Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:57 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:54 pm Yes... the WORD is "God".

And that is why I write software. I create Language.

That is funny! I was married to a computer system architect... and he thought he was "god". Now I understand a bit better. Hee hee.

It's so fascinating to step outside of our own stories... and play with them instead of being defined and driven by them.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:04 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:57 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:54 pm Yes... the WORD is "God".

And that is why I write software. I create Language.

That is funny! I was married to a computer system architect... and he thought he was "god". Now I understand a bit better. Hee hee.

It's so fascinating to step outside of our own stories... and play with them instead of being defined and driven by them.

As per my previous comment, I would guess you divorced him because he was trying to be the God from the old testament

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:02 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:00 pm Vanity, jealousy and being vengeful are considered weaknesses so the literary character called 'God' is definitely not a pleasant or admirable one.

Which is why the Old and New testament stand in contrast. The evolution of the Old God (human nature) into the New God (we are still busy figuring out what that ideal looks like)

I was a vengeful, insecure, condescending, mean, egotistical asshole who put himself first and put everybody down in pursuit of "truth". I thought I am smarter than everyone.

Now I stand here as I am.

I really wish women wrote a Bible too. So I could better understand their God-character-evolution is like!

Different book, different fictional character. It's just a shame that most humans are too stupid to know which is which.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:05 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:04 pm I was married to a computer system architect... and he thought he was "god". Now I understand a bit better. Hee hee.

As per my previous comment, I would guess you divorced him because he was trying to be the God from the old testament

Well, actually... he was very open-minded and cosmic. That's why I married him. I divorced him because he sort of "went over the edge". Too many drugs or something... and I wanted to expand beyond that. There's always more expansion beyond what we experience/know... that's what excites me.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:11 pm Different book, different character. It's just a shame that most humans are too stupid to know which is which.

Which tells you that they do not recognize the contrast within themselves. So they are the God of the old testament

Help them out of that abyss! They are lost!

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:12 pm Well, actually... he was very open-minded and cosmic. That's why I married him. I divorced him because he sort of "went over the edge". Too many drugs or something... and I wanted to expand beyond that. There's always more expansion beyond what we experience/know... that's what excites me.

I am going to take that as a warning sign. I have worked my way up to my perspective without any drugs/psychedelics whatsoever. Only reason. And 20 years doubt

I don't feel the need to try psychedelics/drugs to 'expand my mind' - the universe is already complex enough to mindfuck me! And I am somewhat skeptical of people who think drugs add a new perspective.

I am only curious for the experience itself.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:15 pm I don't feel the need to try psychedelics/drugs to 'expand my mind' - the universe is already complex enough to mindfuck me!

Although it was useful to me at the time, I do not recommend it. It blew the doors off of my Christian upbringing, among other things. It can be a tool, like anything... to create or destroy. I would leave it to each individual to know what tools they need for what they want to achieve.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:15 pmAnd I am somewhat skeptical of people who think drugs add a new perspective.

Like all things, it depends on the person. A lot of people who do drugs are very stupid. There are also brilliant people who STILL do drugs. I haven't for a long time, and have no further interest (not even pot). I am grateful for my experiences which were perfect for me at that time. Now there are other experiences that are perfect NOW. There is SO MUCH that can be realized in every moment. These days I'm more interested in the astounding power/potential of "vibrations". Many levels. There is plenty to consciously practice and explore in that. It's free, I don't need a dealer, and there's no hangover. It's just the ecstatic experience of vibration in the moment with awareness.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:34 pm Like all things, it depends on the person. A lot of people who do drugs are very stupid. There are also brilliant people who STILL do drugs. I haven't for a long time, and have no further interest (not even pot). I am grateful for my experiences which were perfect for me at that time. Now there are other experiences that are perfect NOW. There is SO MUCH that can be realized in every moment. These days I'm more interested in the astounding power/potential of "vibrations". Many levels. There is plenty to consciously practice and explore in that. It's free, I don't need a dealer, and there's no hangover. It's just the ecstatic experience of vibration in the moment with awareness.

The moment I hear vibrations, reverberations and equilibriums my mind gravitates to quantum physics. And even then one must not forget to juxtapose it all with stillness and tranquility. But here is TimeSeeker again trying to figure out how to pause time.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:36 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:06 am Have you ever entertained the possibility that what appears to be a pointlessness to some of the objects in the universe is their point?

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:09 am Nope, because they are rocks and gas clouds. They each have a fate but not control or awareness about it.

You are fixating on the features of the façade while failing to look deeply into the nature of the substance that the façade is made of.

1. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “local reality” the substance presents itself as rocks and gas clouds (and suns and planets).

2. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “non-local reality” the substance presents itself as an informationally-based essence existing in a superpositioned state of interpenetrating oneness.

3. However, from an extreme metaphysical perspective, the substance appears to be a “mind-like” essence that is capable of becoming absolutely anything “imaginable” – just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams.

The point is, stop focusing on point #1 and pay more attention to the implications of point #3.

#3 is an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary backing for that supposition?

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:01 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:36 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:06 am Have you ever entertained the possibility that what appears to be a pointlessness to some of the objects in the universe is their point?

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:09 am Nope, because they are rocks and gas clouds. They each have a fate but not control or awareness about it.

You are fixating on the features of the façade while failing to look deeply into the nature of the substance that the façade is made of.

1. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “local reality” the substance presents itself as rocks and gas clouds (and suns and planets).

2. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “non-local reality” the substance presents itself as an informationally-based essence existing in a superpositioned state of interpenetrating oneness.

3. However, from an extreme metaphysical perspective, the substance appears to be a “mind-like” essence that is capable of becoming absolutely anything “imaginable” – just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams.

The point is, stop focusing on point #1 and pay more attention to the implications of point #3.

#3 is an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary backing for that supposition?

Sick; really, really sick. Even the universe isn’t good enough for some people.

Reflex wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:15 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:01 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:36 pm

You are fixating on the features of the façade while failing to look deeply into the nature of the substance that the façade is made of.

1. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “local reality” the substance presents itself as rocks and gas clouds (and suns and planets).

2. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “non-local reality” the substance presents itself as an informationally-based essence existing in a superpositioned state of interpenetrating oneness.

3. However, from an extreme metaphysical perspective, the substance appears to be a “mind-like” essence that is capable of becoming absolutely anything “imaginable” – just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams.

The point is, stop focusing on point #1 and pay more attention to the implications of point #3.

#3 is an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary backing for that supposition?

Sick; really, really sick. Even the universe isn’t good enough for some people.

Did you lack humour as a child or did that happen later on?

philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:48 pm All (or most) religious people consider their deity to be strong, capable of omnipotence.

What if the opposite was the case - that God is only omnibenevolent, but not only does God lack omnipotence, s(he) is completely dependent on human goodwill to survive - in return God gives comfort.

If I had a choice, of which deity I prefer, I definitely do not prefer the alpha male-deity.

I prefer the weak omnibenevolent deity.

why do you think your preferred God/s is the God/s that ARE (assuming they ARE)?

Pride is one of the Seven sir.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:28 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:48 pm All (or most) religious people consider their deity to be strong, capable of omnipotence.

What if the opposite was the case - that God is only omnibenevolent, but not only does God lack omnipotence, s(he) is completely dependent on human goodwill to survive - in return God gives comfort.

If I had a choice, of which deity I prefer, I definitely do not prefer the alpha male-deity.

I prefer the weak omnibenevolent deity.

How in the world could an entity that is capable of creating the entire universe...

(i.e., a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets, including all corporeal lifeforms)

...be thought of as being “weak”?

_______

Chronos was overthown by his son Zeus,

same with YHWH - His Son Jesus has taken over.

so your argument is not sound, gods are overthown/replaced all the time, regardless of if they created the Universe or not.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:36 pm You are fixating on the features of the façade while failing to look deeply into the nature of the substance that the façade is made of.

1. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “local reality” the substance presents itself as rocks and gas clouds (and suns and planets).

2. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “non-local reality” the substance presents itself as an informationally-based essence existing in a superpositioned state of interpenetrating oneness.

3. However, from an extreme metaphysical perspective, the substance appears to be a “mind-like” essence that is capable of becoming absolutely anything “imaginable” – just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams.

The point is, stop focusing on point #1 and pay more attention to the implications of point #3.
_______

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:01 pm #3 is an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary backing for that supposition?

Greta, I fully realize that anything I have to say on this matter is speculation, however, before I answer your question, would you please clarify for me in what way point #3 seems extraordinary to you?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:34 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:36 pm You are fixating on the features of the façade while failing to look deeply into the nature of the substance that the façade is made of.

1. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “local reality” the substance presents itself as rocks and gas clouds (and suns and planets).

2. From the perspective of what physicists refer to as “non-local reality” the substance presents itself as an informationally-based essence existing in a superpositioned state of interpenetrating oneness.

3. However, from an extreme metaphysical perspective, the substance appears to be a “mind-like” essence that is capable of becoming absolutely anything “imaginable” – just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams.

The point is, stop focusing on point #1 and pay more attention to the implications of point #3.
_______

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:01 pm #3 is an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary backing for that supposition?

Greta, I fully realize that anything I have to say on this matter is speculation, however, before I answer your question, would you please clarify for me in what way point #3 seems extraordinary to you?

I was mostly just teasing, you know ... the old "ha ha, don't get too excited, rocks are just rocks" buzzkill

I'm a big fan of unheralded geology and plasma which, aside from space, make up almost all of our reality. The stuff has done some interesting things in the last 13.8b years so far, obviously enough.

Maybe the very distant future will bring extraordinary evolution and subsequent developments that will connect the cosmos, to make it all work like a huge consciousness? Then again, maybe not. Issues such as interstellar space, intergalactic space, perhaps The Great Filter (as in the Fermi Paradox) or even a possible "big rip" stand in the way of that happening.

Not every animal or person gets to reach their potentials so perhaps there's no reason why the universe should do so, nor for us to be an important part of its development. For all we know we might be a small anomaly or cul-de-sac and the real action might be happening in distant parts. Or, then again, humanity might be the star players or the pioneers, or the last, for that matter.