There is going to be blasphemy here. Big time Blasphemy! Thank God for XVIII Century Illuminism. (Letters 8.0)
To start, I would like to thank whoever ended the Holy Inquisition and turned it into the harmless Congregation for the Causes of the Saints for allowing me to publish this post. Next, I advise any of you that has any kind of strong religious views that consolidated into prejudice, to skip this post, as it will probably harm your health. We are going to step into very blasphemous terrain. And, as a final stance of this short disclamer, I would like to state, for the record, that I'm no way publishing this in the middle of Ramadan on purpose.
I thank you all for understanding that this debate has finally reached the GOD level, and as European XVIII Century Illuminism has come to allow us, we won't shy away from it. In the interest of clarity, while writing this article, I did look for a picture of the Creator of Heaven and Earth, but, as I wasn't able to find a credible one, I had to settle for the next best thing, and that is why Charlton Heston illustrates this letter. Just so you know, I don't believe that God looks like him, although it would be very cool if He did.
The question of the existence of God has been a matter of theological and philosophical discussion for ages and, as I see it, the space religion has occupied has been reduced as man kept finding ways to explain natural phenomena that once, due to the lack of that knowledge, had been atributed to divine intervention. Secondo me, this debate will never stop until we figure out the reason for our conscious experience of the world. We will never finish debating this subject until we figure out what caused conscience to exist and what is it's purpose.
I am inclined to assert that, at some point, there had to be a Creator, put as a Grand Architect of the Universe we live in, and that, is only my intuition. I'm not going to dwelve into debates of the Simulation Hypothesis, or any other branch of logical or mathematical form of explanation, because I don't believe that Science will ever get to definitive proof on this subject and all we will be able to rely, in the end, is man's interpretation of incomplete data, and, although I'm a strong believer in Science as a method and in Technology as a way to better the conditions of our lives, I do not think that it is there that we will find the answer to the question of the existence of God.
@jeff-kubits, in his comment (Letters 7.1), wrote the following:
Scientists know that science is not the truth but that eventually the truth will be discovered. I find nothing wrong with the practice of science: theory, hypothesis, experiment, result. God invented it and everything else. Including philosophy. One adheres to hermeneutics although literal translation deters complete understanding and instant realization all levels of consciousness: parables, alliteration, metaphor, and miracles leads me personally to think in terms of the first Christian commandment: Thou Shalt Love the Lord Thy God...
Mind you that I do not criticize or wish to change anyone's view of their own religion. As I see it, everbody is free to believe in whatever they wish, including Pastafarians. So, first of all: good for you Jeff, that you find comfort in some kind of belief that brings you closer to the divine and has you think about it. I just don't see it that way. There are two things that I strongly disagree about religions in general: One is the antropomorphization of God; the second one is the belief that the truth lies in any book written by the hand of a man. So, I neither think that God looks like Charlton Heston, nor do I believe in any sacred texts, because they were written by men, and men lie.
If I do not believe any of these two things, what do I believe, then? Again, based on my intuition, that comes from the wide range of experiences I had during my life, what I feel is, due to the apparent undeterminable reach of my individual conscience and events I have experienced that seemed to point to me that individual will and consensual reality, as an intuitive construct, indicate that all individual consciousnesses intersect at some level, and that seems to point to a moment or a space where all these individual spheres of consciousness have been separated into individual, yet not disconnected constructs. Secondo me, and I have no way to prove this whatsoever, conscience exploded into the realization of its own self experience, thus both creating the Universe and, simultaneously, ceasing to exist as an infinite consciousness. That would make us both, made in the image of the creator and, in some sense, part of It. It would also mean that the larger consciouness that induced this apparently conscious experience we have, and from where our Ids come from, had, at some point, the will to create us as individuals. It is conceivable that, at the end of the road, this total consciousness gets to be made whole again and repeats the process. Maybe in a different fashion.
What are the ideas that support this view of mine? Firstly, it doesn't make sense to me that there can be a Universe without an experiencer; secondly, the phenomenon of consciousness appears to be dissociated from what we call physical matter, it seems to interact with matter from a different, external level; and, thirdly, nothing comes from nothing. If I assume that consciousness is, in itself a separate identity from the physical body it is adressed to, and I am demanded to assume that this physical body is the limit that I have to the perception of this Universe, then, based on my own experience, it doesn't work for me. And, more than any other belief, when it comes to understanding your place and part in the Universe, nothing is more important than feeling comfortable with your own experience, for it is there that you will find the contradictions between what is said and what you feel.
I will be waiting for @jeff-kubits and @ty-ty to present me with radically acute questions about this, so I can further explain it, because it is an assertion that, most of all, needs questions. And I, already feel too comfortable with this mindset to pose the really important ones. In any case, you can take my word for it, (and Nietsche's), that God is dead. And, at the same time, He is also alive. In this post, I expect to have also adressed the matters broached on (Letters 5.0) I'll be curiously waiting for your reactions to this one.
@hefestus 08.03.25
I don't think that I want to ask you questions that you can answer at this time: whatever your motivation, this is doubt. Doubt is the enemy is shooting at me, they're about execute: should I flee or fight?
The wind is blowing like a bitch all of a sudden, comes from the "profitable direction," for windmill energy production and there's some things that one may be able to do about it.
So, here's a question after all: what can be done about it? Should I do it?
Is it witchcraft or science? What's the source of the enabling power? Can I shut that off? Ask someone to shut it off? Who?
Next, the bell ringing suddenly went from zero 60 and higher db's. Is there something I can do about it? Someone I can ask for advice or to shut it off instead of me doing it?
"One thing is certain: either everybody that's in the heavenly host is off meeting a threat somewhere else, there up in heaven chilling out, or Pat, did they cycle in new legions for training again and not tell me?
Yes, he said, Pat, the angel, Commander of the heavenly host, Western North American Region, "They didn't tell me either or I would have told you what to expect."
It's a cluster f##k as usual.
So you're gonna answer a question: are there anymore voider bases? Do you think God has successfully found (AI switched bound to )Mr. Orange inside his location because that false God was caught cycling zillions of voiders out of his "point of existence" back toward battles, f##k, kick a murderous alien out and oops they're back again! Deport?
Thanks @steemcurator04, @mikitaly very much!
Alright. I'll adress these questions in my next post, which will be (Letters 7.4), hopefully, if @ty-ty doesn't beat me to that number, but still, I'll integrate the answers to this in my comment to the the line of (Letters 7.X) comments. Again, I will have to learn about this. It's getting way out of my comfort znoe, but still, I'll try to answer, and, what I can't find out, I'll ask you back. :)))
We seem to have a similar view of things, although your perspective appears even more complex. For me, the subject is dealt with more simply and practically.
In the universe, I see people using God to absolve themselves of their sins. This is very convenient. Real cleansing of sins is much more difficult, if it's possible at all. It requires genuine repentance and visible change in thought and action. The only beings who can truly forgive you are people. Injustice remains injustice, and any discussion about right and wrong ultimately leads back to human rights.
Regarding the philosophical aspect of God, I, like you, prefer the part of Christian doctrine that says we are all part of God. That is sufficient for me. I like the idea that a God without organic life cannot feel anything. That's why He spreads His spirit as consciousness across all organic. This sounds plausible and explains the constant stream of thoughts in consciousness. That's how I see it in the universe, and I don't expect to ever know much more than that.
So far, I have also not been convinced of the need to worship this seemingly needy being or to follow rules that have nothing to do with human rights. And if I did, it would probably be disingenuous because I would expect to gain some advantage from it, like the Crusaders, Trump, or other criminals throughout world history.
I agree that our views are not totally dissimilar, Mine is, perhaps a bit more complex because I felt the need to rationalize a process that would explain my own experiences and fit my own need for thought consistency. Experiences and needs vary wildly from person to person, so, I guess it's like having Depeche Mode's Personal Jesus. If we put some thought into it, each one of us will understand the subjacent Divine in a different way. The reason that there are so many different religions is a reflex of that possiblity. The reason they have any followers is just the need that sheep have to disconnect their brains and follow the heard, or, as they say: social conformity.
PS: That's why they are called shepperd and flock... :DDDDDD
I also believe that earlier ignorance of certain connections and scientific foundations led to the creation of the myths of the gods; humankind seems to need explanations like the air it breathes... Nowadays, however, this function of belief in a divine power has probably been replaced by another: the possibility of relinquishing one's own responsibility and leaving it to God. Alternatively also to the state ;-))
I fully agree. People seem to dislike taking responsability for both their own actions and their part in society. Either a God or a Goverment comes in handy to blame on whatever they wash their hands of. :)
It doesn't play role that I regard 'both' to be sides of one medal, but it plays an important role that 'responsability' has requirements which are not providable by science - not yesterday, not nowadays, not in the future.
I do not low estimate science, but I do accept its limititations - the difference between me (and others) and those people who cannot recognise scientism even if it's standing in front of them.
So, at first I take side on @jeff-kubick and his sense for 'enemies'.
NIetzsche's God meets Schroedinger's Cat?
Does anyone here know the context or story wherein Nietzsche put the phrase 'God is dead'?
I Kow it appears in the Gay Science, which I did not read, but I also know it's the premise for Also sprach Zaratustra, which I am a huge fan of. I also read Ecce Homo.
'Ecce Homo' is in my rucksack, and there you might have read that not all who have read 'Also sprach Zarathustra' did get the message...
Nevertheless, 'Die fröhliche Wissenschaft' indeed is the book, but this is not the context or story.
I believe I got it, yes... A long, long time ago. Also, I adore the Strauss piece too.
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Nietzsche,+Friedrich/Die+fr%C3%B6hliche+Wissenschaft/Drittes+Buch/125.+Der+tolle+Mensch
'Der tolle Mensch' (the insane person) is the title of the full story.
See for yourself whether it is meaningful to isolate the phrase 'Gott ist tot' (God is dead) from the whole story or not.
I think it is not.
Oh man! I knew this story. It was on my 11th grade Philosophy book and I believe it came up in the exam. I had totally forgotten about it. As school manuals carry dispersed texts and we tend to forget them as time passes (and a shitload of time did pass), sometimes, there are things we know and read before that we can't quite place. This is one of those cases. Although I didn't read the full book, I had read this, and probably a couple more exerpts, before.
In my opinion, the expression can not be taken out of context in this story, thus, as a statement, you can not isolate it from the story.
Zarathustra does carry the interpretation of an unintersted, disconnected or we can assume "dead" God, that got things in motion and left us with the responsability to reach for a God like status ourselves, in a way that can be interpreted to mean that we are a in sort of a cocoon state between a caterpillar and a butterfly. As a freemason, I understand Nietsche's work as a paralel to the theorization of the reasons for the non-operative masonic work of polishing the rough stone that we are into a more perfect state. That is undertood as the both the objective and the responsability of each individual mason. Under that definition, I interpret Nietsche's metaphors as a call for greater responsability in the use of our own free will and a call to better ourselves. Of course, I may be totally wrong, and those who have given it the tortuous biological significance that has cost us millions of lives and a world war might have been right, but I don't think so. I stick with my interpretation.
Edit ( A few minutes later): Nietsche was a fellow freemason, so... He may have been in accord with my view of his texts.
Hum.
Whilst reading 'Ecce Homo', I fear he would laugh.
I know he was deeply sour about his masonic experience and at a point, rejected it. I don't know the details about that. Still Ecce Homo is a different book. I also tend to reinteroret what I wrote in earlier years. Zarathustra, on the other hand, appears to be a confrontation of the Masonic Hiram legend.
Note: I don't go as far as to be nihilistic. Also, you have to set yourself to the time period and his health condition.
I'm sure he would laugh. And I would probably laugh with him. Still... I don't avocate the nihilistic view of Ecce Homo, as much as I like the book, I would never make it my guide.
I just arrived from a Theatre Play by Marius Von Mayenburg that explored the meaninglessness of existence and the absence, or death of the creator... WIth some Nietsche towards the end. I'm still processing it. :)))) I will read that article and comment on it tomorrow morning. I hope you are fully recovered now.
Cheers.
On another note... There is always a cat.
Nietzschinger's God-Cat.
Exactamondo!
I started to talk on this book, but then I stopped. It is or was a best seller, but it is so very bad that it is wasting time to discuss it. To be honest, I regard as an insulting of my intellect.
So, although I'm not convinced of your claims and thought, I regard them to be better than Dawkins', at least better readable. ;-)
Announcement: I'll be offline for about 48 hours.
Noted. there's no hurry.
Dawkins should be delivered into the hands of the XIII Century Holy Inquisition for them to do as they please.
That dogmatic bastard is worse than most religious fanatics, because, for one: he should know better.
P.S. - Also, I don't want to convince anyone. It's my own private personal religion. Works for me and, probably, for nobody else. Also, my shite explains the black matter problem. lmfao.
If I present words to show my thoughts - be it a cooking advisory or my private personal religion (whicht might be the same...) - what is my communicational goal? What my intention? Just to show something like a hand woven towel or a work of some art? To only avoke one of my teacher's 'interesseloses Wohlgefallen' ('disinterested pleasure'; what means pleasure without any further purpose), which signifies this teacher's concept of aesthetics?
Dear @ty-ty,
after considerable thought given to this interrogation, I find your question arose four new questions for me: Is everything we do, Art? Why do emit our opinions, even into the void, like in a notebook or a diary that no one is expected to read? Does the fact that we exchange opinions, or debate eachother bear any meaning in the motion that Nietschinger's God-Cat does to undertand itself? Do all meaningless actions carry a meaning towards the self knowledge of the Total Conscience?
Good question. Let me think about it.. 'interessloses Wohlgefallen' seems to me an inherent contradiction. Wouldn't pleasure be the sum interest, in that case?