If God/Gods are NOT real (Philosophical/Psychological Discussion)

[Jabberwocky]

And could you please explain how an entity could exist outside of spacetime? Moreso, how he could impact us?

Sorry to step in here but your question is so loaded that it needs to be pointed out.

Here's how I solve your problem as stated. I remove the word 'entity', because 'entity' is separate. I remove the word 'he' because it implies gener. I remove the word 'space-time' because while space-time is real to us, all-space and all-time makes the concept irreconcilable with human perception. Well, so what. That's the bias you have introduced. The word 'impact' implies cause and effect, which implies space-time and intent, so get rid of that too. No limited concepts, no problems.

all that is left in your question is "what is God?" I like the question personally. I also like the question "what am I?" or "what is reality?" I rarely like the finiteness of the answer but I'm not a nihilist either. There are beautiful ideas in math, science and spirituality that address those limitations in increasingly abstract ways.

Anyways, there's a thread about it somewhere.

 

[swilow]

^You've removed so much that I'm not sure you've retained god. :D

There is a bit of a trend to de-personify god. I can get behind that, I do not believe god is a like a human. But god keeps being changed, the goal posts are being moved constantly.

Perhaps all we can say about god is some humans want him to exist.

 

[Nixiam]

You deduce an equation too far and you wind up with several ways to build it back up?

That's how it goes even in philosophy, I see.

For starters, looking at it the way rmkhail put it is justifiable.

But I was clinging to the "limitations" even he settled for. Aside from that, my question was how.
___

But I see your point. If we were to stray away from the general restraints people put on God, the question "what is God" is on par with the statement "This is God" or "That is God".

So, with all of that in mind, my question cannot be answered and only simplified.

Which is satisfactory, even for mathematicians.

 

[swilow]

A question like what is god assumes gods existence though. For me, I don't make that assumption. That's pretty much the heart of my view.

 

[mr peabody]

what can be said of the mentality of individuals, throughout history, that have claimed to be messengers, prophets, etc. of a God/Gods?"

To me, "Universal Mind" is a more manageable expression than "God." Let's say that all conscious beings are part of that, and therefore inextricably connected. In this framework, "God" is real, and we are all equally credible messengers, prophets etc., right?

 

[Jabberwocky]

A question like what is god assumes gods existence though. For me, I don't make that assumption. That's pretty much the heart of my view.

I love it! Well said. I think God is a concept imposed by language, one that depends on what books you're reading. i see your point. we could use the word "It" if you like

To me, "Universal Mind" is a more manageable expression than "God."

I like that, except for there are people who differentiate reality into mind, body, soul, which implies something exists beyond mind. Universal mind is different though. I'll try it out.

Honestly, I'm happy to use different words interchangibly based on context.

 

[xbandit07x]

If God is fake, everything supernatural is fake. Prophets could be seen to have just the highest levels of euphoria over others, so there words control the most. I doubt they were schizophrenic or delusional, since they'd not sound as likeable to followers or in tune.

 

[xbandit07x]

To me, "Universal Mind" is a more manageable expression than "God." Let's say that all conscious beings are part of that, and therefore inextricably connected. In this framework, "God" is real, and we are all equally credible messengers, prophets etc., right?

We all can be, that's the point of religion, everyone can carry out their true, honest self which only comes from trusting the direction of the highest conscious.

What people fail to realize is carrying God through yourself is just being nonjudgmental, carefree, honest, and loving like how we were as children.

It's not an "Enlightened state", that would be Pride. The buddah himself said his wisdom/enlightenment is only the best humanity had so far in 600 BC, to simply disassociate into a serotogenic acid trip.

Christ set a new consciousness for humanity in the Year 1, to allow us to no longer be burdened by doing the wrong or right deeds.

theres only power in being wondrous about the unknown, so that's why prophets would only be able to manipulate so well by being happy.

 

[mr peabody]

It's not an "Enlightened state", that would be Pride. The buddah himself said his wisdom/enlightenment is only the best humanity had so far in 600 BC, to simply disassociate into a serotogenic acid trip.

NOWHERE can I find a definition for the word "sertogenic." What does it mean?

Christ set a new consciousness for humanity in the Year 1, to allow us to no longer be burdened by doing the wrong or right deeds.

I don't get it. Please explain this.

 

[RDP89]

NOWHERE can I find a definition for the word "sertogenic." What does it mean?



I don't get it. Please explain this.

The word is actually serotonergic, it means affecting or pertaining to serotonin. E.G., MDMA is a serotonergic chemical because it inhibits the reuptake of and causes the release of serotonin, a neurotransmitter responsible for a bunch of important stuff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonergichttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/

 

[RDP89]

A lot of people don't actually speak to God, rather they interpret signs from God. It may be a flower blooming or a comet in the sky or a burnt piece of toast that looks like Kayne.

Everyone has voices in their head, unfortunately mine need subtitles

These people only allegedly interpret signs from god, there remains no evidence that a god or gods exist.

 

[xbandit07x]

NOWHERE can I find a definition for the word "sertogenic." What does it mean?



I don't get it. Please explain this.

Buddah advocates the best way at the time (600 AD) to stop human suffering is to Dissasociate.

http://wildtruth.net/dissociation-mimics-enlightenment/


"It is also described that serotonergic hallucinogens, such as lysergic acid
diethylamide, mescaline, and dimethyltryptamine, also produce dissociative symptoms via their stimulation of 5-HT2 receptors.3,4 Furthermore, serotonergic systems heighten sensory processing via the 5-HT2 receptor. Some suggest that dissociation may result from excessive serotonergic activation at the thalamic level"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173756/

So we know meditation and Hallucigens and dissociatives do this.

Siddhartha believes life tripping is better than partaking in a material ego, he can't comprehend a better solution though (lost Buddhist texts suggest he left an anecdote foreshadowing a future Savior who can provide a better peace than his disassociating one.) There exists no /easy/ way for mankind to be conciously awake, humble and happy in the year 600 BC. Life is about material worth and Spartan/productive self deeds in siddharthas time.

Then Christ comes and changes the world conscious to open up a happiness and peace that lets humans be capable to trust everything enough and can enjoy themselves and feel more at peace awake and alive. This is a step up from the meaningless peace of Siddhartha's answer that was probobally the best way to feel during his time while on earth, it was a colder planet with an every man for himself organized to survive lifestyle.

We haven't had a savior yet, we knew nothing and for those who knew there was One God, they weren't necessarily valuable to him anyway before Christ, but the "ego guided" poly-God worshipers were all around you looking to demons and other creatures without real power.

In 600 BC we have most of society worshipping idols (Romans, Greeks, India, China) etc. and Siddhartha Guatama can only tell humanity to Dissasociate during this time, since we knew too little, and couldn't correct anything at the time.

So basically, Siddhartha was a genius, he saw pride in nature as the BEST you could expect to reasonably feel at the time he was alive. He was closer to backing God's creation (surrender to sitting on the earth, even if it's empty right now), and everyone worshiping Idols was destroyed.

So Buddhism was the most Moral stance you can exist with in old times, as even those who had one God (ancient Jews) were worshipping him wrong, they praised him with Power and egotistical obedience. And rarities like King David who were actually humble, nobody including himself ever understood his demeanor or why he took over everything so wellfully. King David was ahead of his time in posessing the God consciousness that nobody could interpret easily until The year 1.

It's quite Trippy that David nor anybody alive knew he was so powerful because he was humble, because the significance of his whole story was that he was ignorant and oblivious to his own power through humility and love, and the Old Testament does not comment or reference any direct statements for David as they do Jesus. It appears on the surface as if David is selfish, impulsive, and foolish but all his behavior is always successful because of his Christ humility.