God The Father, God The Spirit.

God the father, God the spirit. Is there a magical unicorn in the sky watching us all in observance seperate from our own materialistic social interactions and explorations?

Does the ghost exist within the biological machine of existence or are we just left with a physical material world only?

Is there a magical unicorn that started the existential monotony that is our existence by that of intelligent design in some cosmic level or is it that we are children with over-reactive imaginations of ourselves in the world that amounts to nothing?

Some say ye still while others come to the realization of ney. Which is it?

The Fool wrote:

God the father, God the spirit. Is there a magical unicorn in the sky watching us all in observance seperate from our own materialistic social interactions and explorations?

Does the ghost exist within the biological machine of existence or are we just left with a physical material world only?

Is there a magical unicorn that started the existential monotony that is our existence by that of intelligent design in some cosmic level or is it that we are children with over-reactive imaginations of ourselves in the world that amounts to nothing?

Some say ye still while others come to the realization of ney. Which is it?

I assume...

...that...

...God is a human creation, a symbolic device used to refer to the absent Absolute, eternally-unknown constructs of the mind (unicorns, goblins, ghosts), for the purpose of Ordering peculiar abstract thoughts into tangible experiences that coincide to any inter-subjective Reality. Thus, at least, God is a "feeling". While, at most, God is a real "thing". However, He can never be as real as a rock, a tree, or a waterfall. -- why? God cannot be 'real' in such a way, because if the Christian could actually Identify God and point him out, then the empirical sciences would be able to study Him. Furthermore, philosophers would be able to question Him. Yet, none of these events have ever transpired throughout the whole human evolution. Arguably speaking, God has never been studied by science nor questioned by philosophy.

In today's world, I liken the concept of God with the UFO phenomenon and extraterrestrial life. As can be seen from many zealous men and conspiracy theorists (like those found on ILO), people are willing to take a blind leap-of-faith into believing the existence of UFOs or aliens without evidence. Even if we assume that "seeing is believing" and further assume that some people actually see UFOs or extraterrestrial life-forms, that does not mean that such things exist in a way to where they can be, a) identified, b) defined, or c) literally experienced. Thus, it becomes likening a dream to Reality, which the Common Manimal is unfit to do. Almost always, he lacks the capacity to abstract language to a coherent direction of explaining/describing experiences regarding UFOs, extraterrestrial life, or God.

Personally, I believe that it is both an affront and demeaning for any person to claim that human animals are not only the center of the universe; but that we are also the tip-top of the food chain is a deplorable thought! People once believed that the ocean bottom was devoid of life, because science was not yet aware of how living beings could survive down there. Now, we are 'enlightened' to the fact that there are indeed living creatures at the bottom of the ocean (a place devoid of light as we see it). Furthermore, is not the claim that "dead space" devoid of life also a preposterous one??? Now, I use an analogy to further my understanding. If the entire Human Civilization can be confined to the previous two centuries of technological advances, including: the phone, printing press, electricity, mechanized warfare, air travel, nuclear arms, the internet ... then how can we not posit that other 'advanced' lifeforms existing in the universe may not have been progressing at a similar (or quicker) rate? When any reasonable/rational person considers this, then the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrial life seems all-the-more tangible.

We are not at the 'top' of the food chain then. In fact, we are at the middle, or worse, the bottom! Can the human animal defend its own planet from an alien colonial power? How long have human animals even been on the planet? How did we our first strand of DNA even arrive on Earth?


To conclude:

What the human animal defines as "God" is almost absolutely a Lie, because, how can the Individual, the human Male, know that he is correct about "God" when he cannot even define Him without complete and unquestionable Moral Authority? This is a predominant problem for philosophers, Atheists, and Anarchists: Authority. Who knows? Who do we all turn to for advice when all previous advice fails us, when Christianity, the religions of the world, and God fails us all to return our question with an answer? Now, on the dawn of our Third Millennium of Mankind post-Christ, we can empirically prove that the mind of an Individiaul has been making it up all-along? Where can we then go or progress to as an animal specie?

What is left to do when both the individual-I and the collective-we construct the very world we live in? Yes, Fool, we are a supra-organism! However, I am not a part of it and it causes me stress as a 'thinker'. Man is not welcome within the World just as the male penis is not welcome in the female vagina. Us men trick ourselves into believing that we are not rapists. The question becomes: who rapes who?

God flees.

I assume that since I must assume my own existence to be able to begin fathoming God, that I may as well assume the most infinite being I can... Thus, God defines all the terms used to describe Him, and what we think is entirely beside the point. Moreover, as an infinite being, His existence probably is unaffected by anyone's belief or disbelief...

misterhamtastic wrote:

I assume that since I must assume my own existence to be able to begin fathoming God, that I may as well assume the most infinite being I can... Thus, God defines all the terms used to describe Him, and what we think is entirely beside the point. Moreover, as an infinite being, His existence probably is unaffected by anyone's belief or disbelief...

If you can prove a Being, then you may be onto something.

If you cannot, then you're just talking out of your ass.

As far as I can see, I see becomings.
A static, absolute, unchanging Being is nowhere to be found.

If you can show us one instance or offer rational arguments for such a concept, then do so.

All that God represents is an extreme projection based on nothing but ambiguity and hope.
It is the absolute given a persona.

Satyr wrote:

If you can prove a Being, then you may be onto something.

If you cannot, then you're just talking out of your ass.

As far as I can see, I see becomings.
A static, absolute, unchanging Being is nowhere to be found.

If you can show us one instance or offer rational arguments for such a concept, then do so.

All that God represents is an extreme projection based on nothing but ambiguity and hope.
It is the absolute given a persona.

God represents for many to be a "non-dualistic source of reality". That is, an impersonal force or a personal force. They feel that if reality exists, then reality must have a source. If there exist existence and non-existence, then is there not anything else? What is existence rooted in? Non-existence? Some would say the meeting of these two "opposites" is spirituality or God. The word "God" has so much stygma attached to it that there are die-hard atheists who would never in their life do anything but revolt at it's mention. This is lamentable. For some it is the highest being or force that exists - be it impersonal or personal.

Now I have one question for atheists who would consider it thoughtfully. The arguments you pose against God, try replacing the word God with the word reality. It seems to me that one cannot prove the term reality. I've posed this before and people only sidetrack into a multitude of different related topics. Reality is something we are all a part of, and supposedly therefore it's also a part of us. But you cannot see it with your senses. But by your reason and language, you recognize it to be a valid philosophical term. So that's my question.

Nikolai wrote:

God represents for many to be a "non-dualistic source of reality". That is, an impersonal force or a personal force.

god is dualistic in that it implies an absolute agaisnt the imperfect turmoil of existence.

Quote :

They feel that if reality exists, then reality must have a source.

"Reality exists"?
That's a tautology.
Existence is reality. There's no difference.
Reality is the awareness of existence.

Quote :

If there exist existence and non-existence, then is there not anything else? What is existence rooted in? Non-existence?

All dualistic thinking.
There is no non-existence.
All there is is existence.

We call non-existence the elimination of the consciousness that makes the awarenes of existence possible.
But the universe does not disappear when we die.

Quote :

Some would say the meeting of these two "opposites" is spirituality or God. The word "God" has so much stygma attached to it that there are die-hard atheists who would never in their life do anything but revolt at it's mention. This is lamentable. For some it is the highest being or force that exists - be it impersonal or personal.

Using your own logic then where is God "rooted in"?
If god does not require a cause then why does the universe? Why add consciousness where none is necessary?

Quote :

Now I have one question for atheists who would consider it thoughtfully. The arguments you pose against God, try replacing the word God with the word reality. It seems to me that one cannot prove the term reality. I've posed this before and people only sidetrack into a multitude of different related topics. Reality is something we are all a part of, and supposedly therefore it's also a part of us. But you cannot see it with your senses. But by your reason and language, you recognize it to be a valid philosophical term. So that's my question.

Of course you can see reality and sense reality using all of your senses.

What are you talking about?

Everything you perceive is reality. It is the phenomenon.

My positions on this matter are posted here:

Nihilism and the Absolute

Satyr wrote:

misterhamtastic wrote:

I assume that since I must assume my own existence to be able to begin fathoming God, that I may as well assume the most infinite being I can... Thus, God defines all the terms used to describe Him, and what we think is entirely beside the point. Moreover, as an infinite being, His existence probably is unaffected by anyone's belief or disbelief...

If you can prove a Being, then you may be onto something.

If you cannot, then you're just talking out of your ass.

As far as I can see, I see becomings.
A static, absolute, unchanging Being is nowhere to be found.

If you can show us one instance or offer rational arguments for such a concept, then do so.

All that God represents is an extreme projection based on nothing but ambiguity and hope.
It is the absolute given a persona.

When nothing can be proven and all is only possibility, I guess all we ever do is talk out of our asses, correct?

Or can you "prove" something to 100% probability that everyone else will agree on?

misterhamtastic wrote:

When nothing can be proven and all is only possibility, I guess all we ever do is talk out of our asses, correct?

Or can you "prove" something to 100% probability that everyone else will agree on?

Dear friend, you set up the premises of your own demise, so that you can save yourself from judgement.

Nothing can be proved 100%, for this would imply an absolute truth, but things are always in degree - more or less probable.

That you set up this premise to defend your own opinions is noteworthy.

Can I prove, 100%, that there is no invisible monkey in my room?
No, but this is not an argument that there is one.

One references the world to justify a claim.

So, there may be an invisible monkey in the room, and no one can prove it. It all depends on the individual's chosen belief, right?

misterhamtastic wrote:

So, there may be an invisible monkey in the room, and no one can prove it. It all depends on the individual's chosen belief, right?

No, not all beliefs are equal as no two minds are equal.

A belief is an interpretation that is judged by how well it adheres to reality.
Otherwise any absurdity can be defended as being a "chosen belief".

Satyr wrote:

If you can prove a Being, then you may be onto something.

Only what can be proven to others exists?

I believe that all things are absurdities, and that belief is the only bit of reality that has any claim to existence... Judgement by others is unnecessary because I have already made thousands of choices to believe in a pattern of possibilities to line up with my perception. If I choose to believe that there exists a planet inhabited solely by malevolent ducks, what harm is there?

misterhamtastic wrote:

I believe that all things are absurdities, and that belief is the only bit of reality that has any claim to existence... Judgement by others is unnecessary because I have already made thousands of choices to believe in a pattern of possibilities to line up with my perception. If I choose to believe that there exists a planet inhabited solely by malevolent ducks, what harm is there?

And for me the criterion for keeping such a belief would not be 'can I prove it to others'. I might keep it if believing it led to experiences I liked or felt important or felt like they resolved something. My ability to convince others might be something I would hope for - if for some reason I thought them believing would be great for some reason - but I certainly would not hinge my belief on what I can prove to other people.

creasy, precisely-on the topic of christianity, free will from God allows all men to choose their path to Hell, non-christians belief doesn't decide my belief, and should not have an effect on christians in general...

misterhamtastic wrote:

creasy, precisely-on the topic of christianity, free will from God allows all men to choose their path to Hell, non-christians belief doesn't decide my belief, and should not have an effect on christians in general...

The internet makes it all like voices in the head. What use do we make of these voices and their opinions? Or maybe: what role do we give them?

something to convince?
something that keeps us on track?
something to make us feel __________(bad, stupid, not a good communicator, smart, insightful.....)?
something to be our conscience?
etc.