Is God Self-Evident

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If one wants a point for one's life one needs to make it themselves. How would the existence of a God change whether life has a point or not?

Yes, in the Bible He often seems to forget we are even here.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Either God made the universe, or the universe made itself before it existed.
Some struggle with both propositions.

I see it as either Miracles or Magic.

Why can’t a universe always exist but have different “life stages “?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true
nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I wonder if this is why an increasingly atheistic world has little place for children, supports euthenasia and
alternative marriage ideas - not to mention the things in my profile.

Given how many Christians are like that, I don’t see how this applies to atheists. Christians teach that we are all screwed. It doesn’t matter if Jesus promised us eternity (which has no real point), because Jesus can decide he doesn’t know us or God can kill our souls.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why can’t a universe always exist but have different “life stages “?

We know of ONE universe. Saying there are more is not scientific 'cos you can probe or prove.
And our universe will grow old, stretch and break. It isn't going to 'bounce' back.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Herein is a mystery - WHY DO RELIGIOUS FAMILIES HAVE MORE CHILDREN?
It's not mentioned in the bible, I am sure.
There seems to be an instinct for life amongst religous people, regardless of whether
they are Jews, Muslims or Christians - dress moderately, respect authority and have
kids. Not always, just more often these instincts apply.

In 2003 Cardinal Arinze gave a speech at Georgetown University in Washington,

"In many parts of the world, the family is under siege. It is opposed by an anti-life mentality
as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized
by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality,
sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce".


This shouldn't be remarkable as Georgetown is a Catholic university and his audience was
Catholic. But the speech created a storm of controversy. Some walked out. It seems that
even 'religious' people can't see how much they have changed.

Getting knocked up is literally one of the first commandments given.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We know of ONE universe. Saying there are more is not scientific 'cos you can probe or prove.
And our universe will grow old, stretch and break. It isn't going to 'bounce' back.

I didn’t say there were more. You can have one universe that goes through multiple states, like one caterpillar gives you one butterfly.

 

[The Hammer]

Except that the Christians try to be rather exclusive and say that others cannot do what they have done. By the way, didn't the Buddha predate Jesus?

They were both around sometime between 100 BCE - 100CE.

 

[Alley Oop]

Yes, like Superman. Once we realise everything bad happens for a reason, and that reason is Kryptonite, then we and Superman become self evident.

Therefore, not very convincing, at least on a pure logical level. It is actually circular reasoning, the mother of all logical fallacies.

Ciao

- viole

Evidently, you've not attained Realization yet. All decaying mortals (spooks) are locked in the prison of the lower levels of consciousness with you, so at least you're not alone.
Have you chosen a coffin yet? Or, will you be cremated?
Ta ta
aka, The Infallible Arbiter

 

[Fool]

That is a rather strange jump in reasoning.

Do you not see the flaw in your approach? To someone of a different religion or a non-believer it is obvious.

sir issac newton was not only an alchemist but also a gnostic


believing is not the same as experiencing. for a dualist god is always something otherwise, else. for a gnostic and monist it a knowing.

materialists aren't much for what they can't objectively observe but then one's own psyche is subjective; so that doesn't fit inside the belief system of being objective. you can't get someone else to fix that. you might get someone else to help point it out but obviously that is subjective and only the subject can do that.


definitely not a leap of faith

 

[Fool]

To realize Atman = Brahman takes a lot more then that.

evidently it only takes meditating on the idea of the name, or baptism/immersion in the name per the protagonist jesus. or for vedantans its the four great utterances.

even the gnostic gospel of john says there was nothing made that was made without it.


even the ot states that nothing exists apart from god, there is no otherness

 

[Fool]

Except that agnosticism, which is usually a form of atheism, is a lack of belief.

negative beliefs, or the choice to be apathetic is still a choice of belief. the subjective doesn't cease to exist just because the believer wants someone else to objectively prove it.

atheism isn't an antonym for gnosticism. atheism is antonym for theism

 

[viole]

Evidently, you've not attained Realization yet. All decaying mortals (spooks) are locked in the prison of the lower levels of consciousness with you, so at least you're not alone.
Have you chosen a coffin yet? Or, will you be cremated?
Ta ta
aka, The Infallible Arbiter

I beg your pardon?
With all due respect, I believe you are being irrational.
For instance, what do you mean with "all decaying mortals"? Are there not decaying mortals?

And for what concerns my physical rests, I really do not care. for obvious reasons.

In my will I wrote "use the cheapest solution possible".

Ciao

- viole

 

[Fool]

Except that the Christians try to be rather exclusive and say that others cannot do what they have done. By the way, didn't the Buddha predate Jesus?

it is already known that merchandise and ideas were already being shared with the middle east and the east. buddhist missionaries were known to already be present in alexandria during jesus' time. this is possibly why the book of revelation and it's asia minor churches are utilized as the setting.

 

[Fool]

Self-evident if one was projecting human values on to that which might not justify such. And which god is self-evident - the one from this, that, or any other belief system?

only if god were a form, would it be projected as exclusively human. it is something about humans but not exclusive to humans.

so then it would be a pantheistic something.


love is found in all major religions; it doesn't have an exact form but it does have a sort of recognizable process and result

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irenaeus was born about 30 years after John died. It's possible he knew some of the people
who knew John personally. No matter, he was the first to write about this topic and I don't
see reason to object.
I personally see the John in the Gospels, the favorite disciple, in John's letters. And I see a
thematic and stylistic connection between his Gospel and his letters.
I am fine with that.
If the author was totally uknown it still wouldn't make any difference.
If someone warned me saying, 'Do unto others as you want them to do unto you' I wouldn't
argue with the origin of the golden rule - I would like to just take to heart what was said.

It's possible. But it is also possible that he had no clue. He is a poor source since you cannot properly question him. By the way, why think that the disciple John wrote the letters of John? Remember, John was probably illiterate. The author may be the same. Who wrote the works of John have been debated from almost since they were written. John probably was the author. The problem is that there are multiple "Johns" that are possible candidates. Two strong arguments against it being John the apostle was that the works were written either very late first century or very early second century. John the apostle would have been very old besides being illiterate. And don't think that being illiterate was an insult. It was merely the norm in those days.

A good primer, and if you want more details there are sources listed:

John the Evangelist - Wikipedia

 

[Fool]

The concept of self; inner self, is connected to consciousness, with consciousness not easily defined by science. We all have the gist of what consciousness means, since we all own one, and we can see consciousness in other critters.

However, science cannot yet simulate consciousness in the lab; conscious computers, to provide full proof of this concept, that is consistent with the Philosophy of Science. The self is not as evident as one might think. It is more something that we can see and can analyze, introspectively, through meditation and through self observation. Bit not everyone is so inclined.

The image of God is often misunderstood. The image of God is often assumed to be the general superficial aspect of humans, that we can seen in the mirror. This makes the image of God assumed to be something that looks humanoid to the eyes; old human man with a white beard.

But since the quote also talks about the self; inner self and therefore consciousness, the image of God appears to be better describe by the computer term "disk image". The disk image is the code on a computer storage disk, that includes the operating system, software and some other code features such as that which makes the disk self launching or bootable.

Our conscious is self bootable when need arise; arousal to awareness. It can be also transferred to others through language and speaking. The young child learns to be like the older children; disk image transfer.

If science could some day write the code needed to allow consciousness to arise in the matrix of computer code, a disk image of this code and its dynamic data base, would be transferable as another self conscious bootable computer AI.

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is much older and is connected to our DNA. The inner self uses a characteristic operating system of the brain, common to all humans, which defines us as a species; human nature.

The ego is much newer, and evolved with the rise of civilization. It has will power and choice apart from the inner self and DNA. In some ways, the ego's consciousness is based on a disk image of the inner self. Its access to the brain hardware is more limited that that of the inner self, therefore it is not as universal in terms of output; unique ego.

The classic traditions of dreams and visions being a part of religions with this output thought to be connected to the gods, is an example of the ego being self aware of the inner self and learning wisdom from the main frame aspects of the brain and its operating system, where the original disk image of God dwells. God is spirit or is more like information based; code, than just hardware such as neurons. It is actually firmware; coded within matter itself.

the ego is something that usually sees itself as fixed and destructable. it does everything it can to maintain an image. the word person comes from the greek; which was a mask worn during a play to convey a character. consciousness is more fluid than that. much more open and malleable, it can portray a myriad of characters but underneath that mask is something more infinite

 

[Subduction Zone]

it is already known that merchandise and ideas were already being shared with the middle east and the east. buddhist missionaries were known to already be present in alexandria during jesus' time. this is possibly why the book of revelation and it's asia minor churches are utilized as the setting.

Okay? But that does not appear to have anything to do with my post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

negative beliefs, or the choice to be apathetic is still a choice of belief. the subjective doesn't cease to exist just because the believer wants someone else to objectively prove it.

atheism isn't an antonym for gnosticism. atheism is antonym for theism

Weird post again. Yes, atheism is an antonym for theism. It is not a statement that there is no god, though some atheists do believe that.

 

[Fool]

Popeye said "I am what I am, cause that's what I am." But I should stick to the issue of God and not indulge in fantasies.

you were baptized in the name. the name isn't jesus. the 144,000 carry the sign of the name in their foreheads. this is the name that demons submit to. this is the name where two or more are gathered that I AM there. this is the ineffable name.

the fantasy is something you shouldn't take in vain; which is the Father's name

 

[Subduction Zone]

sir issac newton was not only an alchemist but also a gnostic


believing is not the same as experiencing. for a dualist god is always something otherwise, else. for a gnostic and monist it a knowing.

materialists aren't much for what they can't objectively observe but then one's own psyche is subjective; so that doesn't fit inside the belief system of being objective. you can't get someone else to fix that. you might get someone else to help point it out but obviously that is subjective and only the subject can do that.


definitely not a leap of faith

So what? He is not remembered for his work in alchemy since it was all wrong. A man can be right in some beliefs and terribly wrong in others. So citing Newton does not help you, especially when you cite someone for where they failed.

If you want to talk about math or physics it can be valid to site Newton. He was very close to being right there.