Science explains the existence of God.

[Yazata]

Personal apotheosis.

The Greek word 'apotheosis' means 'elevation to the status of (or at least similar to) that of a god'. In Greek religion this was supposed to be possible. Unlike in the Semitic religions that gradually came to emphasize the gulf between mankind and the gods, the Greeks imagined the space between the gods and mankind as a space that could be traversed and that was populated by intermediate forms. The gods and goddesses could and did have sex with humans, and human-divine hybrids existed. The most famous of them were the 'heros', like Herakles. We see similar ideas, in much more cynical and politicized form, invoked in the deification of Hellenistic kings and subsequently the Roman emperors.

The dictionary definition aside, I liken it to just finding Jacob's ladder.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.

It sounds like you are talking about having experienced some kind of transformative personal religious experience.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.

I don't have any argument with your belief that you have had a transformative personal religious experience. But I don't accept that your claims about your religious experience are convincing evidence regarding religious matters either.

So... when you announce: "Without a personal apotheosis, all who claim that God is real without any personal knowledge --- without a clear logic trail --- are just lying to themselves as well as others", you seem to be in danger of being caught up in your own condemnation.

Your own "logic trail" seems to originate in a private experience that may be, or in my opinion is more likely to not be, veridicial. It's not really all that different from when a conventional Christian says something like, "I just know! It's my faith!"

Nevertheless, I recognize that religious experiences do exist. I also recognize that they can be totally convincing to the people who enjoy them. No more doubts are left, in some cases at least. Direct experience - the best evidence that a person can possibly have.

The problem for all of the rest of us, all the people who are neither recipients of transformative religious experiences or afflicted by equally convincing psychotic delusions, is distinguishing when other people's totally-private and utterly-convincing experiences are objectively true in the wider universe, and when they aren't.

This line of thought leads me towards the idea that at its heart, the deepest level of religion is a fundamentally private thing. It's not something that can be conveyed to somebody else in words or in books.

But that doesn't mean that all the words and the books are "lies" either. The words simply aren't the confirming religious experience, whatever that is, assuming that it even exists. The words and the books are the expressions and the embodiments of the traditions that have grown up around those kind of experiences.

 

[spidergoat]

They are synonymous and go hand in hand IMO but belief without apotheosis is delusion.
All religions have a God figure but not all spiritual people have a God or religion.
Those in religions are idol worshipers whereas those of spirituality are not.

Regards
DL

Is it possible that desire for gnosis is so strong that you deceive yourself? Religious organizations are designed to produce a gnostic effect through the traditional means like prayer, fasting, music, dancing, feats of courage, pain, art, and sometimes drugs.

 

[Greatest I am]

Is it possible that desire for gnosis is so strong that you deceive yourself? Religious organizations are designed to produce a gnostic effect through the traditional means like prayer, fasting, music, dancing, feats of courage, pain, art, and sometimes drugs.

I admit that my desire for knowledge is great but for true knowledge.
That is one of the characteristic required to force apotheosis I think.
If one does not seek, he will not find.
We are to seek God. He does not make house calls.

Where exactly do you think I am deceiving myself?

I do not agree with your description of religions.
Today's religions are all about social control and $$$$$$$$.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Yazata

I agree basically with what you say and that is why in most of what I do, I try to stay away from discussion on straight belief or faith in any God, and try to stay in discussion on morality. At least in those, some end point might be reached. In discussions of God's reality, all that ever comes about is name calling and insults as neither side can win.

You did not like my use of the word "lie", yet when someone says something definitive like God is real and just say it is beacause of faith, without any other logic or reason behind, it then it is definitely a lie.

No judge in any court would see it as a truth.

As to the veracity of my apotheosis. I have had only 2 telepathic experiences in my long life. The first was with my wife for only a second or two. The other was with the cosmic consciousness or what I call Godhead just to put it up against God. Without my wife confirming that we did experience telepathy the first time, I would not give any veracity to the second.
As stated, I have no proof to show anyone else but I do have the proof I need to have pushed me to the stance I have taken on religions.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

I admit that my desire for knowledge is great but for true knowledge.
That is one of the characteristic required to force apotheosis I think.
If one does not seek, he will not find.
We are to seek God. He does not make house calls.

Where exactly do you think I am deceiving myself?

I do not agree with your description of religions.
Today's religions are all about social control and $$$$$$$$.

Regards
DL

How do you know your knowledge is true?

 

[Greatest I am]

How do you know your knowledge is true?

I apply logic and reason and hope for the best.
If wrong, with luck, someone will correct me.

Is that not how all people who thing confirm what they think is knowledge?
How do you do it?

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

I thought you relied on personal experience, and I was wondering how you know your personal experience is true? If you rely on logic and reason, then you aren't being truthful about the source of your belief.

 

[Rav]

How do you know your knowledge is true?

Heh. That's the question isn't it? Religious ideas about the nature of reality are not metaphysically true just because they are internally consistent, or because profound experiences were had while engaging in the practices that hinge on such ideas. If this was indeed the case, then the only logical conclusion would be that reality is a superposition of all imaginable metaphysical truths.

Perhaps reality really is a superposition of all imaginable metaphysical truths one might say? Fine. Whatever. Have fun with that.

 

[Rav]

I apply logic and reason and hope for the best.
If wrong, with luck, someone will correct me.

So you're saying that you're not actually certain that your views concerning God, upon which you base your personal philosophy, are even a true account of the way things actually are?

 

[Greatest I am]

I thought you relied on personal experience, and I was wondering how you know your personal experience is true? If you rely on logic and reason, then you aren't being truthful about the source of your belief.

I apply logic and reason to personal experience as well as everything else.
Please read post 24.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So you're saying that you're not actually certain that your views concerning God, upon which you base your personal philosophy, are even a true account of the way things actually are?

How can anyone's views on God be confirmed with an absentee God?
He would be the only source that can confirm or deny.
That is why the right grammar for atheists should not be there is no God. That would be an unproven lie. It should be more like there probably is no God or God has never been proven to exist.

That is also why for Christians or those of other religions to say that there is a God without apotheosis or a logic trail are also lying.

Neither group has proven their case and to claim they have is a lie.

I report what I believe from the facts I know to be true but have no way to confirm the final way of things.
I believe in the cosmic consciousness that I have experience contact with but for all I can know, every planet with life has one.
Man first thought the earth was the center of the universe then switched to God being the center. If man is the only life in the universe then we and FMPOV the cosmic consciousness is the end of our evolution and we are in that sense the center of the universe. I doubt that we are the only life and have as much doubt about the cosmic consciousness being the only one of it's kind as well.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

What is the process of logic you use to confirm that your "apotheosis" is true?

 

[Greatest I am]

I thought you relied on personal experience, and I was wondering how you know your personal experience is true? If you rely on logic and reason, then you aren't being truthful about the source of your belief.

What is the process of logic you use to confirm that your "apotheosis" is true?

None. I cannot confirm it.

Regards
DL

 

[Rav]

How can anyone's views on God be confirmed with an absentee God?
He would be the only source that can confirm or deny.

Amusing. What do you suppose would happen if God made an appearance for the purpose of denying his own existence? Do you think that everyone would take his word for it? Thanks for the chuckle

That is why the right grammar for atheists should not be there is no God. That would be an unproven lie. It should be more like there probably is no God or God has never been proven to exist.

I'm going to ignore your continued misuse of the word "lie".

With respect to atheism, while there are certainly atheists who feel confident enough to declare the nonexistence of God as a fact, most atheists stop slightly short of that. Moreover, whether someone identifies as an atheist or not depends a lot on the definition of God that is in play. For example, I am atheistic with respect to the existence of the sort of God characterized by the Abrahamic religions, but somewhat more agnostic with respect to a broad array of other philosophical ideas pertaining to some sort of greater or more primary reality. To me, traditional conceptions of God are merely the heavy anthropomorphization of the unknown.

 

[spidergoat]

None. I cannot confirm it.

Regards
DL

Well then, let's not be silly and say there was logic involved.

 

[RoccoR]

Rav, Greatest I am, et al,

I think I agree with this.

... ... ... To me, traditional conceptions of God are merely the heavy anthropomorphization of the unknown.

(COMMENT)

The concept of a Supreme Being is, at this time, in the realm of the supernatural. It is beyond science, for the moment. So (at least for me) the existence of such a being is difficult at best, since it is "undefined." Humanity often attempts to assign a variety of attributes to this conceptual supernatural being; and attempting to establish some sort of theoretical relationships to man. I think (personal opinion) the phrase "anthropomorphization of the unknown" is exactly right.

Without a personal apotheosis, all who claim that God is real without any personal knowledge --- without a clear logic trail --- are just lying to themselves as well as others.

(COMMENT)

In a way, I have to agree with "Rav" that the use of the terms "lie or lying" is a misrepresentation of the acceptance - or - conviction in the existence of a Supreme Being. We are not in a position to suggest that "faith" in a Supreme Being is a "lie;" any more then we are able to condemn the acceptance - and - conviction in String Theory as a "lie." Each are equally untestable hypothesis at the present time. In both questions of "theological concepts" and "theoretical concepts" under study, we have to maintain a dispassionate air about us.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Pongeli]

I don't know what you are on about, but I talk to God on allmost daily basis thru prayer and as not believable it might seem God answers me in words or acts. So there. God might answer to you too if you just pray and thank him. You know God likes thanks.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I don't know what you are on about, but I talk to God on allmost daily basis thru prayer and as not believable it might seem God answers me in words or acts. So there. God might answer to you too if you just pray and thank him. You know God likes thanks.

Horsefeathers.

 

[Pongeli]

Horsefeathers.

Feathers... Hmm... That reminds me a thing I said in other thread. You can also ask your Guardian Angel to give you a sign. Ask that you find a feather ot that someone gives you a flower. You can also sit still and ask your Guardian Angel to touch your hand. In a moment you will feel a touch I promise. And in an instant you have proof that God and angels exist.

 

[Greatest I am]

Amusing. What do you suppose would happen if God made an appearance for the purpose of denying his own existence? Do you think that everyone would take his word for it? Thanks for the chuckle



I'm going to ignore your continued misuse of the word "lie".

With respect to atheism, while there are certainly atheists who feel confident enough to declare the nonexistence of God as a fact, most atheists stop slightly short of that. Moreover, whether someone identifies as an atheist or not depends a lot on the definition of God that is in play. For example, I am atheistic with respect to the existence of the sort of God characterized by the Abrahamic religions, but somewhat more agnostic with respect to a broad array of other philosophical ideas pertaining to some sort of greater or more primary reality. To me, traditional conceptions of God are merely the heavy anthropomorphization of the unknown.

That was my position at one time before apotheosis.

What is it about our primary reality that makes you think that there might be a God?
For instance, scriptures say that God creates all things perfect yet when asked if they see this perfection, they always say no and that somehow we are powerful enough to screw up what God made perfect.

What in reality makes you think there is a God.

Regards
DL