Definitions

[kılıç_mehmet]

1. There are no "or's" in a definition. Either god is a being of the universe (in which case it is simply an entity within it) or it is the creator of the universe. Pick one.

2. No, you cannot define it as the sun, the moon the stars, blah, blah, blah. These things have an identity and a definition of their own.

On the other hand, going by your definition, a synonym for god would be "The Atom". It is the creator of the universe - without atoms there would be no matter and without matter there would be no universe. It also exists within the universe. It is present in the sun, the moon, the stars, yack, yack, yack - it is a part of everything around us. The shoe fits perfectly.

Umm... what did I just do? Did I just give irrefutable proof of god's existence?

Halelujah. God exists and I can prove it. All you silly atheists were looking at the skies for evidence of god, while you should have been looking into an electron microscope.

Well, it might be both. I visualize the concept of God as such in my mind, friend.

You start off fine here. Soul is your consciousness or your self. You should've left it at that. If everything around us possessed a soul, everything around us would be conscious. It's not.

Well, I have given the outlook that my ancestors had on the issue, friend. They believed that everything around them had a soul of it's own.

These definitions are at odds with your definition of a soul. As you said, souls are bound to our fleshly husks. Our fleshly husks do not survive our death. Therefore, our souls do not survive our death. Therefore, they cannot reside anywhere after death.

Please, if not realistic, atleast be consistent with your own views

They don't?
How do you know that they don't, friend?
I am consistent with my own views. But our ancestors had different views on their own, and we now also have the views on soul, heaven and hell from the world religions...
Like if you really had seen, tasted, or touched soul, I might have taken your views into account.

[genkaus]

As an advocate of pan-psychism, I see proto-consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality. Consciousness becomes apparent when substance reaches a certain level of complexity. Since the totality is the largest scale manifesting the highest degree of complexity, the totality has within it all consciousness.

Fair enough. Not a position I agree with, but this thread is not about that.

Placing ‘divine’ before truth or good, is how I distinguish the fullness of real truth/good from proximate and apparent truths and goods.

Then you'd be better served by using the word absolute instead of divine.

So, what is the difference between full good and proximate good.

Slightly different use of good/evil. Good is that which wills (similar to Schopenhauer’s Will + Idea) and strives for unity and coherence. Evil is a local lack of these qualities.

Not sure what you mean here. Unity and coherence with what?

Theological term that translates as formal properties at large scales and substantial properties at small scales.

I think you are getting mixed up between our two discussions. For the sake of clarity, specify the definition of spiritual in words unrelated to another thread. I intend to use this one as a possible reference for future discussions.

Correct. People have many levels that extend into the larger scales of form and the lower scales of substance. Personal unity at these other scales will remain after dissipation on the physical scale.

The same objection as above.

In both life and afterlife, people pursue what they love. Evil people create their own torment, whereas the good find satisfaction. For example drug users love the pleasure drugs bring even if drug use also brings much pain. Likewise a good person will endure hardships and suffering to accomplish noble ends. In the afterlife, these states become more apparent.

So, evil people love their own torment?

And you need to work on your example. If pleasure is considered to be a noble goal, then the pain caused by the drugs would be same as enduring hardships and suffering for the sake of a noble goal. It seems like you've already made up your mind as to what's noble and what's ignoble.

---

Well, it might be both. I visualize the concept of God as such in my mind, friend.

You visualize god as an atom?

Well, I have given the outlook that my ancestors had on the issue, friend. They believed that everything around them had a soul of it's own.

The view of your ancestors is irrelevant unless they are your own as well. Are they?

They don't?
How do you know that they don't, friend?
I am consistent with my own views. But our ancestors had different views on their own, and we now also have the views on soul, heaven and hell from the world religions...
Like if you really had seen, tasted, or touched soul, I might have taken your views into account.

Guess what, neither have you.

And I haven't claimed any independent knowledge here. All I'm going by is your definition. You said that souls are bound by fleshly husks, thereby implying that they cannot exist independently. And then you go ahead and talk about souls existing independently. That's self-contradiction.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...you'd be better served by using the word absolute instead of divine.

Sure, I'll buy that.

So, what is the difference between full good and proximate good.

Somehing like a graduated scale between the perfect Good to lesser goods..

Unity and coherence with what?

Each other. The smallest bits want to stick togethor and form wholes.

For the sake of clarity, specify the definition of spiritual in words unrelated to another thread.

Sure. Aspects of reality other than the material.

So, evil people love their own torment?

Not exactly. Pleasure is still good, but less good than beneficence. The unrighteous give themselves a raw deal because they accept too much pain and harm in exchange for a small gain. The righteous are willing to sacrifice an appropriate amount of pain and discomfort in order to attain a greater good.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say the "pain" of smoking weed is an appropriate level of suffering to keep little Johhny Drug Dealer Jr. clothed and fed. Thanks for offering the support of the New Church to this noble endeavor, this "greater good".

[genkaus]

Somehing like a graduated scale between the perfect Good to lesser goods..

That's the same statement in different words. I'll simplify - how is good different from Good?

Sure. Aspects of reality other than the material.

I see only two aspects to reality - material and conceptual. Is spiritual the same as conceptual?