drops nothing. The log starts and arrives with all its carriers supporting it. If a thing were once disconnected, it could never be connected again, according to monism. The pragmatic difference between the two systems is thus a definite one. It is just thus, that if a is once out of sight of b or out of touch with it, or, more briefly, "out" of it at all, then, according to monism, it must always remain so, they can never get together; whereas pluralism admits that on another occasion they may work together, or in some way be connected again. Monism allows for no such things as "other occasions" in reality in "real " or absolute reality, that is.

The difference I try to describe amounts, you see, to nothing more than the difference between what I formerly called the each-form and the all-form of reality. Pluralism lets things really exist in the each-form or distributively. Monism thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational. The all-form allows of no taking up and dropping of connexions, for in the all the parts are essentially and eternally co-implicated. In the each-form, on the contrary, a thing may be connected by intermediary things, with a thing with which it has no immediate or essential connexion. It is thus at all times in many possible connexions, which are not necessarily actualized at the moment. They depend on which actual path of intermediation it may functionally strike into: the word "or" names a genuine reality. Thus, as I speak here, I may look ahead or to the right or to the left, and in either case the intervening space and air and aether enable me to see the faces of a different portion of this audience. My being here is independent of any one set of these faces.

James on God. Like humans, God cannot know all he knows at one time all the time. He is liable to forget. God has a subconscious in a sense that is he unaware of totally and is overlapped by a consciousness.


"God's consciousness," says Professor Royce,[2] "forms in its wholeness one luminously transparent conscious moment" -this is the type of noetic unity on which rationalism insists. Empiricism on the other hand is satisfied with the type of noetic unity that is humanly familiar. Everything gets known by some knower along with something else; but the knowers may in the end be irreducibly many, and the greatest knower of them all may yet not know the whole of everything, or even know what he does know at one single stroke: - he may be liable to forget. Whichever type obtained, the world would still be a universe noetically. Its parts would be conjoined by knowledge, but in the one case the knowledge would be absolutely unified, in the other it would be strung along and overlapped.

.... I said that it IS reducible to unity, in my second last sentence.

[Metamorph]

God is the Universe. Since the Universe has order, Cartesian dualism is false, and it's possible (though not a given) to create and find objective meaning outside in the world, never mind that mind and personality must be part of the grand order of things in order to reject dualism and thoughts cannot be epiphenomenal in an non-dualistic universe, it makes much more sense to say there is a God than to say there is no God based on the definition of a god despite the common logical argument that pantheism is atheism.

It's also possible to be a god. Some organisms don't die, though all people that we know of have died as far as anyone knows. Bio-electro-chemical processes sustaining life of an organism are interesting and complicated and potentially reversible and capable of being prolonged indefinitely. I don't believe such processes have been transferred to some sort of "spirit" floating around in any case ever simply because Heaven is for dweebs but I wouldn't completely rule out such a phenomenon. Throwing lightning bolts, flying, turning invisible, reading minds, etc. is definitely possible but usually not cost effective once you take the actual means of doing "magic" things like that into account. People said lightning is a god, money is a god, etc. so being one with that is the same. So the Universe is God and if you channel it you can be a god, and if you go against it (via deception) you can go against God and go to Hell.

[Metamorph]

All non-pantheist gods are stupid because they amount to making a finite being infinite. For example, let's say there's an invisible guy walking around smiting people and making laws so when people die they can go to Heaven if they follow them or Hell if they don't. How does he turn invisible? How does he smite people? Where are Heaven and Hell? What happens when you die? Once you start looking at those questions, you could go kill God or run out of Hell or something like people actually did in various myths. On the other hand atheism still takes a static view of humanity and just removes Smiteman from the picture and gives you chaos and nothingness. Chaos and nothingness exist, but humanity has been to the moon and we've raised the recently-dead so I don't buy that people are fundamentally without agency in a doomed and meaningless universe or there's some fixed "human condition" similar to how people now live. We're not fated to happiness and rainbows if we sit on our buttocks either, but there is real and even potentially cosmic agency for people in non-Cartesian reality. I think you need a relationship with the Universe because that's the actual nature of things.

If these are difficult to read, then, I sure hope these posts are nearly impossible to follow. I took so many pains for knowledge in an anti-elitist fascist country and it wasn't for nothing.