We are ALL God.

[sigmond]

Pantheism

 

[Lil'LinaptkSix]

Yep.

 

[Vastness]

The term god does not have anything to do with a the terminology I used. The response you posted was unintelligible gibberish. You can try to redefine words to support your philosophy that "god is consciousness" but that's just going down an existentialist rabbit hole that leads nowhere.

OK, so my point (or part of it) is that terms like god and spirituality in actual fact are very poorly defined, vague concepts, and most people are really not sure what their own definition is of either, but either just assume that their own understanding of them is universal, or that other people understand exactly what they mean when in actual fact, they probably don't.

I could look up the dictionary definitions of both words but since you seem fairly certain of your own understanding of them, perhaps it would be helpful for you to explain your own definition of god. You previously defined god as "spiritual creator of the universe" here, a definition which remains ambiguous because of the word "spiritual".

Finally (although I'm trying to keep this post as to the point as possible) I think it's arguable that almost any discussions about the nature of reality or somewhat unknowable aspects of it are traversing existentialist rabbit holes, whether they go anywhere is itself somewhat unclear, but we're never going to know unless we try to go down them. I must assume that you have at least a passing interest in them too otherwise there would be no reason for you to even bother responding to this thread, even if your interest is primarily in trying to get others not to waste their time.

If God is being used theologically there isn't much argument to make, whatever religion will define God for the purpose of its own theology. In that context belief means a belief system and does not mean proof with scientific certainty. Those are two different things. I assume that if God is being used in the philosophical context it would also be a defined term.

I would agree. I think given the context of this discussion it is fairly clear for the most part that the nature of god is being discussed philosophically, rather than with reference to any specific religious doctrine. That being the case, it's important that god is properly defined, otherwise it's impossible to properly discuss.

 

[dopamimetic]

There is a difference between things you can experience for and by yourself and dogmas others violently hammer into your mind. It is remarkable how many independent individuals experience similar things leading to similar conclusions when they reach a state or moment free of dogmatism. In contrast dogmas are just repeated.

Imho this is how science was and is founded.

 

[empeebee]

I never claimed I don't believe in things. Did you think that was a gotcha moment somehow?

Ermm, yes you did. You said...

I believe in discourse. If someone asserts what I believe to be a falsehood as a fact

by which, I take it, that if someone takes issue with your BELIEFS you would have discourse with them. Ergo, you believe in something. Or did I misunderstand?
So, given that another may assert what you believe to be fact as a falsehood would imply that they don't believe what you believe. No gotchas involved.

 

[mp44god]

Ermm, yes you did. You said...


by which, I take it, that if someone takes issue with your BELIEFS you would have discourse with them. Ergo, you believe in something. Or did I misunderstand?
So, given that another may assert what you believe to be fact as a falsehood would imply that they don't believe what you believe. No gotchas involved.

You seem to be really against the idea of people challenging other's opinions for some reason. I guess you don't believe in the scientific method. There's a difference in having a fact based belief, and a belief based on absurdities... I hope you can understand this.

 

[empeebee]

Fully understood and I'm not challenging differing opinions. What I'm questioning is the essence of 'belief'. A long time ago a bunch of people believed the earth was flat, that Martians existed and the moon was unreachable. Shows how beliefs change.

Am also a great fan of the scientific method so I am really looking forward to you proving, to return to the original topic, pro or contra, that we are all God/god. Without you quoting your beliefs that is.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

One can practice the scientific method while also believing in God.

 

[mp44god]

Fully understood and I'm not challenging differing opinions. What I'm questioning is the essence of 'belief'. A long time ago a bunch of people believed the earth was flat, that Martians existed and the moon was unreachable. Shows how beliefs change.

Am also a great fan of the scientific method so I am really looking forward to you proving, to return to the original topic, pro or contra, that we are all God/god. Without you quoting your beliefs that is.

There is nothing to prove in the first place. You can redefine words to suit whatever narrative you want to push, but that doesn't make it so. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim that "we are all god". You haven't made a single cogent point this entire thread other than playing semantical word games.

 

[mp44god]

Fully understood and I'm not challenging differing opinions. What I'm questioning is the essence of 'belief'. A long time ago a bunch of people believed the earth was flat, that Martians existed and the moon was unreachable. Shows how beliefs change.

Am also a great fan of the scientific method so I am really looking forward to you proving, to return to the original topic, pro or contra, that we are all God/god. Without you quoting your beliefs that is.

How would I prove or disprove the existence of god? If your argument is because one thing cannot be proven or disproven that it's not worth talking about, that's a logical fallacy. The idea of a supreme creator of the universe (which one of thousands upon thousands I might add?) Is wholly unknowable, so by extension "GoD Is JuSt CoNsCiOuSNeSs" is unknowable. How do we know you exist? See, I can do this too.

 

[empeebee]

One can practice the scientific method while also believing in God.

Of course, but my comments related to using the scientific method to prove or disprove we are all god, as per the title of this thread.

You haven't made a single cogent point this entire thread

I beg to differ, the narrative I was pursuing and the point I made (or tried to) is that we all believe different things. Some believe in God, some believe in god(s), some do not believe in any form of God/god(s) inclusive of ourselves as gods. Forgive me if I didn't not make the point sufficiently clear.

How would I prove or disprove the existence of god?

Wasn't asking you to prove or disprove the existence of god, I said...

I am really looking forward to you proving, to return to the original topic, pro or contra, that we are all God/god because that is the title of the thread

How do we know you exist?

Cogito, ergo sum

 

[mp44god]

Of course, but my comments related to using the scientific method to prove or disprove we are all god, as per the title of this thread.


I beg to differ, the narrative I was pursuing and the point I made (or tried to) is that we all believe different things. Some believe in God, some believe in god(s), some do not believe in any form of God/god(s) inclusive of ourselves as gods. Forgive me if I didn't not make the point sufficiently clear.


Wasn't asking you to prove or disprove the existence of god, I said...



Cogito, ergo sum

Here we go with another circular argument. Your phrasing of "we are all god" is a moot point because I said I couldn't prove that, much like the existence of god.
Refer to the post above yours.

 

[empeebee]

Here we go with another circular argument. Your phrasing of "we are all god" is a moot point because I said I couldn't prove that, much like the existence of god.
Refer to the post above yours.

Agreed. We can neither prove there is a God/god or that we are all God/gods. Which means that it comes down to personal belief.

This is not a case of circular argument, it is a way of responding to the topic.

You are a god if you choose to believe you are.

 

[mp44god]

Agreed. We can neither prove there is a God/god or that we are all God/gods. Which means that it comes down to personal belief.

This is not a case of circular argument, it is a way of responding to the topic.

You are a god if you choose to believe you are.

That's not how reality works, but I realize it's a lost cause talking to you at this point. Go believe you can fly and jump off a skyscraper. Come back and tell me what you learned.

 

[Xorkoth]

Suggesting that one who believes we are all "god" also believe we can fly and jump off skyscrapers is a pretty lazy way of responding to this topic. The people claiming that we are all god are not saying "we are all gods with superpowers", we're just saying that, perhaps, what "god" is, is simply the universe, and that the thing that is having an experience is the universe. Nowhere in there does that suggest any of us is not also just a regular person.

Is it possible that my experiences have been delusions? Absolutely. They just had the feeling of truth to them, moreso than anything else ever has. Sometimes you just know, and maybe that knowing isn't correct, but then, how can anyone be sure they're correct? I keep an open mind and shift my beliefs as there is more evidence. But the fact of the matter us, none of us, and probably no human or other intelligent life form, will truly ever know what all this is. In the meantime, people have the right to frame their beliefs how they see fit, as long as they're not hurting someone else with it.

 

[wudbutcher]

Couldn't go back to sleep, need some convo, sorry I'm chiming in. What was the question?

 

[mp44god]

Suggesting that one who believes we are all "god" also believe we can fly and jump off skyscrapers is a pretty lazy way of responding to this topic. The people claiming that we are all god are not saying "we are all gods with superpowers", we're just saying that, perhaps, what "god" is, is simply the universe, and that the thing that is having an experience is the universe. Nowhere in there does that suggest any of us is not also just a regular person.

Is it possible that my experiences have been delusions? Absolutely. They just had the feeling of truth to them, moreso than anything else ever has. Sometimes you just know, and maybe that knowing isn't correct, but then, how can anyone be sure they're correct? I keep an open mind and shift my beliefs as there is more evidence. But the fact of the matter us, none of us, and probably no human or other intelligent life form, will truly ever know what all this is. In the meantime, people have the right to frame their beliefs how they see fit, as long as they're not hurting someone else with it.

God is a spiritual deity. Like I've said ad nauseam at this point, you can redefine words to fit whatever narrative you want, you can believe that the word means something other than its actual definition but that doesn't make it so.

 

[empeebee]

Suggesting that one who believes we are all "god" also believe we can fly and jump off skyscrapers is a pretty lazy way of responding to this topic. The people claiming that we are all god are not saying "we are all gods with superpowers", we're just saying that, perhaps, what "god" is, is simply the universe, and that the thing that is having an experience is the universe. Nowhere in there does that suggest any of us is not also just a regular person.

Is it possible that my experiences have been delusions? Absolutely. They just had the feeling of truth to them, moreso than anything else ever has. Sometimes you just know, and maybe that knowing isn't correct, but then, how can anyone be sure they're correct? I keep an open mind and shift my beliefs as there is more evidence. But the fact of the matter us, none of us, and probably no human or other intelligent life form, will truly ever know what all this is. In the meantime, people have the right to frame their beliefs how they see fit, as long as they're not hurting someone else with it.

+1

you can believe that the word means something other than its actual definition but that doesn't make it so

Ok, so what is your "actual definition" of 'we are all God"? What is your narrative?

P.S. I am not going to jump off a building. I am heavier than air therefore, and thanks to the scientific method of proving gravity, I will hit the ground hard. I am not Superman, this much I know.

 

[Gormur]

I'm not 100% sure but I think there's a type of humanism, maybe secular humanism that says we are our own gods

Personally, I don't subscribe to humanism because I don't see the difference between it and atheism, which I actually do support

Still I'm sure my view of atheism is different from what people think of. I see it like a way to look at the world. Gods and demons can exist, but they're not necessarily related to what I believe

 

[Foreigner]

Occam's razor has two flaws... it assumes that the simplest answer is the truth, and that it's up to the interpreter to decide if something is simple or not. That's why pure rationalism has its flaws. It relies on the hubris of the observer being correct and that there is collective agreement upon what is rational. Furthermore, there are other faculties for perceiving reality. Poets have written about love for centuries, nobody can really decide for sure what love is, because love is not a rational sensing process.

Science and spirituality are different schools. Asking for scientific proof of God displays a lack of discernment between the different schools. Science concerns itself with material reductionism almost exclusively. It can't speak to ontology, although it sometimes tries.

How many times have we seen people come into P&S asking for scientific proof of everything? Too many. We have centuries worth of philosophers who concern themselves with exploring ontology through various means. Rationality is one means, but not the only.

I feel that demanding exclusively rational explanations in discussions that deal with the ontological or non-rational display an ignorance of the other schools. Okay, so perception of God is irrational. What's wrong with that? Is there a rational explanation for everything? Should there be? Can there be?

Rationality is *a* thing, it's not *the one and only* thing.