So - ultimate reality is male?
Spelllbound Loves God
- Thread starter Spellbound
- Start date
Personally, one of the reasons I love God is because of His goodness. His love for me and my family. And His answering of my prayers. Or, better yet, communicating DIRECTLY to me through the television and radio. Through songs and advertisements on tv.
This is because the universe is conscious of itself.
They pack their minds with knowledge but it means nothing because they replace the vital quality of open mindedness with thinking themselves as know-it-alls.
You may not believe that I do but it only becomes significant if I know it for myself. Whether or not I am able to prove it to others is another story. But not only that, it rather depends on how open they are to it.
Just atheists in general who insist that they know everything already. That God isn't real when He very well is.
I applaud your openness. But I did my very best over the last year and 3/4 under the name Spellbound to prove God. The rest is up to you.
"He" is just colloquial. I could just say "a conscious mind".
I'm happy you have an imaginary friend.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
You think that God speaks to you through your radio and TV? That advertisements on TV are messages from God directed at you?
Or so you've convinced yourself. I don't know of any convincing reason to share your belief.
That happens... (especially here on Sciforums).
But do you really imagine yourself as open-minded? You think that you already possess all the answers about everything that counts, don't you? You've been preaching for ten years now, seemingly interested only in announcing your own grand revelation to everyone else.
You aren't just talking to yourself, Spellbound. If you want other people (like me) to believe that what you say is true, you have to make precise what you believe. And just as important, you need to give the rest of us some persuasive reasons to believe it too.
But aren't you just a less rude and more personable mirror image of the same sort of unjustified certainties? Your "He very well is" right up above speaks to it. When it comes to God, you're already convinced that you possess the Truth, right? You aren't the least bit 'open' to the strong likelihood that you are wrong.
Last edited:
The ancients also had an inclination to reify concepts as divine personhoods, so that the exoteric masses could relate to / believe in or be regulated by those ideas better (in addition to funding those ideational enterprises and their cults). Examples: Aesculapius (the god of health and medicine), Apollo (the god of light and classical order), Bellona (goddess of war), Ceres (the goddess of agriculture), Felicitas (goddess of good luck), Janus (the god of the beginnings and of transitions), Hermes (the god of commerce), Veritas (goddess of truth), etc.
Kant, too, submitted centuries later that what could be abstracted from the montheist God of the West was that it was a moral system or duty personified, which he then refined into practical reason itself or what a person (or culture) recommends scheme-wise to itself, as if dictated by a higher being.
Paul Guyer: In the latest stages of this work [...Opus Postumum...] Kant returned to the broadest themes of his philosophy [...] God is the representation of our own capacity to give ourselves the moral law through reason. The moral law 'emerges from freedom...which the subject prescribes to himself, and yet as if another and higher person had made it a rule for him. The subject feels himself necessitated through his own reason...'. This is a fitting conclusion to Kant's philosophy of autonomy. --Kant, Immanuel; in E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Some other snips directly from Opus Postumum:
"Reason inevitably creates objects for itself. Hence everything that thinks has a God. [...] The concept of God is the idea of a moral being, which, as such, is judging [and] universally commanding. The latter is not a hypothetical thing but pure practical reason itself in its personality [...] However, there still seems to be the question as to whether this idea, the product of own reason, has reality or whether it is a mere thought-object (ens rationis), and there remains to us nothing but the moral relationship to this object [namely, God] -- which is merely problematic [...]"
Last edited:
With a penis.
I saw an ad for a nerf-gun I would have loved to own when I was younger (still kinda do).
Does that mean the lord almighty sent me a vision that I need a nerf-gun for the upcoming zombie apocalypse?
Does that mean the lord almighty sent me a vision that I need a nerf-gun for the upcoming zombie apocalypse?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I believe the term for the personification of a spiritual being is called a *Tulpa*.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
God is objective-empirical.
... if you lack critical faculties. Otherwise, no.
Reality is closed, so yes.
I have not convinced myself of anything otherwise I could be categorized as crazy.
The only thoughts I choose are my best ones. No more. No less.
I see.
My certainties are certainly not unjustified.
Lucifer rebelled against God by not buying a ShamWow (a once heavily promoted chamois-like product for cleaning cars and other non-porous surfaces).
Yet they deny that they have knowledge of "ultimate reality". You, on the other hand, demonstrably don't know as much reliable science about the behavior of phenomena while claiming knowledge of "ultimate reality". You're pointing to the wrong party when accusing other people as acting like "know-it-alls".
Actual scientific knowledge is empowering. Race cars, lasers, aeroplanes, etc all derive from the "knowledge is power" applications of actual knowledge. Therefore your alleged "knowledge" of "truth" and "ultimate reality" seems curiously inert and impotent. If it is only personally important knowledge, then why bother to share your possession of that knowledge with us, particularly when you seem to be unable to do anything useful with that knowledge like communicate it to others. To date you have only communicated your claim of knowledge, not any demonstration of your knowledge or demonstration of any successes only attributable to application of your knowledge.
Last edited:
In response to your sarcasm I'd like to pose a question: As you are human, not divine, and therefore subject to flaws, do you think yourself less than worthy of God's love?
Also, I have knowledge that the universe is conscious, and while what you claim about me is true, I can only progress over time.
This is only partly correct. I see myself as progressing in knowledge as time moves forward. I have not demonstrated any hard evidence of what I claim or any successes attributable to application of my knowledge, but I hope to as time moves forward.
You have defined God as the universe. We are part of the universe and therefore we are part of God. By your definition, that makes us divine.
A complex question is one that carries preconceptions that must be carefully defused before answering lest one open oneself up to charges that one accepts the preconceptions.
As I have demonstrated that the parsing of the phrase "worthy of God's love" rests on definitions which you have avoided communicating, the simpler question "Are you worthy of God's love?" still rests on preconceptions that a single god exists, has a knowable nature, is capable of love in a sense yet to be defined and such love is something determined by my traits or actions. So any simple answer I give to the simpler question could also be misinterpreted as support for your position when you have not carried your burden of articulating a position.
It is my position that my attempts to communicate knowledge and to provide reasoned replies are traits and behaviors which generally tend to make me incrementally more worthy of positive feelings promoting association and dialogue with intelligent entities that contemplate real phenomena going on in the universe. So if that corresponds with your assumptions of "love" and "God" then I would say I consider myself not less worthy of said love as you.
Your assumption that I am human is noted. I choose to neither confirm nor deny it at this time. My alleged humanity is none of your business and your assumption appears unnecessary to your question.
Your assumption that I am distinct from "songs and advertisements on tv" and other phenomena which are to be attributed as "divine" is noted. I know of many classification systems of things but I know of no system used by any organized group of beings (even atheist beings) which classified me as having less divine nature than "songs and advertisements on tv" so your question is predicated on an uncommunicated methodology or basis. My alleged status of having a less divine nature than "songs and advertisements on tv" is none of your business and your assumption appears unnecessary to your question. Or did you mean to assume I am not a deity? I choose to neither confirm nor deny that I am not a deity at this time. My alleged godhood is none of your business and any assumption you may have made appears unnecessary to your question.
I have never denied being subject to flaws. I make on the average about three large mistakes a year. The assumption that I was human was not necessary to reach the conclusion that I am subject to flaws. The assumption that I am less divine than "songs and advertisements on tv" was not necessary to reach the conclusion that I am subject to flaws. The assumption that I am not a deity was not necessary to reach the conclusion that I am subject to flaws. The literature is full of stories of gods which have made mistakes or otherwise possess flaws.
Less worthy that what or whom? By predicating that I am human, you cannot mean "less worthy than other humans". You must mean less worthy than some binary decision threshold which is a complex assumption.
This renders the question meaningless since the nature of what or who you mean by "God" has not been made clear and the question relies on an uncommunicated methodology or basis. To an atheist the metric scale of things and people's worthiness of God's love is only a point as all things are equally worthy of any judgement of a nonexistent thing. Likewise the assumption "God=Love" leaves as all things are equally encompassed in love and again we have an impossibly of things being less worthy than other things. Calvinists would believe in a binary decision process where all things are preordained to fall into the "worthy" or "not worthy" camps, but since you used the phrase "less worthy" one assumes that you are no Calvinist. Thus we have established that you have assumed a scale of worthiness and some threshold of worthiness which separates "loved" and "unloved". But that is your assumption and is not binding on me.
As I have demonstrated that the parsing of the phrase "worthy of God's love" rests on definitions which you have avoided communicating, the simpler question "Are you worthy of God's love?" still rests on preconceptions that a single god exists, has a knowable nature, is capable of love in a sense yet to be defined and such love is something determined by my traits or actions. So any simple answer I give to the simpler question could also be misinterpreted as support for your position when you have not carried your burden of articulating a position.
It is my position that my attempts to communicate knowledge and to provide reasoned replies are traits and behaviors which generally tend to make me incrementally more worthy of positive feelings promoting association and dialogue with intelligent entities that contemplate real phenomena going on in the universe. So if that corresponds with your assumptions of "love" and "God" then I would say I consider myself not less worthy of said love as you.
That's not the definition of "partly correct". That's just "correct at this time". Your hopes that your present belief system will reap rewards in the indefinite future are noted, but you have not communicated a basis for confidence in such hopes.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
God is make believe but there is a go.