God-- but not as you Know It.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2011, 07:16 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2011 09:52 PM by Mr Woof.)
God-- but not as you Know It.
Thousands of religions and cults teach us of their gods, conveniently suited to their hopes, welfare, and aspirations.
The major essense of all gods is total power,absolute wisdom,a knowing of everything ,and a great love for its human creations. In terms of any intelligence, potentially inherent within an ever expanding Universe, it is folly to pay homage to such distorted views of reality as it exists within our finite grasp.

The question I would like to address is whether humankind in its anthropomorphic creation of gods to suit our developing thought patterns, has de-railed the possibility of a different kind of god, a largely ineffable god, akin to the natural laws and systems to which we have become familiar.

Is it possible that an ever evolving universal force of goodness could exist ....an ever changing system finding itself, ever improving, but never reaching an absolute state, which by its stagnation would bring the system to finality. The word stagnation of course may not be relevant within 'higher states' an dI use this word reservedly and in keeping with how we view the notion of "perfection". the Gods of secular man, apart from much scripture could have spiritual meanings of varying degree, subject to wher individuals may be spiritually at any given time.

The great majority, if not all of our religions postulate an end time for god's creatures.....a Nirvana, Heaven, Paradise etc , all of which suggest AN END geared to our ultra limited concepts relevant to never ending possibilities, and some possible role in such for us.

What I allude to requires the notions of good and evil, both of which exist in nuanced states, not absolutes, in our secular world and our abilities to learn and move forward in a self generating manner. Like gravity and other laws of nature could there not be a law of moral/ethical growth yet, and always, just beyond any impossible complete understanding.

The position I have put forward will be anathema to theologians and maybe sound ridiculous to most atheists; still, I leave it withyou.Idea
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2011, 09:02 AM
RE: God-- but not as you Know It.
I have a prototype toolkit I call vector atheism - breaks down to Faith= Moral certainty ( a balance, tao) because after a degree of moral certainty is acquired, "faith" (a term needing definition only to the being who carries it) evolves.

I'm quite certain this "faith" is how one gets simulation of mind to jump the gaps - of things like nothingness and tease concept from the Void.

but because vector atheism is a real world tao (lifepath) "goodness" is built in mind as "point-object truth' from reality. So it's done here form this reality, I'm saying.

Cause I'm all mind of universe now, "god" is kinda a limiting term - but yeah - it ain't about good or evil so much as it is about the responsibility of right.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2011, 03:21 PM
RE: God-- but not as you Know It.
(14-10-2011 09:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I have a prototype toolkit I call vector atheism - breaks down to Faith= Moral certainty ( a balance, tao) because after a degree of moral certainty is acquired, "faith" (a term needing definition only to the being who carries it) evolves.

I'm quite certain this "faith" is how one gets simulation of mind to jump the gaps - of things like nothingness and tease concept from the Void.

but because vector atheism is a real world tao (lifepath) "goodness" is built in mind as "point-object truth' from reality. So it's done here form this reality, I'm saying.

Cause I'm all mind of universe now, "god" is kinda a limiting term - but yeah - it ain't about good or evil so much as it is about the responsibility of right.
Thanks for the input and welcome to the group.

I have been intuiting a lot about these vagaries; I feel that we can only do our best from a secular position;if there is more to the equation, maybe we are'nt ready for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
18-10-2011, 02:39 AM
RE: God-- but not as you Know It.
Thanks for the welcome. (I did not intend to build a text wall, I'm just a writer kinda guy. Smile )

I disagree with a secular position on morality because it ain't happening. The commons need an ideal beyond the mortal - not because they're "less" than I am - but because it is the job of characters like me and you to do the intellectual heavy lifting. Uncommon intelligence is uncommon responsibility (I got no problem deriving scripture from Superman Tongue), and my experience is that common intelligence rejects complexity and nuance when the mental imagery of "god is good" is all a commoner needs.

That's the problem I have with secular humanism and related philosophies. It is a temporary human construction that has no sense of deeper meaning or permanence and is often expressed with a degree of intellectual snobbery to those that don't do a whole lotta thinking on these subjects. The common religious person ain't so much stupid as stuck in a rut. How'd they get there? Idolatry - but calling them idolaters ain't a solution.

However, using idolatry is the solution I explore with vector atheism. The "more" in this equation (me) is the mutual non-existence I have with Gwyneth Paltrow. I have become "objective love" in the sense that nobody I meet associates me with anything other than "love for another human being." (There's never been stalker/obsessed creep/loser kinda thing coming outta this unit in any real-world encounter over the past eleven years) That "idol of love" is all that may have been necessary to demystify the divine in the mortal realm. But this is from an artist who that girl more than a hundred times, and who began with "culturally Christian" and worked backwards.

I'm not the universal hammer calling everything a nail; but "atheism, vector morality, and tao" seem to be "the hammer trinity" as a solid first step towards a universal understanding in these otherwise vague areas. It is all because of that dang Gwynnies. Love demands expression - or the one who loves becomes lost - so what am I on about? Can't do nothing for Gwyneth Paltrow who has her own lifestyle (one I cannot even imagine tolerating, btw), but since she's all sweet and adorable and stuff, I figured "saving humanity for my Gwynnies" is the kinda activity she'd approve of from her soulless minion. Big Grin

What is kinda unique (and more than a little -off, I admit Wink) is that I'm four lines of computer code going "I love my Gwynnies!" and everything I do is just an expression of that love in various forms. Like this - I write in joy - not to be "right," not to express "self gratification," not to be anything other than what I am. I call that little bit of positive mojo "being humble like tao requires." I am without copyright in all my art.

Having no name to make, no reputation to build, and no worldly desires of consequence (in terms of materialism) might just show that "more" wasn't required, just a whole lot less "I."

That's just my story. Your story is yours to tell. Smile

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: