|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 5, 2019 1:28:40 GMT
Imagine that there's no-God. It's a substance, or a deity that similar to God, but he's definitely not a God at all. And every time when one says "there's no God" his claim has a meaning "there's no-God'. So, if you want to say that "there's no God" be careful, because "there might be no-God".
Who or what is no-God? Your propositions?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 5, 2019 2:11:59 GMT
So this would be satan? Satan would be the closest "no god" to a God.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 5, 2019 4:51:04 GMT
No-God is one's own ego.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 4, 2019 6:41:29 GMT
So this would be satan? Satan would be the closest "no god" to a God. I think that it's possible, but "no-God" is everything that is not God, or no-God is His another ego? If in the beginning there were nothing (or there was just God and nothing except God), and God did something. He had created something (the Earth and the Sky), and that was the act of doubling "His own nature". This "His own nature" is what has become beyond God. And I think that Satan and everything that is not God was from that out-nature of God too.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 4, 2019 6:48:22 GMT
A powerful idea. If, as I presumed, everything that had been created by God from nothing is that became His second nature (?), or something like this (He make something beyond Himself to be), and what is "no-God", then while "no-God" is God's creation we should assume it as good. But a human or an angel is able to ruin this "second nature" by his egoism. God shared Himself beyond Himself. He definitely sacrificed Himself as the gift to everything that is beyond Himself (to people, animals, angels, etc.). The egoists are destroying the gift. They just usurp and make everything to become selfish.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 4, 2019 6:59:43 GMT
So this would be satan? Satan would be the closest "no god" to a God. I think that it's possible, but "no-God" is everything that is not God, or no-God is His another ego? If in the beginning there were nothing (or there was just God and nothing except God), and God did something. He had created something (the Earth and the Sky), and that was the act of doubling "His own nature". This "His own nature" is what has become beyond God. And I think that Satan and everything that is not God was from that out-nature of God too. Usually God is a concept that means it's the extreme level. So you're saying God went beyond God when He created earth and sky? But He was creating before then too. He made angels, heaven, etc. So what is beyond God?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 4, 2019 7:33:04 GMT
I think that it's possible, but "no-God" is everything that is not God, or no-God is His another ego? If in the beginning there were nothing (or there was just God and nothing except God), and God did something. He had created something (the Earth and the Sky), and that was the act of doubling "His own nature". This "His own nature" is what has become beyond God. And I think that Satan and everything that is not God was from that out-nature of God too. Usually God is a concept that means it's the extreme level. So you're saying God went beyond God when He created earth and sky? But He was creating before then too. He made angels, heaven, etc. So what is beyond God? If I understood correctly, God had been always creating, right? It suits to some theories of Theism, where God is a creating deity, the magnificent and powerful source. Well, when we need to separate "the creating" and "the created". God is creating, but He's created something. We can name the created as "no-God". If angels and heaven were created before creation of the Earth and sky, then it was the creation too. In other words, the created is a product of God's will. Some says, that God thinks by real things of the universe, while people think through concepts. So, if God is thinking something it happens directly, but if a human thinks something it happens just within his head.
|
|
louco
New Member
Posts: 6
Likes: 1
|
Post by louco on Apr 3, 2019 14:21:34 GMT
I would imagine a universe where there is a very much hidden god (in other words, no miracles, god acting exclusively during the very brief first instant of creation and then never again touching the machine). But he created the no-god inside the creation, and its role would be to make miracles and make people believe in its existence - because of aforementioned miracles.
Why would such a state of affairs be? Perhaps because god would like to discern, amongst the souls in creation, between those who believe in creation (and the creator) and those who believe because they experienced the divine. Of course, the latter experienced the no-divine, but they have no way of knowing the difference.
In summary: we have a creator (god) and a trickster (the miracle-maker no-god).
So when time runs out perhaps the souls have destinies tied to their beliefs: if you believed in the divine because you were touched by miraculous experience, you are disintegrated. If you believed exclusively on an absent creator, then you get the bliss of knowing you were right and then you are disintegrated.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 3, 2019 16:53:01 GMT
I would imagine a universe where there is a very much hidden god (in other words, no miracles, god acting exclusively during the very brief first instant of creation and then never again touching the machine). But he created the no-god inside the creation, and its role would be to make miracles and make people believe in its existence - because of aforementioned miracles. Why would such a state of affairs be? Perhaps because god would like to discern, amongst the souls in creation, between those who believe in creation (and the creator) and those who believe because they experienced the divine. Of course, the latter experienced the no-divine, but they have no way of knowing the difference. In summary: we have a creator (god) and a trickster (the miracle-maker no-god). So when time runs out perhaps the souls have destinies tied to their beliefs: if you believed in the divine because you were touched by miraculous experience, you are disintegrated. If you believed exclusively on an absent creator, then you get the bliss of knowing you were right and then you are disintegrated. Why is it that He created the no god inside creation? In scripture it says the people didn't want God with them. That seems more true. Do people prefer to have a God to worship or no? I say majority do not want that so why would He feel welcomed here?
|
|
louco
New Member
Posts: 6
Likes: 1
|
Post by louco on Apr 3, 2019 20:08:25 GMT
Why is it that He created the no god inside creation? In scripture it says the people didn't want God with them. That seems more true. Do people prefer to have a God to worship or no? I say majority do not want that so why would He feel welcomed here? The why he created no-god I feel is already answered: he created a machine to differentiate souls A from souls B and the no-god is the cog that separates A from B.
I am at odds to add scripture to our game, because that would stiffen our creative juices. But I will indulge.
I parse what you said in the following manner: you are more convinced to justify the existence of the no-god if it is a charitable act on the part of a god. Like it knew its created humans would not willingly believe in a I've-created-this-universe-but-never-again-touched-it god. So it created no-god, the miracle maker, which is more palatable to the masses.
I find such a reasoning superfluous: the role of god and no-god are already set in my original description and their spiritual functions are not increased by your idea.
Perhaps you'd say you rebel against my description because it has no consideration for how people feel. Well I described the universe as a spiritual machine, which task is to make a computation, and in said machine we have a cog named god and a cog named no-god. So I feel I have aptly responded to the OP challenge and will be waiting for my chocolate bar in the mail.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 3, 2019 21:10:47 GMT
Why is it that He created the no god inside creation? In scripture it says the people didn't want God with them. That seems more true. Do people prefer to have a God to worship or no? I say majority do not want that so why would He feel welcomed here? The why he created no-god I feel is already answered: he created a machine to differentiate souls A from souls B and the no-god is the cog that separates A from B. I am at odds to add scripture to our game, because that would stiffen our creative juices. But I will indulge. I parse what you said in the following manner: you are more convinced to justify the existence of the no-god if it is a charitable act on the part of a god. Like it knew its created humans would not willingly believe in a I've-created-this-universe-but-never-again-touched-it god. So it created no-god, the miracle maker, which is more palatable to the masses. I find such a reasoning superfluous: the role of god and no-god are already set in my original description and their spiritual functions are not increased by your idea. Perhaps you'd say you rebel against my description because it has no consideration for how people feel. Well I described the universe as a spiritual machine, which task is to make a computation, and in said machine we have a cog named god and a cog named no-god. So I feel I have aptly responded to the OP challenge and will be waiting for my chocolate bar in the mail.
W But why would God feel the need to create a machine or anything for help. Wouldn't that make Him not almighty then? An almighty God is all powerful to do anything and everything by Himself. A weak god would need to use others to achieve things. That sounds more like a human though.
|
|
louco
New Member
Posts: 6
Likes: 1
|
Post by louco on Apr 4, 2019 14:54:10 GMT
Now we're getting at comparative religion. I disagree with your judgement that a solitary god is better. It is a bit like the role of castration in human psychology: a child that is never castrated might have free reign of its desire and imagination, but it is a tyrant impossible to live with. Children who are properly reared are castrated, and become better, social beings because of it.
It is like prunning a tree: done right, the tree is stronger and bears more fruit because of the prunning.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 4, 2019 17:03:57 GMT
Now we're getting at comparative religion. I disagree with your judgement that a solitary god is better. It is a bit like the role of castration in human psychology: a child that is never castrated might have free reign of its desire and imagination, but it is a tyrant impossible to live with. Children who are properly reared are castrated, and become better, social beings because of it. It is like prunning a tree: done right, the tree is stronger and bears more fruit because of the prunning. Can you explain more? Because the way I see it a God and a human are different being so same things can't apply for both.
|
|
louco
New Member
Posts: 6
Likes: 1
|
Post by louco on Apr 4, 2019 22:32:37 GMT
Well a wolf and a ficus tree are different but the same thing, nutrition, applies to both.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 4, 2019 22:51:51 GMT
Well a wolf and a ficus tree are different but the same thing, nutrition, applies to both. But both of those things arw tangible. How can you apply it to an intangible thing like God. It's like applying it to an object and emotion. How does it work for intangibles? Maybe I'm being confusing or confused not sure.
|
|