Why would there have to be a 'god', perhaps the universe has rules without hierarchies.
We are a product of the rules, no need for some omnipotent ruler to oversee us.
We just are, as the universe just is.
No gods, no masters.
IF god did exist s/he would have to be destroyed, unless s/he granted us our freedom.
Which does appear to me to be the case.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Perhaps the explanation that everything is a cosmic coincidence is the worse of the two. While God is undefinable, just like the universe (uni = all in one) is undefinable, since we know neither its origin nor its space. Making a person out of God seems as nonsensical to me as making the universe a bunch of randomly colliding bodies.
Although the destruction of God is in full swing and very successful, an existence without God is merely depressing. To believe that we can explain the creation of the universe by an explosion seems to me to be a superstition. It leaves us with nothing but a fearful existence, after which all the planets drift apart and leave us in eternal darkness. I share the view that we are all God, like the widely dispersed parts of a soul unable to remember itself, but in constant search of it. If we destroy this, it means destroying ourselves. Similarly, just as parents do not have an omnipotent influence over their children, however hard they try, they cannot precisely direct their paths. Therefore, children who, as adults, do not refrain from accusing their parents of their misdemeanours and omissions are as futile as accusing God.
As close as I could come to some kind of philosophical basis.
I'll stick to 'All I know is that I'm wrong about what I know.' I know that's true.
Thank you.
That is helpful in being in conversation about external topics, in particular in the natural sciences. I very much share it.
It is less helpful to find a stand within a relationship, though.
There, I need better to know what I want, what my goals are, what I need to take responsibility for. Or, to put it differently, to make a strong commitment to my man or woman and those near me (or far away friends).
This separation mindwarp that the controllers of the ideas allowed to us have put on us has left us blind to the reality of nature around us, imo.
When we shut out the reality of magnetic/electric influence on our own magnetic/electric resonances, finding solutions is near impossible.
This explains why control freaks would restrict the knowledge of that to us, they don't want us to escape their plans.
But, should we remember that we are all one with all the other stardust around us then so many questions go away.
There is no need to answer the questions about is there a god, there is only the need to follow the rules set for our selves by the magnetic resonant frequencies around us.
Some people are naturally, organically, correctly serial killers, while others are intended to be their victims.
Were we 'god' we could decide who is whom and what to do about that, but, as we are equally stardust to those around us we have no authority to do so.
We can only make the choices for ourselves.
I can't write my rules down and force them onto you, nor you me, nor can we delegate to some other an authority which we don't have.
'All authority comes from the barrel of a gun.'
Mao Tse-tung
Ergo, all authority is false.
I challenge that notion. How I see it, it directly results from thinking of God equal to a human being. But if you try not to define God as a person and see him not as omnipotent, you cannot by any means decide who is whom and what to do about that. The idea of omnipotence is very human. But as parents cannot fully predetermine the life-path of their children, we cannot determine the path of our cells in our bodies. If I were able to control them, I might become immortal. Since I can't, I find it easy to say that even though everyone is God, omnipotence cannot be present. Though potency is.
Magnetic resonance frequencies give me no indication of humanly rules. As we are relational beings and put ourselves in each other's shoes, there are no human rules to be found in electromagnetic frequencies. You don't talk that way every day, don't you? At most, I find linguistic confusion. The term "human" does not need to be replaced by other terms, it is as appropriate as it is old.
I answer that that's an incorrect logic.
I am a parent. I have authority over my young child. No gun involved. You need authority since the infant depends on it.
Now, because a lot of practiced authority goes into the wrong direction (putting the barrel of a gun towards one) it is a mistake to deny authority altogether. If you don't have authority, you cannot be free. That does not mean that your authority is omnipresent and omnipotent, right?
If you think the idea of "no authority" to the end, don't you find eventually out that it cannot be thought nor lived without it?
To hand over the ultimate authority to God is a very elegant move, I think, since we humans have found out that we cannot be the leaders of everyone on earth, since we are not infallible. To put the ultimate authority into God puts into perspective what we can and what we cannot. Now, if you take God out of the picture, all what is left is us. If you kill the ideal, all what comes after it, is less ideal, in fact, it becomes weaker and weaker since every following sub-ideal is replaced by another sub-ideal; until you cannot call it an ideal any longer. Where we are at, the new age of a confused language, if you ask me.
We certainly do, and in fact, cannot NOT do that.
Yes, for ourselves, but not for others.
Others must come to their own conclusions.
I we let them.
That is a factor in the equation.
That is what the masters want you to think.
!lol
I can't say that I definitively know one way or the other, but I will side with the side that provides maximum freedom for me.
lolztoken.com
Bartender: Are you positive?
Credit: theabsolute
@erh.germany, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of antisocialist
(1/4)
NEW: Join LOLZ's Daily Earn and Burn Contest and win $LOLZ
:D
We are what we are because the universe is what it is. The universe is not what it is because we are what we are. It's sort of narcissistic to consider things otherwise IMHO. It's plainly obvious that the universe has a suite of rules and hierarchies, of which we know so little we suppose that most of it is dark energy and matter. We clearly aren't capable of perceiving it as it is, and profitably accord us little capacity to conceive of what it actually is.
All I am certain of is that anyone certain of anything being a certain way is absolutely wrong, and that includes me about that.
We change the universe by perceiving it.
Symbiotic when we agree and the opposite when we don't.
Dysbiotic?
There isn't a good antonym to symbiotic.
What's up with that?
We exist to do what we do, only we can decide what that will be, imo.
We can abdicate the responsibility of making our own choice by letting others do it for us, but the consequences will still fall on us.
Try on antagonistic. There are a variety of words that convey meanings opposite to symbiotic, that may better fit your use case. Personally, I like agonistic, a term I learned researching vaccines for a vaccine component intended to rouse the immune system so that it can become competent to alert on the active component of a vaccine, that accompanies the agonist. Symbiotic refers to a specific biological relationship, not physics more generally, and synonyms for what you mean by symbiotic in terms of physics may more precisely specify such relationships and be more clearly specified by particular antonyms.
I don't see how. Our perceptions are part and parcel of the universe. All I can see that can change through our perception is our conception, but that is clearly also part of the universe and as predictable as any other phenomenon. This is why I wrassled with the characterization of events as variable depending on whether or not we perceived them until I felt I had properly understood such perception and refuted such characterization satisfactorily. A bunch of woo woo spewed from Quantum physicists that claimed observing photons shot through slits changed their behaviour, when in fact the act of observing them entailed affecting them physically, which is what actually changed their behaviour.
While I completely agree we have free will, that doesn't mean our actions can't be predictable by those possessing fuller understanding of us and our environment. All my free will actions can be completely ordained by some scheming supergenius that has prepared the milieu in which I make decisions without my knowledge without affecting my freedom to make such decisions. There are analogies in research into consciousness using slime molds, where researchers create environments with certain features, such as food being concentrated in regions with trails of glucose leading to the food, that reveal slime molds learn and make decisions. The fact that researchers repeating this experiment will expect slime molds to take certain actions doesn't change the experience of the slime molds making those decisions.
Edit:
I recall Neil Peart of Rush making a definitive statement in the song 'Freewill' on this matter, writing the line 'We can choose not to decide, but we still have made the choice.'
https://wikiless.org/wiki/Observer_effect
There are more than just that one example.
What point is there to having a god, if your behavior doesn't change from being aware of being observed?
From that link, and agreeing with my prior research, and what I stated above:
There's no woo woo, magical change we effect by perceiving. We use instruments, such as bouncing particles off of other particles, in the process of observation, and these, obviously, affect our targets of observation.
Edit: regarding God, I also stated this above:
Nothing better understanding of the subject doesn't make entirely predictable is portended by these presents.