Hi, I'm the Godhead

[Darwinian]

I'm saying that everything is the same thing, which is consciousness. God isn't outside of "creation", god is the "creation' manifesting itself, and we, and all of "creation", are god, in a subjective state.

So it is all imagined then? By that I don't mean that things aren't 'real' just that they exist as a state of information if you like.

And why do you believe this and, does your belief go any further than this premise?

[Purple Rabbit]

Please define "subjective state".

[Godhead]

Purplerabbit -

I'd never dream of preaching to you. In my belief system, it's unnecessary. Yes, it's panentheism, although I have to say that a while back I read a couple of conflicting definitions of panentheism. I can't remember what it was but I do remember being confused.



Adrian -

sense to me about there being a god is that I don't see things as merely a product of the "primordial ooze" as they say, I see everything as being a manifestation of something, and as having the same source and essentially being the same thing.



Darwinian -

It's imagined in the sense that, as you say, it's in a state of information, a perception. But having said that, I suppose that is real. I believe that because in my view, believing is seeing. Yes my beliefs go further (including what I don't believe). For example, I believe in reincarnation, I don't believe in the christian god or heaven / hell, and I don't believe that jesus existed although maybe he's a composite or based on someone.

[Tiberius]

Ok, but what evidence do you have for that? At the moment you are still being as vague as possible. Are you the sort of person who believes in Intelligent Design (i.e. some elements of nature point to a designer, like the bacterial flagellum, or cell complexity), or is your belief based on feeling?

To make it a bit easier; how would you convince me of your position? Or if you can't do that; how did you reach your position? What led you to your current way of thinking?

[Godhead]

Evidence? I certainly have a conviction, and the word "evidence" comes from "conviction", after all, one man's evidence is another man's nonsense, depending on their initial belief system and their premises about life. I'm convinced. But evidence in the sense that you mean, ie something that you can get your teeth into, no none. I believe in intelligent design although I'm not really that familiar with the "official" explanation, but I do believe that the universe is a creation, or more accurately, a manifestation of god. And yes that is based on feeling, that's what has led me to my way of thinking, but that feeling has never been shown to be incorrect, so I continue with it. I wouldn't convince you. I wouldn't really give it any serious attempt. In my view it doesn't even matter what one believes. No hell, no punishment, none of that. So I don't feel the need to convince although I do like talking about my views. And I don't think you would make any serious attempt at convincing me that your view is correct. Or would you?

[Darwinian]

I think I'm pretty much in tune with what you are saying but, just a couple of other points to clear things up for me..

1) When you say 'god', what do you mean? Most of my life so far has conditioned me to think of god as that character from the Bible or the Qu'ran etc. Would there be a better term for this?

2) When you say you believe in intelligent design do you mean that in the sense that 'god' consciously decided to create life and put a planet here and then thought that he would design a few life forms and see how things went.

Basically I suppose what I'm asking is how much of current scientific discovery, if any, do you reject because it conflicts with your belief?

[Godhead]

Darwinian -

It happens a lot. When people think of god, they immediately think of the god of christianity or some other religion. That's the problem. The concept of god has been associated with those characters, which is a shame really because the idea of a creator doesn't necessarily have to conform to how those organised religions portray it. When I use the word, I'm referring to nature. To me, god definitely exists, is not a "character" as such, isn't vengeful, doesn't punish, doesn't hate anyone or anything, in fact god loves everything, literally. And I don't pray in the sense that religious people pray. I just occasionally have a quick word, maybe call "him" a name or two, I might ask "what the fuck was all that about? What happened there, what are you playing at you idiot?" etc. To me, talking to god is addressing yourself, addressing everything.


In terms of intelligent design, I don't believe that god ever decided to create anything at all. I believe that everything in existence is already god, was never created, but a manifestation of god. You could say that god is the "untouchable, undefinable, ungraspable (therefore "unprovable") centre of ourselves and everything, and the "us" that we are aware of and interact with / amongst ourselves, is the subjective side of god. A good way of putting it is in the words of, or to paraphrase Bill Hicks (I hate quoting other people but this is a good illustration of what I mean) that we are god subjectively experiencing itself (end paraphrase as this next bit is my own-->) No wonder we can't prove that god exists. We're too occupied being god. That's why I find the idea of proving god so funny. It can't be done because it's right under our noses to such an extent that to "prove" it simply involves knowing it.

I don't reject science, and it doesn't and never has conflicted with my beliefs. I've never come across anything scientific which is in conflict (and therefore challenges, within myself) my views.

[theVOID]

It happens a lot. When people think of god, they immediately think of the god of christianity or some other religion. That's the problem. The concept of god has been associated with those characters, which is a shame really because the idea of a creator doesn't necessarily have to conform to how those organised religions portray it. When I use the word, I'm referring to nature. To me, god definitely exists, is not a "character" as such, isn't vengeful, doesn't punish, doesn't hate anyone or anything, in fact god loves everything, literally. And I don't pray in the sense that religious people pray. I just occasionally have a quick word, maybe call "him" a name or two, I might ask "what the fuck was all that about? What happened there, what are you playing at you idiot?" etc. To me, talking to god is addressing yourself, addressing everything.


In terms of intelligent design, I don't believe that god ever decided to create anything at all. I believe that everything in existence is already god, was never created, but a manifestation of god. You could say that god is the "untouchable, undefinable, ungraspable (therefore "unprovable") centre of ourselves and everything, and the "us" that we are aware of and interact with / amongst ourselves, is the subjective side of god. A good way of putting it is in the words of, or to paraphrase Bill Hicks (I hate quoting other people but this is a good illustration of what I mean) that we are god subjectively experiencing itself (end paraphrase as this next bit is my own-->) No wonder we can't prove that god exists. We're too occupied being god. That's why I find the idea of proving god so funny. It can't be done because it's right under our noses to such an extent that to "prove" it simply involves knowing it.

I don't reject science, and it doesn't and never has conflicted with my beliefs. I've never come across anything scientific which is in conflict (and therefore challenges, within myself) my views.

You owe me $2.99 for a new set of AA batteries, my Poe-Dar is out of juice.

[Darwinian]

Thanks for the explanation

I think you'll do ok here.

[Paul the Human]

In terms of intelligent design, I don't believe that god ever decided to create anything at all. I believe that everything in existence is already god, was never created, but a manifestation of god. You could say that god is the "untouchable, undefinable, ungraspable (therefore "unprovable") centre of ourselves and everything, and the "us" that we are aware of and interact with / amongst ourselves, is the subjective side of god. A good way of putting it is in the words of, or to paraphrase Bill Hicks (I hate quoting other people but this is a good illustration of what I mean) that we are god subjectively experiencing itself (end paraphrase as this next bit is my own-->) No wonder we can't prove that god exists. We're too occupied being god. That's why I find the idea of proving god so funny. It can't be done because it's right under our noses to such an extent that to "prove" it simply involves knowing it.

I think I get what you're saying. It makes me think of a 'Hive Mind' situation, in a way. Sounds very sci-fi to me (as opposed to mythological fantasy, like most religions). In fact, I'm reading a book right now that presents the universe as an infinitely huge being in which we are less than electrons.

I don't reject science, and it doesn't and never has conflicted with my beliefs. I've never come across anything scientific which is in conflict (and therefore challenges, within myself) my views.

That's nice to hear from a theist. Maybe you're not the same old brand of crazy afterall. Heheh.

Here's a question for you. Pantheism has been called 'sexed-up atheism'. Would you call your beliefs (Panentheism) 'sexed-up deism'?