If God Is Real

My point being that all actions in this venue involve posting. I simply don't take it personally or never take what is said as an affront to my well being. It remains to be seen what kind of response my statement engenders from heeh2, if any.

 

I hear you and fair enough......but I also wonder do you hear some of the other attacks here on people that are real assaults...you are paranoid...something wrong with your brain.....now, how does anyone know anyone well enough to attack like that...you are a retardt....fat, old other people have been called....etc., etc.....and some are very underhanded comments...insidious........an FU is not attacking someone on a personal level...i have been called paranoid many times and also told here told here by someone I did not even know,.,...well, at least you don't have to keep saying good things to other people like one does to you by someone I did not even know who they were....WTF....get outta here.... something along those lines....direct attacks......

i never attack first....never.


but anyway......sorry to interrupt your conversation here.....

 

I think there is an argument to be made that God has no right being glorious. I don't know if I'd agree or not. Glory is a good thing, I think. If God is just being glorious all the time, does that excuse God from trying to micromanage what is going on on Earth?

 

Look at the sun....there is our god....and it provides heat, light....and gives life......we are all made of star material.

 

I think an argument can be made that in terms of what may be deserving of one quality or another, we don't know how to leave well enough alone in attempting to manage outcomes in general. God may or may not have a plan but so far our planning doesn't seem to work with regular satisfaction. Life process is growing and a plant flowers in it's own time. That is it is not meaningful to critique reality in terms of what should be that isn't. It is helpful to understand what is the same and what is different and what a thing is for.

 

Who is critiquing reality in terms of what should be but isn't? There is never going to be a way it should be. It doesn't matter what science deduces this place is. A hologram, a computer simulation, what have you. There will never be a way you should react to it. So I am not saying that is the case. But by the same token, there's no way God has to react to the place. Maybe this is all just a consequence of God's sentience which just happens to be. God has no choice in the matter; God can't be any different than he/she/it is.

So we can't reduce God to a personality, which is the defining characteristic of a meaningful creator.

 

Reasoning for a purpose. What is that?

Is the word you're looking for Motivation?

We can always be incorrect in our understanding of anything. Because to observe an event is to observe the mechanics of everything working in unison.

If you do not know everything then you do not know the "truth" as I suspect you are attempting to describe it. As something that apprehends reality, that is.

If you do know everything, then you can understand how uncertain "truth" can be.

Yes, this is consistent with what I said. Why was this followed by a rant about how my words are gibberish? There is a lot of that going on in this thread. I attempted to explain the reason two other people didn't understand each other and now I am explaining it to you again. What is happening?

I think you're seeing and addressing what you believe to be a problem when really all you have to do is decide, or rather understand that the problem exists in your head and not mine. Your head and not someone else's.

Then you can build on what other people create, and not just try and convince everyone as you have perhaps convinced yourself that significance is not also subject to whim.

We are not merely waiting on reality to emerge, we are also creating it. We are creating ourselves.

Well yes, just like Religion exists in the minds of religious folks, Science exists in the minds of scientists who are waiting to hear the next word from either god, or natural phenomena.

I've read koans that seemed to illustrate discretion at least as much as this situation with your sister.

She sounds like a very wise gal.

Some people like to be spoon fed information and think of their own explanations like they are penance for that.

Could it be that your sister is familiar with the idea that you shouldn't argue with an idiot? Couldn't it be that you are the one missing something that she understands? Isn't it possible that her response is a reflection of her desires, and not her inability to reason?

I imagine your sister would describe the situation quite differently. Perhaps you were being a little annoying shit and she told you to go fuck yourself lol.

I think that is funny.

Your feelings are uncharted territory.

Which is why I would rather just disregard your feelings.

My attempts at treading around them might be in vain.

An attack can also be seen as an opportunity to be heroic.

 

Reasoning exists for the purpose of finding direction and we always choose with a guide. In this conversation we reason on existential questions.

No I have used the words I intended.

Well I would say that in a space time continuum there are no discrete events as everything works in unison. You might lay aside your suspicion and simply glean meaning precisely from the words I am using. I suggest there is no such thing as the truth. Having said that we can make true distinctions in terms of what is the same and what is different and discern what a thing is for. For example we can truthfully say an apple is not an orange. We can truthfully say a red apple and a green apple are both apples and in turn we can say apples and oranges are edible fruits that represent a reproductive strategy of plants.

An understanding, as you use the term above, means a narrative that you attempt to organize your life around. Such "understandings" are not even necessary to apprehend what is so. All that is needed is an open mind, that is inquisitive without prejudice, and the appropriate application of your powers of discernment. Knowledge as distinct from understanding is precisely equal to being. Knowledge or the so-ness of things is both complete and ongoing consisting of vibration and luminosity. All the same being ourselves relatively informed or informed through ongoing relationship there is always more to learn or discover.

I will deal with the rest in another post.

 

If you don't know everything then confine your truth saying to comparisons in true terms which are same, different, and purposeful. This is the appropriate application of your powers of distinction. We are very good at edge detection, not so good at imagining a theory of everything or detecting spurious motives.

So that you understand me better what I said in a nutshell is, if our purpose for applying our minds, reasoning, is not to discern what is so, then any mental activity could be construed as reasoning.

What you may be trying to explain to me and what I am explaining to you are not the same thing. What I am calling gibberish is your inconsistent speech on matters of assumed principles. There are many reasons why people don't understand each other. First and foremost even though we all speak the same formal language our usage or specific vernacular is locally impressed over time. That is we become familiar with a persons particular language usage through developing relationship. Every new person we meet requires a period of becoming familiar before we really know where a person is coming from when he says something. So from the outset we need to learn each others language through practice. Another reason we don't understand each other is that our basic and mostly unexamined assumptions may not be the same. Another reason is that we may be divided in communicative purpose. The practice of trying to comprehend what is said by another is not the same as trying to make a point to them in which case you are concentrating on your own argument and not giving your full attention to what is said as you become immersed in internal associations or dialogue of point counter point.

I haven't spoken about my beliefs and they don't enter into my discussion with you here. I am addressing your words. I don't see a problem only a confused reckoning in terms of the words you are using.

Creation is extension simply. We do not create ourselves. We are born and we grow but as to how we have no idea. We are created and create like ourselves or procreate. We generate experience for ourselves in congregation with others. All our relationships consist of various relative proportions of the energetic properties of matter which are absorption, reflection, and polarity.

As far as significance being subject to whim it is true that not everyone is interested. Knowledge or recognition is material and takes up space. Not everyone is interested in discerning what is real. Many are interested simply in attaining comfort. The vast majority on this planet wouldn't even be having this discussion.

On the sister thing, there is no situation with my sister. It was an anecdote from my youth that I used to describe my impression of the course of your conversation. You excuse yourself from saying something consistently meaningful by saying life is but a cosmic joke so it doesn't matter. No doubt any life situation can be construed as amusing at some level.

 

The created represents the characteristics of a meaningful creator. To de-fine character is to make coarse from this perspective. All expressions are lawful but not all are helpful or necessary and helpful is a matter of desired aim and timing.

As to who is critiquing reality in such terms many do, not saying you do personally.

 

We are created in God's image,but he is not created in ours.

 

Another way to put this might be creation is revealed for us, not informed by us. All the imaginative ingenuity of man is ingenuous, that is artless in the light of a sunrise.

 

[SIZE=12.8000001907349px]Isn't it true though, that any mental activity could be construed as reason?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.8000001907349px]Since any life situation can be construed as amusing at some level, then any life situation can produce inspiration and thus, reason as well.[/SIZE]

 

"Your feelings are uncharted territory.

Which is why I would rather just disregard your feelings.

My attempts at treading around them might be in vain.

An attack can also be seen as an opportunity to be heroic.

Edited by heeh2, May 30 2015 - 10:37 PM.
"



^
Then please, heeh, tread around them...or me....I promise you it won't be in vain.

 

Now we are back to purpose of reasoning. The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. Can and does are not the same thing. Simply having thoughts does not mean the thoughts are organized in a logical or sensible way. As to inspiration, we all breath, we are spirited reaching toward spirit in all things. Amusement of itself is not indicative of knowledgeable conclusions as whether or not we are amused could simply be a matter of taste and taste, without knowledgeable accounting, serves as traffic control for the unintended as you react in a mechanical way to stimulus with amusement. To react with amusement is not the same as acting from a state of good humor.

 

"Can" describes potential. Logic describes potential also because it attempts to describe "what is so" as you so adequately put in one of your posts. "what is so" is that anything is a possibility, which means having thoughts does not necessarily mean the thoughts are organized in a logical or "sensible" way, true, but the possibility remains.

What is "sensible" is in the eye of the beholder.

I feel like agent J from men in black telling you how swamp gas reflected radiation from Jupiter to cause unexplained events. The "truth", that the universe is a vast and mysterious place with aliens and stuff is even more incomprehencible.

You and I are just as incomprehensible To a lot of people.

I often do not understand what inspires me. But I still get to keep the inspiration.

 

Now I am laughing. You feel like agent J from men in black telling me those things because the things you are saying are just that applicable to answering the existential questions at hand. This is why i said at first that your rhetoric is not reasonably helpful in addressing these things. I didn't say that to knock the quality of your inspirations. I have affinity for some of the things you say. What you are promulgating seems a work in progress looking more like free association than focused reasoning. I would focus more on learning to apply axiomatic reasoning to your inspirations than defending your pronouncements on the basis that anything is possible. 'True anything is possible if you leave it to probability. What you wish or dream for may or may not appear in time such being the nature of random probability but what will be done is done. By will I mean effort of will. We affect probability through effort toward a desired aim. A space craft doesn't reach it's destination unless you first launch a spacecraft with a programmed trajectory.In this way we interact with matter by imparting a degree of polarity. All urges of spirit must be cultivated to manifest with fidelity over time.

 

On the idea that anything is possible, it is not possible that what is real can become unreal. What is not real does not exist.

 

Inspiration is axiomatic.

Why would I apply logic to something that is already unquestionable?

 

To answer what is in fact questioned even though you claim it is unquestionable. On the one hand you claim unquestionable, a limit to possibility, and on the other all possible. To be inspired is to breath in the air. I suggest you don't stop doing it. Revelation is axiomatic. An axiom is a postulate or premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy which is used as a starting point for continued reasoning. That which commends itself as evident.