Log in

View Full Version : General Theory of God


pengd0t
2006-04-15, 04:12
First of all, I've come to find that my understanding of the universe in which this existance of a god is being debated must be covered before something like this is analyzed. I've pages typed on that already, it can be found here

( http://tinyurl.com/rma7q ).

Anyway, this god thing...

First of all, to understand anything, it's best to observe it with yourself, and all others removed from the picture. This is the only way to eliminate your own preconceptions and dispositions. To remove the presence of others for this thought experiment, anything read or heard can be forgotten now. If that is manageable so far, analyze this idea of god and it will begin to clear itself for you.

The common, modern image of god is an invention. It is a learning tool that got out of hand. Having gods as angry monsters in the sky that see you when you happen upon a mistake and throw angry lightening bolts at you and all of that is just absurd. The fundamentalist thought that everthing in that idolized book is the "word of god" and completely literal is short-sighted and purposefully naive.

Judaic religions seem to be one of the few that have such large portions of followers mis-understand the religious texts as literal stories of true events. All the eastern religions have myths too, but they're understood as such, it's as though you're reading Aesop's Fables or something of that sort. Sure there's probably a moral to the stories, and if you've not enough sense to have figured it out on your own so far, it'll probably do a good job of explaining it to you. Especially since many of the old testament stories are recycled versions of older analogy stories anyway. The stories that proved efficient at getting across a good point, those were kept, names and locations changed to make it relevant to the audience, then reused.

One must understand what exactly it means to believe in one god. That means that all the cultures of the world, are worshiping the same god. That explains all the philosophical similarities, but you must understand that this "god," isn't anything anthropomorphic at all. It has no human qualities whatsoever. Any personification is only an attempt at uncovering a facet of the nature of this god.

Dogmatic beliefs are just silly. Stop that.

Any insight into god that a book might detail, is completely attainable through nothing but personal reflection. You are as good as any other person before you at understanding things, and therefore there's no excuse for not surpassing those who've gone before you in books such as the bible for developing this understanding of the nature of things.

We are god as much as anything else is. When Jesus stated he was the son of god, well he was right, but that's nothing special. I'm the son of god too. When one dies, the physical body doesn't change at all. The body retains the same chemical composition it always had, only the life bit that sparked you into existence is gone. This could be referred to as a soul or any other number of things. As this life-spark is gone, I'll assume that it's gone somewhere as well. Where this physically is is a bit of a trickier question, for the moment I'll posit that it could be a parallel dimensional reality higher than what we're used to perceiving. This explanation would mean that an entity existing on a dimensional-plane higher than our 3-dimensional one would interact with us as only a single point of existence in our universe. This would provide the soul with a sort of puppet relationship with the body, which is basically the nature of that relationship anyway. In reality, it doesn't particularly matter where or how this destination exists.

Faith is just laziness disguised as something good by the people who are teaching you all sorts of strange stuff that you would need a healthy dose of faith to believe. If something is true, then with a rudimentary amount of intelligence, you can certainly find it to be so on your own. Indeed, that is how any analysis of god started in the first place.

Many people who are unhappy with the usual view of a judeo-christian god make the mistake of forming arguments against the existence of that god based on a standpoint that's sprung up as reactionary thinking to ideas of christianity. To understand something like god, all dualistic views are going to have to be dropped. In the search for truth, one must disregard what isn't known to be true and continue on, if you focus on pointing out the things that you think you're beginning to glimpse are not true to the people who believe such things, then you derail yourself.



To completely disregard christianity: In all cultures, there is, or has been at one time before people were so distracted from thinking, an understanding of The One. A simple understanding that everyone is one, and every thing is one. All that is truth leads to this one. And this One is what is god.

Rust
2006-04-15, 04:36
Your notion of gods rests on faith... the very thing you think is laziness in disguise.

Your notion of god isn't known to be true... according to you it should be dropped.

Sorry, but what you have there is a bunch of new-age gobbledygook that ends up refuting itself.

pengd0t
2006-04-16, 06:08
I'm afraid I don't understand the points you're making.

What I'm trying to communicate are concepts, if the words aren't perfectly aligned to communicate what I'm saying, then that's to be expected, language can't be anything but a hindrance to communication.

To read my post with the intention of picking it apart to refute it, then you've completely missed the point, and lost a learning opportunity.

[This message has been edited by pengd0t (edited 04-16-2006).]

pengd0t
2006-04-16, 06:12
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Your notion of gods rests on faith... the very thing you think is laziness in disguise.

Your notion of god isn't known to be true... according to you it should be dropped.

Sorry, but what you have there is a bunch of new-age gobbledygook that ends up refuting itself.

Why would you say that my notion of gods relies on faith? Disregarding that, the faith I'm speaking of is regarding the stereotypical blind-faith christians, that are so caught up in the "faith" thing that they'll completely disregard common sense, those sorts. That is what I'm referring to, and I'm sure there will be no trouble understanding the laziness thing based on that.



[This message has been edited by pengd0t (edited 04-16-2006).]

pengd0t
2006-04-17, 04:44
Is there no one else with a decent contribution or serious question / critique of my current understanding?

Does it just not have enough of the "I'm an atheist, stupid christians..." and "I'm a christian, stupid atheist..." type of bickering that feeds so much argument here?

Or is it just "too long / didn't read?"

Rust
2006-04-17, 04:55
quote:Originally posted by pengd0t:



To read my post with the intention of picking it apart to refute it, then you've completely missed the point, and lost a learning opportunity.



There is nothing to learn from your post, because your post provides no new insight.

I find it conveniently that suddenly "picking apart" your post is not the "correct" way of reading it. What is the correct way of reading it, deliberately ignoring the inconsistencies and that logical vacuity inherent in your post? How wonderful.

quote:Why would you say that my notion of gods relies on faith? Disregarding that, the faith I'm speaking of is regarding the stereotypical blind-faith christians, that are so caught up in the "faith" thing that they'll completely disregard common sense, those sorts. That is what I'm referring to, and I'm sure there will be no trouble understanding the laziness thing based on that.

It rests on faith because you have no evidence to support what you are saying at all (or at the very least, have provided none) - that's the very definition of blind faith: believing something for which there is absolutely no evidence of.

You also completely ignored the other point, which was that what you're saying has not been proven, and as such, according to your very own words, should be thrown out.

Now, if you meant to say something else, and the obvious contradictions are merely the result of a mistake on your part, then great; but you cannot fault me for noticing the glaring error in your condemning faith while relying on a faith-based belief yourself.

P.S. As for the lack of other replies, I would venture to guess that it has to do with my last point.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-17-2006).]

pengd0t
2006-04-17, 05:16
I do not wish to argue with you on the intricacies of language, or on anything else.

I'm not disregarding your counter-points if there were any (and I mean that truthfully, I just don't feel like looking back through the posts at the moment, I'm trying to help someone with something), I just feel you've missed the point in my purposed purpose. If you'd like to share your understandings, and highlight some differences that arise between the two, for the purpose of truly finding out what the truth is, then that would be wonderful. But the duality of this dialogue really throws the thing off and I can't see much more than an argumentative, dead-end bit of blatherskittery developing.