[Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah

[Vandheer]

You are such an idiot

 

[killing raven sun]

idiot is pretty harsh, moron maybe, or even dip shit would suffice

but i am glad you put me in my place with your genius replies

 

[Lemongrass00]

Empirical evidence is widely subjective, who's to say we haven't experienced it? Maybe your hostility towards a supreme being is blinding that possibility, just as overly materialistic people often feel about the spiritual world.

seems like if the being was so supreme we would have empirical evidence of its existence

if my hostility towards a being makes that being irrelevant then they are not supreme

Post automatically merged: Apr 14, 2023

yes, by definition this supreme being must be known, an unknown being can not be supreme

The Supreme Being makes himself able to be known, it is evident in creation if you tune your eyes to see it. Creation is too complex and precise to come about any other way than a supreme being who is outside space, time and matter.

If a blind, deaf and dumb man can't see the sun, that doesn't deny the sun's radiant glory or life-sustaining power.

Additionally, maybe a supreme being has different motivations that a flawed mortal. Perhaps if he made himself outright physically known then it would know that it would essentially deny people freewill by forcing them to love and worship a supreme deity, as well as take all of the mystery and wonder out of life. There are certainly many reasons.

 

[Ancient]

Additionally, maybe a supreme being has different motivations that a flawed mortal. Perhaps if he made himself outright physically known then it would know that it would essentially deny people freewill by forcing them to love and worship a supreme deity, as well as take all of the mystery and wonder out of life. There are certainly many reasons.

Excellent point! As Roma was fond of saying, we tend to view things from a human-centric perspective. The nature of a supreme being would likely be inconceivable to our comparatively limited comprehension.

Besides, I think knowing the mechanics and reason (if any) would take a whole bunch of fun out of this existence. I prefer life with a little mystery; it gives me something to do.

 

[killing raven sun]

The Supreme Being makes himself able to be known, it is evident in creation if you tune your eyes to see it. Creation is too complex and precise to come about any other way than a supreme being who is outside space, time and matter.

If a blind, deaf and dumb man can't see the sun, that doesn't deny the sun's radiant glory or life-sustaining power.

Additionally, maybe a supreme being has different motivations that a flawed mortal. Perhaps if he made himself outright physically known then it would know that it would essentially deny people freewill by forcing them to love and worship a supreme deity, as well as take all of the mystery and wonder out of life. There are certainly many reasons.

i am sorry man, you seem like a good kid, but you are just creating your version of a supreme being, you start by calling it "him", really? then you say this man is outside space time and matter, none of which actually exist, they are conceptual place holders, we are all outside space time and matter or rather they only exist in the mind, you may have meant to say outside the universe but nothing can be known about that, so anything descibed as outside the universe is blind speculation and philosophically meaningless, and then you step in it hard, speculating that a supreme being has motivations, this motive quality can only describe that which is incomplete, the perfect is at rest, motivations can only be ascribed to those that are agitated into action, not a very supreme state of being, but the last part is where you go completely off the rails, the god of genesis makes himself known, and still the story says both of his peeps exercise their free will

this universe was created with intelligence, but that does not mean that the creator is here with us, that is just wishful thinking in the absence of evidence

 

[RoccoR]

RE: [Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah
SUBTOPIC: God Powers
killing raven sun, et al,

This is NOT quite how knowledge works in this case.

yes, by definition this supreme being must be known, an unknown being can not be supreme

(COMMENT)

• A newborn has to learn (many different sources) in order to gain knowledge. This process will repeat itself throughout the term of human life.​

​

• Original thought, enlightenment, and insight are not a result of the learning process. These are mental capacities that a human either has or does not have.​

​

• You, undoubtedly, have something in your hand at this moment. Just because I do not know what it is, does not change the reality that it is in your hand. You may or may not have a sibling. Just because I do not know if you do or if you do - does not change the reality.​

◈ All three of these concepts play a role in the ability to discern whether or not you believe in the existence of a "Supreme Being" (of which there can be only one). The idea of a "Supreme Being" is slightly different than the belief in a deity (of which there may be many). An uncorrupted intelligence (yourself) may believe in a number of possibilities under the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The fact is, that the believer has no way of knowing the true reality in this matter.

The existence of a deity of any variety (or any supernatural being, apparition, or power) does not rest in whether or not you have a belief or direct knowledge of that deity, supernatural being, apparition, or power.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

It seems to me that when the idea of the creation of Adam and Eve does not mean they were a soccer mom family, they were primitive as all hell along lines of anthropology and evolution theory, that probably started primal with shamanism, primal natural magic (creation of fire), and evolved from there. Define the non-negative, non-destructive qualities of the deity you like, and live them, thats your ticket home.

 

[Lemongrass00]

i am sorry man, you seem like a good kid, but you are just creating your version of a supreme being, you start by calling it "him", really? then you say this man is outside space time and matter, none of which actually exist, they are conceptual place holders, we are all outside space time and matter or rather they only exist in the mind, you may have meant to say outside the universe but nothing can be known about that, so anything descibed as outside the universe is blind speculation and philosophically meaningless, and then you step in it hard, speculating that a supreme being has motivations, this motive quality can only describe that which is incomplete, the perfect is at rest, motivations can only be ascribed to those that are agitated into action, not a very supreme state of being, but the last part is where you go completely off the rails, the god of genesis makes himself known, and still the story says both of his peeps exercise their free will

this universe was created with intelligence, but that does not mean that the creator is here with us, that is just wishful thinking in the absence of evidence

Thanks, I am not placing my pride in this conversation I am simply trying to exchange ideas so do not feel any sorrow if you don’t agree with me.

My use of gendered pronouns for the supreme being is a common linguistic convention that wasn’t necessarily intended to convey a specific gender. The supreme being is an abstract concept obviously, so the gendered pronoun was to provide a sense of familiarity as that is my preference.

Next, it is true that these concepts (space time matter) are constructs of the human mind, they are still useful for understanding and describing our world. The idea of a supreme being existing beyond these constructs is not incompatible with occult beliefs, which often mentions unseen planes and subtle inner realms. These by your logic should also be denied or atleast held to the same level of scrutiny that you apply to the Supreme Being. If you are willing to accept the possibility of other planes that are beyond the physical world, it seems reasonable to consider the reality of a Supreme being that exists outside of the universe

also, it is logically and philosophically coherent to propose. In order for the universe to be created the supreme being must have been outside of it, including time space and matter to accomplish it.

also, still the simple fact of the incredible detail and complexity in creation obviously points to a grand designer behind it all.

just because the Supreme being, if it is the God of genesis, if the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be literal and not symbolic, (lots of assumptions you are making) Adam and Eve were the representation for our species as a whole, and they chose to turn away from the divine in favor of maya, which could simply be a metaphor for humanity choosing darkness and sin despite having divine origins. I personally do not view the story of Adam and Eve as literal so this point does not really apply much to me.

Furthermore, you say that the concept of a Supreme being having motivations is flawed, as this implies a state of agitation and incompleteness. However, many occult traditions hold that the divine is not static, but rather is in a constant state of flux and evolution. I lean more towards that the concept of a Supreme being having motivations does not necessarily have to imply imperfection, but rather points to an active and dynamic nature.

Finally, you say that a Supreme being, being present or involved in the universe is wishful thinking with the absence of evidence, but pretty much every occult path often relies on personal experience and intuition as a form of evidence, or gnosis. Several occultists have claimed to have had direct experiences with the divine or have received messages from spiritualSeveral of the things you have said sound based on your personal experience and intuition, but who’s to say your intuition is more correct over the next guy? The best we can do is continually reflect and question.

 

[killing raven sun]

the intuition is your supreme being, it is the perfected knowledge of the universe, we all share the same intuition, and by we i mean animals and plants as well, it is intuitively true that if there was a supreme being residing here in the universe it created then it would be obvious to all, the fact that such a being does not make itself known means that either it isnt supreme or it does not exist, this is just basic logic

 

[RoccoR]

RE: [Opinion] About God/YHWH/Allah
SUBTOPIC: God Powers
※→ Lemongrasss00, et al,

Actually, people, like myself, often fail to recognize the contributions to the discussion, whether or not it is agreed upon. And I think all the participants have given valuable insights.

Finally, you say that a Supreme being, being present or involved in the universe is wishful thinking with the absence of evidence, but pretty much every occult path often relies on personal experience and intuition as a form of evidence, or gnosis. Several occultists have claimed to have had direct experiences with the divine or have received messages from spiritualSeveral of the things you have said sound based on your personal experience and intuition, but who’s to say your intuition is more correct over the next guy? The best we can do is continually reflect and question.

(COMMENT)

There are several distinctions that should be noted here.

• The Supreme Being → Is distinguished as the highest developed entity assumed by man. But it is not necessarily the Creator or the First Cause. The Supreme Being might be assumed to have a personality, the voice of the burning bush, divine inspiration, or that which provided the power that brought the walls of Jericho down.​

​

• The Grand Architect or the Creator → The Architect and Creator are nearly identical. But the Architect implies a form of "intelligent Design." The Creator implies that which assembled the basic building blocks of the universe and held that power that formed the life force. The Creator is that special something that is responsible for the Law of Life, physics, and Forces which are studied as the hard sciences.​

​

• The First Cause → The First Cause is that entity that sets the universe in motion (bringing about inertia) and sets up space-time. The First Cause is the very first energy applied to the subatomic objects of the universe. Without The First Cause universe would remain at rest. The First Cause is the source of energy that applied the external force that established the excitement and movement of the initial elements of the universe (the heat in the vastness of space.​

These are often assumed to be interchangeable. And in most cases, they can be, depending on their use. But there are nuances to these names.

Now there is much more to it that this thumbnail view might consider - in the realm of Metaphysics (reality and that which is beyond our scientific understanding).

Finally, you say that a Supreme being, being present or involved in the universe is wishful thinking with the absence of evidence, but pretty much every occult path often relies on personal experience and intuition as a form of evidence, or gnosis.

(COMMENT)

This is a very meaningful contribution. But I would caution all by saying that humanity does not really respect the Life Force which sparks consciousness, sensation, and perception to spring forth.

There is no reason to believe that one side of the equation is any stronger than the other. There is no support for believing that the idea of a Supreme Being, Creator, or First Cause exists any more than it is to assume the opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Xingtian]

When we’re talking about a supreme transcendent principle in western occultism we have to consider Plato. Platonism is the inescapable influence in basically any kind of theology or metaphysics in western esotericism. Conceptions of a transcendent, ineffable, unitary deity owe so much to Plato’s discussions of the Good, Beauty, forms etc and further developments by people like Plotinus. These are not mere intuitions or personal experiences but rigorously reasoned arguments. And I’m not saying we’ve got to swallow any of this uncritically, but we do need to be familiar with it because pretty much everything that comes after is responding to it somehow. I see a lot of arguments against crude theism which simply do not apply to this understanding of God that became dominant among intellectuals from late antiquity onward.

 

[Lemongrass00]

the intuition is your supreme being, it is the perfected knowledge of the universe, we all share the same intuition, and by we i mean animals and plants as well, it is intuitively true that if there was a supreme being residing here in the universe it created then it would be obvious to all, the fact that such a being does not make itself known means that either it isnt supreme or it does not exist, this is just basic logic

I will have to reflect on this, if you look at my post history I came to the forum more or less a fundamental Christian and have tirelessly been working to undo my societal programming.

I am still not at the level to accept there is no Supreme being/ creator/ ultimate God, and I’m still not entirely sure it is correct in general. I do appreciate your input it is definitely unique.

 

[killing raven sun]

• The First Cause → The First Cause is that entity that sets the universe in motion (bringing about inertia) and sets up space-time. The First Cause is the very first energy applied to the subatomic objects of the universe. Without The First Cause universe would remain at rest. The First Cause is the source of energy that applied the external force that established the excitement and movement of the initial elements of the universe (the heat in the vastness of space.​

here is a grand problem, this is an inacurate description of the mechanics of the universe, there is no first cause(big bang), that idea came from ignorance and has no support even in the sciences, evidence points to an infinite universe, energy cannot be created or destroyed, and there is no such thing as space and time, both of those terms simply describe a mental construct based on a human form

btw, if you believe in evolution then there cannot be a supreme being because it hasnt evolved yet, a supreme being would have supplanted us all

 

[Lemongrass00]

here is a grand problem, this is an inacurate description of the mechanics of the universe, there is no first cause(big bang), that idea came from ignorance and has no support even in the sciences, evidence points to an infinite universe, energy cannot be created or destroyed, and there is no such thing as space and time, both of those terms simply describe a mental construct based on a human form

btw, if you believe in evolution then there cannot be a supreme being because it hasnt evolved yet, a supreme being would have supplanted us all

If the universe is constantly expanding like the scientific literature supports, then it implies that it is finite and has an origin point.

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

However, read Between A Rock and A Hard Place, or The World Without Us. Nature seems to rule supreme.

 

[killing raven sun]

If the universe is constantly expanding like the scientific literature supports, then it implies that it is finite and has an origin point.

its not expanding, read more if you need to, i recommend Halton Arp seeing red

 

[Nobody]

Thanks to all for your inputs, I really enjoy the debate and find the arguments of some quite relevant !

btw, if you believe in evolution then there cannot be a supreme being because it hasnt evolved yet, a supreme being would have supplanted us all

Unless, we live in what in human terms, we call a simulation.

If we project Moore's law to the Universe rather than to human faculties, we could think that the Universe evolves according to the updates of which we are not humanly aware.

Let's assume that the system (God, an OS or anything) is itself limited by its own components. This possibility could somehow allow the validation of the questioning I was asking in my first two messages (or not? tell me). Could we think that it could allow us to evolve on the condition that its own "updates" allow us to do so? The more the human will evolve at his scale, the more he will quickly approach the limit that the system will impose to him in spite of him. God/the OS will have no other choice than to constantly evolve (by updating its hardware) but to what extent?

Have you ever thought about this possibility? I would like your input on it (and that of others too).

 

[Ancient]

Thanks to all for your inputs, I really enjoy the debate and find the arguments of some quite relevant !



Unless, we live in what in human terms, we call a simulation.

If we project Moore's law to the Universe rather than to human faculties, we could think that the Universe evolves according to the updates of which we are not humanly aware.

Let's assume that the system (God, an OS or anything) is itself limited by its own components. This possibility could somehow allow the validation of the questioning I was asking in my first two messages (or not? tell me). Could we think that it could allow us to evolve on the condition that its own "updates" allow us to do so? The more the human will evolve at his scale, the more he will quickly approach the limit that the system will impose to him in spite of him. God/the OS will have no other choice than to constantly evolve (by updating its hardware) but to what extent?

Have you ever thought about this possibility? I would like your input on it (and that of others too).

This is absolutely possible, and is one of the more statistically probable theories of the nature of the universe/God OS.

The trouble is that without a method to obtain empirical evidence, we can find a multitude of equally plausible theories.

It’s kinda like looking at a piece of fruit and seeing that it is spherical, but being unable to touch, smell, taste, or see its color and texture. One person might say “It’s round, clearly it’s an orange!” Another says “It’s round, this is an apple!” Yet another declares “This is a banana that has been molded into a sphere!”

There is nothing wrong with the logic in those assumptions, except that there is a lack of the necessary observations required to make a complete determination.

 

[Nobody]

The trouble is that without a method to obtain empirical evidence, we can find a multitude of equally plausible theories.

Logically speaking, I agree with you. But wouldn't we reach the ultimate limit of such a system? At this stage (which could be considered as ultimate), our usefulness would perhaps become totally obsolete and the system could restart or even destroy us to preserve a form of perenity.

But is this even possible? How can we see out of the box if we are ourselves the box (let's say the inside, at least).

Besides, I think knowing the mechanics and reason (if any) would take a whole bunch of fun out of this existence. I prefer life with a little mystery; it gives me something to do.

And maybe that's the whole point. To philosophize is good. Having the answers to everything is perhaps not thought through by the simulation itself.

It’s kinda like looking at a piece of fruit and seeing that it is spherical, but being unable to touch, smell, taste, or see its color and texture. One person might say “It’s round, clearly it’s an orange!” Another says “It’s round, this is an apple!” Yet another declares “This is a banana that has been molded into a sphere!”

The problem with our senses is that they are also the first to deceive us. Think of trompe l'oeil, etc. If we're talking about what we can feel, smell, taste and see - then "real" is simply electrical signals interpreted by the brain - which, again, could be compatible with the simulation.

I'm straying a bit from the initial topic but you make me think that our brain could be a receptacle for frequencies that could be sent by the simulation itself. "The first cause" described by @RoccoR could be in some way the software interconnected to the other two points (The Supreme Being & The Grand Architect or the Creator) he mentions. Just a hypothesis.

 

[killing raven sun]

Let's assume

never. the simulated universe was proposed by some of the dumbest men that ever lived, it has no merit, just more distraction from those that lie for a living, they dont know shit and they dont want you to know shit either or you wont work for them

as above so below, the rules of the universe play out here before us, there is no mystery, only obfuscation, university is the place where knowledge goes to die, you are taught what to think not how to think, its ritual indoctrination into a cult of ignorant madness