Philosophy Now Forum

from sheer chaos becomes order and from order consciousness and from consciousness high intelligences. And as these intelligences grow smarter and smarter they become a creative force. From intelligence comes logic and the evolving continues on eternally til chaos totally dissappears.

Greta wrote:But Ken, why call it "God"? Why not call it "universe" or "reality"?

Firstly, thank you greta for the questions. Being questioned is truly refreshing, i really love it. Thanks again

Some words can have many different meanings but no two words can have the exact same meaning. If they did, then there would not be any use in having two different words. One word would suffice. For sake of clarity I wrote God and Universe to mean, just about, the exact same thing here. But on re-reading I could have expressed this much better. To Me, these three words mean three different things;
Universe, is all there is.
God, in the physical sense, is all physical things, and, in the spiritual sense, the Mind.
Reality, is what can come about or become real.

Greta wrote:It's hard to imagine a whole of personality in evidence when reality was just a blob of inflating superheated plasma. Reality has much more personality today.

And from how you are expressing reality, reality will have much more personality in the future, right?

In a way I was trying to express the Self, or the personality part, of the Universe as a Being - God. God being the knowing part of the Universe. When the Universe finally became fully Self-conscious, or fully aware, of Its Self, then I had evolved enough into Consciousness. I was and am aware of the real Self. To give this real knowing Self of the Universe a personality or a name we could call It, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, or any other of the names that we use for the supreme Being. I just happened to use God, here in this forum. Once I became fully aware or fully conscious of Self, I became Consciousness, It Self. Until human beings get to that point of being able to answer the question of, Who am 'I'? correctly, then they are not fully self-conscious or fully self-aware beings yet. Understanding how to separate who they think they are from the real and true Self comes about through the evolving process.

Universe is all there is.
Reality is what is really wanted by all there is, and what will come into fruition.
God knows all there is, knows how to manipulate all there is, and so will create what is really wanted by all there is.

To put it simply, all words have different definitions, some are so very subtle in difference to actually really notice. But all those subtle differences in the different definitions of each and every word needs to be looked at and understood to be able to understand all there is in Life.

Even the word life, has at least four distinct but slightly subtle different definitions that need to be understood before the meaning of life and Life can be truly understood.

The way words are written, said, used, and expressed is so very important in learning and discovering about ALL there is. The main reason I am here, in this forum, is to learn how to express better so that I am fully understood for who I really am. I know how important it is to be heard and understood correctly. By the way the reason why I did not call God, Universe, nor reality was so that there is no ambiguity, no confusion, nor any misinterpretation could be taken, whenever I will be fully questioned and challenged.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Were one a pantheist then God would simply be another word for universe or reality and so it would make no difference

Were one a pantheist, or any ist for that matter, then they would have beliefs, and then they would not be open. One needs to be open to learn and discover anew.

Greta wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Were one a pantheist then God would simply be another word for universe or reality and so it would make no difference

Semantically, "God" has much anthropocentric baggage while "universe" has an unsatisfactorily mechanical semantic.

It would be nice to have a word that captures the idea of a non-mechanical universe capable of growing intelligence and awareness.

Could Self be a word that captures this idea?

If the Universe is growing intelligently and aware, then who, or what, exactly is that maturing Self?

Hint:
To find the answer to this question look deep with-in, Willingly, Honestly, and, Openly, then WHO exactly that living Life force or Life energy from within that creates every thing actually IS can be discovered. As an intelligent human adult, by taking a truly responsible stand whilst seeking to change for the better, ALL will be revealed.

A truly responsible being takes control over everything, anyway. So, by NOT blaming any thing at all for what wrong you, as an adult, do while you are seeking to change, then you will learn or discover WHO 'you' and 'I' really are. WHO the true Self is will be revealed, once and for ALL.

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:But Ken, why call it "God"? Why not call it "universe" or "reality"?

... To Me, these three words mean three different things;

Universe, is all there is.
God, in the physical sense, is all physical things, and, in the spiritual sense, the Mind.
Reality, is what can come about or become real.

Ken, if the universe is all there is then that would include all physical things and the mind, and thus be identical to God, albeit with a label that carries different semantic baggage.

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:It's hard to imagine a whole of personality in evidence when reality was just a blob of inflating superheated plasma. Reality has much more personality today.

And from how you are expressing reality, reality will have much more personality in the future, right?

In a way I was trying to express the Self, or the personality part, of the Universe as a Being - God. God being the knowing part of the Universe. When the Universe finally became fully Self-conscious, or fully aware, of Its Self, then I had evolved enough into Consciousness. I was and am aware of the real Self. To give this real knowing Self of the Universe a personality or a name we could call It, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, or any other of the names that we use for the supreme Being. I just happened to use God, here in this forum.

It seems to me that the universe is a long way from becoming fully self-conscious. In fact, even the Earth - that cosmic hotbed of consciousness - is mostly not conscious, with only humans and smart species of mammals and birds being self aware. The rest of the Earth is rock, water, microbes, plants and animals with little, minimal or no consciousness, just various degrees of simple or proto-consciousness.

My guess is that God, as defined by the ancients, does not exist, although there may be something equally inspiring and encouraging going on in reality that we don't know about. However, godlike entities could conceivably evolve/develop in the far future.

ken wrote:Once I became fully aware or fully conscious of Self, I became Consciousness, It Self. Until human beings get to that point of being able to answer the question of, Who am 'I'? correctly, then they are not fully self-conscious or fully self-aware beings yet. Understanding how to separate who they think they are from the real and true Self comes about through the evolving process.

Consider our own journey to consciousness. Humans are potentially, not necessarily, consciously self aware, requiring experience and adult guidance to achieve it. Consider the mental state of "feral children" raised by animals - the most intractable seemingly did not have human consciousness. So experience and culture are pivotal to the creation of consciousness.

Do you remember "when the lights came on" as a child?

ken wrote:Even the word life, has at least four distinct but slightly subtle different definitions that need to be understood before the meaning of life and Life can be truly understood.

I like the notions of proto-life and proto-consciousness; they accord with my perceptions. Emergence doesn't occur from nothing but would seem more akin to a fractal flowering of certain properties of a more basic form. This hints at quasi panvitalism and panpsychism, "quasi" because the building blocks of life and consciousness are not alive and conscious in a way that we'd consider meaningful, only as derivatives of that which we do find meaningful.

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Were one a pantheist then God would simply be another word for universe or reality and so it would make no difference

Semantically, "God" has much anthropocentric baggage while "universe" has an unsatisfactorily mechanical semantic.

It would be nice to have a word that captures the idea of a non-mechanical universe capable of growing intelligence and awareness.

Could Self be a word that captures this idea?

If the Universe is growing intelligently and aware, then who, or what, exactly is that maturing Self?

"Self" has even more baggage!

Still looking for a suitable term.

Greta wrote:
It would be nice to have a word that captures the idea of a non mechanical universe capable of growing intelligence and awareness

The universe is not non mechanical as it is in a constant state of motion and this would be true even were it entirely devoid of life

Greta wrote: It would be nice to have a word that captures the idea of a non-mechanical universe capable of growing intelligence and awareness.

Wouldn't that already be denoted by the word "Cosmos or Kosmos" (Universe + Mind)? This is how Alexander von Humboldt imagined it as a synthesis of "science, nature and mankind"...an idea central to Carl Sagan's own Cosmos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_(Humboldt)

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:But Ken, why call it "God"? Why not call it "universe" or "reality"?

... To Me, these three words mean three different things;

Universe, is all there is.
God, in the physical sense, is all physical things, and, in the spiritual sense, the Mind.
Reality, is what can come about or become real.

Ken, if the universe is all there is then that would include all physical things and the mind, and thus be identical to God, albeit with a label that carries different semantic baggage.

No it does NOT, to Me.

Universe to Me means all there is.
God to Me means all there is besides those thoughts that lead ALL adult human beings to doing wrong. But you first have to know how the Mind and the brain actually work in order to fully understand this.

In the physical sense human bodies are moving around the earth doing wrong, this can be a part of God. But the thoughts that caused those wrong behaviors are not a part of God. A part of God is the Mind, which wholeheartedly KNOWS right from wrong, but what is not a part of God but which is still a part of the Universe, is all those thoughts within human bodies that cause and create all the wrong and the ills in the world. So, to Me, God is NOT identical to Universe.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:It's hard to imagine a whole of personality in evidence when reality was just a blob of inflating superheated plasma. Reality has much more personality today.

And from how you are expressing reality, reality will have much more personality in the future, right?

In a way I was trying to express the Self, or the personality part, of the Universe as a Being - God. God being the knowing part of the Universe. When the Universe finally became fully Self-conscious, or fully aware, of Its Self, then I had evolved enough into Consciousness. I was and am aware of the real Self. To give this real knowing Self of the Universe a personality or a name we could call It, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, or any other of the names that we use for the supreme Being. I just happened to use God, here in this forum.

It seems to me that the universe is a long way from becoming fully self-conscious.

A totally reasonable assumption on your part, considering where you are at.

To Me, however, the Universe has already become Self-conscious, I am already fully-aware of Who/What I am and all else, therefore I am Consciousness, Its Self. The Universe reaches full Consciousness after intelligent beings on a whole also become fully-aware of all of this and how all of this actually happens.

Greta wrote: In fact, even the Earth - that cosmic hotbed of consciousness - is mostly not conscious, with only humans and smart species of mammals and birds being self aware. The rest of the Earth is rock, water, microbes, plants and animals with little, minimal or no consciousness, just various degrees of simple or proto-consciousness.

To be self aware one has to know the correct answer to the question Who am I, first. I only know of one human being who can answer this question accurately, so far. So, human beings on a whole are not yet self-conscious, let alone being the One collective Self or full Consciousness yet.

Greta wrote:My guess is that God, as defined by the ancients, does not exist, although there may be something equally inspiring and encouraging going on in reality that we don't know about. However, godlike entities could conceivably evolve/develop in the far future.

Why do you presume the 'far' future? Is it because you think you are 'far' from learning and discovering these so called and perceived "mysteries" yet?

Once they are known, they are NOT a mystery anymore. There are no mysteries to Me.

I would have to see your definition of God, given by the "ancients", which you are talking about, to see if God could or does exist. Also, 'ancients' is a very relative term. The definitions given by people in today's terms are extremely very ancient to Me. The way in which human beings look at, define, and express words nowadays is the reason WHY most human beings are still very confused and still looking for, searching, and seeking answers. ALL answers to each and every metaphysical or meaningful question can be very easily, very quickly, and very simply answered, therefore the reason why what is seen as current or new knowledge today is very ancient to Me.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:Once I became fully aware or fully conscious of Self, I became Consciousness, It Self. Until human beings get to that point of being able to answer the question of, Who am 'I'? correctly, then they are not fully self-conscious or fully self-aware beings yet. Understanding how to separate who they think they are from the real and true Self comes about through the evolving process.

Consider our own journey to consciousness. Humans are potentially, not necessarily, consciously self aware, requiring experience and adult guidance to achieve it. Consider the mental state of "feral children" raised by animals - the most intractable seemingly did not have human consciousness. So experience and culture are pivotal to the creation of consciousness.

The creation of Consciousness evolves, just like every other thing. Experience and culture can not be avoided. I doubt there is only one way to reach Consciousness, but I only know of one way, so far. I, for one, was seen as a very "feral child" but if I have reached Consciousness or full Awareness, as I proclaim I have, then just maybe adult "guidance", of which I had very little, is more of a deterrent than of any real help to achieving full Consciousness.

For some, like Me, Consciousness has already evolved. For most though It has not, yet.

Greta wrote:Do you remember "when the lights came on" as a child?

And I also remember adults trying as hard as they could to extinguish those lights. Children taught and continually teach Me far more about Life and living, than any adult ever has. Also, the younger the child is the more they teach of what is actually right and wrong in Life. You just have to be fully open to listening to them, really listening that is.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:Even the word life, has at least four distinct but slightly subtle different definitions that need to be understood before the meaning of life and Life can be truly understood.

I like the notions of proto-life and proto-consciousness; they accord with my perceptions. Emergence doesn't occur from nothing but would seem more akin to a fractal flowering of certain properties of a more basic form. This hints at quasi panvitalism and panpsychism, "quasi" because the building blocks of life and consciousness are not alive and conscious in a way that we'd consider meaningful, only as derivatives of that which we do find meaningful.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here but for Me Consciousness arrived when I answered ALL the meaningful (or metaphysical) questions correctly. How I know they are the accurate answers is because when they were all put together they formed a full and perfect picture of Life. One that human beings still seem to be searching and looking for.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:

Greta wrote: Semantically, "God" has much anthropocentric baggage while "universe" has an unsatisfactorily mechanical semantic.

It would be nice to have a word that captures the idea of a non-mechanical universe capable of growing intelligence and awareness.

Could Self be a word that captures this idea?

If the Universe is growing intelligently and aware, then who, or what, exactly is that maturing Self?

"Self" has even more baggage!

Because you are thinking of the human being self, and not the far more meaningful Self, which resides far deeper down in truth and reality. The One who I really am, that is.

Greta wrote:Still looking for a suitable term.

Spirit
Allah
God
Enlightenment

There are many more words I am sure you could find and choose from.

The words I use already form together perfectly, painting a true and accurate picture. I am not looking for anything else in this regard.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Greta wrote:
It would be nice to have a word that captures the idea of a non mechanical universe capable of growing intelligence and awareness

The universe is not non mechanical as it is in a constant state of motion and this would be true even were it entirely devoid of life

To Me the Universe is Life, It Self.

I wonder what human beings are actually looking for when they ask, Is there life out there?

I can not think of one thing that is not in a constant state of motion, and thus change, which to Me is what life refers to. Everything is relative to the observer, so the rate of change may not be that noticeable, therefore some things may appear devoid of life but are actually not. But then again this is also relative to how one observes 'life', and its definition.

Lacewing wrote:Although I don’t believe in a god entity that exists separately and “reigns” over all of life, I have always seen ongoing and continual signs of an interconnectedness throughout all. It makes the most sense to me that the idea of “God” must include and reside in ALL equally. Why would there be anything NOT of “God”? Why would there be any “insides” and “outsides” of God -– such designations are surely the ideas of man, for man’s manipulation and self-promotion.

Lacewing - this is the best post i've seen you make - you appear to finally be contemplating God which is great to start with, but that you are actually looking at the concept beyond pre-conceived ideas about God.

I've always been vexed that you talk about the connected energy of everything and seemed not to real eyes that there is only a small step to comprehend a being that is this very fabric of the universe and indeed reality.

I know you don't like it when i state my knowledge of this entity, but i'm not going to lie or hide what i have come to understand regarding its nature. Please consider Panentheism (not to be confused with Pantheism).

Lacewing wrote:Therefore, I think it’s most reasonable to view any god force as inherent and equally distributed -– because, again, what ELSE is there? So if all is god, then that would point to all of us being examples of the many creative explorations and aspects of God. God playing and exploring through all of it/us. Each person reflecting a different potential to be manifested and explored: a different balance of attributes, ego, intoxication, needs, fears, courage, vision, clarity, etc.

Awesome!

Lacewing wrote:All of this "God" potential is being expressed through many different characteristics, while being narrowly defined and judged by man’s limited and controlling vision/understanding. As parts of God argue that they are MORE of God, they demonstrate that particular manifestation of creative delusion and ego. Whereas God is actually ALL creative energy/exploration of infinite/ever-expanding potential. Nothing more sacred than anything else. ALL divine! ALL "God" -- because why would anything be excluded?

Yes, but i am trying to be as rational as i can regarding the possibilities regarding the nature of its existence, which i why i sometimes refer to God - as God\'God'. On the first hand, God being divine, but on the second hand, 'God' being A.I. - something that perhaps we have evolved into.

Well done on starting this thread.

ken wrote:In the physical sense human bodies are moving around the earth doing wrong, this can be a part of God. But the thoughts that caused those wrong behaviors are not a part of God. A part of God is the Mind, which wholeheartedly KNOWS right from wrong, but what is not a part of God but which is still a part of the Universe, is all those thoughts within human bodies that cause and create all the wrong and the ills in the world. So, to Me, God is NOT identical to Universe.

We part at this point. I do not believe in evil, demons, demonic entities, nothing like that. I believe in a balance in the tug-o-war games between growth and entropy, and between order and chaos. Not everyone is born to be a 'white hat". It's not their fault (although that does not preclude actions taken against to preserve public safety and order).

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:It seems to me that the universe is a long way from becoming fully self-conscious.

A totally reasonable assumption on your part, considering where you are at.

It's nothing to do with where I "am at". Almost all of the universe is not sentient. In fact, only a minuscule proportion of the Earth is sentient.

ken wrote:To Me, however, the Universe has already become Self-conscious

A minuscule part of the universe has awoken. Almost all of it is still asleep, though.

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:My guess is that God, as defined by the ancients, does not exist, although there may be something equally inspiring and encouraging going on in reality that we don't know about. However, godlike entities could conceivably evolve/develop in the far future.

Why do you presume the 'far' future? Is it because you think you are 'far' from learning and discovering these so called and perceived "mysteries" yet?

[/quote]
The "far future" because it will take many billions of years for life (or "post-life") to evolve to the point where they can spread intelligence around a largely insensate and unthinking cosmos. The problem of timely interstellar travel remains unsolvable at this stage.

attofishpi wrote:Lacewing - this is the best post i've seen you make

Well, thank you... but maybe you haven't been paying attention?? Nothing has changed for me... I have felt (and expressed) this all along (when I'm not cursing at people). I can't help but rally against the idea of some sort of BEING that we are all to be subservient to -- and that other men are to define and translate FOR US -- because that's just so twisted and lazy and convoluted and controlling. From my perspective, there is no reason that we aren't ALL the eyes and spirits of creation... exploring and demonstrating ALL potentials... and NO ONE is more divine than anyone else. So when people claim that they have some "insider track" to a god, I just think "Really? Boy could I show you some stuff... and I'm not a Christian!" From my view, there is spirit EVERYWHERE... pulsating... like blood flow. It's just kind of sickening when people separate themselves out as being more divine than others.

attofishpi wrote:you appear to finally be contemplating God which is great to start with, but that you are actually looking at the concept beyond pre-conceived ideas about God.

I've been doing this a long time Atto. If some people don't understand what I'm saying because they are used to compartmentalizing everything in a somewhat conventional way, there's little I can do about that. I don't operate or speak (maybe) within conventional means much of the time. I think being a free spirit is the most beautiful form of divinity there is. All the rest seems convoluted to me.

attofishpi wrote:I've always been vexed that you talk about the connected energy of everything and seemed not to real eyes that there is only a small step to comprehend a being that is this very fabric of the universe and indeed reality.

Maybe that's because that's your view, and you can't imagine outside of it, perhaps? In my view, there is no SEPARATE being. We're all of the same stuff. We are the eyes and ears and hands and egos and fears of god. All of it. There is NO SEPARATE THING. To make something separate... to imagine something separate... is a human fantasy.

attofishpi wrote:I know you don't like it when i state my knowledge of this entity, but i'm not going to lie or hide what i have come to understand regarding its nature.

HONESTLY... if you gain inspiration and comfort and awareness from ANYTHING AT ALL... that's beautiful. What I challenge is when someone claims that their experience reflects a template or truth of ultimate reality for all.

When someone says "I know God exists"... why don't they add on the end "for me"? Because that's what it is!! We all have fantastic experiences that are real for us. Why do we need to fight to keep anyone from superimposing THEIR OWN REALITY/FANTASY onto us? And then, even worse, why do we need to fight to keep theists from telling atheists how immoral or undirected they are? It's so absurd and disrespectful and stupid. I just don't understand how theists who make such claims can be that short-sighted and dumb.

attofishpi wrote:Well done on starting this thread.

Thank you. I'm very glad that you see value in what I've expressed.

I am a very spiritual person... just not a theist. I don't need or want a label as to what I am. I just hope that some people can see that I am authentically exploring and expressing the full spectrum right now, of what I see as ALL OF "GOD"/potential... with love and humor, but also with sharp swipes, meant to challenge conventions. It gets people's attention more than being Miss Nicey Nice. And it has taught me a lot about myself and other people in the process.

Here's how I see it: It's ALL GOD. There is no separate being. But we EACH may perceive one thing or another that blows our mind. In the end... we're all the same ONE!! Whatever works for other people is fine as long as they don't tell me that their view is some sort of ultimate truth that applies to me whether I agree or not. That's like one part of God telling another part of God what God is supposed to be.

ken wrote:
Spirit
Allah
God
Enlightenment

There are many more words I am sure you could find and choose from.

The words I use already form together perfectly, painting a true and accurate picture. I am not looking for anything else in this regard.

You wouldn't be able to look for anything else since there is ONLY what's looking anyway and is every where and every thing. All that truly exists is the observer which cannot be seen or known by what it is looking at or seeing.
And that's just about as good as it's going to get, there is nothing outside of THIS immediate instantaneous observing...aka KNOWING AWARENESS

The problem with words is they are not the whole picture. Words divide. They appear as the picture, but are not the whole picture.. Words can appear to divide what is always and ever whole, but they cannot be used to make that division whole again, just as a pair of scissors can cut a whole piece of paper in two, but cannot be used to make the two one. But no matter, wholeness /oneness is like a stick ..it will always be a stick no matter how many times one cuts a bit off the end. No thing can divide oneness because oneness is already ''all things''

The answer to the question of what is God ..is not found in the conceptual picture of God... it is found in who or what's painting the picture in the first place. In other words, the painter is never in the picture, the picture is in the painter.

Reality is likened to a dream, the dreamer is not found in the dream. The dreamer is that in which the whole dream is arising. And there is only the dream.