What Makes A God?

How is perception translated into knowledge? Having knowledge is being in the know. I use the example of learning to tie shoes. Although you had seen others do it that doesn't translate into knowing how to tie shoes yourself. You practice to teach yourself the movements until such a point when muscle memory takes over and you become the act of tying shoes. When or why that threshold occurs or when or why practice becomes perfect, is a mystery. It represents a paradigm shift in how you apprehend the world.

 

Un-knowing is rather underrated. When you don't know, you can open up your imagination a lot more than if you "know" everything. But if Imagination isn't valuable to you or anyone else then you won't know that and that's your own issue to deal with. Seems to be rather an issue with certain people on this forum. There's way too much of the Logic stick stuck way up people's asses here, unfortunately. But not everyone, and i'm not talking about you, thedope.

 

No, it wasn't. That's what "imagined and created" means; before you do these things, the object did not exist. Not even in the mind, because it hadn't even been imagined yet. But even if it were "imagined", then that still wouldn't make a telescope exist.

Sure, and you can go down this road, and you will arrive at solipsism. Somewhere between being schizophrenic (believing every single thought of yours corresponds to reality) and being solipsistic (believing that everything is a thought of yours without corresponding external reality) there is the middle path where all reasonable people walk.

You should drop this fixation on my theory that what it's like after we're dead is what it's like before we're born. I've explained that this is a tentative guess; when we are talking about theists, they are not tentatively guessing about god; they are strongly asserting that a particular god exists, and he wrote a particular book, and salvation is arrived at through a particular means. When you offer as rebuttal to my theory, that there are people who claim to have memories of past lives, those people are not offering those memories as tentative facts; they are being offered as conclussive evidence of past lives.

There is a major and unbridgeable epistemic attitude here and you're still trying to figure out just what exactly that is, and it's because you have no experience with science or formal logic.

 

Yeah, and the Imagination came first before the creation. So, no a Telescope doesn't exist objectively when it is Imagined, but the Imagination image is the seed to its existence. It literally cannot exist without first having been thought of.

And are atheists not strongly asserting that God doesn't exist? You need to also drop the argument that I'm an atheist, when I'm actually open minded and genuine enough to admit that i don't know, and really can't know for certain, other than through my own subjective intuitions in relation to the material and immaterial world.

 

Beyond an unfamiliarity with science or logic it could represent a confusion in how to represent the legitimacy of the subjective experience. It only finds legitimacy if it is shared.

 

Now as far as God is concerned, if everything first must be imagined before it exists in the objective world, then why not the entire objective universe? Wouldn't that also first had to have been thought of?

 

Before form is the potential for it or before reformation some form exists. You confuse perception and knowledge. Without legitimate potential no amount of imagination can cause something to come into being. We don't invent things in the way you imagine. What we know about the world is revealed. An invention is a eureka moment. A light is shown on the subject.
We can't say that all things begin with conception but that we do.

 

Without the Imagination factor then all the pure potential wouldn't be able to take any substantial form.

 

Yes, because it is a human invention. If you are saying that god exists because we have imagined him, then you are also saying that god is a human invention, and once again espousing atheist views.

Neptune exists whether we imagine it or not.

We've been through this before China. Your inability to retain knowledge and remember reasoning is getting in your way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

If you want to attack Strong Atheists, have at it, but you won't find me defending them.

As a quick way for you to remember what "atheist" means, just break down the root words: A (no) Theist (believer in a personal god). An atheist is someone who has not been convinced of the existence of a personal god; just like how a non basketball player is someone who does not play basketball.

 

No I am saying that if God does exist then we would exist in Its imagination...since God would be pointing to the original creator. Same would be of Neptune.

I'm also saying that going through a personal subjective experience of God, if that's what one calls it, is just as real and legitimate as going through a personal subjective experience of a piece of poetry that you thought up. Some poets and musicians say they receive the music and poetry, and so they don't even really necessarily think it up. The brain is simply the factory that the inspiration is received through. Receiving a Union with the Divine i feel is very similar.

 

Ratings are not knowledge. Knowledge is material and takes up space. There is no limit to the province of mind so knowledge flows freely into an open mind. Imagination is invaluable or crucial to perception.

 

Without the seed of the gene you wouldn't have substantial form. We do not create ourselves.

 

and you can't prove that the dna blueprint wasn't thought up by some higher mind. but, oh right, Occam's Razor says that i might as well not make that assumption, and should ensue to completely disregard that possibility...

 

Uh, even most people who believe in god would disagree with you on this point. Most people who believe in god believe that reality is "real", and not being imagined by god; god created the world, he doesn't just dream it.

God would be pointing to god? Neptune points to anything your mind connects to Neptune; pointing is an action of the mind, not of the object. You are having issues seeing too many arrows pointing and thinking each one is valid and worth taking seriously.

Ok, but when you imagine a piece of poetry, you know it's poetry, because the definition of poetry is "artful use of words, usually employing rhythm and rhyme". You don't mistake the haiku you just thought of for a rhinoceros.

When you imagine a subjective experience of "god", that doesn't fit with the definition of god, which is the omnipotent and eternal creator of the universe and giver and morals etc etc etc.

You think of a poem, and think "Ok, that poem is real, because I thought of it". No one argues with you, because the bar for what constitutes poetry is low enough and flexible enough that those words in your head meet the criteria.

You have a sensation of transcendence, and think "Ok, God is real, because I experienced him". Many will argue with you, because the bar for what constitutes god, or an experience of god, is high, and needs to be high. A sublime emotion or self-transcending experience doesn't cut it, because atheists have these as well, and so do just secular people who've never conceived of god. You are describing a neurological state, like hunger, or happiness. It is not enough to point to some cloud of sensations and emotions and say "See that, I call that god, therefore the universe was created by a being and is ruled over it".

You're making a leap here that is unfounded and unreasonable.

What thought up the higher mind?

 

Uh, even most people who believe in god would disagree with you on this point. Most people who believe in god believe that reality is "real", and not being imagined by god; god created the world, he doesn't just dream it.

We already went over that something needs to be thought of before it is created. In this case, it would be the world. Sorry man, but this is Christianity basics. In the beginning was the Word. Let there be Light, etc. etc.

God would be pointing to god? Neptune points to anything your mind connects to Neptune; pointing is an action of the mind, not of the object. You are having issues seeing too many arrows pointing and thinking each one is valid and worth taking seriously.

No, you're just having a hard time understanding a simple concept. I'm saying that the word "God" would be pointing to the "first thinker" so to speak. So what I am saying is that we would be thought up by God, not the other way around, that is if God hypothetically exists.

You have a sensation of transcendence, and think "Ok, God is real, because I experienced him". Many will argue with you, because the bar for what constitutes god, or an experience of god, is high, and needs to be high. A sublime emotion or self-transcending experience doesn't cut it, because atheists have these as well, and so do just secular people who've never conceived of god. You are describing a neurological state, like hunger, or happiness. It is not enough to point to some cloud of sensations and emotions and say "See that, I call that god, therefore the universe was created by a being and is ruled over it".

And likewise, arguing that a Mystical or transcendent experience isn't God just because you're an atheist and is nothing more than neurology is also just your own beliefs. There are just as many people saying that it IS an experience of union with God. So it equally doesn't cut it to highlight the physical data of a Mystical experience and leave it at that. I have already gone over before that every imaginable phenomena is going to have the data and scientific explanation to it. However, what you seem to not grasp is that explaining it away in a Neurological explanation has nothing to do with the subjective experience of it. It also isn't the one and only explanation. It's simply the physical data representation of said experience.

In the same way that you're saying it's pointless to say "see that, I call that God", meanwhile you're saying "See that, I call it a neurological state".


What thought up the higher mind?

if God exists then it would be infinite and have no beginning or end. Your question is no different than "who observes the observer?" Infinite consciousness is my argument and has been my argument and would be what I consider God to be, which is why it can take on any forms of different Gods also, but is still not limited to them.

 

No, it's neurology. We can induce mystical experiences both electrically and chemically, leaving the hypothesis of god unnecessary to explain mystical experiences.

If God doesn't need an explanation because of how infinite and transcendent he is, then why can't we just apply those characteristics to the universe (Which appears to be infinite and is manifestly transcendent)? Problem solved. No need to account for how the universe exists, anymore than you felt you needed to account for how god exists, and now don't need to bother with that messy and unproven concept.

 

A mystical experience doesn't define God itself. It is a Union with the Divine. Doesn't really matter if you induce it or not. DMT or eating Mushrooms is a type of inducing towards expanded/transcendent experiences.

As I have already said, there's always going to be the data representation of said experience.

If the Universe is infinite and God is infinite, then wouldn't the Universe equal God? Wouldn't it be one and the same, which is the same point I have been making over and over? A scientific vs. religious viewpoint or interpretation is yet just another way that God or the Universe expresses itself in its infinite variety.

 

Here you've switched the word "Mystical" for the word "divine" and think you've made a point. You've only used a thesaurus.

Exactly, and we know these things operate purely biochemically.

This is not the point you've been making at all, don't confuse the issue. The point you've been making is that we can't prove that god isn't real and that we all aren't just part of god's imagination. God as subject, imagining the universe, as object. You have been espousing a view which links the two together causally, not one which equates them. When you're slippery like this it only hurts the conversation and hurts your own mind, because you lose track of what you're even talking about.

If god and the universe are one, then why have a word for god? We already have one for universe. It's a good word. When you say "god" people think something very different from "the universe". If you haven't noticed, the dominant religion on earth is not pantheism. It is abrahamic theism, in which god and the universe are quite distinct. The words you use matter.

 

I have not switched the words. I have said from the beginning that a Mystical experience is a form of union with something that's divine. You can call it God/It/Universe, doesn't really matter.

Yes, I would agree that the word God is confusing and misused. This is why i say "when you ask if God is real, you first have to define what God is". The way i have defined God is being infinite consciousness, which therefore would still take the form of all the different gods in all the different religions.

I've already established my point on how I feel about psychedelic experiences. I don't see them as mere hallucinations, but rather tools that allow one's consciousness to experience things that can only be experienced via that tool, in the same way that you need certain tools to be able to detect infrared rays of light.

Simply explaining it away as a biochemical hallucination just again reflects your atheism belief and the belief that the brain creates consciousness, and doesn't channel consciousness. Scientists have not actually proved that the brain creates consciousness. They just see certain parts of the brain light up, and make the assumption that that area of the brain is the source of the thought, rather than just being the channeler.

God as subject or infinite consciousness thinking up the world of manifestation and God being one with manifestation are paradoxical, however, that doesn't make them untrue. They're two sides of one coin. If God thought up the world, then it would also simultaneously be the world itself. The world would be an extension of God in the same way that my thoughts and feelings and personality and body are an extension of myself.

When a musician writes a piece of music they simultaneously are the creator of the music and also one with the music that they themselves created and play.

 

.