Darkness of angels -

Sorry it's just that I've explained it already on another thread and for some reason I just assumed you had read it. Ok I'll explain in more detail, if I can.

My intuition :

I feel that the entire universe is not simply just what you see (as in, what you see is what you get). I get the distinct feeling that things / the universe are a symptom of something, they don't just exist of their own accord, they don't exist "for their own sake". I feel that the universe is a manifestation, rather than a cause/effect in itself. And I feel that life has a meaning and a purpose (as opposed to being an "accident"). As for consciousness, when I imagine mself being dead, I imagine myself being dead, and I'm there to imagine it. What I really mean is that I seriously can't conceive of not existing, or at some point not having existed. This leads me to believe that consciousness is indestructible. As for god manifesting rather than creating, if there's a god and it creates, it must create from itself, as there is nothing other than god to create anything. I'm sure, or I assume, that if you were a theist, you may think along the same lines. * After all, if you're god and you proceed to create, where do you go to get what you need to create? Nowhere, as you're the only thing other than whatever you might create. Which is why I see it more as manifesting than actually creating. *

My reasoning :

I know this will frustrate you, but my intuition is my reasoning. I'm sure philosophers use a combination of logic and feelings, and I think I do the same. I don't necessarily separate the two, and I hope you notice that all of the above is a combination of what I feel and the way I use reason to confirm to myself what I feel. For example, the bit inbetween the asterisks. When it comes to things that can't be proven empirically, I think we all make leaps of faith and explain certain things to ourselves in a way that satisfies us. This indicates that we all have certain premises, which very conveniently also happen to fit with our "reasoning".

I feel that the universe couldn't exist without god in the same way that you feel that the universe couldn't exist without itself. To me, they're one and the same (with the addition that god also transcends the universe). My premise is that the universe is god, so for me, with that premise, it's not a case of looking for god within the universe, it's a case of my intuition and my way of "figuring it out" being the evidence, to me, of god's existence. You, as an atheist, if you were to ask yourself does god exist, would go around looking for footprints. Me, with the premise that I have, look at a thing, anything, and see the footprint. And when you say that there's no god to have an impact on the universe, that's from your point of view, whereas from my point of view (that the universe is god), it's not a question of impact as to me they're one and the same. God doesn't "do things to or in" the universe, god IS (active verb <--- very important point) the universe. God "is-es" the universe.

(July 20, 2010 at 7:24 pm)Godhead Wrote: I feel that the entire universe is not simply just what you see (as in, what you see is what you get). I get the distinct feeling that things / the universe are a symptom of something, they don't just exist of their own accord, they don't exist "for their own sake". I feel that the universe is a manifestation, rather than a cause/effect in itself. And I feel that life has a meaning and a purpose (as opposed to being an "accident"). As for consciousness, when I imagine mself being dead, I imagine myself being dead, and I'm there to imagine it. What I really mean is that I seriously can't conceive of not existing, or at some point not having existed. This leads me to believe that consciousness is indestructible. As for god manifesting rather than creating, if there's a god and it creates, it must create from itself, as there is nothing other than god to create anything. I'm sure, or I assume, that if you were a theist, you may think along the same lines. * After all, if you're god and you proceed to create, where do you go to get what you need to create? Nowhere, as you're the only thing other than whatever you might create. Which is why I see it more as manifesting than actually creating. *

If this is truely the case, then I can now conclude that your reasoning is faulty. I can explain further once I have fully digested what you've written in this post, but so far I can tell you this:

Look back on your post and tell me what you see and see if you can point to me to be the logical problems with it and since you know as well as I that I'm going to give my perspective and you'll likely read it before you review your own work - you still should, independant of anything I say here.

I mean, look at how often you use terms like "I feel" and "I imagine" and that you've come to the conclusion based on an ambiguous feeling you possess that the universe is more than the manner to which we percieve it but what I don't see is any logical reason or perception that has led you to any of the conclusions you've outlined and many of them would have material reprocussions and several you couldn't possibly know.

Take conciousness for example, to which you have attributed to be indestructible and look at your arguement for it to that end. You attempted to imagine yourself not alive (before or after life) and couldn't concieve of it so it must be indestructible. ??? What?
I can't say I'm surprised that you can can't concieve something you've never personally experienced. Any person can say that about anything they haven't experienced. I can't imagine being a woman, but that doesn't mean I coudn't have been born a woman or I couldn't become a woman at any point in time in my life, should I choose to do so.

About life having a purpose - that would imply that something gave us a purpose. This would be contradictory to any idea or reasoning that god doesn't influence our material existence. In fact, in god's body really were the universe and the universe was god, then god not influencing the universe is impossible.
Take, for example, your own body. If a red blood cell had suddenly achieved conciousness and came to know and understand the human body to the extent of its habitat (the circulatory system), I guarentee that that blood cell would not only know his entire universe was alive and concious also, but would come to know its lot in life and that we appreciate all the things it does for you because there would be obvious signs of a thinking entity outside of its habitat and sometimes penetrating into its habitat and 'rapturing' other cells out of the body (drawing blood) and how new cells suddenly appear in the midst of a war against infection (antibiotic injection) and how the selection of nutrient and air intake isn't random (routine of food you eat and the air around living areas and other places commonly visited.)

I think I'll move on to other points, but I'll finish here with the following:
Intuition and Common Sense is based on things you can see, touch, smell, feel, and taste or perhaps machines that have senses or a level of sensititivity that we do not possess to sense the world around us. It helps us use what we have to make immediate snap and simple judgements about the world around us. These things and deductive reasoning is responsible for much of humanity's scientific discoveries.

You, on the other hand, have failed, thus far, to proove that your line of reasoning leads to a god-filled universe in any sense of anything you've spoken of thus far.

(July 20, 2010 at 7:24 pm)Godhead Wrote: I know this will frustrate you, but my intuition is my reasoning. I'm sure philosophers use a combination of logic and feelings, and I think I do the same. I don't necessarily separate the two, and I hope you notice that all of the above is a combination of what I feel and the way I use reason to confirm to myself what I feel. For example, the bit inbetween the asterisks. When it comes to things that can't be proven empirically, I think we all make leaps of faith and explain certain things to ourselves in a way that satisfies us. This indicates that we all have certain premises, which very conveniently also happen to fit with our "reasoning".

The idea that 'intuition is your reasoning' is a non-sensical notion. Intuition is a kind of reasoning and reasoning is a process to digest and interpret information. Intuition and common sense require at least some empirical evidence in which to at least form an immediate opinion based on initial perception of person, places, or things.
But if I get something across to you it'll have to be this: you've definately proven that the first major point you've done here was not done with reasoning of any kind. I'll try to elaborate more below.

I don't know very much about philosophers in general, but I can say that their words have no influence on science and only occasionally theology but prominant in neither. Philosophers do a lot of things, but there's a reason you never see a philosopher in any matters of science unless he is also a scientist (with the appropriate training and credentials).

(July 20, 2010 at 7:24 pm)Godhead Wrote: I feel that the universe couldn't exist without god in the same way that you feel that the universe couldn't exist without itself. To me, they're one and the same (with the addition that god also transcends the universe). My premise is that the universe is god, so for me, with that premise, it's not a case of looking for god within the universe, it's a case of my intuition and my way of "figuring it out" being the evidence, to me, of god's existence. You, as an atheist, if you were to ask yourself does god exist, would go around looking for footprints. Me, with the premise that I have, look at a thing, anything, and see the footprint. And when you say that there's no god to have an impact on the universe, that's from your point of view, whereas from my point of view (that the universe is god), it's not a question of impact as to me they're one and the same. God doesn't "do things to or in" the universe, god IS (active verb <--- very important point) the universe. God "is-es" the universe.

This is really my whole point - when I look for foot prints, I wouldn't look for anything so specific. If god were the universe, there would be some sign of any kind (particularly if your other points on life and conciousness were true) that there would be this powerful intelligence anywhere at all, but there are no processes or process of any kind in the entire universe that belies any such biology or intelligence. None.

Further, you have failed to be objective in 'finding god' because, in this last paragraph, you've mentioned that you started with the premise that god exists. It was not the conclusion of a search, it was your premise. Whether you realize it or not, you've proven something about your beliefs and the way you believe in it. You do not believe it because you can't be proven wrong. You don't believe in god because others haven't been good enough to convince you. You believe in god because you have set your perception of the world to include a divine being with a divine purpose for you without due cause to believe in any such superstition.

Now, as I've said earlier, I really want you to look over what you've written down and I want you to find that post I had given ealier (I can repost the link if you want me to) regarding the foundational problems with creationism. While you are not yourself a creationist, it does address numerous areas about many of the things you've mentioned because whether you choose to believe me or not, you have not arrived to god based on anything but your own imagination. Essentially, you've 'anthromorphised' (if that's the right term) everything you see to possess qualities of god without there being any reason to - not just epirical evidence, but any evidence or deductive reasoning of any kind.

If you have any questions of my analysis, I'd be happy to expound upon anything I may have missed.

Godhead,

You have successfully sewed your lips to your asshole. Have fun running that same recycled shit through your system.

You would need a solid concept of god for anyone to have even a remote chance at refuting any of your points. It seems that you have just purposely devised a god concept that is so ellusive as to be completely impossible to conceive in any real way except some noodly feeling which might as well be gas.

Rhizo