Problem with a god having created our universe would be the implications of an emotion having invoked a response thereby diminishing this omnipotent being to the wings of want and self satisfaction.
After much introspection and honest evaluation, it is impossible to know one way or another as to the manner in which we were created. Claims of a god are just as hasty as atheistic living. We can’t and will never know the origins of the infinite.
From my experiences, evolution in itself is not a predicate to life without the existence of a god, but all things known and unknown are only part of our humanism. The unknowable is above our pay grade and pretending one way or another to be aware is simply self righteousness and a mistake.
Meh, to each his own. Nothing at all having to do with self-righteousness. Since when are questions a mistake?
You are clearly well pleased to believe all that is presented to you and wish to leave it be. That's great, good for you.
So let's take history for example, we are told that Western or modern civilization is some 6,000 years old, give or take some time. If so, and you are happy with that, awesome. According to you, full stop, YOU are done.
The fact remains that ruins keep coming up that are 10K or 12K or more old which therefore negates everything we read about in the prescribed history books.
Nope, nothing having to do with self-anything, and everything to do will fulfilling a promise made millennia ago.
I think a lot of the ideations of a God figure are bad. They're unworkable.
A lot of people will say God knows everything. Even that which is impossible to know. You immediately hit logical and moral conflict such that particular definition of a god doesn't make sense. It's overpowered almost to the point of undermining its own power.
If you make a modification that it knows the most or all that can be known then it starts to be more workable.
A God as a big computer is also a bit suspect. Though I don't believe in it, made in the image of man or likeness doesn't refer to what people think it does. I would assume it refers not literally to the visual appearance of humans but more fundamental properties including the qualities that we have most internally to us such as emotion or the underlying components of it.
There's a kind of anti-emotion movement and I believe this is wrong. I'm a man from the times of yore where we see Vulcan's as amputated and mentally weak. They eschew all emotion because they cannot handle it.
Traditional men master both logic and emotion. It is not emotion that is bad. It is we that are bad at emotion. Funnily enough most people who think themselves logical are bad at that as well.
Evolution can occur with or without a God. It does need some properties in a universe but not that. When it comes to the known and unknown, there is a class that thinks themselves some kind of God and refuse to be humble and accepts the unknown.
I think those people are a threat to people with brains like ours that can acknowledge a broader reality with many things beyond our knowing.
I think the concept isn’t just the “broader reality,” rather an unknowable reality. That which does not change is the only thing that could be real. From our human, finite standpoint of the universe and existence the only thing that appears permanent is change itself. This raises a problem, an inability, in grasping what it means to be infinite. For example, evolution and the Big Bang can be a simple factor of a cyclically expanding and contracting universe, yet still be completely dissociated with the concept of god. This is why I’ve always been drawn toward our entire existence as being mental in nature. The universe is mind.
I also believe it’s important to find balance between the quest for the unknown and simply living life as it comes. Don’t push, don’t pull. This raises the necessity to put aside constant introspection of god because wanting what can’t be attained will leave one torn asunder, like waves beating on rocks. The opposite side of the spectrum is complete denial of an omnipotent being and affixing the impossibility to all things. From what I’ve gathered, it’s of no use to make a hard choice as the proof will never be revealed.
The mental reality of all things seems most likely, however. It serves the ability to have this permanent, infinite universe where no physical things exist and never have existed. The basis for this stems from a single mind that is so still it can never be moved, not by emotion nor persuasion. In this unchanging mind, all things can exist as impermanent, ever changing and constantly trading energy that is never separate from the mental universe. Whether or not that mind is god will never be known, but it does appear our existence is mental in nature and would thereby be infinite.
Broad includes unknowable reality or partially knowable reality. Many people are stuck with only what they know and unaware of how much they don't know.
When it comes to these voids I don't like to always fill them in but leave them empty as possible. Then you can see the edge and follow it or advance it.
I don't have to resort to an omnipotent being (which reasons further questions). However it's still unexplained how anything exists. There's a tendency of many to think they have the answer but each answer leads to another question and you never reach the bottom. The concept of god suffers the same fate, a link in a chain.
There comes a point where you just have to say we know things exist and don't have a clue why. The concept of an all knowing god seems like a substitute for accepting the unknown.
The problem of the universe as pure perception or for all I know I could be the only thing that exists and reality is my own reflection if that once you go down that path anything is possible, most of it just cancels each other out and you can't really make any sense of anything. It's all up in the air.
The only fundamental truth thar raises real questions is hat we're aware of our existence and they're not explanation for that nor any reason why the universe should only become capable of producing that now. We fundamentally do not really know what we are. Only that we are. We can explain half of it (the external material part) but not the other half (the internal experience part).
If we're conscious and don't know why we cannot exclude the possibility of some conscious direction elsewhere in the universe. It would be arrogant to assume we're the only conscious thing.
Problem with a god having created our universe would be the implications of an emotion having invoked a response thereby diminishing this omnipotent being to the wings of want and self satisfaction.
After much introspection and honest evaluation, it is impossible to know one way or another as to the manner in which we were created. Claims of a god are just as hasty as atheistic living. We can’t and will never know the origins of the infinite.
From my experiences, evolution in itself is not a predicate to life without the existence of a god, but all things known and unknown are only part of our humanism. The unknowable is above our pay grade and pretending one way or another to be aware is simply self righteousness and a mistake.
We will never know because it can’t be known.
Meh, to each his own. Nothing at all having to do with self-righteousness. Since when are questions a mistake?
You are clearly well pleased to believe all that is presented to you and wish to leave it be. That's great, good for you.
So let's take history for example, we are told that Western or modern civilization is some 6,000 years old, give or take some time. If so, and you are happy with that, awesome. According to you, full stop, YOU are done.
The fact remains that ruins keep coming up that are 10K or 12K or more old which therefore negates everything we read about in the prescribed history books.
Nope, nothing having to do with self-anything, and everything to do will fulfilling a promise made millennia ago.
Make sense. Your comment is incomprehensible. Reevaluate what I wrote and come back.
No need. Is it incomprehensible or do you refuse to open you mind?
Good luck with your introspection and honest but INCOMPLETE evaluation.
What part of accepting there could be a god is not having an open mind? There may not be, as well. Period.
I think a lot of the ideations of a God figure are bad. They're unworkable.
A lot of people will say God knows everything. Even that which is impossible to know. You immediately hit logical and moral conflict such that particular definition of a god doesn't make sense. It's overpowered almost to the point of undermining its own power.
If you make a modification that it knows the most or all that can be known then it starts to be more workable.
A God as a big computer is also a bit suspect. Though I don't believe in it, made in the image of man or likeness doesn't refer to what people think it does. I would assume it refers not literally to the visual appearance of humans but more fundamental properties including the qualities that we have most internally to us such as emotion or the underlying components of it.
There's a kind of anti-emotion movement and I believe this is wrong. I'm a man from the times of yore where we see Vulcan's as amputated and mentally weak. They eschew all emotion because they cannot handle it.
Traditional men master both logic and emotion. It is not emotion that is bad. It is we that are bad at emotion. Funnily enough most people who think themselves logical are bad at that as well.
Evolution can occur with or without a God. It does need some properties in a universe but not that. When it comes to the known and unknown, there is a class that thinks themselves some kind of God and refuse to be humble and accepts the unknown.
I think those people are a threat to people with brains like ours that can acknowledge a broader reality with many things beyond our knowing.
I think the concept isn’t just the “broader reality,” rather an unknowable reality. That which does not change is the only thing that could be real. From our human, finite standpoint of the universe and existence the only thing that appears permanent is change itself. This raises a problem, an inability, in grasping what it means to be infinite. For example, evolution and the Big Bang can be a simple factor of a cyclically expanding and contracting universe, yet still be completely dissociated with the concept of god. This is why I’ve always been drawn toward our entire existence as being mental in nature. The universe is mind.
I also believe it’s important to find balance between the quest for the unknown and simply living life as it comes. Don’t push, don’t pull. This raises the necessity to put aside constant introspection of god because wanting what can’t be attained will leave one torn asunder, like waves beating on rocks. The opposite side of the spectrum is complete denial of an omnipotent being and affixing the impossibility to all things. From what I’ve gathered, it’s of no use to make a hard choice as the proof will never be revealed.
The mental reality of all things seems most likely, however. It serves the ability to have this permanent, infinite universe where no physical things exist and never have existed. The basis for this stems from a single mind that is so still it can never be moved, not by emotion nor persuasion. In this unchanging mind, all things can exist as impermanent, ever changing and constantly trading energy that is never separate from the mental universe. Whether or not that mind is god will never be known, but it does appear our existence is mental in nature and would thereby be infinite.
Broad includes unknowable reality or partially knowable reality. Many people are stuck with only what they know and unaware of how much they don't know.
When it comes to these voids I don't like to always fill them in but leave them empty as possible. Then you can see the edge and follow it or advance it.
I don't have to resort to an omnipotent being (which reasons further questions). However it's still unexplained how anything exists. There's a tendency of many to think they have the answer but each answer leads to another question and you never reach the bottom. The concept of god suffers the same fate, a link in a chain.
There comes a point where you just have to say we know things exist and don't have a clue why. The concept of an all knowing god seems like a substitute for accepting the unknown.
The problem of the universe as pure perception or for all I know I could be the only thing that exists and reality is my own reflection if that once you go down that path anything is possible, most of it just cancels each other out and you can't really make any sense of anything. It's all up in the air.
The only fundamental truth thar raises real questions is hat we're aware of our existence and they're not explanation for that nor any reason why the universe should only become capable of producing that now. We fundamentally do not really know what we are. Only that we are. We can explain half of it (the external material part) but not the other half (the internal experience part).
If we're conscious and don't know why we cannot exclude the possibility of some conscious direction elsewhere in the universe. It would be arrogant to assume we're the only conscious thing.