• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
This may be the most important thread I make. As a syntheist I see divinity as a natural phenomenon, not supernatural at all. In fact, I reject claims of the supernatural. What created the Universe? Something in the local multiverse, but ultimately the local multiverse. The metaverse created the multiverses, the xenoverse created the metaverses, the hyperverse created the xenoverses and The Omniverse created the hyperverses. By its vary definition there can only be one Omniverse and it's entirely natural in origin.

upload_2022-12-23_14-25-13.png


The origin of The Omniverse is its totality.
When The Omniverse created the hyperverses, they developed essentiality with each other.
Time and space; eternity and ubiquity was created when the Universe was created.
And there was a finite of positive and negative energy and potency developed since the beginning of the Universe.

The potency of the Universe allows us to develop utilities.
Those utilities allow us to be generous with each other.
Generous acts help and promote a sagacious life.
Those who are wise eventually rent or own land, and creating nations, developing their own sovereignty.
When sovereign lands come together, they create unity among themselves.

We are currently between the age of sovereignty and unity.
All the land of Earth is taken (sovereignty) but there is still war, therefore, no unified sovereignty yet.

When we finish unity we can then work on Kardashev's Scale more directly, producing and using energy more efficiently. There are ten stages of development in (my) Kardashev's Scale: planetary, stellar, galactic, extra-galactic, Universal, multiversal, metaversal, xenoversal, hyperversal and Omniversal. When our technology, utility, and potency reaches an Omniversal stage, we will reach Teilhard's Omega (Omniversal) Point, a point of nearly infinite entropy, extropy, and both positive and negative energy.

Qualities of ultimate nature will become ultimate humanity, and qualities of ultimate humanity will become ultimate nature. Ultimate nature and ultimate humanity together will create an infinite Synverse of The Omniverse, a Synverse of near infinite dimensions, energy and tools will be developed to create anything within that Synverse. Alternate realities that are only dreams now will become real. The Omniverse will be designed and decoded like an extremely elaborate computer program, and the post-human will become the programmer of that destiny.

The post-human will then become the Syntheos of Syntheism and the Synverse, the shaper of primal changes throughout all the cosmos. I am not only describing ultimate divinity but also my eschatology and end times. But, as I see it, the further time goes along, the more divinity will build up within our species. The more change we can enact on. Not all change is divine, but all divinity is change.

Therefore I define divinity with these ten characteristics and ten stages of human development.

TL;DR - Above is how I define divinity. How do you define divinity? Do you agree with me that divinity can be natural or is it only reserved for the spiritual and the supernatural? What is divine to you? I just explained a typical syntheist or Earthseed view of divinity, what religion defines your definition of divinity? Let us know what you think of the divine below. :)
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Natural, Spiritual, and Supernatural are essentially synonyms to me.

Divinity Is... Nothing more nothing less.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Divinity is having authority in a particular kind of truth, and being inerrant in judgment according to that truth. I never met anything nor anyone close to being divine.

Divinity can be an inspiring concept knowing that humans must do their best without ever being able to see the whole picture.

Divinity sees the whole picture with only the best of intentions.

So a person can only go so far because of natural limitations. Within one's own limits one can see sparks of the divine if one truly seeks such things. But where humanity comes from through nature can never be ignored.

That's my version of the divine.
 

Viker

Häxan
Divinity is a state of higher nature, the forces behind everything. I see no division in the natural scheme and nothing resides outside of the natural physical spectrum. Supernatural can be used to describe superstition or, for better use, as the higher stations in nature.

As above, so below...and as around, so within.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How do you define divinity?

Divinity is a quality attributed to monotheistic gods, and thus not a useful term for the skeptic. Sacred is the term such a person might apply to that which inspires awe, mystery, gratitude, and a sense of connection with nature and one's world.

It is an intuition added by the brain to the conscious content following an apprehension of the senses. There is a cognitive component added to the raw apprehension based in experience and memory that tells us the significance of the apprehension, which might be the night sky or a sunset or a joke, but also an affective component that tells us how to feel about it - sacred, beautiful, funny, and valuable, but also the other side of the emotional palette - threatening, saddening, disgusting, boring, etc..

So, begin with a naturalistic worldview in which the gods are symbols of various aspects or proclivities of nature, which is experienced as sacred due to this very human intuition, then separate the gods from nature and displace them into imagined realms which are then considered divine by this reckoning. This is the transformation of religious naturalism (sacred earth) to religious supernaturalism (divine gods). Of course, the intuition of gods is still due to a direct relationship with nature, but understood differently - in a way that displaces the sense of the sacred from nature to gods that transcend nature. Religious teaching can cause those experiencing it to understand that intuition of the sacred as evidence of gods.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
This may be the most important thread I make. As a syntheist I see divinity as a natural phenomenon, not supernatural at all. In fact, I reject claims of the supernatural. What created the Universe? Something in the local multiverse, but ultimately the local multiverse. The metaverse created the multiverses, the xenoverse created the metaverses, the hyperverse created the xenoverses and The Omniverse created the hyperverses. By its vary definition there can only be one Omniverse and it's entirely natural in origin.

View attachment 69766

The origin of The Omniverse is its totality.
When The Omniverse created the hyperverses, they developed essentiality with each other.
Time and space; eternity and ubiquity was created when the Universe was created.
And there was a finite of positive and negative energy and potency developed since the beginning of the Universe.

The potency of the Universe allows us to develop utilities.
Those utilities allow us to be generous with each other.
Generous acts help and promote a sagacious life.
Those who are wise eventually rent or own land, and creating nations, developing their own sovereignty.
When sovereign lands come together, they create unity among themselves.

We are currently between the age of sovereignty and unity.
All the land of Earth is taken (sovereignty) but there is still war, therefore, no unified sovereignty yet.

When we finish unity we can then work on Kardashev's Scale more directly, producing and using energy more efficiently. There are ten stages of development in (my) Kardashev's Scale: planetary, stellar, galactic, extra-galactic, Universal, multiversal, metaversal, xenoversal, hyperversal and Omniversal. When our technology, utility, and potency reaches an Omniversal stage, we will reach Teilhard's Omega (Omniversal) Point, a point of nearly infinite entropy, extropy, and both positive and negative energy.

Qualities of ultimate nature will become ultimate humanity, and qualities of ultimate humanity will become ultimate nature. Ultimate nature and ultimate humanity together will create an infinite Synverse of The Omniverse, a Synverse of near infinite dimensions, energy and tools will be developed to create anything within that Synverse. Alternate realities that are only dreams now will become real. The Omniverse will be designed and decoded like an extremely elaborate computer program, and the post-human will become the programmer of that destiny.

The post-human will then become the Syntheos of Syntheism and the Synverse, the shaper of primal changes throughout all the cosmos. I am not only describing ultimate divinity but also my eschatology and end times. But, as I see it, the further time goes along, the more divinity will build up within our species. The more change we can enact on. Not all change is divine, but all divinity is change.

Therefore I define divinity with these ten characteristics and ten stages of human development.

TL;DR - Above is how I define divinity. How do you define divinity? Do you agree with me that divinity can be natural or is it only reserved for the spiritual and the supernatural? What is divine to you? I just explained a typical syntheist or Earthseed view of divinity, what religion defines your definition of divinity? Let us know what you think of the divine below. :)

Did you come up with the list in the black box yourself? Or did you pull it from somewhere?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I created it myself. It's part of a tweet I made awhile ago.

It's interesting that you define divinity's nature as "Potency." Traditionally, monotheists in the West have defined God as pure act, pure being and actuality as opposed to unrealized potentiality.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I don't really use the concepts of god, deity or divinity when I communicate except to point out how vague, ambiguous and ultimately unadvisable they are.

It probably helps that I am not very compatible with many of the most widespread conceptions floating around.

I prefer to talk about Sacrality and the Sacred instead. There are myriad conceptions and many of those are actually at odds with each other, which is an unavoidable reality that we all ought to face upfront IMO. They also bring the focus somewhat closer to where I find most proper: the perceptions and motivations of sentient beings.

A lot of clarity and avoidance of undetected ambiguity and confusion results, far as I can see.
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
I don't really use the concepts of god, deity or divinity when I communicate except to point out how vague, ambiguous and ultimately unadvisable they are.

It probably helps that I am not very compatible with many of the most widespread conceptions floating around.

I prefer to talk about Sacrality and the Sacred instead. There are myriad conceptions and many of those are actually at odds with each other, which is an unavoidable reality that we all ought to face upfront IMO. They also bring the focus somewhat closer to where I find most proper: the perceptions and motivations of sentient beings.

A lot of clarity and avoidance of undetected ambiguity and confusion results, far as I can see.

Yes, thank you for that unabashed waste of our time. Your atheism is resoundingly false. Back here in reality, we are well aware that scientists need only define nothing in order to retrace the steps of the universe back to its origin point, its beginning.

Alas, atheism and materialism is a remnant of a primitive bygone era. Thanks, but no thanks.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Yes, thank you for that unabashed waste of our time. Your atheism is resoundingly false. Back here in reality, we are well aware that scientists need only define nothing in order to retrace the steps of the universe back to its origin point, its beginning.

Alas, atheism and materialism is a remnant of a primitive bygone era. Thanks, but no thanks.
I will be glad to waste your time if that brings you any sort of confort or joy, but I fear that instead you have simply projected a whole lot of wishful thinking over what I wrote and entirely missed the point.

Wasting your time - and mine - is entirely on you in this stance, I have to say. I am not convinced that you even attempted to read what I wrote.

As for you deciding that my atheism is false, I promise to give that all due consideration. It is very easy.
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
I will be glad to waste your time if that brings you any sort of confort or joy, but I fear that instead you have simply projected a whole lot of wishful thinking over what I wrote and entirely missed the point.

Wasting your time - and mine - is entirely on you in this stance, I have to say. I am not convinced that you even attempted to read what I wrote.

As for you deciding that my atheism is false, I promise to give that all due consideration. It is very easy.

HANDS DOWN I AM NOW A CONVERTED ATHEIST! YOUR INTELLIGENCE IS UNSURPASSED BY ANYTHING I HAVE EVER WRITTEN HIGH AND NORMAL. I THOUGHT MY PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD COULD COMPARE TO YOUR HOLLOW SUPREME VICTORY. YOUR SUPREME INTELLIGENCE HAS DEFEATED ME IN ARGUMENT 10 TIMES OVER. I BOW DOWN TO YOUR INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY. NOT.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
Yes, thank you for that unabashed waste of our time. Your atheism is resoundingly false. Back here in reality, we are well aware that scientists need only define nothing in order to retrace the steps of the universe back to its origin point, its beginning.

Alas, atheism and materialism is a remnant of a primitive bygone era. Thanks, but no thanks.

The universe has a beginning? Have you told the physicists? They've been trying to figure that one out for awhile. If you've solved an issue that all of these highly educated experts in the field haven't, you should really submit your paper demonstrating this for a Nobel Prize.
 

dannerz

Member
The opposite of Ethan's idea, would be a terrible AI being that spreads its empire across all populated worlds, enslaving and consuming all life on all planets. Like worse than the borg. But his idea of the future is that we will all become exaulted, greatly enhanced by technological advancements, and the virtues that become stronger and better as advancement marches forward. Can't it be called a futuristic idea? I think it is possible.
 
Top