Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Mr. Argon

Anthropomorphic Godhead

236 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

It's possible for an invisible leprechaun to be dancing on my shoulder right now. It's just highly, highly, highly improbable, based of course simply on the information we currently have.

I haven't thought this all the way through, but technically I don't know where our probability information can come from on this, if I take 'invisible' to be synonymous with 'undetectable'.  An undetectable leprechaun existing is identical in our reality to one not existing, although there isn't any reason either to think there is one.

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

So with all this in mind, let's do the math simply based on what we've deduced so far.

  • If the number of universes whose fundamental laws remain constant and those whose laws don't, were split 50/50, then life could only exist in 1/2 of the available universes.
  • If the above conclusion also had laws that were either 'just right' for material forms to arise from them and those whose laws don't, were split 50/50, then life could only exist in 1/4 of the available universes.
  • If the above conclusion also either had laws capable of bringing forth life arising from those material forms and those that don't, were split 50/50, then life could only exist in 1/8 of the available universe.

This means that in all possible universes, life has only a 1/8 chance of existing. And I'd personally say, that that's being rather generous.

I like it!  I see where you are coming from and I don't know that anything is wrong with it (we don't really know the probabilities so 50/50 is a good stand-in).  The one thing I wonder about with the structure is highlighted to me in the second step.  There are several laws I'd assume that are required for material forms to arise, so we could continue to break that down until there's almost no chance of life existing (maybe that's just a consequence of the 50/50 estimation). If we went through the laundry list of scientific things that have to be the way they are and keep breaking it down as far as causation and applying 50/50 at each step, we get to a pretty astronomical number. "universes that have quarks that possess an electric charge needed for nucleus formation is 50/50, universes where electrons exist is 50/50, etc".  That might have more to do with the nature of subdividing the question like this, not sure.  But in the total realm of unknown that we are estimating in, I definitely dig the above. :tu:

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

But either way, the odds are against us existing. Therefore I find it more reasonable to suggest that given these odds, that perhaps there was at least some sort of conscious goal or objective in the formation of our universe. As to what, or who, or how, and all that however, I have no clue...

I hope this gives at least some clarity to my position, rather then just scramble your brain, lol.

Ha, no, good explanation.  What I also wonder is that to me almost implicit in the argument is that life is something special or apart from the rest of the universe, something that to some extent based on its rarity or improbability of existing suggests something more large scale going on, ' a conscious goal'.  Strictly to that part of the reasoning, there are other phenomena on earth that are much rarer than life.  I'm not sure it even exists but something like ball lightning seems to be very rare although there have been several claims of it and some success maybe in reproducing it in a lab.  Obviously the rarity of that doesn't lead us to think that its existence was purposeful in the formation of the universe, but again I think your reasoning is coupled with the point that, even just strictly scientifically, life seems like something different in complexity and function than the inanimate things we've discovered in the universe.  That's a whole other can of brain-scrambling though, my head's full, time to reach for a beverage to try and empty it a little.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

This is very interesting, and i am intrigued, you can send me some links about this in my mail not to be too agressive to other people who do not view that as interesting. Thanks.

They're in my signature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

They're in my signature.

 

hahahaha... talking about an elephant in a living room ;)

prejudices you know.. from my side too - human nature......

Edited by Mr. Argon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 2:44 PM, Mr. Argon said:

I find the idea of an Anthropomorphic Godhead as bizzare. It makes me think about some bearded vindictive man looking angrily at sinners down here from somewhere beyond the clouds,

What is your opinion about this?

Never saw the need for finger nails, toe nails, or nose hair in space.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

nose hair

 even the nose itself  is useless if you look it like that. Haven't studied Pastafarianism but if a Flying Spaghetti Monster has no nose they are on a right track (presuming that the Supreme Being lurks around is Space, looking angrily down here on sinners).

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 10/11/2017 at 1:45 PM, Mr. Argon said:

Because I am much more inclined to think of a God as mystery. Personally. Can't consider a Perfect Being in any shape whatsoever. Think that an anthropomorphic God is nothing but a weak symbolic representation of that Being at best.

God is Nature.. 

Do You Find Nature perfect or imperfect?

Or Is It just the way it is meant to be???..

 

Edited by MauriOra
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

God is Nature.. 

Do You Find Nature perfect or imperfect..

 

Excellent question. I think of a Nature mainly as a Balance. Every animal creature in nature has another creature which prays upon it and feeds upon it's life energy. This is not appliable on lower kongdoms of Nature (plant and mineral kingdoms, but it is appliable on higher ones, animals and Man) animals have it's natural predators, Man has predators wihtin it's own species. You may call some of this predators as psychic vampires or psychopaths. The role of predators is twofold, they prey on weaknesses making an animal or Man more advanced because predators force caution and thus they in animal kingdom make animals more advanced, in human world psychic vampires with their evil nature make their pray also more advanced expanding the conscioussnes, of its pray because pray must become more careful and more introspective in the process, the second role of predator in nature is that of beings of nature don't procreate infinitely. So mainly I think of a Nature as a beautiful but a somewhat brutal Harmony. Don't know about perfection. I think it is made of imperfect beings, but is it perfect in itself, I don't know.

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Excellent question. I think of a Nature mainly as a Balance. Every animal creature in nature has another creature which prays upon it and feeds upon it's life energy. This is not appliable on lower kongdoms of Nature (plant and mineral kingdoms, but it is appliable on higher ones, animals and Man) animals have it's natural predators, Man has predators wihtin it's own species. You may call some of this predators as psychic vampires or psychopaths. The role of predators is twofold, they prey on weaknesses making an animal or Man more advanced because predators force caution and thus they in animal kingdom make animals more advanced, in human world psychic vampires with their evil nature make their pray also more advanced expanding the conscioussnes of its pray because pray must become more careful and more introspective in the process. So mainly I think of a Nature as a beautiful but a somewhat brutal Harmony. Don't know as a perfection. I think it is made of imperfect beings, but is it perfect in itself, I don't know.

Yes the Perfect is in Self. The Imperfect is the Being.. they are two halves of a Whole.. One cannot Be with "Out" or With " In ". It is Both..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Yes the Perfect is in Self. The Imperfect is the Being.. they are two halves of a Whole.. One cannot Be with "Out" or With " In ". It is Both..

Interesting point of view to say at least.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting and it seems correct, but still not sure about it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

Also I think that every human being is a vampire or a bit psychopathic - only it is a matter of degree of vampirism. There are extreme cases of course. We all have the part of us which Jung called a "shadow".

“The shadow goes by many familiar names: the disowned self, the lower self, the dark twin or brother in bible and myth, the double, repressed self, alter ego, id. When we come face-to-face with our darker side, we use metaphors to describe these shadow encounters: meeting our demons, wrestling with the devil, descent to the underworld, dark night of the soul, midlife crisis.”

-source-

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the material world is a domain of Satan, and perhaps a Satan is shadow of Creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

More in this vein;

Tertullian accuses Marcion of Sinope, the first major heretic of Christianity in the 1st century, that he "[held that] the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful [...] and [...] accounted for it by postulating [that Jehovah was] a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ."[4] The Church condemned his writings as heretical.

John Arendzen (1909) in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) mentions that Eusebius accused Apelles, the 2nd-century AD Gnostic, of considering the Inspirer of Old-Testament prophecies to be not a god, but an evil angel.[5]

Hegemonius (4th century) accuses the Persian prophet Mani, founder of the Manichaean sect in the 3rd century AD, identified Jehovah as "the devil god which created the world"[6] and said that "he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests [...] is the [Prince] of Darkness, [...] not the god of truth."[7]

According to their critics, these heretics referred to the Abrahamic God variously as "a demiurgus",[4] "an evil angel",[5] "the devil god",[6] "the Prince of Darkness",[7] "the source of all evil",[8] "the Devil",[9] "a demon",[10] "a cruel, wrathful, warlike tyrant",[11] "Satan"[12] and "the first beast of the book of Revelation".[13]

 

-source-

*****************************************************************

The Ophite Gnostic Christians maintained that Jehovah was “an inferior being” and rejected the Old Testament entirely, giving as their reason that it was the product of, and related to, this inferior being. Bishop Marcion of Synope (85-160 AD) insisted that the Jewish god Jehovah was “totally different and distinct from the Deity who sent Jesus to reveal the divine truth and preach the glad tidings, to bring reconciliation and salvation to all.” Marcion taught that the mission and intent of Jesus was to DO AWAY with Jehovah, who he said “was opposed to the God and Father of Jesus Christ, as matter is to spirit, impurity to purity.” (See “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2 by H.P. Blavatsky)

Basilides (117-138 AD) held much the same views and he was known to be a disciple of the Apostle Matthew and of Glaucias or Glaucus, who had been a disciple of the Apostle Peter.

In fact, not even all the Jews of Old Testament days were supporters of Jehovah. There were two distinct schools of thought amongst them – the Elohists and the Jehovists. They were often in conflict with one another, the antagonism usually being started by the Jehovistic believers, which is hardly surprising, considering Jehovah’s reputation as a God of War.

The portions of Scriptures belonging to these two were later completely and purposely mixed up and blended together by certain early fathers of the Christian Church in order to serve their own purposes. In “War in Heaven”, Godolphin Mitford wrote, “The Christians – far less clear-sighted than the great Mystic and Liberator whose name they have assumed, whose doctrines they have misunderstood and travestied, and whose memory they have blackened by their deeds – took the Jewish Jehovah as he was, and of course strove vainly to reconcile the Gospel of Light and Liberty with the Deity of Darkness and Submission.”

By the “Deity of Darkness and Submission,” he is of course referring to Jehovah.

*************************************************************

-source-

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Back to the main subject of the topic;

 

Man as the Microcosm

So why the anthropomorphic God? The only thing for me which seems reasonable to considerate about such a concept of Godhead is the concept of a Man as a Microcosm of Macrocosm. What is the proposition of this concept?

 

 

Such a concept proposes that a man has a potential to become Divine. A Man develops this potential through a series of incarnations. One of many ways which pictured this connection between the Man and the universe in Leonardo da Vinci’s Squaring of the Circle Diagram. Circle represents a symbol of perfection in occult teachings – a symbol of Perfection of God. Circles do appear in nature while the squares do not. Squares are human creation. From the ancient times occult teachings were considering the problem of Squaring the Circle. Leonardo da Vinci showed that this two dichotomies come together in a Human Being.

Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatourkl.jpg.66c792b3f409e077c15c81c1d297a59a.jpg

 

So perhaps that is the reason why there is in the Bible a passage which states that a Man is created in God’s image.

 

Square

Square represents the material world, while the Circle represents Spirit.

The problem of squaring the circle is considered to be impossibility. Because this is impossibility a Man is an unique creature on material plain. The man is the only creature on earth that has a twofold nature. Union of matter and Spirit. Symbol of Freemasonry is really a problem of squaring the circle. Compass and the square have a deep occult significance.

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's a whole other can of brain-scrambling though, my head's full, time to reach for a beverage to try and empty it a little.

Lol, yeah, I feel ya man. Tough stuff to sit down and ponder.

I gotta say though, I appreciate the thought provoking intelligent responses of yours. It's nice to be able to discuss such topics with someone without ripping your hair out in a flame war or bangin your head against the wall from some people's sheer stupidity.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If we went through the laundry list of scientific things that have to be the way they are and keep breaking it down as far as causation and applying 50/50 at each step, we get to a pretty astronomical number. "universes that have quarks that possess an electric charge needed for nucleus formation is 50/50, universes where electrons exist is 50/50, etc".  That might have more to do with the nature of subdividing the question like this, not sure.

Lol, yeah, that's why I tried to be as vague as I could. When it comes to 'life', we can only go on what we know of in this universe anyway.

This doesn't mean that life couldn't exist in some 'ethereal energy-esque' form per say. I mean who knows? There could be all sorts of life all around us right now in the form of dark matter and we didn't even know it.

At the end of the day, we can only go on what we currently know. Though unfortunately we in all actuality know little to nothing.

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I haven't thought this all the way through, but technically I don't know where our probability information can come from on this, if I take 'invisible' to be synonymous with 'undetectable'.  An undetectable leprechaun existing is identical in our reality to one not existing, although there isn't any reason either to think there is one.

The scary thing here is, the major assumption that's often made that everything that exists is at the very least in some sort of way detectable. We just haven't detected it yet.

It may simply be possible that there are certain things out there (even entire universes perhaps) that are completely 100% impossible to detect, ever. No matter what we do or how we advance, it will always remain beyond detection. Of course this is literally by definition unprovable either way, however this thought isn't without any profound implications.

If true, then we could for instance live in a vast multiverse, and just simply happen to live in the right universe to support life, and never posses the ability to detect these other universes. Thus the mystery of why our constants are what they are, will forever remain a mystery to us.

Hopefully though, that isn't the case.

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What I also wonder is that to me almost implicit in the argument is that life is something special or apart from the rest of the universe, something that to some extent based on its rarity or improbability of existing suggests something more large scale going on, ' a conscious goal'.  Strictly to that part of the reasoning, there are other phenomena on earth that are much rarer than life.  I'm not sure it even exists but something like ball lightning seems to be very rare although there have been several claims of it and some success maybe in reproducing it in a lab.  Obviously the rarity of that doesn't lead us to think that its existence was purposeful in the formation of the universe, but again I think your reasoning is coupled with the point that, even just strictly scientifically, life seems like something different in complexity and function than the inanimate things we've discovered in the universe.

My thoughts on this have mainly been that blind forces and such, are merely descriptions of what are. They have no goals or objectives (so far as we know), so then one is therefore no more special then the other. Life on the other hand is different in that it does tend to have an end goal or an objective, namely to survive, flourish, and reproduce. That on top of intelligence, makes life more 'special' then any natural forces or forms of any sort alone.

I don't think it's about simply it's 'rarity', as life could possibly be rather commonplace. One could imagine a universe where the opposite was the case, in which the over-abundance of our universe was made of life forms, with the rare few exceptions of non-living things. Yes, those non-living things would be special in their rareness, but would that mean that it would have more intrinsic worth? I don't think so. I think it's more to do with it's specific overall form and functionality. Even if life arises with no objective purpose in mind, it is the only thing in the universe that can create a purpose for itself.

It's worth is found in it's fundamental form and nature, not rarity.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:44 AM, Mr. Argon said:

I find the idea of an Anthropomorphic Godhead as bizzare. It makes me think about some bearded vindictive man looking angrily at sinners down here from somewhere beyond the clouds,

What is your opinion about this?

Maybe in ancient times the people thought the extraterrestrials were Gods. I'm sure the ET's had no problem making humans think that also. So the humans still look up at the sky where the gods dwell and they still follow the rules the god or gods from the sky gave them. Then sometime along the way the Elite decided to turn the gods into one God for it was far more easier to control people with just one God. So we still have people praying to the God in the sky for everything and anything and worshiping the God or gods. Never stopping to think what are they really doing?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Maybe in ancient times the people thought the extraterrestrials were Gods. I'm sure the ET's had no problem making humans think that also. So the humans still look up at the sky where the gods dwell and they still follow the rules the god or gods from the sky gave them. Then sometime along the way the Elite decided to turn the gods into one God for it was far more easier to control people with just one God. So we still have people praying to the God in the sky for everything and anything and worshiping the God or gods. Never stopping to think what are they really doing?

Maybe. That is possible, but personally I find Daniken-like theories false. I am more inclined to think that when people were talking about "sky" or "heavens" they were really refering to a realm undetectable by five senses, a realm which interpenetrates the phyisical dimension but a man has no access to it via 5 senses.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Maybe. That is possible, but personally I find Daniken-like theories false. I am more inclined to think that when people were talking about "sky" or "heavens" they were really refering to a realm undetectable by five senses, a realm which interpenetrates the phyisical dimension but a man has no access to it via 5 senses.

That may be possible also. I think it maybe a little bit of both. I do know the Gnostics did talk about an extraterrestrial force.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 11/11/2017 at 5:34 AM, OverSword said:

IMO religion and science are very similar.  Both are systems developed in order to help us explain the universe.  I wonder what ultimate explanation of truth will replace science?

Yes You are right OS..

Religion and science are similar in a Way that  both Systems Make order out of chaos.. That "chaos" is caused by 'not' Giving us the Ultimate explanation of TRUTH.....

Edited by MauriOra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Truth:

That Thoughts are Inspired Creation. Thought is followed by Belief (emotion) and what is Believed is followed with Action (participation)

HENCE: WE HAVE CREATED THE PARTICIPATION FROM EMOTION..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MauriOra said:

That Thoughts are Inspired Creation. Thought is followed by Belief (emotion) and what is Believed is followed with Action (participation)

I like the Inspired Creation of a Flying Spahgetti Monster. I think it induces (via emotion) a fine appetite for destruction of some spaghetties with some nice sauce. Yummy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

I like the Inspired Creation of a Flying Spahgetti Monster. I think it induces (via emotion) a fine appetite for destruction of some spaghetties with some nice sauce. Yummy.

Nice sense of Humor! !! Lol.

Your mon-stir is Now an Angel. And it's ready 4 Instruction 2 Restructure.. Enjoy the spaghetti. ... 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Nice sense of Humor! !! Lol.

Your mon-stir is Now an Angel. And it's ready 4 Instruction 2 Restructure.. Enjoy the spaghetti. ... 

You like to delve into the meaning and nature of Words. I like that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MauriOra said:

 Truth:

That Thoughts are Inspired Creation. Thought is followed by Belief (emotion) and what is Believed is followed with Action (participation)

HENCE: WE HAVE CREATED THE PARTICIPATION FROM EMOTION..

Can you explain to me why belief = emotion?

I don't see the logic here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.