A Tale of Two Cosmologies
- This topic has 54 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 8 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
John Martin The Fall of Babylon 1831 Our long time contributor TAE Summary has specialzed in summarizing two sides of the same coin when
[See the full post at: A Tale of Two Cosmologies]A Rose by any other name…. or the map is not the territory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9pR0gfil_0 – Jacques Vallée 16:57 minutes
Copernicus, Gallileo, Newton, Einstein
Nicholas Klein,1918 speech “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you,”
Of all the different kinds of life that exists, I don’t know of any that worship a god, except Homo sapiens.
TAE Summary (assisted by the good graces and sensible discernment of our astute host) once again lays out a feast for the soul (or for the materialistic brain replete with inexplicable consciousness, as the case may be.) It is truly amazing how TAE-S manages to so fairly and dispassionately represent the views of both sides of such a passionate “discussion”. I also think that it is an excellent idea to peel this specialized topic away from the other topics at this juncture so that it doesn’t “hog the trough” from all those other important subjects of interest, and drive away people who come to TAE to talk about a wide range of other timely and important things as well.
In any case he presents a full 7 course spread of meat & potatoes (plus dessert) with something for everyone. None of that nutritionless calorie-free “Theology Lite” for him, brothers and sisters (or other genders, as the case may be), or any of the rest of us either (because theoretically, there could be incorporeal entities in attendance as well, or even God Himself.) No problem. All are welcome.
I expect to spend the better part of the rest of this day taking up almost every point TAE Summary raises on both sides, so for the sake of brevity (and I use that word with full-blown appreciation of the irony in my case) I’m not going to try to take it all on in one go. By the time I posted such a tome everyone else will have gone home for the day.
Instead I’ll try to work through the menu one bite at a time, by placing Mr Summary’s text first, in those big fancy block-quote marks, and my comments and responses in plain text paragraphs following.
Napkins in place ? Knives and forks at the ready? (especially knives)
Alright then. Let’s get started.
First off, and regardless of the fact that this first item is not first in the sequence that TAE Summary wrote, there is the matter of what exactly is meant by the word Universe, and I quote,
Given an infinity of universes one like ours had to exist and we are in it
Saying “Multiple” Universes is self contradictory. The concept of universe must either encompass the entirety of what is, or we need another (more all encompassing) word for the thing. There could not possibly be multiple universes because in that case none of them (being just one out of many) could then be the WHOLE Universe. The prefix “uni-” means ONE, the entire works, the whole enchilada. i.e. EVERYthing.
In my opinion, the existing word, “universe” works fine just as it stands. It means the aggregate of absolutely everything that does or could exist under any circumstances whatsoever. Thus it has to be COMPLETE, and there can be ONLY one of them. That’s why we call it uni-verse.
I understand what is MEANT to be meant by the ersatz term “multi-verse”. I just don’t buy into it because it is self-contradicting nonsense on its face. Those buggers stole our word ! Shame on them! Let ’em go find their OWN word. This One’s taken.
If some folks with too much time on their hands want to think that there are “multiple iterations” of our presently perceived (by us) cosmic reality then I say let them go for it. I welcome their engagement in such a pointless process (maybe it will keep Sam Harris and crew off the streets and out of trouble) but if they want to do that then they’re just going to have to come up with some other label because the word UNIVERSE is not up for grabs. It means EVERYTHING, and that’s that.
• Science can explain physical cause and effect but can’t explain where the physical laws came from and is unable to give meaning to our lives
In point of fact, science does NOT explain physical cause and effect, because science does not explain what either of the two things MEAN at their most fundamental level. Ultimately, all physical laws are “explained” by science as an interaction of “forces”, but science offers NO explanation of what “force” is, other than in terms which depend upon the word force itself.
That line of question and answer is en endless loop of hopelessly circular “reasoning”. Science does not explain physical cause and effect because it cannot adequately DEFINE either one. It cannot truly define what “cause” is and it cannot truly define what “effect” is, thus it cannot “explain” anything at all! It can ONLY describe what inexplicable “things” DO under various circumstances.
I can’t fairly refer to that sort of scientific advisory or “How To” manual as any kind of explanation about what it IS in the first place.
Space is the medium of matter, undifferentiated it is singular and eternal.
Time is the medium of consciousness, undifferentiated it is singular and eternal.
In the harmonizing of these two media is a field of motion and frequency and form through which consciousness and matter become a whole, a One, which comes to know itself through the differentiation of two singularities into one another as a whole, producing Life as its totality, whose reality becomes apparent depending on whether it is taken in the mode of Space or the mode of Time.
There is nothing one observes, no matter the senses you use, which is not already alive and given to you through the consciousness and the material world whose expressions in coming together in your Life is you.
Love is that which sustains this unifying harmonizing, for it is the very coming together of differences into wholes.
What we want to say about God, or a god, is something we wrestle with in ourselves as the source of the power in us, in our world, in others, whatever we really think that power is. So long as that remains the case, even —or especially— when operating sub-liminally in one’s wordful-thoughts about god (theo-logy as opposed to mystery), we do not recognize the dual singularities as impossible to reconcile without our own participation in its unfolding and enfolding, so we do not lead ourselves to erase all important distinction between a God who is Consciousness and a God who is Substance, but instead confuse their oneness resulting from the work of Love and instead think it —conceiving it— a oneness of metaphysical identity.
The One who rules through Power is the source of the drive towards “evil”: a one of identity, a one of compelled dissolution of all Other into One’s consumable extension, this every Other being-given-over to the rule of the One and yet waiting, maybe even in fear and trembling, for the Will of the One to exert and move upon it. All must be the same, because it is the nature of the One to be the One Alone.
The One born from Love has no need for power or powers, needs only differences —a coincidence of opposites— and the Space and Time for coming together as itself, as One. Seeking difference, the One brings together what is necessary for experience: matter and consciousness.
You could go further, and ask if there is something about these two, the One of Power and the One of Love, something that shows they are, from an unquenchable philosophical desire to reconcile opposites wherever encountered, a Two whose pull towards difference and towards Sameness creates a Pattern, traces of occulted order within chaos or hints of disturbed fractures within uniformity revealing deeper, broader, realities of Being beyond any attempt to make plain and clear the things we keep our faith upon. We might ask if the Pattern beyond the Two is already where we must start to make sense of things, not wasting time with earlier answers, mythopoetic attempts, self-inserted dreams of grand insight. Or, dropping all words and symbolic logics, approaching the ineffable without an f-ing clue, would you and I find ourselves silent, appreciative, and amused at how little we accomplish with how much we care about when what cares for us is not only all powerful but all loving, moving through all things, material and conscious, in kind?
There are not enough comments to make on the Internet to answer.
• Religion has been instrumental in human progress
Hold on a minute, right there. Let’s not conflate two things that are so VERY different from each other. “religion” is a human thing. It’s trappings and dogma and practices are HUMAN manifestations even if they are of divine origin. It is by no stretch of the imagination or by fart of a lazy brain to consider religion to be on equal footing with GOD, Creator of the Universe. That would be equivalent to saying that Winky Dink is comparable to the cosmos because they’re both stars.
Religion’s instrumentality in human “progress” is highly “discussable”, mainly because not everyone sees all of it as progress. Personally I would be a lot more comfortable just stipulating that Religion has, indeed, been extremely influential in human affairs.
• Religions are benevolent organization that encourage people to be selfless givers
I think the adults in the room know from the historical record that religious organizations are not always benevolent (understatement), but on the other let’s not forget that God and Religion are NOT the same thing. I am quite certain that giving and selflessness (of the WILLING variety) are good things (in balance) and fully approved by God, and that selfish malice is not so good and generally disapproved by Him. But I don’t think we can go so far as to say that any of us know enough to proclaim with Godlike authority, that we, personally or in groups, know exactly what the balance should be. Thus we should seek God’s advice, frequently, and pay great attention to what comes back to our consciousness as an answer.
Religions have, for the most part and at the very least, kept these crucially important matters in full view of our attention so that we don’t get too wrapped up in the game of conquering other life forms for fun and profit.
• The claim that all things have a cause and the cause of the universe must be God is logically inconsistent because it does not explain what caused God.
To prove the existence of God it is not necessary to explain what caused God. Indeed, any such “explanation” would be false, on it’s face, because the statement itself presumes with no evidence that PRIME CAUSE can or should be “caused” by anything other than itself.
There is either something or nothing. Since it’s self-evident that there IS “something” then the possibility of “nothing” is absolutely impossible.
The “something”, for this reason, could only have been caused by itself, is preceded by no other cause, and is therefor God.
• The universe has a trillion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars; The notion that one consciousness comprehends all of this and personally cares about the potentially trillion trillion souls in the galaxy is ridiculous
“Logic” is the word and procedure for how we attempt to achieve accuracy by mirroring the Universe, meaning that in attempting logic we attempt to match what the Universe is doing. If an idea or allegation of fact matches the Universe then it is logical, and if it is contradicted or disproved by the Universe then it would be considered to be illogical.
“1+1=2” and “life proliferates” are both considered to be logical statements. Paper money is as good as gold, and Males are female, are illogical.
The notion that the sheer magnitude of a trillion dillion Kazillion bits of stuff automatically PRECLUDES the existence of a caring awareness and sense of ownership of the existence of every single bit of it is simply illogical. The universe is there. Every time or anyone else sees a piece of it they are aware that they’re seeing it and that is a bit of the the universe. Disbelieving THAT is the ridiculous notion, because the disbelief is DISPROVED, personally, each and every time one sees or touch ANY of it. Dig as shallow or as deeply as you wish, when you encounter ANYTHING (large or small) why gosh and golly, there it is! Every piece of it. And you know it.
That we are less aware than God is not proof that God is less aware than us. Now THAT would be ridiculous.
I have always been interested in religion and did two courses in high school on the subject. I found myself frequently raising my hand to ask a question or make a point that the current item being taught was not logical and did not make any sense. Being a logical person I found many of the religious beliefs to be illogical. Still I learned the subject matter and scored 95% on final exams.
There are not only two choices: believer or atheist.
I identify with the choice agnostic: someone who does not know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. I have no need for a god to be present in my life. I am driven from within to make caring and loving decisions naturally or whatever type of other decision I decide is necessary. This is my life. I live it the way I chose to. I recommend everyone do the same.
Be careful what you believe in. It can easily turn you into a fool as I know from living my life.
I appreciate it.
I can only add Atheism IS a religion. TAE summary neither promoted nor precluded this understanding, but it should be said. The primary objection to atheists is that they are themselves theists, and I don’t care for their religion or imposing it on me, in schools, in government, or anywhere else.
I sure didn’t mean to. How did I do it?
• Religion has led and continues to lead to the repression and death of countless people; Religious societies are unerringly repressive and regressive; State sponsored religion is a disaster
This item doesn’t belong on the list of reasons in favor of Atheism, because (at the risk of seeming repetitious) God is not Religion, and Religion is not God.
If religions have misbehaved (and I do not doubt it) then take up that complaint with the Religionists, not with the Theists.
A List of Apologies from the Catholic Church – Christopher Hitchens
It’s a long list of sins for one religion to apologize for
Major sins, mortal sins, not the venal kind…..
• Theists believe that the next life is more important than this one and discount this life and don’t put in the work needed to make the world a better place; Without God man is forced to confront the issues of ethics and morality and make the hard choices; With God men outsource their morality which gives them license to commit atrocities.
To those who believe (for whatever reason) that people who sincerely believe in God don’t put in the work to make the world a better place I suggest a simple experiment.
List out a dozen or so of the most renowned people who bettered the world by means of their own hard and frequently unpaid work. This means the deliberate helping of others, and remember that I’m talking about good WORKS, not Great Fortunes. Now review the list and note how many of those beloved people believed in God and how many were atheist.
As to the other point, of how those without God are forced to confront the issues of ethics and morality so as to enable making the hard choices, I have a question. Without belief in the existence of Good how in the Hell are they going to be able to even know what ethics and morality ARE? No wonder they find the work so hard.
Another impressive purple pistol whipping of ‘Jesus’ by Christopher Hitchens
Three Million plus views
Tough guy to debate, unbelievable command of facts and figures.
I remember him absolutely demolishing Archbishop John Onaiyekan, he looked like the south end of a north bound horse by the end.
Barbie is a Religion
Well, not the ‘good’ kind
More like the True Detective human sacrifice kind of religion
Some people need more dramatic explainations for why the universe exists.
While I appreciate the effort, the truth is that these two lists can never bring to life the two competing cosmologies. It id necessary to animate these two perspectives. The best I have ever seen is through the characters Ivan and Alyosha in the Brothers Karamazov (or perhaps to compare Ivan and Zossima). Ivan gives an unanswerable atheist critique. Yet Alyosha and Zossima both answer it in a way that Ivan would never be able to comprehend. All pure genius from Dostoevsky.
If you are in a natural setting, around animals, you know there is a God. You dont need some shithead in a black suit, wanting money, to lay it out for you. boys, you’re gonna talk yourselves to death before the jew gets a chance to kill you by injections or medications, stress from your money becoming worthless, areail spraying, poisoning the fuckin food, the water, endless war, your town overun with migrants. For the love of God, wake up. Who lies behind the Lies?
• Theists believe they are always being watched and ultimately rewarded or punished by God; It is impossible for theists to have integrity; They can never act from innate goodness
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that people who express resentment about the idea of being watched and/or punished by God have guilty consciences. God isn’t going to see anything that isn’t there to see, (it’s not like he’s going to frame you up or anything) and the only punishments meted out are those dictated by the imminently fair and just laws of cause and effect. Do stuff, get consequences. That’s just common sense whether you believe in God or not. Rejecting belief in God is not going to eliminate consequences. Those are decided by cause and effect (look it up in a science book).
As for claiming the exclusive monopoly on “innate” goodness, I must point out that innate goodness is the ONLY motivation for ALL action. Even the most depraved monster is trying to do what they believe (by their own twisted, perverse and inverted standards) to be the “right” thing to do under the present circumstances as they see them. Incidentally, by the time they are that far gone the definition of “right” has become “right for ME, exclusively, and screw everybody else.”
The problem arises when the perpetrator can no longer accurately assess what is ACTUALLY the right thing. In other words, they can’t really tell the difference between what is good, true, and beneficial from that which is bad, false and destructive. For example, they might think that there is no immaterial spiritual intelligence as the foundation of reality, and consequently (with great self assurance) do things that deliberately interfere with others accessing that crucially important truth, or prevent them from acting on it (You MUST NOT save the life of your Covid patient with Ivermectin, or we’ll fire you and strip your license to practice medicine.)
This inversion can become so pronounced that it’s believer can, literally, believe that doing the WRONG thing is the right thing to do. A Satanist, for example, wantonly takes the life of an innocent creature and makes a gift of that stolen life to his master. The worse the crime, supposedly, the greater is the value of the “gift”. Doing this to children is nearing the penultimate value of such “gifts”, but there are worse. War, mass murder and Democides, for examples.
• You can only be truly free when you don’t believe in God and realize this is the only life you have
This particular precept is just too over the top (or under the sub-basement?) It’s like saying, “You’re only free when you’re sitting on Death Row after losing your last true friend in the world.”
I can easily see how that might make you a little depressed, but how does being totally fucked make you ‘free’?
@ Celticbiker
I am in exactly the place that you describe. It absolutely beautiful. Nature is present here. Not god.
Read my comment above for more on my position
• People’s so called experiences with God are not reproducible; They are emotionally driven wishful thinking
Say What? “not reproducible? They are TOTALLY reproducible, and not just that. Results from an experience with God are GUARANTEED.
The “tricky” way (tricky as in, “Duh!) atheists think that they’re getting away with the outrageously false statement (i.e. that “experiences with God are not reproducible”, is that according to their rules, ANYBODY and EVERBODY who experiences the reproducible guaranteed result of having a personal experience with God is instantly and automatically DISQUALIFIED as a test case, and REMOVED for the list of persons whose personal report of such experience can even be considered as evidence.
Every person that I have ever spoken with who has had such a personal experience has reported the same, extremely positive and gratifying results. None of them had a complaint about it, and they’re sticking around for more. They tried it, it worked, and they’re satisfied. When you experience that connection you will get the same (reproducible) result. Guaranteed.
It’s yet another case of, “If you disagree with me then you’re wrong, so your vote don’t count,” which seems to be an all too common thread in atheist argument…… and American politics.
My thing is that at the age of 23 I had what the Christians would call – an epiphany. Since that time I don’t feel compelled to argue or convince people of the presence of Universal boundless love (aka GOD). It is here always. Outside of time and space which exist only by shared verification.
Ultimately experience is the only proof. For some that is just a hunch. For others a deep understanding.
My job as I see it is to look at and uncover the blocks I have mentally to this cosmic truth.
I believe I am afraid of Infinity. It is just TOO much for my ego-conditioned mind to step into and I require the small goal of peace to be the step I rest on while I wait for Infinity to come – and it will because I’m in it.Thanks for allowing this conversation to be here Raul.
• Theists are illogical and suffer from cognitive dissonance; Only a major life upheaval like severe illness or death can help them realize the truth; Even then most won’t change
• Since there is no consciousness after death theists will never know how wrong they were
• Religion is closely aligned with far-right conservatism and spoils everything it comes in contact withAllow me to speak to the above cluster of bulleted items with an exemplary analogy.
Two persons are accused of crimes and brought to court. One of them is innocent and the other is guilty. Both of them plead innocence and testify under oath that they did not commit the charged crime. Their statements are the same, but the validity’s of their statements are not. In other words, even though they sound the same in fact they are NOT the same. Indeed, they are oppositely different from each other.
In similar vein, the fact that both theist and atheists say things about the other side like the three quoted bullet points quoted above, does not make their statements equal. They are not the same. Indeed, they are oppositely different from each other, because one is arrived at organically, and is true, while the other is lies told in copy-cat simulation of what the liar thinks can be passed off as the truth…. and is bullshit.
Once again I’m compelled to point out that the conflation or “equating to each other things that are not equal, and then treating the extremely different two things as though they were the same,” is an error in logic. In fact it is a very serious error, because not only is it DEAD WRONG, but it will also have commensurately terrible consequences.
We all live our lives as a series of transactions within the environment of nature (or the universe). Nothing we do is independent of nature because we are a part of nature, so everything is a transaction, not just an event.
Morality is the set of rules we use to deal with society, society is part of nature, we learn those rules from society and use them to benefit ourselves, all humans being primarily selfish. The powerful have a bigger say in these rules because they have the power to force you to obey or be removed from society.
Humans are born with the pre-requisites to socialise with others and to learn the rules. Babies learn what is good and bad based on taste and the reaction of their parents etc. Babies start by socialising by crying and screaming, trying to get what they want/need. Those babies do not need God to show them what is good and what is bad or how to get their parents to reward them.
Society will always have rules; God is irrelevant to this fundamental, in the same way as dogs (and all other animals) have rules when they socialise. The rules are different in different parts of society, the morality differs, depending on whether you are a mafioso breaking your morality by letting the police know that your colleague is the murderer, or a priest adhering to your morality by buggering little boys.
God is a driven by selfishness, it is a creation in the minds of people to satisfy a need they have in themselves. All humans are driven by rewards, and some of those rewards are bizarre, not all rewards work for all people. The rewards for believing in God will be different for everybody, but one is definitely that it gives us an excuse not to fix this world and gives us hope of a better world tomorrow, so suffering is not going to last forever, suffering will not be the final chapter.
For those that believe that God exists and is the creator of the universe, these people are imagining that they are transacting with someone outside of nature; this is a huge leap of faith, as they say in Christianity.
DBS associates God with goodness. Polemos seems to believe in love. Love is also a selfish act, it aims to earn the feeling of being loved. It is heavily emotional and that love can rapidly turn to anger and betrayal when the relationship breaks down, at that point you see how the relationship was always selfish, whether between a child and parent or between lovers.
DBS states that knowing something and believing something are the same. The problem with this theory is this; this morning I saw the sun, I saw it, my wife saw it, we did not just believe it, we actually saw it, as did our neighbours etc. This morning DBS talked to God and God talked back, nobody else saw this transaction and many others have not experienced this sort of transaction. DBS says that he knows it is the truth, so we ask him to show us, but he says that you will have to talk to him yourself to find out.
Science is observational, it enables us to communicate ideas in society on the basis that we have seen certain things happen and can reproduce theose things for others to see; science changes all the time, not because previous observations were necessarily wrong (Newton’s laws still work), but because a greater level of detail has been obtained through observation.
There are reasons why we have the words to know and to believe. DBS’s claim to hear God, to connect with the creator who is outside this universe, outside of your environment of nature. This is a belief because he cannot show this to me, he cannot reproduce this and show it to me, he cannot even show me any other scenario that involves humans transacting outside of the universe, outside of nature, so I am skeptical.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to what your brain needs to be happy, whether you are happy to be alone or whether you need to communicate with a parental God.
Those babies do not need God to show them what is good and what is bad or how to get their parents to reward them
The babies need a universe to live in that provides them with the wherewithal the need to survive in that world. Part of that wherewithal includes the sense of goodness possessed by their parents, and their ability to know right from wrong in the rearing of children. All of these things don’t just require that God exists, they prove that God exists because the rules that universe demands be followed consist of the very same things that the baby needs.
Society will always have rules; God is irrelevant to this fundamental
God remains relevant because if the rules are not aligned with truth (as manifested in the real world as it actually does exist) then those rules will catastrophically fail. You will find that such truths (which adhere to the real with uncompromising accuracy) are the precise pathway that unerringly leads straight to God, because the Universe (precisely as it is) is the creation of that God. Trace the causal chain back to its source and there is God. The only reason physicists don’t openly say so is that the rules of their so-called science forbid it. Only the MATERIAL components are even allowed to be considered. For a physicist to say otherwise IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS OF THEIR PROFESSION would result in the immediate dismissal of that person from their official accreditaion as as a “physicist”.
the morality differs, depending on whether you are a mafioso breaking your morality by letting the police know that your colleague is the murderer, or a priest adhering to your morality by buggering little boys.
No argument from me that mores differ, and that the mores of some criminal societies are utterly abhorrent BUT (and this is a biggy, so pay attention) mores are not morality and morality is never the full expression of the fundamental truths that morality attempts to model itself upon. Do not treat unequal things as equivalents. It leads to serious logical errors.
God is a driven by selfishness, it is a creation in the minds of people to satisfy a need they have in themselves.
God is not the imaginings of human minds, nor the needs which compel humans to engage in such imagining. God is God. The perceived need to find and connect with God is comparable to sex or hunger. You need them in order to survive.
The rewards for believing in God will be different for everybody, but one is definitely that it gives us an excuse not to fix this world and gives us hope of a better world tomorrow, so suffering is not going to last forever, suffering will not be the final chapter.
Well, we need some kind of hope and encouragement to be willing to come to this Hell hole and take a shot at fixing it up well enough that it can be lived in.
For those that believe that God exists and is the creator of the universe, these people are imagining that they are transacting with someone outside of nature; this is a huge leap of faith, as they say in Christianity.
Where did you get the idea that anyone thinks that God is “outside of nature”? Of course The creator is not “outside”. We (and the rest of that which comprises nature) are his manifest thoughts.
Love is also a selfish act, it aims to earn the feeling of being loved. It is heavily emotional and that love can rapidly turn to anger and betrayal when the relationship breaks down, at that point you see how the relationship was always selfish, whether between a child and parent or between lovers.
Why do I keep getting the impression that you are a very young man? Love is the least selfish of all acts. It consists of ACTUALLY caring for the ultimate welfare of another as much (at the very least) as one cares for one’s self. It is not done for personal reward. It is done for the other. That’s why it is revered and special that it gets a word all of its own.
DBS states that knowing something and believing something are the same. The problem with this theory is this; this morning I saw the sun, I saw it, my wife saw it, we did not just believe it, we actually saw it, as did our neighbours etc. This morning DBS talked to God and God talked back, nobody else saw this transaction and many others have not experienced this sort of transaction. DBS says that he knows it is the truth, so we ask him to show us, but he says that you will have to talk to him yourself to find out.
I’m not above making dumb mistakes so I hesitate to categorically deny that I ever said such a stupid thing as equating knowing to believing, but if I did say it then I apologize, because believing and knowing are NOT the same thing. The may be relatives, but they’re not equals.
Any yahoo can “believe” all sorts of nonsense in one minute and believe the opposite a minute later. Knowing, on the other hand, is a state of very high spiritual awareness that is seldom easily attained and usually takes a very long to achieve.
In example, you might believe that you are seeing reality with your eyes, but you KNOW that you are seeing. Your eyes see a very very VERY narrow band of reality, and even that narrow view passes through so many filters and relays that by the time you “see” anything it is LONG gone in realty.DBS’s claim to hear God, to connect with the creator who is outside this universe, outside of your environment of nature. This is a belief because he cannot show this to me, he cannot reproduce this and show it to me, he cannot even show me any other scenario that involves humans transacting outside of the universe, outside of nature, so I am skeptical.
Skeptical is good. Dismissal without inspection is risky. I can’t inspect for you. I can experience and report, but the seeing and knowing is up to you.
I think maybe aspnaz feels God is separate from Nature and us, somewhere else. But God is a part of nature, and us, and is united and one with us. I expect Day would say, (as the Buddhist base) we have the delusion or illusion of separation, which is why the system was built like this and what you were incarnated for. It’s SUPPOSED to have the separation. That’s its PURPOSE.
If you had a God somewhere else, you’d have to have a somewhere else to put him, and thus two universes. As you say, it’s a “Uni” verse, so the two would become one and he’d be part of, one with us again. This is one of those “Can God create a rock too big for himself to lift” arguments.
Would add one more to the atheist list:
If religious belief worked, the world would not be in the sad state it’s in. All religious belief does is make the believer feel good or secure, but with serious side effects that usually damage other lives. Sell that nostrum to the incapacitated, incurious and ill-educated as an opiate to get them through their existence. Religion shifts the responsibility for conducting one’s life onto something that does not exist, outside weak imaginations.
Chew on them nutmeats awhile..
I suppose I’m with Theism as I’m more comfortable with a polytheistic world. Everything else is Group Think. If there are billions of people then there should be billions of religious beliefs or non beliefs. Each individual should be different because each one is different.
When religions or atheism respect the individual they achieve good results. When they don’t, they embark upon the road to Jonestown.
Meaning of life is what matters most. There’s no set rule to achieve happiness. Live and let live is a good starting point. People find meaning in very different things. That’s a journey each individual must make in life.
Or after life. Non existence is incomprehensible, therefore I’m an optimist. Once again, to each his own.
A few words for the seekers to contemplate.
As in the beginning, spacetime. is where Heaven is found.
It is where god can see everything at once and be everywhere at the same time
Spacetime is, any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacePeace.
DBS said
Why do I keep getting the impression that you are a very young man?
My age is very close to yours, maybe I am young at heart and you are afraid to die without heaven?
Dr D said
God is a part of nature, and us, and is united and one with us.
God created himself? An interesting approach.
Dr D said
As you say, it’s a “Uni” verse
Words that describe things you do not understand are somewhat lame as a proof of existence of God, or that God created himself and the universe together.
Dr D said
This is one of those “Can God create a rock too big for himself to lift” arguments.
The only similarily is that you cannot answer either question. Let me ask you a question, another one you will not be able to answer. Where did God live before he created the universe. Was there a before or did God create himself and the universe together? Come on, give us some of your knowledge on this, as we do not understand where your creator lived when he was building his house in the universe.
Summary’s summary:
Atheism
– To believe that the Universe is a work-in-progress, and Man plays a key role in whatever goal (if any) the Universe has.Theism
– To know that the Universe is a self-contained, relentless recycling apparatus that always has been, and forever will be, Perfect (aka God or, in human-readable format, The Everlasting Dissatisfaction,)(I understand that, under Christian terms, sloth is a mortal sin, but Radical Acceptance – my personal take on Theism – makes everything so much easy.)
(Thank you, TAE Summary.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.