You say that there is a god...

[TLK Valentine]

The term 'god' means 'mighty one', basically.

But for the purposes of this discussion, what's a definition we can use?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Something thing with the power to create, destroy, and inspire.

Now you see why there are so many "gods".

By that definition, anything can be a god.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

A coherent thesis is literally a collection of arguments in support of a position. You aren't presenting arguments. You are presenting your conclusions and falsely calling them arguments.

This reply isn't to argue against your point. In fact, I know this problem about myself all too well. Jumping from A to Z in discussion with people without explaining the steps that I got there. I have bipolar disorder and it's especially bad when I'm off medications. I did explain to you my position without the argument at first, although I did mention how change is part of this. I will explain this idea of change further.

Based on what I've seen people be able to do in my lifetime, there is more than enough evidence to me that pretty much all change is possible. Again, this is a conclusion rather than an argument supported by facts. I get that. It's hard to explain the full nuances of process theology but if you already knew what it meant, you must have heard other people explain this idea to you in a way that was supported by evidence. I have to be honest, when I read Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead I barely understand most of it. I mostly understand these positions when they are boiled down in simple to understand explanations that ChatGPT feeds me. In fact, most of process theology is foreign to me, and I'm not expecting you to read that book, which would literally be homework for you.

But the way I understand it currently is that because life exists God has creativity and this creativity allows people to shape the reality they've always wanted. Based on this, the logical extreme of this argument, the conclusion, is that the possibility of change allows God to be developed. It also gives life the ability to direct and control these changes. We do this to 1 - alleviate suffering but also 2 - to enhance creativity. I still have a lot to learn about these topics and I'll most likely never be as intelligent or smart as Alfred Whitehead. But from the rudimentary understandings I have of panentheism, syntheism and process theology, I believe in them. I understand that nothing in science has yet explained or proven that there is anything outside the Universe. My belief in the multiverse, and The Omniverse, are extrapolations - otherwise known as - "an educated guess." I refuse to believe that "nothing" created the Universe, and our understandings of science are not yet at a point where we can explain all phenomena.

Then what created The Omniverse? I don't know that answer. I believe that natural forces are built into The Omniverse that are as eternal as this concept, and, that Entropy and Extropy are those forces. That all of existence exists because of these three fundamental concepts. I believe this because I extrapolate what I already know about the Sun, the planets, the galaxies and so on. Everything I learned about reality points to one thing: that all things change. Everything changes. I extrapolate from this and realize that if all things change, then all things are possible from those changes. I reject the idea that Yahweh or pagan Gods exist in a way that causes these changes, yet, I cannot deny the fact that those things do in fact change. Earthseed explains it so easily. God is change. I extrapolate those changes and realize that life is one never ending cycle to produce the best changes as possible, developing the least amount of suffering and victimhood and at the same time allowing people the freedom to be who they want to be.

I honestly don't know how to explain it better than that. You may not see change as something that is divine - in fact, you probably don't believe in divinity at all, but from how I understand reality certain changes that happen in life and society produces active divinity. My life's work will one day come together and I will write a document/test that will be able to objectively measure this subjective idea, but for now, it is impossible for me to determine what has the least and most amount of passive and active divinity in it. But because I believe - and have faith - that divinity is something that is able to be measured, then I believe in some way it exists in reality, and not just in a monotheistic God. I came to this realization when I was 14 and I never turned away from this idea. Again, you don't have to believe it, as objectifying an idea like divinity would be an extremely hard thing to fully accomplish, and there are going to be people who argue against the test as a result, but due to the diverse complexity of life and nature on Earth, and what millions of different of species of animals do on Earth, proves to me that these changes these lifeforms create on Earth are in some way, divine.

If all things are divine in some rudimentary way, then it is life, and more specifically, intelligent life, that shapes God. By shaping this God we cause the least amount of suffering and promote the most amount of creativity within the species. The more creative people become the faster we shape this God. And everything I've experienced in my life, with all the changes, both good and bad, have helped me understand that all substances in the Universe are undergoing processes that ultimately make it more divine. More energy, more utility, more generosity, more sagacity, more sovereignty, and the most amount of unity built within humans. I haven't developed a religion, but rather, a personal credo that I call Exaltism - the adherence to raising the status amongst things.

I hope that this post, which took about an hour to write, reaches you, and I hope you read it. I am not telling you to believe this. I am telling you that I believe it. And ultimately the reason why I do is simple and fundamental and only needs one word to explain it - change. I fundamentally believe that things that exist changes to become more complex and develop creativity, which increases its free will, and this free will is something I call extropy, and I believe - and have faith - that is what makes God divine in the first place. If you still cannot understand this, then there is virtually nothing I can say to explain it better, without reading more literature on these topics myself.

 

[ppp]

This reply isn't to argue against your point. In fact, I know this problem about myself all too well. Jumping from A to Z in discussion with people without explaining the steps that I got there. I have bipolar disorder and it's especially bad when I'm off medications. I did explain to you my position without the argument at first, although I did mention how change is part of this. I will explain this idea of change further.

Based on what I've seen people be able to do in my lifetime, there is more than enough evidence to me that pretty much all change is possible. Again, this is a conclusion rather than an argument supported by facts. I get that. It's hard to explain the full nuances of process theology but if you already knew what it meant, you must have heard other people explain this idea to you in a way that was supported by evidence. I have to be honest, when I read Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead I barely understand most of it. I mostly understand these positions when they are boiled down in simple to understand explanations that ChatGPT feeds me. In fact, most of process theology is foreign to me, and I'm not expecting you to read that book, which would literally be homework for you.

But the way I understand it currently is that because life exists God has creativity and this creativity allows people to shape the reality they've always wanted. Based on this, the logical extreme of this argument, the conclusion, is that the possibility of change allows God to be developed

I appreciate that you took the time to write that. The section I quoted above is as far as I got. I am probably not the correct audience for this discussion with you. You're starting to from a presumption of the existence of God and then discussing its nature. I am not willing to start with that presumption.

I have a few friends who have bipolar orders to various severities. I hope you're taking care of yourself.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you claim to have proof of God.
Droll.

Considering your demonstrated immunity
to fact and reason re geology, we have our doubts






O

Hey Audie, once again… more and more megafauna are being discovered throughout the northern lattitudes, as the Permafrost is thawing… their remains - most of which is putrefied, but some are in well-preserved condition - have been found within it; not on top of it, but encased within it.

And it’s fresh-water, not salt water. That excludes an ocean event.

So how did this phenomenon occur? I remember now: you ignore those facts.

And the other facts I’ve presented, you prefer to dismiss as unfortunate coincidences, I guess.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm. Your position is that you know what you are talking about. My position is that you have yet to present a cohernet thesis, and are completely unaware of that lack. Can there ve a greater divide than that?

...

Then you do that yourself or it is a double standard.

 

[Audie]

Hey Audie, once again… more and more megafauna are being discovered throughout the northern lattitudes, as the Permafrost is thawing… their remains - most of which is putrefied, but some are in well-preserved condition - have been found within it; not on top of it, but encased within it.

And it’s fresh-water, not salt water. That excludes an ocean event.

So how did this phenomenon occur? I remember now: you ignore those facts.

And the other facts I’ve presented, you prefer to dismiss as unfortunate coincidences, I guess.

Some of what you list as fact is real enough.
It's your deranged "interpretation" that's the problem.

And all the falsehoods you present as fact.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Can someone truly love something they don’t understand?

I love lots of people and I don't really understand them at all. So yes.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You haven't made one. A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion. You have made no effort to support your conclusions. The only thing that I have gotten is a bunch of baled assertions and stuff that you imagine about me.


I was already aware of those definitions, but I cannot throw too much guff on someone providing the definitions for what they awant to talk about.
However.
And this is a big however.

Do you understand what you have provided -- in thst post as well as your previous -- is only a recitation of what you believe?

There is no meat on your bones. No ligaments. No blood. No tendons. No vital support.

A case starts with a mutually agreed upon set of premises followed by series of statements connected nonfallaciously, culminating in a conclusion.

 

[Audie]

I love lots of people and I don't really understand them at all. So yes.

Lots of " friends" too

We Asians have a very different understanding of what
love is.

And that a person is fortunate to have e even one true friend or love in a lifetime.

Talk of love and friendship is cheap.
Action is hard. And rare.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Lots of " friends" too

We Asians have a very different understanding of what
love is.

And that a person is fortunate to have e even one true friend or love in a lifetime.

Talk of love and friendship is cheap.
Action is hard. And rare.

I think love transcends culture, and that the experience of giving and receiving love is the same for all of humanity.

 

[Audie]

I think love transcends culture, and that the experience of giving and receiving love is the same for all of humanity.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

If you "love" lots of people, then what you
are calling "love" is something cheap. shallow and
essentially meaningless to us.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

If you "love" lots of people, then what you
are calling "love" is something cheap. shallow and
essentially meaningless to us.

I disagree. Love is not something we need to be miserly about. Indeed, the more freely we give it away, the greater is the stock of it in our own hearts.

 

[ppp]

I disagree. Love is not something we need to be miserly about. Indeed, the more freely we give it away, the greater is the stock of it in our own hearts.

I think that what @Audie is saying is that what you are calling love is a non-substantive facade. That love is the product of a complex interplay between people; constantly being crafted and refined. That what you are calling love is a plastic extruded facsimile that one might find in a McDonalds Happy Meal. Easily discarded, replicated and replaced.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think that what @Audie is saying is that what you are calling love is a non-substantive facade. That love is the product of a complex interplay between people; constantly being crafted and refined. That what you are calling love is a plastic extruded facsimile that one might find in a McDonalds Happy Meal. Easily discarded, replicated and replaced.

I know what love is. Maybe one day both you and Audie will too.

And I never eat in McDonalds.

 

[Audie]

I know what love is. Maybe one day both you and Audie will too.

You just demonstrated that you only know
the shallow facade of puppy love.
It takes some maturity to understand more
than that.
Good luck.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You just demonstrated that you only know
the shallow facade of puppy love.
It takes some maturity to understand more
than that.
Good luck.

I'm not talking about romance.

 

[Audie]

I'm not talking about romance.

Neither am I.
Thinking thats my topic is more shallow comprehension.

 

[dybmh]

By that definition, anything can be a god.

Not literally anything. Create AND Destroy AND Inspire. All three. So most/all inanimate objects are out. Maybe? I don't know for sure.

But yeah, it's a wide open definition. That's why I said:




Defining "a god" is not a problem at all. You can scratch that one off the list of objections.

 

[dybmh]

I think that what @Audie is saying is that what you are calling love is a non-substantive facade. That love is the product of a complex interplay between people; constantly being crafted and refined.

Great!

That what you are calling love is a plastic extruded facsimile that one might find in a McDonalds Happy Meal. Easily discarded, replicated and replaced.

Projection. @RestlessSoul didn't say enough for you to make the assessment. This is a statement of your own lack of belief nothing more.