God(s)

[Eodnhoj7]

In light of quantum foam...

Not real.

all phenomena occur spontaneously from void...

Not real.

thus all reocurrence of variables necessitate an element of randomness from them.

The randomness is apparent: there is a scalar natural progression which expands indefinitely at the speed of light,
and an inverse scalar gravitational contraction. All physical/cosmic phenomena are defined by relationships
(ie. displacements) from the speed of light c.

This randomness to knowledge means order spontaneously occurs. A psychological example of this would be images spontaneously appearing from the subconsciousness.

The randomness is not random - it has motion(s) associated with it.

As such belief is a necessary subsidiary to knowledge as knowledge takes on a random pattern of spontaneously occuring, while beliefs spontaneously occur as well.

evil........live
↓{to believe}↑
↓.{all}{not}.↑
↓{to know}..↑
____________
KNOW to TRY: both {to} and {not}: to BELIEVE
KNOW to TEST: both {true} and {not}
KNOW to FALSIFY: all BELIEF(s) not necessarily {true}
...ad infinitum...

Knowledge does not spontaneously occur,
insight/inspiration does this
which may (or may not) lead to knowledge.

Not real.

[tapaticmadness]

I just now discovered this topic on this forum and I have a thing or two to say about the gods, which I do believe in. I’m sorry if my ideas don’t fit into a thread of thought that is developing here, but they may be helpful anyway. I am a metaphysical realist. That means that I believe that universals (aka Platonic Forms) do exist. They are not subjective nor shadows of language. They are real, i.e. they exist external, separate from and independent of mind. Yes, minds exist and they are not brains. Moreover, I see these metaphysical things, the universals, directly, without going through mental constructs or concepts to get at them. That is Direct Realism. Actually I don’t believe that so-called “subjective” things exist at all. It is all objective, including illusions, misprision, hallucinations, error, dreams, and all manner of abstraction. Got it? I’m rather old school conservative in my philosophy. And religious, thus the gods.

So what does a god, a universal, look like when a person directly sees one? First off, it’s going to be indefinite, rather vague, more like trance-thought. Let’s say you go down to the Mall to buy a shirt. You are a fashionable guy and you sort of know what is trending. You approach the store and fragments of images swim past your imagination. Nothing definite. But you feel a certain exhilaration. The shopping gods are grabbing hold of you. You go in the store and have an initial look around. Color and form and sparkle everywhere. You are a little lost as to where to begin. Fashion. Ah, fashion. It’s so ephemeral. Appearance without substance. Yes, you are a shaman and you have entered the spirit world. The store music drives you on. You are coming undone.

What we have here is a titillation, frisson, a charge. The rush comes. And the feeling that you are falling for something not right. The gods are always a bit scandalous. Delectation, a kick. Money, the substance of your existence is draining away.

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

[henry quirk]

I just now discovered this topic on this forum and I have a thing or two to say about the gods, which I do believe in. I’m sorry if my ideas don’t fit into a thread of thought that is developing here, but they may be helpful anyway. I am a metaphysical realist. That means that I believe that universals (aka Platonic Forms) do exist. They are not subjective nor shadows of language. They are real, i.e. they exist external, separate from and independent of mind. Yes, minds exist and they are not brains. Moreover, I see these metaphysical things, the universals, directly, without going through mental constructs or concepts to get at them. That is Direct Realism. Actually I don’t believe that so-called “subjective” things exist at all. It is all objective, including illusions, misprision, hallucinations, error, dreams, and all manner of abstraction. Got it? I’m rather old school conservative in my philosophy. And religious, thus the gods.

So what does a god, a universal, look like when a person directly sees one? First off, it’s going to be indefinite, rather vague, more like trance thought. Let’s say you go down to the Mall to buy a shirt. You are a fashionable guy and you sort of know what is trending. You approach the store and fragments of images swim past your imagination. Nothing definite. But you feel a certain exhilaration. The shopping gods are grabbing hold of you. You go in the store and have an initial look around. Color and form and sparkle everywhere. You are a little lost as to where to begin. Fashion. Ah, fashion. It’s so ephemeral. Appearance without substance. Yes, you are a shaman and you have entered the spirit world. The store music drives you on. You are coming undone.

What we have here is a titillation, frisson, a charge. The rush comes. And the feeling that you are falling for something not right. The gods are always a bit scandalous. Delectation, a kick. Money, the substance of your existence is draining away.

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

Hey, tap...

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

As a deist, I believe in a god. I can't speak of his nature directly cuz he's gone, but I like to think, if he were around, I could sit down with him, have coffee with him, and pick his brain.

[Eodnhoj7]

I just now discovered this topic on this forum and I have a thing or two to say about the gods, which I do believe in. I’m sorry if my ideas don’t fit into a thread of thought that is developing here, but they may be helpful anyway. I am a metaphysical realist. That means that I believe that universals (aka Platonic Forms) do exist. They are not subjective nor shadows of language. They are real, i.e. they exist external, separate from and independent of mind. Yes, minds exist and they are not brains. Moreover, I see these metaphysical things, the universals, directly, without going through mental constructs or concepts to get at them. That is Direct Realism. Actually I don’t believe that so-called “subjective” things exist at all. It is all objective, including illusions, misprision, hallucinations, error, dreams, and all manner of abstraction. Got it? I’m rather old school conservative in my philosophy. And religious, thus the gods.

So what does a god, a universal, look like when a person directly sees one? First off, it’s going to be indefinite, rather vague, more like trance-thought. Let’s say you go down to the Mall to buy a shirt. You are a fashionable guy and you sort of know what is trending. You approach the store and fragments of images swim past your imagination. Nothing definite. But you feel a certain exhilaration. The shopping gods are grabbing hold of you. You go in the store and have an initial look around. Color and form and sparkle everywhere. You are a little lost as to where to begin. Fashion. Ah, fashion. It’s so ephemeral. Appearance without substance. Yes, you are a shaman and you have entered the spirit world. The store music drives you on. You are coming undone.

What we have here is a titillation, frisson, a charge. The rush comes. And the feeling that you are falling for something not right. The gods are always a bit scandalous. Delectation, a kick. Money, the substance of your existence is draining away.

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

Well written post.

If the Gods, as powers and principles, exist through being percieved are they entirely seperate from the mind?

[Eodnhoj7]

I just now discovered this topic on this forum and I have a thing or two to say about the gods, which I do believe in. I’m sorry if my ideas don’t fit into a thread of thought that is developing here, but they may be helpful anyway. I am a metaphysical realist. That means that I believe that universals (aka Platonic Forms) do exist. They are not subjective nor shadows of language. They are real, i.e. they exist external, separate from and independent of mind. Yes, minds exist and they are not brains. Moreover, I see these metaphysical things, the universals, directly, without going through mental constructs or concepts to get at them. That is Direct Realism. Actually I don’t believe that so-called “subjective” things exist at all. It is all objective, including illusions, misprision, hallucinations, error, dreams, and all manner of abstraction. Got it? I’m rather old school conservative in my philosophy. And religious, thus the gods.

So what does a god, a universal, look like when a person directly sees one? First off, it’s going to be indefinite, rather vague, more like trance thought. Let’s say you go down to the Mall to buy a shirt. You are a fashionable guy and you sort of know what is trending. You approach the store and fragments of images swim past your imagination. Nothing definite. But you feel a certain exhilaration. The shopping gods are grabbing hold of you. You go in the store and have an initial look around. Color and form and sparkle everywhere. You are a little lost as to where to begin. Fashion. Ah, fashion. It’s so ephemeral. Appearance without substance. Yes, you are a shaman and you have entered the spirit world. The store music drives you on. You are coming undone.

What we have here is a titillation, frisson, a charge. The rush comes. And the feeling that you are falling for something not right. The gods are always a bit scandalous. Delectation, a kick. Money, the substance of your existence is draining away.

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

Hey, tap...

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

As a deist, I believe in a god. I can't speak of his nature directly cuz he's gone, but I like to think, if he were around, I could sit down with him, have coffee with him, and pick his brain.

Would God still be God without omnipresence?

[tapaticmadness]

If the Gods, as powers and principles, exist through being percieved are they entirely seperate from the mind?

What would it mean to say they are NOT separate from the mind. Is the mind a generator that creates such things? Is it a container that somehow holds them? If they depend on the mind, what is that dependence thing? The words "powers" and "principles" are downright medieval. I love medieval things. Choirs of angels and all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology

[tapaticmadness]

Would God still be God without omnipresence?

As Martin Luther said when asked about the omnipresence of God, Oh ya, well, is he in the asshole of a beetle?

[henry quirk]

I just now discovered this topic on this forum and I have a thing or two to say about the gods, which I do believe in. I’m sorry if my ideas don’t fit into a thread of thought that is developing here, but they may be helpful anyway. I am a metaphysical realist. That means that I believe that universals (aka Platonic Forms) do exist. They are not subjective nor shadows of language. They are real, i.e. they exist external, separate from and independent of mind. Yes, minds exist and they are not brains. Moreover, I see these metaphysical things, the universals, directly, without going through mental constructs or concepts to get at them. That is Direct Realism. Actually I don’t believe that so-called “subjective” things exist at all. It is all objective, including illusions, misprision, hallucinations, error, dreams, and all manner of abstraction. Got it? I’m rather old school conservative in my philosophy. And religious, thus the gods.

So what does a god, a universal, look like when a person directly sees one? First off, it’s going to be indefinite, rather vague, more like trance thought. Let’s say you go down to the Mall to buy a shirt. You are a fashionable guy and you sort of know what is trending. You approach the store and fragments of images swim past your imagination. Nothing definite. But you feel a certain exhilaration. The shopping gods are grabbing hold of you. You go in the store and have an initial look around. Color and form and sparkle everywhere. You are a little lost as to where to begin. Fashion. Ah, fashion. It’s so ephemeral. Appearance without substance. Yes, you are a shaman and you have entered the spirit world. The store music drives you on. You are coming undone.

What we have here is a titillation, frisson, a charge. The rush comes. And the feeling that you are falling for something not right. The gods are always a bit scandalous. Delectation, a kick. Money, the substance of your existence is draining away.

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

Hey, tap...

So do indefinite, dreamy things exist?

As a deist, I believe in a god. I can't speak of his nature directly cuz he's gone, but I like to think, if he were around, I could sit down with him, have coffee with him, and pick his brain.

Would God still be God without omnipresence?

Hell if I know. Seems to me, though, if a guy can design and create a universe, a Reality, then he's operatin' in the realm of god. If he can craft composite beings (us), free wills in a deterministic universe, then he has good reason to strut the god strut. He's probably an insufferable jackass. (which is why I'm glad he's gone).

[tapaticmadness]

Hell if I know. Seems to me, though, if a guy can design and create a universe, a Reality, then he's operatin' in the realm of god. If he can craft composite beings (us), free wills in a deterministic universe, then he has good reason to strut the god strut. He's probably an insufferable jackass. (which is why I'm glad he's gone).

[/quote]

If that god is a real beauty, then he might have special rights. Oscar Wilde said that beautiful people have rights and privileges that the rest of us don't have, even if they are insufferable.

[henry quirk]

If that god is a real beauty, then he might have special rights. Oscar Wilde said that beautiful people have rights and privileges that the rest of us don't have, even if they are insufferable.

He's probably a misshapen hunchback: fantastic artist, real hard on the eyes.

[Eodnhoj7]

If the Gods, as powers and principles, exist through being percieved are they entirely seperate from the mind?

What would it mean to say they are NOT separate from the mind. Is the mind a generator that creates such things? Is it a container that somehow holds them? If they depend on the mind, what is that dependence thing? The words "powers" and "principles" are downright medieval. I love medieval things. Choirs of angels and all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology

If they are not seperate from the mind, then the mind, at least partially, is responsible for generating them.

[tapaticmadness]

If the Gods, as powers and principles, exist through being percieved are they entirely seperate from the mind?

What would it mean to say they are NOT separate from the mind. Is the mind a generator that creates such things? Is it a container that somehow holds them? If they depend on the mind, what is that dependence thing? The words "powers" and "principles" are downright medieval. I love medieval things. Choirs of angels and all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology

If they are not seperate from the mind, then the mind, at least partially, is responsible for generating them.

Yes, I agree, but what could that act of generation be? I can't make any sense out of it.

[Eodnhoj7]

What would it mean to say they are NOT separate from the mind. Is the mind a generator that creates such things? Is it a container that somehow holds them? If they depend on the mind, what is that dependence thing? The words "powers" and "principles" are downright medieval. I love medieval things. Choirs of angels and all that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelology

If they are not seperate from the mind, then the mind, at least partially, is responsible for generating them.

Yes, I agree, but what could that act of generation be? I can't make any sense out of it.

Mind generating mind. I can't seem to find anything deeper than the convergence and divergence of forms with certain forms, as principles or powers, acting as underlying archetypes which form reality like a prism.

[tapaticmadness]

Mind generating mind. I can't seem to find anything deeper than the convergence and divergence of forms with certain forms, as principles or powers, acting as underlying archetypes which form reality like a prism.

I think what you are saying is that there are certain individual objects that have certain formal properties and those individuals converge and diverge. These formal properties are the principles and powers. They are the archetypes that form reality. If I understand you correctly, those forms are not just abstractions, but they “belong” to certain individuals. Would I be wrong to say that your world is primarily filled with individuals and that forms inhere(?) in them. There are no forms by themselves without being “in” certain individuals. Is that Aristotle’s substance-attribute ontology? Individuals are primary and independent, while formal properties are secondary and they are dependent on their underlying individual substance.

I’m not sure how you would analyze mind and perception. Perhaps you could help me with that.

[Eodnhoj7]

Mind generating mind. I can't seem to find anything deeper than the convergence and divergence of forms with certain forms, as principles or powers, acting as underlying archetypes which form reality like a prism.

I think what you are saying is that there are certain individual objects that have certain formal properties and those individuals converge and diverge. These formal properties are the principles and powers. They are the archetypes that form reality. If I understand you correctly, those forms are not just abstractions, but they “belong” to certain individuals. Would I be wrong to say that your world is primarily filled with individuals and that forms inhere(?) in them.
It could be stated as such, with everything diverging from an omnipresent center point.


There are no forms by themselves without being “in” certain individuals. Is that Aristotle’s substance-attribute ontology?
Both form and individual appear simultaneously. Aristotle and Plato are two sides of the same coin, all diverging and reconverging through a center point.


Individuals are primary and independent, while formal properties are secondary and they are dependent on their underlying individual substance.

I’m not sure how you would analyze mind and perception. Perhaps you could help me with that.

Empirical and abstract phenomenon cycle through eachother, no one came before the other.