Mixing theories. Becoming God.

[Feeble Minded]

So. I was looking into Christianity and all other things that bang on about "God is love" and such. And I came across this.

http://comereason.org/exst_god/exs010.asp

I like this. It's pretty interesting. I've never had it explained to me that way before. And trust me, I love screwing with the fanatics. So the summary being, that we are created, and are something that exists. In our puny bubble-like context, we say that something exists when it is within the confines of space and time. So, in a way, we are saying that God does not exist (This isn't my point. Though it is pretty nifty).

Then the next day I had a substitute teacher for math. She loves her conspiracy theories. Really interesting to talk to. And I was talking to her about this. She got to a theory, where it was stated that "If something were to cease existing within our universe, the whole universe would collapse into the created void."

When we say that something ceases to exist, it becomes non-existent. Thus it is no longer within the confines of space and time. If I'm not mistaken, this is where God is supposed to be "located" (no longer space). We would assume that God is sentient. I would assume that an 'immortal soul' is what gives us our sentience. Thus our soul would transfer over into this place of non-existence when it goes through this void.

So the "Becoming God" part comes into it. If we were able to cause something to become non-existent, our souls could transfer into this realm of non-existence and we could become gods!

I think I may have left something out, but it's 4 in the morning. So I don't care. But I think this is quite nifty. Obviously (or not) I'm an atheist. But I may just change my thoughts. Is there a part where you can believe in the "true god" but still hate the religion and not abide by it? Mind you, if this works, I'm killing as much as I can so as to keep the god level down. I hate people already. Don't need gods screwing my non-existence up.

Thanks for your time.

[KontanKarite]

Meh. It's alright. Nothing like a good dose of spiritual theorizing.

I like the idea that I came to after finding out what daemon meant in Greek. It's an idea. Daemons apparently are ideas. Demon, from what I can understand, is an English derivative of the Greek word Daemon.

So essentially, what could one call a group of people inspired to pursue an idea collectively? A spirit? If that were the case that spirit is not so much a being, but a muse, a uniting idea that drives people into action. If so, then what is The Holy Spirit? Is it truly as real as we would like to perceive it as the image of Zeus in the clouds or is it simply the most dominant uniting idea or drive amongst all people for something better?

What does this say of God who is The Holy Spirit? What does this say of Jesus who personified this spirit? What does it say of salvation? That we are meant to call upon the name of Jesus as our savior or are we meant to strive to be Christ-like in our own way? In this way, I can see how salvation in a Christian sense is a good thing and not simply an obedience to an unknowable, unreachable man in the clouds who reflect the whims of those consumed with bigotry and personal agendas.

I normally don't speak on it like this, but when I consider the spirit, it is something nearly tangible. We find that school spirit is an example that spirit exists as a unifying force although it may not be as corpulent as we'd like it to be. It may not even be entirely real at all in this sense, just a collective thought. An idea, a daemon, a god.

[HumanePain]

Kontan is close, but speaking first to the OP: our thoughts are themselves not entities, they are dynamic sparks flying about between synapses. When we die, the synapsis and their chemical constituents decay and all thoughts cease.

In the Spirit of God or the Spirit of a basketball game, the collective humans interact with each other and affect each other, and what is communicated does not exist permanently anywhere, it is information that is transferred between the individuals in the collective, that results in the majority of the population making up that group unified for a task or feeling or purpose. So God can be a manifestation of the dynamic data transfer between neurons, to the dynamic data transfer between people. From individual, to a level higher than individual: the collective mind.

This eventually extrapolates to Nations, the World, and someday the Solar System and the Galaxy.

[KontanKarite]

Essentially, yes. This also makes sense as that there can be a world with many gods being that God is meant to be the one true god.

There are no Gods before me.

Idolization, basically. One can guess as to why this would be counter productive to the human spirit as it would quantify it and simplify it, defying the gift of free moral agency.

To succumb for example to the idea that we are ultimately manipulated by the moon and stars as well as fate is to ignore the greatest gift of all, that being free will.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Kontan is close, but speaking first to the OP: our thoughts are themselves not entities, they are dynamic sparks flying about between synapses. When we die, the synapsis and their chemical constituents decay and all thoughts cease.

In the Spirit of God or the Spirit of a basketball game, the collective humans interact with each other and affect each other, and what is communicated does not exist permanently anywhere, it is information that is transferred between the individuals in the collective, that results in the majority of the population making up that group unified for a task or feeling or purpose. So God can be a manifestation of the dynamic data transfer between neurons, to the dynamic data transfer between people. From individual, to a level higher than individual: the collective mind.

This eventually extrapolates to Nations, the World, and someday the Solar System and the Galaxy.

After reading this back I felt I should add "in my humble opinion", but typing that after every post obviously gets old after a while, but I don't want anyone to think I am pontificating.

[Drake Dun]

There's nothing religious about that vision of God that I can see. I'm starting to think that you're basically just an atheist with flair, HP.

In response to the original poster's question, naturally you can believe in a thing without being a part of a religion which also believes in that thing or something like it. I would hope that goes without saying.

There are a couple of questions you might want to ask yourself though. First, under what circumstances do you wish to believe a thing? You'll find that your garden variety atheist sets the bar with relation to standards like evidence and reason and such like. And if you think your conviction that such-and-such a supernatural being exists is justified by the evidence, you're kidding yourself.

If you set the bar in view of other standards, then you may technically be an atheist at the moment, but it's only a matter of time before you're not anymore. With the number of needs, fears, dreams etc. banging around inside a human being's head, sooner or later he's going to latch on to something or other if he doesn't require a rational reason to do so.

And that's as well may be. Personally, I used to have a root and branch attitude toward religion, but these days I'm thinking of things a little differently. Which brings us to question #2.

Since you've decided to relax your standards and make yourself comfortable with a whole range of stuff that really doesn't have anything to do with objective thinking, are you prepared to apply that standard even-handedly, or are you looking to play favorites? If you want to tell me that you believe in a magic man who lives outside time and has a favorite day of the week and an opinion on my sex life, knock yourself out. But you better own up to the fact that you're in the exact same boat as all the other people with wacky beliefs.

Your favorite deity is epistemologically indistinguishable from Thor or unicorns or what have you. So if you're a free-wheeler and a believer of all things strange and delightful, you'll get no gruff from me. But the moment you try to tell me that ahah, those things are unreal, but your fantasy is uniquely true, you become a hypocrite. And if you add to that badly disguised threats and a determination to drag me kicking and screaming into your fantasy, the way Christianity does, you become a fuckhead asshole hypocrite, and my philosophical enemy.

And that's the response from this atheist.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

There's nothing religious about that vision of God that I can see. I'm starting to think that you're basically just an atheist with flair, HP.

Oh my. I better say this about that: I am a follower of Jesus, and always will be. But men of science during The Renaissance were also men of faith, and yet explored the universe and the nature of life, dissecting, observing and proving scientific facts about how things work. There is no contradiction in being someone who agrees to a life lived in love and peace and restraints from lifestyles that end in self destruction, and looking for logical explanations for things and phenomena.

It is actually pretty cool. Where proselytizing (rarely) comes into play is when I see someone else who is engaged in self destructive behavior or needs love, then I feel motivated to talk to them about following someone's life as a template who left a very good example: Jesus. But I do not go around forcing it on anyone, simply pointing out the option. We were given free will after all, with the obvious intent to use it.

And I know I am far from perfect and am the last one to go about with a holier-than-thou attitude. But following Him has saved me from my own self destruction and that's a fact. It works. For me.

[Drake Dun]

Good for you, but it still doesn't sound actually religious. What about all the metaphysical and physical claims? Virgin birth and what not.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

...religious

I think I get you: like the televangelists on television siphoning people's money? That disgusts me, and was predicted by Jesus, that "there will be those who come in my name but are slavering wolves".

I do not know what to think about the virgin birth, but I do know what I think about angels proclaiming to Mary of her impending motherhood: there are dreams that seem very real to us, I think most of us have experienced dreams where we feel as if it is real until we awake. I personally have experienced a dream shortly after a friend at work committed suicide, where I was at my desk, and he called me, and the phone caller ID had his name on it, and I asked him "where are you? Where are you calling from?" and he simply laughed. Very real feeling and disturbing. Later I psychoanalyzed the dream as my friend "having the last laugh".

The main thing for those who decide to follow Jesus (I think this is where I answer your question about the metaphysical), is that believing in the deity of Jesus is important for the power of Jesus to work in one's life, otherwise it becomes difficult to follow His life as a template (having Jesus "live" through oneself) if one only believes "He was just a good man".

Some followers must be "fed milk" (as the apostle Paul writes) and need the metaphysical, and others (I like to think that I fall into this category) can be fed "the solid food" (again as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:2:
"I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able).

[Drake Dun]

Okay, I have slight reservations but that's pretty much good enough for me. Last obnoxious question. What do you do when you run into milk drinkers who see the same material as an excuse to push their ways on other people and threaten them with more of the same post-mortem?

Or maybe more to the point, what method do you suggest a person like myself use to deal with people like that without collaterally damaging people like you?

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Okay, I have slight reservations but that's pretty much good enough for me. Last obnoxious question. What do you do when you run into milk drinkers who see the same material as an excuse to push their ways on other people and threaten them with more of the same post-mortem?

Or maybe more to the point, what method do you suggest a person like myself use to deal with people like that without collaterally damaging people like you?

Do exactly what you do here on Gnet: ask them tough questions, and don't be afraid of "collateral damage". This will do multiple things:

a) Your questions will either make them mad or make them think. If it makes them mad, then they are "milk drinkers" and you might as well drop any related discussion at that point as reasoning tools and logic will not be used. If they think, give them slack if they apply their faith personally. If they are proselytizing however, tell them "no thanks, that is my personal choice". If they persist, then they deserve what they get.

b) There is a larger picture, the "social equlibrium" that is attained when successful and satisfactory explanations are used and another when others fail. If an approach fails, it deserves to lose constituents and adherents, this is the way nature operates (inclusive in God's universe is survival of the species and the survival of a culture or faith is bound by the same low level mathematics). So when you "push back" you are participating in "weeding out" the weaker arguments. Either that person will go back to their church and realize they need to improve, or they will see it as a false church, but either way you will force the believers to become stronger by failing the weaker elements.

c) It will also allow an opportunity to prove the truth of The Way if you encounter a person who follows Jesus very closely, which could affect both of you. If you ask tough questions, and the answers make sense to you, and their answers are plausible, and they deliver it in a calm and patient manner, then doesn't that give some validity to living as Jesus lived? And if so, then could it be that perhaps it is shown that it can work? (i.e. it makes YOU think! )

[emeraldlonewoulf]

wow. it sure is refreshing to see someone of faith behave in a sensible and caring manner, and in a way that is still open to questioning, and learning. You have phased something I have tried to explain many times, in a way I could never achieve. Thank you, HP.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Feeble Minded

When we say that something ceases to exist, it becomes non-existent. Thus it is no longer within the confines of space and time. If I'm not mistaken, this is where God is supposed to be "located" (no longer space). We would assume that God is sentient. I would assume that an 'immortal soul' is what gives us our sentience. Thus our soul would transfer over into this place of non-existence when it goes through this void.

So the "Becoming God" part comes into it. If we were able to cause something to become non-existent, our souls could transfer into this realm of non-existence and we could become gods!

...but it wouldn't matter because we would already have ceased to exist

The idea of non-existence leading to divinity is interesting, but that raises the existential question of what is more real, the "You" that "lives" on in non-existence or the "You" that dies?

If you ask me that idea is getting close to the concept of Brahma or Nirvana; but then again I'm a Buddhist, so my 'theology' always leads in that direction anyway.