Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[DNB]

That's simply not what the evidence indicates. I don't see why you have to deny evolution in order to believe in God. Care to explain that to me?

Only man was created in God's image - do you not understand the text?

 

[Windwalker]

Only man was created in God's image - do you not understand the text?

Can you explain what God's image mean? Does it mean we physically look like God? Does it mean that God walks upright on two feet, and since only humans do that, that is what God's image is? Or does it mean only we are rational because that is God's image? Does it mean only we are spiritual because that is God's image?

Can you provide scriptures to support your view of what that word "image" means to you is the only way of understanding that single verse in scripture, please?

The only other place I see it used is here, "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." So based upon this, it must mean we look like God physically, like my son bears resemblance to me. Is this what that verse means? We inherited God's genes biologically?

 

[DNB]

The insurmountable mountain of evidence suggests otherwise. Why would god gift you the ability to reason, only for you to forgo its use?
God isn't beholden to some silly book written by primitive savages. Biblical literalism is blasphemous idolatry.

Go revealed Himself in the manner that He did, for all humans did not know Him as they should.
He chose Abraham, who begat Isaac, to Jacob to Joseph, to Moses. God demanded that Moses writes the Laws down and the history of the Hebrews, so that they and their progeny never forget the favouritism and providence that God showed them, for the reasons to both revere Him, and to be held accountable for their future defiance and stiff-neckedness.

They were eventually rejected, sold into slavery, the land of Israel abandoned, and the temple destroyed.
This is not a children's story, fiction, or just idle history or literature - it is a testimony of God's constant reaching out to man, and man's incessant indifference and ingratitude towards God.
It is a book to be revered.

 

[DNB]

No, it's not. That's only one possibility, and doesn't account for most of what's created, which is created by blind, natural processes, like a rainstorm or a mountain.

Nothing "transcends" nature, which is physical.

Yes, but not in the way you mean. Many will be "rewarded" with a lifetime of religion and what that entails before the grave and eternal sleep.

The atheist is not fooled by words like those or why you need to write them. If this god were real, it could be detected without choosing to "reveal" itself just like anything else that's real. But if it's not and you choose to believe in existence anyway, you are forced to defend its absenteeism.

If you were correct, it certainly does give an excuse for not finding this shy god.

So you must tell yourself to perpetuate the fantasy that this god exists and is discernible. But let's rewrite that sentence using things we know do exist and then with something we assume doesn't exist:

It is only the indifferent and defiant that cannot see the sun.
It is only the indifferent and defiant that cannot see leprechauns.

If God is as real as the sun, it is as detectible given the right detector in the right place at the right time. If imaginary, the opposite is the case. That's a good enough test for reality - does it interact with other real things in space and time. If not, it's not out there. It's only an imagination in some head or heads.

If by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, you are incorrect. There was no six days of creation, no first human beings, no global flood, no tower of Babel. And the theory of evolution including what creationists call macroevolution has been shown correct beyond reasonable doubt. If the universe has a god or gods, that's how it did it. This other god that creates "kinds" has been ruled out.

Like all Abrahamic creationist apologists, you have the unenviable task of defending a demonstrably incorrect guess.

You are unaware of the spiritual realms that exist, that influence man for better or for worse?
You don't believe that there's a devil, the father of all lies and malevolence.
You've never heard of wars, torture, rape, kidnapping, abuse, hedonism, addictions, etc...?
Do you really believe that a creature solely comprised of natural and physical material, and governed by the laws of nature and the universe, would act in such a self-annihilating manner that is prevalent throughout history?

 

[DNB]

Ah, I see it's my fault I don't see evidence of God anywhere. Not God's fault, even though he'd be the one who would know exactly what sort of evidence would be convincing to me. Cool story, bro.

Yes, that He does.

 

[DNB]

Does it matter?
..and I don't think that we can say with certainty, HOW G-d created the universe and all it contains.
..and what's more .. we have no need of knowing.

I'm not thinking of creating a universe in opposition to G-d's .. are you?

To you & I, it doesn't matter because we both know that God created everything.
But, to those who are profoundly ignorant of this fact, it always leads to a misguided discussion about the origins of man and the universe.

 

[DNB]

Can you explain what God's image mean? Does it mean we physically look like God? Does it mean that God walks upright on two feet, and since only humans do that, that is what God's image is? Or does it mean only we are rational because that is God's image? Does it mean only we are spiritual because that is God's image?

Can you provide scriptures to support your view of what that word "image" means to you is the only way of understanding that single verse in scripture, please?

The only other place I see it used is here, "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." So based upon this, it must mean we look like God physically, like my son bears resemblance to me. Is this what that verse means? We inherited God's genes biologically?

Yes, we all look the way that God looks like, but our feet are smaller, of course - I think that He takes a size 26.

Genesis 9:6
“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

All men are created as spiritual creatures, with the potential for good and evil - no other animal can be considered a sinner or saint.
But we all don't reflect God's image as we should, but Christ did.

Colossians 1:15​

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think your remark is senseless
I can't "see" your thoughts .. even if I was standing next to you,
or had the latest technology.

Actions and not thoughts make a difference.

I assume you don't agree with smacking a child .. whatever..

Yeah, I don't.

 

[Valjean]

Only man was created in God's image - do you not understand the text?

The text may be clear, but what does that have to do with reality?
And what does "God's image" mean?

 

[Valjean]

Some corrections and further explanations in this for you. These are technically stages of consciousness development, which speaks to the modalities of how the mind conceptualizes and perceives reality. These are laid out basically as the archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral, etc. The model I'll link to below uses 10 stages, though other models breaks them out differently. You can scroll down and see brief explanations of them for your awareness.

These are developmental stages that anyone at a higher level had to grow through and master or integrate the lessons of the lower levels or the levels that preceded it. It's like saying you can't skip being 4 years old before you can be 7 years old. They follow in order.

What that means then is that is is incorrect to say that somebody at stage 4 the rational stage, cannot understand or relate to someone at stage 3 with their mythic-literal views and language. If they only set aside their current views of truth and reality and take a step back into their own history, they can remember what is was like being that sort of a thinker, and whatever age that was they were in that stage themselves. Again, it is not possible they weren't ever in that stage because you can't skip levels.

However, it is true as you say that someone at stage 3, the mythic stages, cannot understand stages 4 and above. That is for the simple reason they have never yet seen the world through those eyes. A 20 year old can remember what the world was to them when then were 13, but a 13 year old cannot understand the world seen through the eyes of a 20 year old. It is outside of their direct experience to begin to attempt to relate.

But one major difference with these stages is that they are divided up between 1st Tier and 2nd Tier. 1st Tier stages, which are the postmodernist stage and below, tend to see only their own level as correctly interpreting the world or reality. They see the previous stages, their own histories in fact, as having been wrong, but now they have got the correct ideas about reality. Each of those 1st Tier stages (1-5) see themselves as true, and all the others as wrong.

They see the higher stages than themselves as "crazy", because they cannot relate to those more advanced and sophisticated modes of understanding the world. The mythic stages sees the modernist rational stage as "deceived by the devil", or blinded by sin to not see the simple truths of the world as they see them. The rational stages sees the mythic stage as childish, naive, foolish, ignorant, and uneducated. They see that previous stage as an error of reason, faith is seen as "bad reasoning", and the like, reading its own mode of translating reality as the correct true standard by which to judge all others.

And then likewise those at the rational stage having not yet experienced seeing the world at a stage they have not yet experienced, see those higher stages as "crazy" or "woo woo", and typically mistake them as an earlier stages before the rational stage. This is known as the pre/trans fallacy, mistaking higher stages as lower stages because they cannot relate anything in their own experiences to something they understand, like the 'stupid mistakes of reason' seen in the magic and mythic stages.

Then we get to 2nd Tier stages. In 2nd Tier, the Integral stage and beyond, it sees all the previous stages as "true but partial". It recognizes the validity of the different modes of thinking and reasoning and translations of reality, as it can see all of these stages within their own growth histories. We weren't "wrong" when we were younger. We were right, for what tools we had available at the time, which functioned well for us given the stage of development we were at.

But with all of these stages, as those modes exhausted their usefulness to us, and greater and newer needs arose, we brought forward the good, positive lessons of those previous stages, while abandoning those things of those stages which no longer functioned well for the new emerging levels. The stage of rationality owes its existence to the lessons learned at the mythic stages, both the good and the bad. Nothing is truly lost. Everything is brought forward and integrated into an encompassing, holistic view of truth and reality. "Everyone has a piece of the truth", is a favorite motto of those at the Integral or 2nd Tier stages.

So finally, it is wrong to say to a person at the magic or mythic stage to, "Pick a Reality and stick with it." Clearly, the goal should be to try to grow to the next level, if and when they are ready to of course. But you do make a certain point that bears better clarification. It's something I argue as well.

What you see with things like Creationism, or Biblical Literalism even, is taking mythic level data, appropriate and true at the Mythic level, and trying to make it fit into the Rational level. This is where you see trying to determine the age of the earth by collating all the genealogies of the Bible together, or force-fitting the days of creation to match or reject modern science. It is as I say, "Bad science, and bad theology, or bad faith".

That is an example of an earlier stage trying to adopt the language and modes of a more developed and sophisticated later stages without having earned it, to attempt to elevate that earlier stage (mythic or traditionalist) as an equal competitor to that higher stage (rational or modernist). The image of a child putting on the shoes and hat of an adult and a long tie in a 'business suit' and trying to sit in at a board of directors meeting comes to mind. They simply aren't ready to do science yet. It's "play science", to coin a new term for me. They haven't earned a seat at that table yet, so to speak.

I'm pleased that you do show some understanding of this, but I thought this might be helpful to you to have more information about it. This link here can explain a little more, if you are interested.

The New Integral Theory Essentials Page

Know the most important ideas and charts of Integral Theory!

integraleuropeanconference.com

Interesting. This is a much more comprehensive treatment of developmental stages, psychology, and sociology than I was referring to. I was speaking strictly of realities; the several subjective stages, Like REM sleep, waking-state, &al, and the objective Reality. The structural, political and psychological variations exist within a specific reality/level of consciousness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're utterly bewildered.

That is actually you that believes that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only man was created in God's image - do you not understand the text?

Oh we understand the myth Do you?

 

[Father Heathen]

Go revealed Himself in the manner that He did, for all humans did not know Him as they should.
He chose Abraham, who begat Isaac, to Jacob to Joseph, to Moses. God demanded that Moses writes the Laws down and the history of the Hebrews, so that they and their progeny never forget the favouritism and providence that God showed them, for the reasons to both revere Him, and to be held accountable for their future defiance and stiff-neckedness.

They were eventually rejected, sold into slavery, the land of Israel abandoned, and the temple destroyed.
This is not a children's story, fiction, or just idle history or literature - it is a testimony of God's constant reaching out to man, and man's incessant indifference and ingratitude towards God.
It is a book to be revered.

Nah.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, we all look the way that God looks like, but our feet are smaller, of course - I think that He takes a size 26.

No doubt. I think most people see God as a great big human, only better and more powerful. A "super us" in other words. "In the beginning, man created God in his own image, only better."

Genesis 9:6
“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

So then, upright on two feet? So destroying the physical vessel seems to be the sin here, since that physical vessel is fashioned after the image of God. Correct? That's what I'm gathering from those two other verses referring to image in Genesis. Seth was made in the image of Adam. That had nothing to do with a spiritual nature, did it? It was referring to him being a reproduction of Adam's physical form.

All men are created as spiritual creatures, with the potential for good and evil - no other animal can be considered a sinner or saint.

You say this, but I'm not seeing the scripture support that.

But we all don't reflect God's image as we should, but Christ did.

Colossians 1:15​

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Okay, but what does that mean? If being in the image of God means having a "spiritual nature", then we too are the image of the invisible God and no different than the Christ here. I think it means something you don't understand, actually.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you view Ultimate Reality as an entity, a being, or a creature of sorts?

Then you do not know what it is. You certainly have a faith of your own, as does everyone.

Standing back from it, taking your focus off of it, distracting yourself with anything else for instance, often times allows the solution to simply arise from the deep, from the subconscious mind.

It just seems odd that these things you reject appear to be the core teachings and essence of the religious system you identify with.t

You have a surprising lack of humility and insights for one who claims they are Enlightened.It is what probably we started with.

I believe 'physical energy' to be ultimate reality till science does not change its views. That is what we started with at the time of Big Bang.
I do not use faith, I use current evidence.

Cutting through all the flap, brain works with parallel processing. Even in the deepest meditation, it does not stop taking care of your breathing or heart. But only some processes are in focus. What you term as insight is the result of parallel processing. While you are thinking about a problem logically, another part of brain is applying fuzzy logic to it, i.e., thinking in unconventional ways. That is what makes human brain special.

There is nothing odd about what I believe. Atheism is a part of Hinduism since 3,000 years starting with the Nasadiya Sukta in RigVeda which said: "The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

sacred-texts.com

Then we had the Samkhya philosophers denying the existence of God: Samkhya - Wikipedia
Remember that Hinduism gave birth to such atheist religions as Buddhism, Jainism and many philosophies which have since disappeared (Charvak, Ajivaka, etc.). I can perhaps say that Hinduism has the oldest atheist philosophy in the world along with its thousands of Gods and Thousands of Goddesses.

I would not make a categorical statement about the properties of 'Ultimate Reality' (physical energy) at this stage. It is a question for future, after some decades or centuries, and certainly not in my life-time. Does the 'Ultimate Reality' has the property of 'not to exist' as one of its phases? That will be the final question for science. That will solve the problem of "Why there is anything at all' (Why there is anything at all - Wikipedia).

Why should I be humble in face of ignorance? Why should not I berate it? That is what I want everyone to be rid off.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you explain what God's image mean? Does it mean we physically look like God? Does it mean that God walks upright on two feet, and since only humans do that, that is what God's image is? Or does it mean only we are rational because that is God's image? Does it mean only we are spiritual because that is God's image?

Maybe you missed it, but DNB and I had this conversation about two weeks ago on this thread. I asked essentially the same question you did. It was a lengthy discussion, but I can summarize it:

Me: "According to dogma, your god is invisible, immaterial, immortal, perfect, infinite, lives outside of space and precedes time. Your god is omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural and has magical power. Your god never had a spouse, never had sex, never experienced lust, divorce or a broken heart. Your god was never born, never had parents, never raised children and never had a sibling or a friend. Your god has never slept or had a nightmare, never had a headache, has never had the flu, felt hot or cold or been hungry. Your god has never had to support himself, never had to study or learn. never been humiliated, felt guilt, blame or shame, and has never been afraid. Your god has virtually nothing in common with me. Maybe you'd say reason and a moral compass is what makes man like your god. I've read the flood story, so that pretty much eliminates that deity being either moral or intelligent. It drowned all terrestrial life to correct its own engineering failure and then used the same breeding stock to repopulate the earth. How smart or moral shall we consider such a deity? It fails on both counts by humanist standards."​

​

DNB: "God is moral, abhors evil, is holy and just, wise and prudent, loving and compassionate. He knows of, and understands, evil - its source, consequences, vices, allurements, depravity, futility and irrationality. Man also has such a cognizance of spiritual matters - no other creature on the planet shares that endowment with humans. God can be angry at sin - man displays indignation towards sin. God was 'ashamed' to have made man, he brought about the flood - Paul was ashamed of his former Pharisaical attitude towards Christians"​

​

Me: "So then by being made in god's image, you mean that we can experience anger and shame like God? My dog does both of those as well. Is it also made in God's image?"​

​

DNB: "Non-human's do not pray to God, nor can conceive of His existence or character. Non-humans do not discuss morality, conduct funerals or eulogies for their loved ones, protest injustices except for selfish reason. Pets do not love their owners for their character, integrity or decency, but only for how they treat the pet. And, even then, the pet's loyalty is entirely contingent upon his own well-being, and can be diverted to the highest bidder. Every single society and culture throughout history, and throughout the world, has strived to attain to the transcendent, the non secular, the immaterial, and non physical. You don't see any differences between humans and all other creatures that necessitate the fact that we are not related? Have you ever heard of a god-fearing monkey, a Buddhist orangutan, a Zoroastrian donkey, an eagle priest or shaman? How about a dog with a crucifix around its neck, or a fish with a burka on its head?"​

​

Me: "If the beasts had language, you'd see the equivalent of those things in them."​

My conclusion was that the answer is basically whatever humans do that the beasts don't do (except sin) is what makes man in God's image, and this focuses on higher order thinking that I believe follows the acquisition of language, explicit reasoning, and symbolic thinking.

You are unaware of the spiritual realms that exist, that influence man for better or for worse?

No spiritual realms or spirits have been identified empirically. All we have there are the fanciful claims of dreamers claiming to have spiritual discernment and spiritual truth, but ask them to share a few nuggets of what they see as they look further using their special way of knowing, and we see the reality of the claim.

There is a spiritual intuition, but it's not magic and it doesn't detect magical agents in magical spaces. It is a sense of warmth, belonging, and connection admixed with various degrees of a sense of mystery, awe, and gratitude that comes from living mindfully while experiencing nature - maybe the night sky or a garden.

The Abrahamic doctrine does violence to this sense of connection, which drains the sacred out of nature and exports it out of nature to an imagined god ostensibly its source and allegedly issuing commandments. This doctrine teaches that nature is base matter fit for apocalyptic destruction. Until then, don't be a part of the world. Flesh is also demeaned, described as a prison for a soul trying to escape the flesh and its unholy desires. How can you be made more alienated from this world than to believe that?

You don't believe that there's a devil, the father of all lies and malevolence.

No. This is another destructive Abrahamic doctrine. I'm not safe even in my own head, and shouldn't trust thoughts that create doubt or cognitive dissonance, for that is the Devil trying to steal your soul.

You've never heard of wars, torture, rape, kidnapping, abuse, hedonism, addictions, etc...?

Of course. Speaking of being made in God's image, the first five were allegedly commanded by the Abrahamic deity, but they all reflect human nature.

Do you really believe that a creature solely comprised of natural and physical material, and governed by the laws of nature and the universe, would act in such a self-annihilating manner that is prevalent throughout history?

Yes. Why wouldn't I? This is very possibly an inevitable outcome of the evolution of intellect occurring faster than moral evolution. The smartest people will discover the answers that the most cunning will use to exploit one another. It's painfully obvious that man has and will continue to allow Earth to transform into a hellscape until the harm is so extreme that even the wealthy can't avoid it.

 

[F1fan]

Only man was created in God's image -

According to humans some 2500 years ago. Why assume they knew something we don't?

do you not understand the text?

Given the lack of evidnce for any supernatural, including gods, we should interpret the text with the most plausible explanation: that early humans invented this idea about themselves. Why would people in the 21st century assume this statement is true at face value? Can you offer the forum evidence why anyone would accept your interpretation?

 

[Ostronomos]

If they are real then they are material. What alternative is there?

Prove it. If I hit your foot with a hammer I will bet it’ll be plenty real to you.

Not super ultimate reality? It’s new and improved.

Towards Shattering the Illusion of Atheism

From black holes to quantum interactions, reality gives way to truth at both extremes. But at the cost of our comfortable notions of illusionistic materialism that is oh-so beneficial to our survival. It's how we evolved.

I would like to take this moment to contrast survival of the fittest (a reference to Bob Marley/ God themes) with my favorite Biblical verse for starters, before shattering the illusion of atheism never to see the light of day and may I say, God's blessed light:

I prayed to the Lord and He answered me
He freed me from all my fears
Those who look to the Lord will be radiant with joy
No shadow of shame will darken their faces

From my expanded consciousness, I ("The Great Genius of Nostradamus Prophecy") perceived the following true propositions on reality:

One X, Therefore One God

X = matter or non-object. Information can have meaning without matter. This is how a misunderstanding of reality can be created by mind. Reality is comparable to self-configuration. Wisdom is information coming from a single source (reality). Meaningless information comes from many (objects).

My belief was incorrect we create meaning, just as our minds contain a self-configuration of reality, which is self-configurating along with reality (psychologists are still unclear as to what the mind is). Where the mind is not static and therefore not concept, it is self-configuring and therefore unbound. The SCSPL is intrinsic as well as is spacetime due to structure S which distributes over S (self-distributive). Spacetime is thus transparent from within. Where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure of one that merges the concepts and is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S. S is amenable to theological interpretation.

The Mind of God

What is Holotheism?

Holotheism is the theological system implied by logical theology. Its fundamental premise is that the Mind of God is the ultimate reality…that is, reality in its most basic and most general form. It is thus related to panentheism, but in addition to being more refined, is more compatible with monotheism in that its "mental" characterization of God implies that divine nature is more in keeping with established theological traditions.

Could the mind of God be the ultimate reality? "Ultimate reality" being the utmost generality in the form of SCSPL language?

Death is said to be an illusion of change. It was said by a friend, "We are not just a physical body having a physical experience, we are a spirit having a physical experience." There is one spirit having individual physical bodies. We are all in this together no matter the appearance. Blind nature is not the same as God.

M---->Interpretation---->R<-----M<-----explanation<----R

I highlighted the "most general form" because reality is a language in that it represents space, time, and object. And that the general language and contents contain reality's more specific contents and languages. Instead of humans being individual, humans represent individuals instead of a general one human-ness. The general essence of individuals is spirit. Reality also has a set of expressions (like artistic and theoretical expressions of reality).

The Theory-Reality Correspondence

A theory must hold the ingredients of mind, reality and language in order to map the source (mind) to the target (reality).

Theory thus negates unintelligible reality by placing existence as its content. A formal system such as those existing within today's technology (including computers) lack M (the Metaformal System). With imperfect attempts to advance the creation of computational technology the object-language is lacking in certain ingredients as it currently stands. Thus we require a more powerful computational language. Namely, the Metaformal System as it is so named. As the words "Metaformal System" enter the mind it creates reality and when we read the paper we hold mental expectations of what we hold as "genius".

I hereby encourage everyone to take their time reading the above as it was written by my other, supreme intellect. Far surpassing anything any atheist has ever come up with and concluding that only a true supreme genius can perceive metaphysical truths based on both the pattern and substance of reality, as well as the spiritual experience of the atman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Towards Shattering the Illusion of Atheism

From black holes to quantum interactions, reality gives way to truth at both extremes. But at the cost of our comfortable notions of illusionistic materialism that is oh-so beneficial to our survival. It's how we evolved.

I would like to take this moment to contrast survival of the fittest (a reference to Bob Marley/ God themes) with my favorite Biblical verse for starters, before shattering the illusion of atheism never to see the light of day and may I say, God's blessed light:

I prayed to the Lord and He answered me
He freed me from all my fears
Those who look to the Lord will be radiant with joy
No shadow of shame will darken their faces

From my expanded consciousness, I ("The Great Genius of Nostradamus Prophecy") perceived the following true propositions on reality:

One X, Therefore One God

X = matter or non-object. Information can have meaning without matter. This is how a misunderstanding of reality can be created by mind. Reality is comparable to self-configuration. Wisdom is information coming from a single source (reality). Meaningless information comes from many (objects).

My belief was incorrect we create meaning, just as our minds contain a self-configuration of reality, which is self-configurating along with reality (psychologists are still unclear as to what the mind is). Where the mind is not static and therefore not concept, it is self-configuring and therefore unbound. The SCSPL is intrinsic as well as is spacetime due to structure S which distributes over S (self-distributive). Spacetime is thus transparent from within. Where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure of one that merges the concepts and is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S. S is amenable to theological interpretation.

The Mind of God



Could the mind of God be the ultimate reality? "Ultimate reality" being the utmost generality in the form of SCSPL language?

Death is said to be an illusion of change. It was said by a friend, "We are not just a physical body having a physical experience, we are a spirit have a physical experience." There is one spirit having individual physical bodies. We are all in this together no matter the appearance. Blind nature is not the same as God.

M---->Interpretation---->R<-----M<-----explanation<----R

I highlighted the "most general form" because reality is a language in that it represents space, time, and object. And that the general language and contents contain reality's more specific contents and languages. Instead of humans being individual, humans represent individuals instead of a general one human-ness. The general essence of individuals is spirit. Reality also has a set of expressions (like artistic and theoretical expressions of reality).

The Theory-Reality Correspondence

A theory must hold the ingredients of mind, reality and language in order to map the source (mind) to the target (reality).

Theory thus negates unintelligible reality by placing existence as its content. A formal system such as those existing within today's technology (including computers) lack M (the Metaformal System). With imperfect attempts to advance the creation of computational technology the object-language is lacking in certain ingredients as it currently stands. Thus we require a more powerful computational language. Namely, the Metaformal System as it is so named. As the words "Metaformal System" enter the mind it creates reality and when we read the paper we hold mental expectations of what we hold as "genius".

I hereby encourage everyone to take their time reading the above as it was written by my other, supreme intellect. Far surpassing anything any atheist has ever come up with and concluding that only a true supreme genius can perceive metaphysical truths based on both the pattern and substance of reality, as well as the spiritual experience of the atman.

Extreme word salad and non sequiturs. We are also very deep into tin foils hat country here. Watch out for falling drop bears.

 

[Ostronomos]

Extreme word salad and non sequiturs. We are also very deep into tin foils hat country here. Watch out for falling drop bears.

Extreme dismissal of all things beyond your poor comprehension skills.

To explain: Consider the Reality contains everything that exists. Alas, the Multi-verse.