New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[Thought Art]

 

[zurew]

21 hours ago, Thought Art said:

So, why physical laws if God can imagine any design it wants? You would just say infinite intelligence, perfection, bla bla. Okay, that’s just like saying it is what it is. 

You ask good and fair questions , I don't know why you let your confidence to be undermined by rhetorical questions.

Yes, its just putting the label 'perfect' on reality where perfect doesn't mean anything other than just being a complete,exhaustive desription of reality.

How does any of that interesting?

 

 

 

Does God have the ability to create the world in a different way? If the answer is yes, then it means either that he has a preference to create the world this way (which means that all things considered -  he has a preference for children getting raped on a daily basis) or he is indifferent to all of this and creating the world this way was completely arbitrary and he had no desire to create it in any other way.

If the answer is no - then creating the world this way was due to certain limitations and those limitations is what largely explains the traits of this world - but in this case suddenly labels like "perfect" won't sound that cool, because the design of reality will be largely explained by those limitations, not by some design.

 

------------------------------------------

 

"oh , you don't get it, all the cool stuff and all the affordance that is possible in this world is due to the profound grand design"  Yeah? What are we talking about there, are we talking about logical impossibility (like the world couldn't have been created in other ways with different laws of physics while also maintaining all the cool stuff and affordances that are in this world?) If the answer to that is "Yes" then whats the argument for that (whats the argument that establish the contradiction in creating such a world)?

And this is where I probably won't get any response, but if there is no response there, then the question that people should ask next is this - why claim that the world is perfect  if you can't defend it? 

 

Also just to flag some things - notice the value judgements - you are myopic and selfish for putting certain negative judgements on the design of this world , and on the other hand we also want to claim that the design is perfect (where the design includes facts like giving us agents certain preferences and values that goes against the grand design). If the grand design includes us being myopic , selfish and not being able to appreciate the design, then why is it exactly the case that we get blamed for that ?

All of that is also part of the perfection, bro (if we want to be consistent and dont just want to play rhetorically around the label of perfect).

Edited May 17 by zurew

[Thought Art]

@zurew It’s mind boggling for sure. 
 

In Non-Dual Shiva Tantra God/ Shiva (Shiva being the God head or pure consciousness without duality) doesn’t have innate preferences for pleasure or pain, good or bad. These preferences develop through duality and finite ego construction. I don’t understand it. But, this grand mind seems to either be indifferent, or to love all aspects of itself equally which entails both rape and war as much as back massage and chocolate bar. It’s likely that Shiva is perfection, which is pure selflessness. 
 

What world would a completely, loving, indifferent, infinity, selfless God make? 
 

It seems to be both super intelligent and all powerful but also at the mercy of its own infinite intelligence and will to perfection. It’s doomed to be God. And, it’s indifferent to it. I think. Except through its finite egoic constructs. Which, suffer greatly through there lives. But, really also experience a variety of emotions. 
 

The love, is more like an indifference. We can assume most life in the cosmos is not human. So, to understand this perhaps going beyond our own survival needs and preferences and even our humanity. Perhaps that is the value in awakening for this line of philosophical discussion. The world is a brutal, twisted place. 
 

There are many stories of shiva. In some he is a saint, in others he is a murderer or thief. That is the nature of God. 
 

Despite whatever experience a human goes through God is clean and untouched. 

Edited May 17 by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

@zurew I am working on my confidence. I also soften if, because it can blind me to being open to wider context. 

Edited May 17 by Thought Art

[zurew]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The Universe works based on physical laws. God is not violating physical laws to suit your ego. So what you're wondering is why are the physical laws as they are and not otherwise? The answer will be something like: because that's how they need to be in order for things to work.

God doesn't personally muck around with his Creation. God sets up the structure and lets it unfold organically. Humans have this silly notion that God should personally muck around to micro-manage reality. But that would mean God was an idiot for creating a flawed reality that needed his micromanagement.

Think about it, if you're going to create any system, would you create a system that requires constant micro-management from you or it falls apart? Or would you create a system that just works perfectly without any further intervention from you?

The choice is obvious.

And of course every creature inside that system will wish that the system's design was skewed more to favor him. Like every player in a soccer game would wish the referee always ruled in favor of him. But that would be a corrupt referee and a corrupt game.

 

What the argument that things wouldn't work if God would intervene and would not let children to get raped just 1 time?

Why do you create the false dichotomy that there needs to be either constant micro-management or no micro management at all? Like we can imagine very easy a bunch of scenarios that wouldn't map onto that dichotomy - like God intervening just one time.

The answer to that will be fairness? I hope not, because please then explain to us (if you want to talk about fairness) - How is it fair that certain children gets raped and and gets starved to death while others live a perfectly abundant life?

Like you invoke fairness and corruption, but none of that makes sense, because the playingfield is not at all in any way fair or you use a notion of fairness that so devoid of how we use those terms that you should use a different label at that point because its nothing other than a rhetorical tool to gesture towards a common notion of fairness while in substance meaning something that goes completely against that common notion.

Edited May 17 by zurew

[zurew]

@Thought Art

You should work on your confidence, the intelligence gap is not at all, not even remotely as big as you think between you and Leo. Ask yourself this question: If Leo is not allowed to claim bad faith on you, he is not allowed to play the teacher role, he is not allowed to claim that you are closed minded, and he is not allowed to ask questions as a response to your questions  and he is not allowed to dodge your questions and he is not allowed to claim superiority - then how many actual and satisfying answers can he provide to your questions?

Because thats what we allegedly here for - to learn about the substance, not to play surface level rhetoric games.

 

If you are interested in better responses to the problem of evil and suffering you should take a look at theodicies because they do a much better job at giving an answer  , but I think they mostly fail as well

There are versions of God where it make sense that the world is the way it is now, but the model of God that put forth here and from Christians on those cases it doesn't make sense to expect a world like this.

[Thought Art]

@zurew I admit my appreciation respect for and desire for approval from Leo plays a role in how I communicate to him and how I weigh his responses. Though, I also know I have the capacity to question him and a growing embodiment of my own philosophical sovereignty. I do think he is more intelligent than me in his awakenings, his cognitive skills, etc. His body of work and career is evident of this.  To the degree I can think about talk about these subjects his work plays a key role. Therefore I also acknowledge this, and I am humble. 
 

This area of contemplation is beyond what 99% of humans can fathom. We should stand in our questions to Leo, while also remaining open minded and focused on our own understanding, contemplation and awakening. 
 

I would like to develop into a decent philosopher. Though, I have not done a lot of original thinking. Which, is why I say I am a pimple on an ass. 
 

I have some degree of original thinking within a scaffolding of intertwined concepts. 

Edited May 17 by Thought Art

[Terell Kirby]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Thought Art Consciousness is so serious that it includes raping you to death in the ass with a hot poker.

ouch ..

 

[Leo Gura]

Isn't it obvious that infinite imagination must include infinite horror?

Have you never had a nightmare? What do you think that is? Where do you think that came from? Where do you think that leads when taken to the Nth degree?

Just look at all the horror films created by mankind. Where do you think all that creativity came from?

God.

But human creativity is just a grain of sand next to God's.

[zurew]

I think you would have a much easier time explaning all this if you would take the position, that God has to create all possible worlds (and he has no choice, but to create all possible world), and just because of that fact alone, that explains all horror, because all possible worlds by definition includes the creation of all beauty and horror.

Thats one easy route to give an explanation, there are other ways, but each way involves biting some bullet (in this case the bullet would be being forced to create everything and not having choice what you want to create) - the being forced could be interpreted as having the nature of needing to create this way or simply not even talking about creation, but just by the fact that being all possible worlds, all possible worlds have to exist if God exists (because all possible worlds=God).

Edited May 17 by zurew

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Terell Kirby said:

ouch ..

Quote

take the position

Quote

Butt human creativity

Edited May 17 by Yimpa

[Leo Gura]

@zurew Infinity is EVERYTHING.

But it is far more profound than some stupid multiverse theory.

What's being missed is that Infinity = Love. And what's being missed is Absolute Perfection and Good.

I don't care if my explanations of God are easy. I care that they are true.

Edited May 17 by Leo Gura

[integral]

@Leo Gura

This is life not infinite horror, so I’m not seeing “evidence” that god would image a horror world. This was imaged not a horror reality,

I can see how infinite imagination can create anything, but just because it can I’m not seeing why it would actually do it.

Why do it?

[Leo Gura]

Just now, integral said:

Why do it?

LOVE!

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura of what?

If love is the first order, why not just make it so there isn’t all this horrible stuff? If love is the basic building block, and you are selfless why all this shit?

Again, it’s not the way, it is the way it is. Why? 

Edited May 17 by Thought Art

[Xonas Pitfall]

To clarify the wording, it's not that God needs to do anything. It's more accurate to say that it simply is as it is. There’s no choice involved, no desire or preference. God is all, everything, infinity - so by definition, everything must exist. It's a tautology. A = A. If A is all, everything, infinity, then A must be all, everything, infinity. Nothing is excluded. That's what makes it total.

If there were any bias in that creation - any limitation or exclusion - then it wouldn’t be infinite. It wouldn't be all. If God created a universe with everything except suffering, then God would be everything minus suffering - and that’s not totality, that’s a constraint. That’s a limitation. And if God is limited, then by definition, God is not God - not the infinite, not the total.

It helps to imagine this as a random set. Let’s say you want to create a set that is truly infinite. Not just very large - actually infinite. If it’s truly infinite, then it must contain everything you throw at it. Will it contain 1? Yes. Will it include a googol? Yes. Graham’s number? Yes. Any number you can possibly imagine? Yes. Why? Because if it left anything out, it wouldn’t be infinite. It would be almost infinite, but not total.

So when you ask - Why the Horror? You are basically asking - “but why must this infinite set include 17? or 21? or 89?” - the answer is simple: because if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be infinite. The nature of infinity is that it must include all. It exists by necessity.

Same with God. If God is all, everything, infinite, then all things must be present. Not because God “wants” them, but because God is. There is no creation with bias. No cherry-picking. No exclusions. The horror and the beauty are there because they must be - because they are part of everything that is. I hope this makes sense!

Edited May 17 by Xonas Pitfall

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Leo Gura of what?

If love is the first order, why not just make it so there isn’t all this horrible stuff? If love is the basic building block, and you are selfless why all this shit?

Because what you consider shit, God considers Love.

Your view of love is too narrow and biased.

Infinite Love cannot be biased. You want a biased form of love, which is less than the highest love.

If you want a lower form of love, suit yourself. But God must choose the highest.

Edited May 17 by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura God is the devil I see.

God knows it's a rat bastard.

Edited May 17 by Thought Art

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But it is far more profound than some stupid multiverse theory.

The 'possible world' semantics includes  way more than the multiverse theory. You should know this.

It includes all logically possible worlds (which means anything that doesn't include a contradiction, there is a possible world for it) - which means you can have infinite different versions of physics , infinite different versions of multiverses, infinite different laws of nature , infinite different history etc etc.

Includes - worlds where the Christian God creates the Universe, includes worlds where Allah creates the Universe etc etc.

Edited May 17 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

Just now, zurew said:

The 'possible world' semantics includes  way more than the multiverse theory.

It includes all logically possible worlds (which means anything that doesn't include a contradiction, there is a possible world for it) - which means you can have infinite different versions of physics , infinite different versions of multiverses, infinite different laws of nature , infinite different history etc etc.

Includes - worlds where the Christian God creates the Universe, includes worlds where Allah creates the Universe etc etc.

That's all fine, but God is more than just seperate worlds or universes or an endless possibility space.