Possible God

The apparent dichotomy between subjective and objective is an illusion founded on the psyches identification with the body. The distance between "you" and "it" is the psyches interpretation of the distance in the synapse.
An identification with the unbound energetic nature is not devoid of beauty.
The sublimation of sensation is not the end of sensation, it is the passage of the gross to the sublime.

 

That's right, it's an illusionary dichotomy.

I have been over this with those of faith before. Essentially logic is limited in that if we are to base our beliefs on what is logical, we can not believe in things that are logically impossible. Reason is limited in that it can not allow the belief in that for which there is insufficient evidence by an empiricial standard. For those espousing faith in the divine this is clearly a problem and so the renunciation of reason for the sake of faith is required.

 

If belief in God is utterly worthless then why does it produce such a profound effect on the individual? Perhaps your experience of love and beauty is your connection to what I see a part of God even though you choose not to see it as such. I would argue that it is not completely subjective since the experience can be related and is similar to what many experience. Most people wouldn't consider a sunset ugly for example.

The indentification of God isn't found in the label(gnome king), but rather how it relates to a person and how strongly it effects them and alligns with the knowledge they've learned in their experience of life so far. I've found that my belief in God has allowed me to interact with reality in a more intimate way. I would compare it to the difference between looking at your wife as atoms or as a person. I don't have any proof it's not all within the mind, but that's not why I value it.

 

I just believe that there is a different set of evidence.

 

Such a quality of existence is possible without the belief in god. It is found in the harmony between nature and oneself, no god required. Reason and self honesty need not be sacrificed.

Meaning is derived from the subjective appraisal of objective reality. Similar experiences are because objective reality is existing absolutely and as humans, we perceive it through the same mediums, the senses. Differing experiences are the result of the variation in the content of our minds. A god isn't required for reality to be objective and absolute.

So it's subjective and within one's mind only. It's not demonstratable to other people in any objective way.

All completely possible without religion. Nobody looks at their wife as atoms, they look at their wife as the particular person that is comprised of atoms, the whole having different meaning than the sum of its parts.

So in summary: religion is superfluous. The only reason to be religious is because of an emotional dependence upon the idea. I like to believe that we are all capable of overcoming our addictions to pretense, but when the pretense is appealing and the psychological barriers are in place, it's unlikely to happen. When the addiction sets in, we no longer value reason, because reason would steal away our opiates.

 

I do understand your point. But it just takes a leap of Faith to not know the difference between what the world created for Scientific undecided nature. We needed that to be part of the system of observation of What Man calls Nature, and we begin to wonder: was it such a good idea to have to live with some understanding with the so-called natural world?

 

What is more intimate your relationship with a loved one or a forest? If your answer is equal or a forest than for you it is possible.

If I was looking at my wife I wouldn't see her like that at all. I would see her in a much deeper way. That's the draw back of looking at existence mainly through the objective lense. Maybe if I was Spock it would be enough.

 

A loved one is part of nature. Nature is everything. An understandable mistake, as nature is often used to describe non-humanity.

I cant think of a single person who looks at the world like you think that the non religious do. Everyone ascribes greater meaning to particulars than their composition. This isnt by any means unique to or contingent upon religion.

The need for an objective, observable, demonstrable method for inquiring what exists does not lead to the same attitude in identifying the meaning of things that have been proven to be existing. One is an objective appraisal, the other is subjective.

 

It all just cancels itself out, doesn't it?

Belief is a Real Thing. It's power can be witnessed.

But if god can only be defined/comprehended/percieved subjectively, then god does not meet the definition of Reality and is not Real.

 

We can certainly demonstrate that we think we have experienced a god to other people but we can not prove that what we experienced was a god to them, as nobody has access to our true, unadulterated experiences. So we have established that personal testimonials and demonstration of feelings from an experience are not good enough to prove god's existence to another person.

But what about to oneself? How can one know that what they have experienced was a god, and futhermore, how can they know that it was their god as they believe god to be. Christians claim to experience Jesus, Norse claim to experience Odin, Hindus experience vishnu, etc etc etc etc. How can one know it wasn't Zeus up on his cloud pretending to be Jesus for a good laugh? How do Christians know it isn't Satan? Gods supposedly bid people to go good, some bid them to murder. Why is the experience always reflective of the particular religion? How can one even know that their experience wasn't a a product of ones own wishful thinking, a trick of ones psyche, a purely physiological phenomenon? "Knowing in one's heart" doesn't cut it. Even these experiences and feelings require a huge leap of faith once the powers of the human psyche are realized.

Few claim to have experiences of their gods that mirror reality and appeal to all senses, and the ones who claim to can reasonably be considered either schizophrenics or liars.

 

The apparent dichotomy between subjective and objective is an illusion.

Actually we witness the power of mind.

The apparent validity of this statement rests on its' qualified preposition, "but if".

 

So is true reality the blending of the two or completely different?

 

The "but if " is justified, as no alternative-- no objective piece of evidence-- has been offered.

 

Thus I'll make the dark assertion that This must occur in all forms of Human Nature. For that matter being only for certain forms of human nature God could take various essences.

Does this 'but if' mean no standard for human nature, and hence subjectivity is not only without God, but without a fulfilled universe, and standards of Reality are underivable from... the Situation?

 

The illusion is that you are separate from your source. There is no blending of the two because there are not two.
There is no false reality but there is waking and dreaming.

 

Any answer to a transcendental projection will be of the same nature.

 

What "standards of reality"? Reality comes in different flavors?

 

"transcendental"-- like god, another word without definable meaning.

"Lasjeuycdbn" is just as measurable a concept.

 

Not at all.

But those who profess belief also deny, as a block, the need for an objective standard of measurment.
In other words, like my ex, they mistake their opinion for Objective Reality.

 

So basically what you are saying is that the level of intimacy is the same whether we relate with a loved one in an objective way as it is subjectively. So we have

1. Objective- my loved one is simply a female homo-sapien made up of trillions of cells and has inhabited earth for 26 years.

2. Subjective- Everytime I see my loved one her beauty lights up the room and her easy going manner has always been a source of comfort.

I would argue that the second choice is more intimate, but then again I'm not vulcan.