Why I Think God Exists

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

 

I guess you didn't know that Xeno doesn't have a soul and eats them, once you've be marinated he will have you on the bbq.

jmccr8

I get all Hannibal Lector.

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I get all Hannibal Lector.

Fresh brain, and he made him eat his own brain for supper, damn I loved that part. 

jmccr8

Edited August 12, 2017 by jmccr8

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Be.cause said:

Ready to go into the heart of darkness and the dark night of your soul.

Been there, done that. It's what made me who I am now. I've seen past the b.s. that I used to believe. I'm not going to wrap my head in another story/myth. 

To much nonsense in the world. 

[Wes4747]

3 hours ago, Be.cause said:

Ready to go into the heart of darkness and the dark night of your soul?

Ready to be reborn into a futuristic messiah and fight the Belials and politics, banking and just really dull religion?

Dude, what is the core of your belief system there? If ya dont mind me asking?

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Wes4747 said:

Dude, what is the core of your belief system there? If ya dont mind me asking?

What ever works in the moment of question.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

A sharped pencil gets blunt after a few strokes or rather  not as sharp as it once was.

jmccr8

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, Be.cause said:

Xenofish's mind recoil at the very notion that everything is backward, that out there is the true world and here is the dream''.

Yeah, you know me so well.

I guess hiding behind myth and fantasy is the "true reality". 

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

A sharped pencil gets blunt after a few strokes or rather  not as sharp as it once was.

jmccr8

I think some people should lay off the blunts.

[jmccr8]

16 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I think some people should lay off the blunts.

My business name is blunt concepts so  I can only agree to to a certain criteria.

jmccr8

[Only_]

32 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

Dude, what is the core of your belief system there? If ya dont mind me asking?

Here's the core of my worldview, gnosis, which means knowledge in greek:

 ''In spite of the diverse nature of the various Gnostic sects and teachers, certain fundamental elements serve to bind these groups together under the loose heading of "Gnosticism" or "Gnosis." Chief among these elements is a certain manner of "anti-cosmic world rejection" that has often been mistaken for mere dualism. According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or "Fullness," at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, "craftsman"), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God. At this point, the Gnostic revisionary critique of the Hebrew Scriptures begins, as well as the general rejection of this world as a product of error and ignorance, and the positing of a higher world, to which the human soul will eventually return. However, when all is said and done, one finds that the error of Sophia and the begetting of the inferior cosmos are occurrences that follow a certain law of necessity, and that the so-called "dualism" of the divine and the earthly is really a reflection and expression of the defining tension that constitutes the being of humanity---the human being. ''

http://www.iep.utm.edu/gnostic/

[Wes4747]

3 minutes ago, Be.cause said:

Here's the core of my worldview, gnosis, which means knowledge in greek:

 ''In spite of the diverse nature of the various Gnostic sects and teachers, certain fundamental elements serve to bind these groups together under the loose heading of "Gnosticism" or "Gnosis." Chief among these elements is a certain manner of "anti-cosmic world rejection" that has often been mistaken for mere dualism. According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or "Fullness," at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, "craftsman"), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God. At this point, the Gnostic revisionary critique of the Hebrew Scriptures begins, as well as the general rejection of this world as a product of error and ignorance, and the positing of a higher world, to which the human soul will eventually return. However, when all is said and done, one finds that the error of Sophia and the begetting of the inferior cosmos are occurrences that follow a certain law of necessity, and that the so-called "dualism" of the divine and the earthly is really a reflection and expression of the defining tension that constitutes the being of humanity---the human being. ''

http://www.iep.utm.edu/gnostic/

Indoctrinated gnosis, got ya. Thank you, carry on.

[Only_]

5 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

Indoctrinated gnosis, got ya. Thank you, carry on.

Wrong.

Gnosis is a knowledge of the heart. You can't be ''indoctrinated'' into gnosis. That wouldn't be any sort of knowledge.

But people who have tread the path of light before have left writings, which it is useful to be aware of.

“The Ten Major Principles of the Gnostic Revelation” (1978)

By Philip K dick:

http://ww3.haverford.edu/religion/courses/222a/ten.htm

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by Be.cause

[Wes4747]

6 minutes ago, Be.cause said:

Wrong.

Gnosis is a knowledge of the heart. You can't be ''indoctrinated'' into gnosis. That wouldn't be any sort of knowledge.

Sophia tell ya that? Or the demiurge? Were you indoctrinated in the realm of pleroma? 

Not picking, just observing you have an interesting set of beliefs for one to come across naturally?

Or perhaps gnosis doesnt even mean to seek knowledge on ones own? 

I asked what the core of your belief is and i felt like you gave me the homepage of some gnosis website...

Edited August 12, 2017 by Wes4747

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, Be.cause said:

Here's the core of my worldview, gnosis, which means knowledge in greek:

 ''In spite of the diverse nature of the various Gnostic sects and teachers, certain fundamental elements serve to bind these groups together under the loose heading of "Gnosticism" or "Gnosis." Chief among these elements is a certain manner of "anti-cosmic world rejection" that has often been mistaken for mere dualism. According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or "Fullness," at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, "craftsman"), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God. At this point, the Gnostic revisionary critique of the Hebrew Scriptures begins, as well as the general rejection of this world as a product of error and ignorance, and the positing of a higher world, to which the human soul will eventually return. However, when all is said and done, one finds that the error of Sophia and the begetting of the inferior cosmos are occurrences that follow a certain law of necessity, and that the so-called "dualism" of the divine and the earthly is really a reflection and expression of the defining tension that constitutes the being of humanity---the human being. ''

http://www.iep.utm.edu/gnostic/

Thanks for clarification, to me there is no duality , I am the medium of the extremes or try to live in the medium.Each of us can choose the extreme or the moderation, if all one sees is the extremes then one is limited by bias and not true to their nature if their nature is to be one with the whole, meaning that they understand the differences of the position that they hold in life. If one choses to be the best that they can be in a way that benefits themselves and the people they encounter what more can one ask for.

jmccr8

[Wes4747]

31 minutes ago, Be.cause said:

Wrong.

Gnosis is a knowledge of the heart. You can't be ''indoctrinated'' into gnosis. That wouldn't be any sort of knowledge.

But people who have tread the path of light before have left writings, which it is useful to be aware of.

“The Ten Major Principles of the Gnostic Revelation” (1978)

By Philip K dick:

http://ww3.haverford.edu/religion/courses/222a/ten.htm

 

Why do these major secret principles contain the word probably? 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Wes4747 said:

Why do these major secret principles contain the word probably? 

LIKE, 

 well it's 3; 30 here and I still can't like it like thst

[Wes4747]

13 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

LIKE, 

 well it's 3; 30 here and I still can't like it like thst

Lol

[XenoFish]

6 hours ago, Be.cause said:

Wrong.

Gnosis is a knowledge of the heart. You can't be ''indoctrinated'' into gnosis. That wouldn't be any sort of knowledge.

But people who have tread the path of light before have left writings, which it is useful to be aware of.

“The Ten Major Principles of the Gnostic Revelation” (1978)

By Philip K dick:

http://ww3.haverford.edu/religion/courses/222a/ten.htm

 

So if I say that duality of nature is only an illusion, a human construct that gives us the illusion of control. That is not Gnosis.

If I say that we are riding through the cosmos through the finite infinity, that isn't Gnosis. 

What if I told you that "truth" is subject unless backed by facts, and all that you believe is subjective unless backed by truth, but that isn't Gnosis either. 

It seem the criteria for Gnosis is whatever works that others have created instead of actually self-knowledge and self-discovery.

Edited August 12, 2017 by XenoFish

[GlitterRose]

10 hours ago, Be.cause said:

Xenofish's mind recoil at the very notion that everything is backward, that out there is the true world and here is the dream''.

He rages against the injustices of existence, and I can't blame him for that. 

[GlitterRose]

Gnostics probably already have that feeling that something is off, and then they look and find that others also feel that way. 

There are variations on actual beliefs, just like in anything else. 

[GlitterRose]

I feel like Be.cause is getting treated a little harshly.

Crowley stuff is very similar to this. The EGC pulls a huge amount from this stuff. 

The difference is really just degrees of optimism, and honestly, I think Xeno and Be.cause levels of optimism are fairly similar. 

There isn't any dogma in gnosticism, although you'll find people on all parts of the spectrum with regard to actual belief. I certainly have encountered ideas that this whole thing plays out in the psyche, and the gnosticism is a way to reach full potential. 

[Phaeton80]

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Let's be clear though, patterns do not require intelligence.  I'm not entirely clear by your comments on the snowflake, I'm not sure if you consider crystallization to be part of the 'every facet of reality breathing intelligence' or not.  Since you mentioned how they 'incidentally' form, does that mean you agree that non-intelligence, in this case the natural laws concerning crystallization, can produce things that may appear to be designed by something intelligent?  Snowflakes definitely look designed and resemble some works of art only created by humans, and I'll bet the mathematical explanation for a particular snowflake pattern it is extremely intricate.  The more basic question is do you think that absolutely everything is intelligently designed or are there non-intelligent or random forces too?

No, they do not. Hence the reference to whirlwinds leaving patterns, even symmetrical ones, in the sand. Why do you keep responding to statements that were never made, as if they were made? Kinda counterproductive in any given discourse, we could be talking ad naseum and never really get anywhere. I mean, dont get me wrong, I appreciate your input greatly, but I dont understand what I said that made you think it necessary to state this. Snow is not a creation, but a byproduct of it, dictated by certain environmental variables. Its 'pattern' - in frozen state - does not follow from its blueprint, but merely by external factors. What is interesting, is that you seem to be arguing humans have developed into the present state just like a (symmetrical) snowflake, purely by way of external factors guiding it into a certain 'random' path of development. One big 'happenstance', so to say. This might be good and well in the context of a snowflake, but complex self governing interdependent systems like the human body, not so much (in my opinion). Its like equating symmetrical patterns produced by a whirlwind with the random, spontaneous construction of a Lear Jet by thesame force. A snowflake, or any crystal, might seem to have an intelligent design in certain forms, but its pattern is dictated by external factors. I mean, even excrement, also a byproduct of creation, can form 'a pattern' - even symmetrical - in the right circumstances. A plane, computer software, all flora & founa, have templated (meaning 'stable') patterns that (always, per definition) follow from its blueprint, regardless of the external factors. Big difference, in my opinion.

 

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thank god I didn't do that then.  I never ever said or implied anything close to 'full stop' at any point, you haven't had the chance to provide much detail on this which I don't blame you for, and of course it is more than allowable that I bring up detailed points of question regardless.  There are no grounds to assume anything nefarious.

We don't know that our bodies are 'an intelligent design', as in being created by an intelligence.  Considering that we already have a lot of explanations as to why our bodies are the way they are derived from proximate sources that in no way appear to be sentient or intelligent, mainly genetics and natural selection, intelligence seems even less required.

I think a more conservative phrasing would be that we use math to understand the intricate patterns in creation.  To say 'grounded' to me may imply that reality works the way it works because of math, when I think it's just as valid to say it's the other way around.

Well thats a matter of opinion Im afraid. Why would you then state something like: "[Snowflakes] are intricate and geometric and much like other 'things that require intelligence to create'.  By all appearances though, they seem to simply be the result of the scientific laws governing water crystallization. Should I then think that the laws of crystallization require an intelligence?" Thats an If x Then y statement, where x = 'geometrical / intricate' and y = 'requires intelligence'. Sounds like equating geometry with a necessary intelligence to me, personally. Oh well, communication is a relative concept I guess. Maybe Im interpreting this incorrectly, if so; I apologize. 

Genetics follow from the DNA code, in which certain variants may arise; causing different, minute mutations / adaptations; some for the better (micro evolution initiated by certain external variables (while the general template more or less remains thesame, remains intact)), some for the worse (disease, malformations etc initiated by harm and/or damage caused to the initial code). That initial base code though, certainly breathes intelligence, such complexity does - as a rule - not create itself (or is created randomly, by mere chance).

I guess if I bring my opinion back to the most fundamental core, is that as a rule (to which exceptions remain) randomness = chaos, templated structured patterns = intelligence. Chaos cannot be interpreted by rules, as chaos is intrinsically ruleless, be they mathematical or not. Hence, if our reality is interpretable by such consistent rules we're not dealing with chaos, but order, thus intelligence.

 

15 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I agree they are different, and it may highlight something I may not be clear on as far as your usage.  I don't know that I'd term 'intelligent design needs intelligence to exist' as 'logical', I see it as just definitional.  I don't know what the 'intelligent' in ID means unless it needs an intelligence; 'intelligent design' to me is synonymous with 'designed by an intelligence'.  I'm not sure, maybe you mean it more as 'appeared to be intelligent' or something like that.  

The point of the explanation of god for lightning is that people who proposed that did so because they didn't have any evidence or information about lightning. Similarly, we don't really have any information pointing in any direction for why math and reality are the way they are, we've got a sample of one to work with and even in this one the specific aspects you've referred to are at the foundation of our understanding almost anything and thus that much more inscrutable.  I'm not sure if questions like 'why are mathematics and natural laws the way they are?' are even legitimate, to me it's too close to, 'why does pi have the value it has?'.

(nothing I've said here should be construed as my simplifying, reducing or in any way telling you what your argument is.)

Well yes, but we do have a lot of knowledge about our physical bodies, and the code that dictates its formation. Would you pose this code does not exemplify intelligence in its make up, design? We have been talking about my take on this, but I think its about time you let us into what your take is on all this. Maybe this will help us in understanding eachother.

 

 

[GlitterRose]

I think there's something deep in our psyche that is a sort of emptiness. It's a longing for something, whether that's answers or some higher consciousness. 

People try to fill it with all kinds of things that just don't satisfy. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

18 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

I mean, dont get me wrong, I appreciate your input greatly, but I dont understand what I said that made you think it necessary to state this.

I was trying to get a little more specificity on what you had said concerning every facet of reality breathing intelligence; I think we agree now that snowflakes do not so it's not literally 'every facet'.

21 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

What is interesting, is that you seem to be arguing humans have developed into the present state just like a (symmetrical) snowflake, purely by way of external factors guiding it into a certain 'random' path of development.

Not exactly, although I would probably also argue that point also.  What I was arguing is that identifying 'intelligent design' is difficult, since that is an explanation for the structure of snowflakes and their 'design'.

31 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Its like equating symmetrical patterns produced by a whirlwind with the random, spontaneous construction of a Lear Jet by thesame force.

I don't think it's anything like that, there is absolutely nothing spontaneous related to the human body, we've been around for a sliver of the 3+ billion year history of life on earth.

35 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

 A snowflake, or any crystal, might seem to have an intelligent design in certain forms, but its pattern is dictated by external factors.  A plane, computer software, all flora & founa, have templated (meaning 'stable') patterns that (always, per definition) follow from its blueprint, regardless of the external factors. Big difference, in my opinion.

Although software is in a different category due to its reliable duplication, flora and fauna are much like snowflakes.  Snowflakes are individual and random and have 'stable patterns' just as we do, and they are both complex and intricate.

50 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

I guess if I bring my opinion back to the most fundamental core, is that as a rule (to which exceptions remain) randomness = chaos, templated structured patterns = intelligence. Chaos cannot be interpreted by rules, as chaos is intrinsically ruleless, be they mathematical or not. Hence, if our reality is interpretable by such consistent rules we're not dealing with chaos, but order, thus intelligence.

I'm hard pressed to think of anything at all that is intrinsically ruleless, things merely appear random to us, I think we're really maybe just talking about the size of the 'template'. Cloud shapes, the structure and patterns of ocean waves, throws of dice all have a 'template' too governing their outcome, there's 100% 'order' there, it's just we don't have the brainpower and sensory inputs to appreciate the patterns. 

Quote

Would you pose this code does not exemplify intelligence in its make up, design? We have been talking about my take on this, but I think its about time you let us into what your take is on all this. Maybe this will help us in understanding eachother.

No, I don't think it 'exemplifies intelligence', we have an adequate explanation for why 'the code' is the way it is.  I'm more than willing to give you my take on it, but I guess I don't have much more detail than that to provide at this point, I think evolution and chemistry explains it pretty well.  I guess I'm asking you for specifics on your views and where you draw the line on things to see if there are details in my position I haven't thought about, I don't mean for it to come across like I'm trying to put you on the defensive.

I think one of your positions is that humans, or 'the code' that makes them, are too complex to be the result of 'random' natural forces.  I think you'd agree with me that genetic mutation and natural selection are not, obviously at least, 'intelligent'.  So is there some point in the history of life that species/the code became too complex for the random forces explanation?  Or are even prehistoric or simplest 'life' forms like viruses and algae obviously products of intelligent design?  If you agree that genetics and natural selection are not intelligent forces, what was your prediction on what we should instead see after billions of years of it operating, since you believe that what we see today is inconsistent with that non-intelligent explanation?  A simpler code?  No code at all?

[Only_]

9 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I think there's something deep in our psyche that is a sort of emptiness. It's a longing for something, whether that's answers or some higher consciousness.

It's Sophia's fall from the Pleroma and the resulting abortion we call reality.

The primordial error.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Be.cause