What Makes A God?

A god is clearly the by-product of man's imagination and the illogical, overwhelming need to seek something other than what reality already provides.

 

90 anyway is a number, massive is not. Apparently dropped out or dropped out? Invited from a list provided but chose not to attend? I personally can't make any sense of the study because I don't know the metrics they used. "Human characteristics," doesn't speak to any scientifically established parameters that I am aware of lest they be biological descriptions. Human behavior might be observed and if you are talking about influences they would be reflected in how choices are made, i.e. what ambient perspective contributes to a decision or way of dealing with something.

There is also the matter that influences are variously interpreted and emphasis can vary. That is we make choices for a variety of reasons like resisting habits in order to make changes in our lives etc.. The subtlety and variety of possible effects makes quantifying in a statistical manner a game in it's infancy yet if it is even possible.. Also the import of a natal chart is not in the time and location of birth it is in the progressive calculations from that point.

 

The token Fierce Flower comment was well timed. :rofl:

 

There is no clear correlation between those two.

 

Ok and yet I'm still waiting on how the Tao is somehow different from God?

 

Can you just explain this part?

 

"what reality already provides" is infinite in number. is DMT included in this experience of "what reality already provides"?

You don't seem to understand that imagination is an underrated expression of man's capacities, and can actually be the phenomenological or metaphorical link for him to something transcendental. It can take the form of an infinite amount of deities.

What reality already provides includes deities. If it didn't, then we wouldn't even be discussing it.

 

It is like being born in the united states. You enjoy certain advantages or disadvantages being born there but that does not predict how you will handle it. My statement parses the difference between what is influential and what is definitely causative. It is the choices we make that are definitely causative.

 

As a joke maybe. Not as a true statement.

 

I want to know what makes a god stop being a god. Like what specific characteristic or trait would stop him from being a god?

Let's say we took God (Christian), what extra characteristic could we give him that would make him less of a god, without stripping any of his already existing characteristics?

 

A god's measure is in your devotion.

 

Of course it is, but what characteristics of the CHARACTER God can we add to him to make him less godlike? Not just his measure.

I personally am an agnostic atheist. I don't know, I don't pretend to know, I don't really care that much any more, but if you ask me if I believe in God, I definitely say no.
But I do read and learn a lot about religion and Gods in general. I've always had a huge boner for deities in general. Roman, Greek, Neolithic, you name it, I've probably buried my nose in a book about it. And I've always wondered what could be added to them to make them seem less godlike?

 

Godlike is a measure. The measure you give is the measure you receive. What characters do you find in yourself that makes you less than godlike?

 

I don't get why people think God fulfills some deep psychological need. If the universe isn't intelligently controlled and if this life is it, I'm perfectly fine with that. But the basic question of how much power an intelligence can or has achieved is still an interesting question to me.

 

Mortality, sickness, ignorance, etc.

I'm referring to mythology's portrayal of deities.

 

Depends on the myth.

 

Let's take the Christian God for example

 

Does not create unlike itself.

 

Or, works too hard, doesn't rest on sunday

 

Still catching up again..

(In regards to how astrology affects us).


Was speaking to a guy the other day who brought a nice explanation to the table of why astrology has failed to meet science's demands, and he states that science is a method that relies solely on cause and effect. Astrological movements don't affect things directly, rather they push and pull on the subtler aspects of our mental mental processes, similar to how the movement of the tides can be observed and measured and a correlation can be drawn between sea level and the location of the moon.

See, the patterns of astrology are geocentric. We follow a rather simple and repetitive path around the sun, so to me(disregarding the observed correlation between the trends of my own fluctuating state of mind and the described celestial activites) it's a fairly simple idea that we are subject to the influence of planetary forces. Whether that's because of gravity or fluctuations in certain types of radiation, who knows at this point in time, but the effects are observable and over thousands of years, a fairly comprehensive method of describing these changes has emerged through combining mythic archetypes, or characteristics, with certain planetary influences.

It's not precise, but it can be accurate.


Believe it or not, I'm still sceptical, not of the method but of those reading the charts. I've got pretty high standards and I need to know for myself that the person I'm going to isn't just going to waste my time. At the moment I don't take it too seriously.
Plus, a lot of the mystical aspect turns me off a little bit now. Airy fairy hippy ladies who swear by the light of the nine and all that crap wanna make me puke and are probably high on too much incense... we've just sent something past motherfucking Pluto, our exploration is still in it's infancy but we have a pretty good model of our solar system at least, we've come along way from just looking up from the ground.