Questions for God

No need to fear It is not a statement of faith. Knowledge is, being shared.

The statement, the reason anything is not apparent is arbitrary measures
or unreliable metrics.
As I make this claim for the appearance of anything it is especially functional for the appearance of good, authority, good authority, or in like kind god. These things are perceived by most in an arbitrary manner.

So where is good, or what is good? Arbitration is ever an attempt at establishing authority. Perpetual arbitration is the prevailing idea of good judgement. Except that authority is never actually established through perpetual arbitration.

Good is not consistently found because instead of trying to apprehend where it is, we insist arbitrarily that it must be found in a certain form.

The statement that there is no evidence of god and even god must not exist because of the level of suffering in the world, is not an apprehension
of the world at large but a statement that what we see does not match our ideal of what should be.

Even if there were a good or god we could all see simultaneously, we would not all recognize it because we would be zoned in on compliance to a conceptual model rather than apprehending what is there.

 

i still don't understand how the insistence on the existence of an objective good/god/authority/morality, constant and unchanging, independent of humanity is not an act of faith.

while i accept that our current conceptual models of this being/whatever are no doubt completely inadequate (although this more or less precludes the idea of god being "good" or "loving" in any sense of the word, much less the possibility of our communicating/communing with it) but surely the belief that if we only had the necessary vocabulary or insight we could become aware of the existence or nature of god can only be an act of faith? if we lack the ability to see him now, using our current conceptual models etc what reason do we have for assuming that the fault lies entirely with those models and that if only they were better we would be successful?

 

Absolutely none.

 

What a complete load of utter bullcrap!

Good is determined through reason and logic.

I've never tried to define God. I've simply applied logic and reason to all definitions of God to see if they fit my observed world and nothing has even come close to making logical sense so far.

And that's a pretty fucking pathetic defense for God... that we can't see the good in all his wonderful suffing... that God doesn't meet expectations DEFINED by the organisations claiming to KNOW him? bullshit - nonsense - get a fucking grip!

 

The standard metric is reality. Reality equals good. That is, there is an ubiquitous intent to be and being fulfills that intent. From this perspective the only thing that threatens, is misapprehension. Faith in this respect is the assumption that reality is fundamentally sound. The truth sets us free.

There are no supernatural nor are there degenerate causes. The appearance of such is a misapplication of our power to make distinctions. Knowledge flows freely into an open mind. I assume proper function and am illumined to discover function and this informs action.

 

This is a definition of god in the sense that god is what we invoke as good cause.

See above.

That is precisely what I said. It does not appear because you look for compliance to your model instead of trying to apprehend phenomena.

Yes your perceptions of my statement are pretty twisted, again because they don't comply with your demand for compliance.
I prefer to be fucked for real.

 

i assume you don't mean good in the moral sense. in what sense do you mean it, if you don't mind me asking?

i'm also not entirely sure how reality can be described as "standard". or how existence can be proof of intent.

although i do sort-of agree that belief in the objective truth of reality requires faith....are reality and "god" synonymous in this model? that would make sense, i suppose. although difficult to ask reality questions lol

 

I recognize one ubiquitous morality that being the instinct to preserve/extend, the self. It's representational range is from the instinct of self preservation, the wall of a cell, to the experience of gratitude as we become accomplished consistently, volunteerism. We are hard wired to find our good and our motto, there is good in the world and we must have it. We are compelled to act then according to our model of good.

All definitions are descriptions and we may identify by definition. We make an assumption that reality is fundamentally sound. Without the occupation of perpetual arbitration much more observational acuity may be applied.

The reproductive system.

Yes.

 

well, if you reduce everything down to its most fundamental level and then label that as "god" then i guess you're laughing. just from the premise of the thread i assumed that we were all meant to conceptualise a more traditional version of god, one which would be capable of conversation.

 

I didn't know that conversation was unsuitable to discuss things outside of tradition.

I don't label everything fundamentally god. Without labels is the raw appearance of reality. What I assume is that good is inherent and that anxiety is misapprehension. The extant being good because it is phenomenal and secure beyond all measure because what is not real, dos not exist.

So in response to the question where are you, herein lies the peace of god.
We are never without and all things are equal to our regard or to our practice. Regard can be guarded and then disregarded, but practice makes perfect.

 

I never defined God as Good, that is some stupid delusional thing you did...

 

conversation isn't unsuitable to discussthings outside of tradition. what i mean is that the premise of the thread is that you have the opportunity to ask a question of god. doing so is, i would have thought, only possible if one imagines the traditional concept of god, given that a traditional monotheistic model of god would paint him as being an absolute entity, but one which is necessarily independent of humanity, and non-subjective. absent (or invisible), but not abstract. in order for a human to ask a question of god it is necessary for god to be a concrete individual entity capable of independent rational thought. a god synonymous with reality itself (and therefore all beings) is necessarily impossible for a human to ask a question of because, without concrete distinction between two parties, there can be no dialogue.

which we don't have any access to, surely?

sounds like objective reality, objective truth, objective morality to me. i can't get over the faith bit for those.

nope, you lost me.

 

The word god itself, at it's root means that which we invoke as good cause. Or in the secular we say a thing is good, because we are inherently devoted to our good depending on our model of good. If you believe all things are ascertained through reason that is your devotional icon, and that is the thing you will attempt to practice. I personally have noticed that the apparent is ascertained through observation.

I posit if your are defining good at all, the wave of observation, collapses.
The observer has then contaminated the experiment so to speak and results are wildly unpredictable.

 

I understand your position and what I suggest is the question, where are you, in relation to the appearance of god, (that appearance being traditional or theoretical), precludes observation of the essential or current.

Have you ever witnessed the eureka moment, when things suddenly become apparent? It is a peculiar state of consciousness.

My meditation then is beyond symbols and then light, consciousness, as wave
appears instead of light as particulate. All form then becomes illuminated from within rather than as an inner reflection of the outside world.

Reality is objective enough that we can traverse the solar system and beyond with our probes. The delusion is that anything can be unknowable. The idea that some questions can only ever be answered subjectively is a far too complicated model as far as understanding what you see. It is more solid appearing on that issue if we understand how we see because the mechanism is the same for us all.

We get lost in a hallway of mirrors or a corridor of refraction when we attempt to arbitrate, or fit into a model, our ongoing perceptions. One instant leads to a historical association in our minds and in an instant we are lost in the associations, primarily melodramatic or speculative, and forget to keep our attention fresh.

The difference is in quality or integrity of attention and most often things do not appear because our attention had wandered. Where the fuck are my car keys?

 

no, and I can't be bothered to elaborate why that is all wrong. Any intelligent person can see that you are writing fallacies and nonsense.

 

if god told you what to do you would probably tell other people god is telling you to do things and they would all think you're insane... maybe god really is talking to the crazies?

 

In other words, neither point by point nor by generalization, do you have an intelligent rebuttal.

You never do.