God either created out of ignorance or not. Which one do you pick?

I could toss a coin and let you know the result.

If God created the medium, then He should know what a medium is. You cannot act from pure ignorance!

It might make sense from our perspective. But we are in almost total ignorance about these issues. All we can say with certainty is that we don’t know

Biosemiosis inverts this framing. We are the machinery that can constrain the world to our own advantage.

Only in a very limited way. We are confined in the machine of the body with very little agency. Apart from a little bit I will call x.

We are modellers of the world for the purpose of regulating the world in a way that it must keep rebuilding and even replicating the delicate biological machine that is "us".

That’s not the we, the machine can do all that itself. We play no role in its development, or maintenance. Apart from a little bit I will call x.

Etc etc.

Consciousness boils down to the habit of predicting the state of the world in every next moment ... so as to be then capable of being surprised by what happens instead and thus learning to make better predictions the next time round.

It is the mind, facilitated by the brain that does all this. Perhaps what you mean by consciousness is self consciousness, which is where the mind becomes conscious of itself and becomes self reflective. This is not the root of consciousness, the root of consciousness was present in us long before we developed larger brains and became self conscious.

That self conscious being is little more than a toddler (who is concerned with x) compared to the complexity of the world and the body he or she finds themselves in.

And a strong sense of self emerges from this prediction-based processing. We know we are the "we" who generated a sense of a world as it was just about to be. Then we are still the "we" who has to halt and start again if the world glitched and we had to restart it from a refreshed point of view.

Again the “we” is not required to perform these tasks, the body can and does do it all by itself.

The Zen ideal for some reason. Sensory deprivation tanks cause the ego to dissolve. It is by having to push against the world that we also feel the us that is pushing. Once the world becomes fully ignorable, so also does our self-image lose its sturdy outline.

Leaving just the “we”. I know, I’ve been there.

What I’m getting at here is that as beings, people, personalities, self aware minds. We are babies, toddlers with a primary school level understanding ( x ) of the world we find ourselves in. We are doing well in our primary lessons. Working out things about the material of the world we find ourselves in. Even things about our own make up, biology psychology etc. But compared to the complexity of the world we find ourselves in, this is a tiny peek, a scratch on the surface of what’s going on. 99.99% of it we don’t have a clue about, or don’t even realise is there going on. And when it comes to why. Or how it came into existence, what mechanism, we don’t have a clue.

There are other approaches to knowledge about these things from religions and eastern philosophies. Which approach from a different perspective. Again we are toddlers.

I see this situation rather like a complex machine like what you describe, into which embryonic minds are introduced (implanted) (I will call these y ) to learn lessons, to grow and develop for some reason. Maybe to learn about good and evil, cooperation compassion. To have agency, to overcome the tendencies to succumb to base urges and desires, to be baby creators.

Now here’s the curious thing. My world and your world are identical, except for one thing, y.
I would suggest that a zombie world could be identical too.

At the end of the day, we don’t know which it is, or if it is something else entirely. We really are in the dark.

That’s the problem, you see, Catholicism. Maybe we could try Quakers, or Shakers. Although, I admit it might not translate well via the keyboard.

Each biblical reference here supports the methodological point that theology presupposes its conclusion.

Enjoying your dry wit by the way.
If you imagine that God does actually exist theology makes sense. Although as I was saying to Frank, Catholicism took its theologies too far. Where it became an apology for controlling populations.

By contrast, if you are of the opinion that God does not exist, then it’s all just pie in the sky.

So really we just need to settle the issue of whether there is a God first, then we can make progress.

I also think there are some interesting parallels to draw between the idea of living God's will with other concepts like living your Tao or other forms of enlightenment. I have seen some interpretations of hell as being bad not as a punishment so much as the natural state of being separated from God and his love/will, and because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly, hence the necessity of Jesus as a sacrificial intermediary. In that reading, I think it's possible to see similarities, but perhaps I'm reaching.

We may already be in hell, earth may be hell. The spirit in each of us is separated by this heavy dense material substance that we wear like a straight jacket. Indeed we are imprisoned in this physical world. The only freedom we have is our imagination and our free will to live a good, or not so good a life.
I really enjoyed the works of C.S.lewis by the way.

Americans wouldn't have looked to the Pope for guidance. They were mostly Protestants

Then why all this focus on Catholicism?
All these doctrinal abominations you and Banno are going on about are just over reach in the Catholic Church. There are other religions and theologies.

Apokrisis’s explanation is effectively that the movement and life force we observe is like water flowing downhill. It doesn’t need an animating force, it naturally flows to the lowest point. The whole biosphere is just another cascade of entropy and once there is no gradient left, the world will return to stillness and we will be just ghosts.

Nice to read your way of explaining things again Apokrisis. But we are still at the impasse. The we in us is still the ghost in the machine.
How is this world not a world of zombies? Because there is no need for the we in us to be present. It all works as a well oiled machine without us.

Glad I'm not the only person who realized the holy spirit maps to the Christian God's feminine aspect

Yes, this is a profound understanding, as embodied in the father-mother-son relationship. In a sense, this is the trinity in human form.

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

I don't think that's how Original Sin works. Catholics believe humans are born cursed. That's why they baptize infants. The death of Jesus offers a way to be redeemed from the curse.

This doesn’t necessarily negate truly virtuous people.

This is a hang over from the political decision by the Catholic Church to require confession from all of the congregation. With the aim of knowing all the secret information in the society at large. So as to cement their power base.

There is a grain of truth in the notion that everyone is by birth, or nature, a sinner. In the sense that we can never know the complexity of the world we inhabit, or the consequence of our actions. We may only be aware of a small part of what is going on. So this might indicate that every human will require redemption in some way.

By "those mentioned things", I mean this: If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

Not necessarily, we can’t assume that God knows any particular thing. Also to God the bit of creation that we know might not be a creation. Or it might be something else, like part of his body. Let me explain this by analogy. A human person is in a sense God of the whole of his/her person. But even if this is the case, the person is not aware of many things that form part of his/her body. For example, the person doesn’t know the feelings, mind and experience of each cell in his/her body.

To extend the analogy, there may be a disorder/disease in the body, but the person is not aware of it, what’s causing it, or how to put it right. There might be this sort of thing in God’s world, or body. Indeed the self destructive activity of humans might be a disorder in his world.

All we can say is what we can deduce about the bit of it that is our world.

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned.

Not necessarily, if a person is a good person and serves his fellow man. He does not require redeeming. Isn’t Christ the fisher of men, seeking out the virtuous ones*.

* It could be argued that virtuous people have learned the lesson of the fall. A lesson they could not have learned had there not been a fall.

In ancient history it was commonly understood that the earth was flat and that the sky (the heavens) moved across the sky from east to west every day.

We can be certain about those mentioned things.

The only thing we can be certain of is that in our finite world, a ground (medium) is necessary for this place to exist. This is the role signified by the Holy Ghost.
Yes an omnipotent God can in theory create without a medium. But in our case there is a medium spacetime (the universe), or heaven. That’s the only conclusion we can come to.

If you look closely at a specific historical era, it may seem chaotic and directionless. But if you zoom-out, and take a Hegelian Dialectic*1 perspective, you might notice that positives & negatives tend to balance-out over time. A historical thesis can be portrayed as a physical vector composed of both political force and philosophical direction. Then along comes a new vector to knock the ship off-track. So, the historical path will look like a meandering trail, except the average {historical direction below} is always pointed at the intended destination.

Yes, I agree with this. But this time it’s different and that’s because of the size of the global population, the rate of the stripping of natural resources and the destruction of ecosystems. We have reached the point where the destruction and pollution of the planet is at a tipping point. The ecosystem and life support systems in nature are starting to shrink, while rates of pollution and the size of the population are still rising.

In order to halt and reverse these trends it will require a coordinated global effort between nation states. However, once there is a breakdown in global cooperation and there are more and more failed states and states locked into populist control. This effort will fail, making the crisis more acute.

Once the mass starvation and migration begins to happen, it will probably be too late. The number of states making a real contribution to the global effort will reduce. Resulting in a cascade of failure, resulting in the establishing of three (in my opinion) fortress blocks. The North American block, the European block and the Far Eastern block. These fortresses will try to keep some level and prosperity within their borders and defend them. While everyone else will just have to survive as best they can. Reference Mad Max.

In the OP, the economic math revealed invisible structures within the complexities of the world economic systems : One example is Ownership Networks : “Here the nodes can be corporations, governments, foundations, or physical persons”. He says this kind of analysis “reveals architectures of power invisible to any other type of examination. . . . . this economic power is much more unequally distributed than income or wealth. . . . . This highly-skewed distribution of power has economy-wide implications related to anti-competitiveness, tax avoidance, the role of offshore financial centers, and systemic risk.” Hence "free market capitalism" has devolved into private markets for Oligarchs, and off-the-books black markets for wealthy criminals. :sad:

Yes and this will only accelerate with the looming climate crisis. Also the breakdown in ethical practices and codes. We are back to where we were when Moses came along I’m afraid.

I've been looking lately at what the weather will be like in 2100. Even that soon some areas that are presently occupied will be too hot for human viability. I think that will become the driver of policy eventually.

Power and capital are already adjusting for this. Which is partly why the populists are shouting so loud at the moment.

I'm not holding my breath. I don't think there are any teeth on the cogs.

I don't see it gaining much traction for you and I.

Time for some silentism perhaps.

But Earth was formed way later than the creation of the universe.

So what, God still created it.

Do you mean that Earth and the universe were synonyms in ancient times?

Yes, they had no idea of a universe. Their universe was earth.

If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

We don’t know any of that, because the infinite God is inconceivable to us.

Isn't the medium itself created? If yes, then God knows how to create things.

As above. How do you know that God doesn’t need a medium?

Apparently, God knows how to create things, and he does not need a medium. Creation could be the universe. And of course, Earth was not created but formed as a result of dust rotating around the sun.

If God created the universe, then by implication, he created the earth at the same time. Because the material that formed the earth was part of that creation when he created the universe.
In the passage from the bible, “earth” means the universe.
How do you know that God knows how to create things? And how do you know he does not need a medium?

There are different ways to understand what is going on with the Holy Ghost/spirit. It is confusing and there seem to be more moving parts than needed. However there is a philosophical paradox at the heart of it, which it is grappling with. That God is infinite* and is creating something that is not infinite. How can he do this? And when he has done this, how does he interact with it?
The answer is through intermediaries, if we take a look at the first verse of the bible, there are some clues;

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

God created heaven, (the place where God and all the angels and heavenly hosts reside).
God created the earth, (the place where humans, animals and plants etc reside)

Now heaven is an intermediary and God only resides is essence, because he is infinitely large etc. So the way I see it is that heaven is in some way a place where transcendence happens. Transcendence of God, and what God says and the hosts and angels, translate, or draw it down into something finite.

So one way of seeing it is that when we are thinking, or communicating with God, we are actually referring to one of these heavenly hosts, because God is infinitely inaccessible, removed, distant from us. We can’t even conceive of it.

This gives us the idea that God is two people, the infinite God and his representative intermediary in heaven, the Holy Ghost.

Then the third person is the Christ(Jesus), the role of Christ is to be the representative of God on earth. Now in a sense this means humanity as a whole is this representative, because humanity has access to God via the heavenly hosts(the Holy Ghost).

The reason why there is a representative on earth is to bring(create) heaven on earth. That’s why they are doing all of this. This is God’s creation, for some reason he wants to create an earth, where heaven resides.

So in order to create a heaven on an earth three parts, or people are required. God, the Holy Ghost and the christ(humanity).
These can be written in correspondences;
God————God——father——-infinity
Holy Ghost—heaven—mother——finite universe
Christ———-earth——son———-a world where infinity is present/understood(heaven on earth)

* I don’t hold with infinity per say.

Maybe all the silent theists and believers, patiently being silent should now come forward and make their presence felt. Otherwise the casual observer might conclude that philosophy has won the debate that the issue of God and divinity in the world we find ourselves in has been put to bed. When in reality, they’ve just been told to be quiet.

orthogenesis

I often think while observing the insect world, that there seems to be an excess of awareness. A vibrant interactivity going on. A kind of bursting with life, which seems to outstrip the basic necessities of finding food and procreating, in their specific evolutionary niche.

yes, he’s hit the nail on the head. That is what’s going on and capitalism, as in free market capitalism has turned toxic.

But silence is difficult.

I have remained silent on the issue for a number of years. But you didn’t seem to have much to say about that. Or even acknowledge that I was doing it.

Perhaps you were also being silent.

You didn't answer the question: What is the duty of Jesus in creation?

I was talking about the trinity, which is a way of talking about these things. I represented Jesus as man(mankind). Jesus is the son of God and so is mankind.

I can’t tell you why the bible story of Jesus happens, you’ll have to ask a bible scholar about that.

I think that your version of God looks to human invention more. A God who needs a medium to act, exactly like humans!

You accept there is a medium to act in your post here;

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are

Spacetime is the medium in our instance. God isn’t spacetime, do you agree? (God is an omni present being who created spacetime).

So already you have two things. Then you have what happens in spacetime, which is referred to as Gods creation, man. Now you have three things.

God doesn’t “need” a medium to act. Rather, when he acts, he creates the medium through which the act is expressed.

Also, what is the definition of an Omnipotent God to you?

I don’t give much weight to an omnipotent God. I see the Omni’s as a human invention, like infinity. I don’t think there are any infinities.

What is the duty of Son here if it is part of creation?

The son is the result of the creator engaging the medium. The creator can’t create without engaging the medium. The son can’t be the same as either the medium, or the creator. Because the son is the medium + the creative input. And the son can’t be the same as the creator, because the son is what the creator has done to the medium.
However, the son is in a sense the creator, because the essence, or signature of the creator is expressed in the meduim. So we have three distinct things, creator, medium, creation.

Also without the son, we have a silent creator and a formless medium. It is only at the moment of creation that there is light and shade. Before this there is only a blank sheet of paper and an artist who has not produced any art.

If an omnipotent God creates something that is finite, then these rules must be present in some way.

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. The duty of the son is to bring the creator into the world(the medium), upon the synthesis of son with father. Resulting in the divine marriage, the synthesis of creator and meduim, God and matter(energy, or medium).

The trinity is a system of relating principles, or concepts, based on the family unit, of father, mother and son. The idea that if there is a creator(father), then there is what the creator creates(son) and the medium through which it is created(mother). Any act of creation has at least three components.

It works well as correspondences;

God———-creator— —-law of nature—Father
Holy Spirit—meduim——energy————Mother
Man———-creation—-—matter————Son

This system can be applied to many things.

In man, the son becomes the father, so we have the synthesis of Father and Son, resulting in a duality, the divine marriage, as in Shiva and Parvati. On consummation becoming one, again.

I'm interested in the idea of underlying truth, especially when attempts to express that truth result in a convoluted story.

I’m not a biblical scholar, so I will leave that to others. I will point you to the kernel of truth in the kernel of truth I gave you. That once humanity reached a certain point in intellectual development she was not any more governed by instinct and adaptation to ecosystem changes. But became unshackled from these constraints and was able to do many novel and imaginative things through the power of thinking.
So a new constraint was necessary to avoid all manner of destructive (to the ecosystem and themselves) behaviour. Religion and it’s precursors played this role.

How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this? Could it be that most Christians throughout history didn't know this is the Christian narrative? Or did they know, but just held it at arm's length? Are myths always this way? Or is Christianity a special case?

I can understand your cinicism coming from a country where religion is such a dividing line. I’m in a country where religion is barely mentioned, plays almost no role in life. Most people are atheist, or just ambivalent and you wouldn’t know the difference between them unless you specifically asked.

I see this narrative, along with other ancient religious narratives as a mythology steeped in the kind of discourse that was used at the time. But with a kernel of truth underlying it. This was about the moral and ethical struggles involved in the birth of civilisation. Where order and cooperation were necessary for cohesion. This is laid out quite well in the Moses narrative.

This process probably happened many times in the ancient world before recorded history and the religious narratives which survived form the basis of our modern (last 2,000-3,000years) religions.

History is littered with examples of where order in civilised groups broke down.

Specify which "advice" you're referring to

I’m not a biblical scholar, so I’m only using it as an example of how religious ideology can modify one’s behaviour to benefit society. The other examples you gave include something equivalent an ethical code which improved the group experience in their societies. Whether Jesus was morally right, is not relevant. Because on the whole his teachings were constructive with regard to these ethical codes.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults.

What about dumb adults, or sheeple?
Here in the U.K. there is a large cohort who still subscribe to political vibes from about 40years ago. Often described as Essex man, or Mondeo man. This cohort handfistedly drove us off the cliff of Brexit and elected Boris Johnson. And now, they are lining up to elect Nigel Farage, Britain Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_man

Thanks for the link, that’s interesting. I think they need a new section focussing on the use of social media and the rise of populism.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies.

I understand this, but in my experience the most likely demographic falling prey to populist ideology in the U.K. are the boomers, ages 60-80 years of age. Although I am aware that there is an issue with young men being easily captured by Reform. This doesn’t seem to follow with young women, who lean more to Greens, with some to Labour and some to Lib Dems.
On balance I think those young voters are slightly less vulnerable, so reducing the age to 16 is a positive move, provided the schooling is implemented at the same time.

If the boomers had had the equivalent education when they were young, I think they would now be less vulnerable.

Personally, I was always going to vote Green from the age of about 15. What annoyed me is when I first voted at 19, there wasn’t a Green candidate on my ballot.

I agree with the government that it is time to reduce the voting age to 16. But more importantly, democracy and the role it plays in our nation should be taught in schools. So as the educate the electorate to at least understand and articulate the basic principles and pitfalls of voting and what is at stake.

This is needed now because social media is having a deleterious effect on democracy. With people being convinced to vote in certain ways as a result of lies and populism.

Why isn't it enough just to be "connected to" or "conduit of God"? Why "channel God" and undergo some (usually abject, mortifying, self-abegnating) "transformation to an exalted state"

On the assumption that it is the next stage in the development, or growth of the person*.

There are numerous reasons for this, there is lots of literature on the life lead by people who have a faith, the path of service, to chose the righteous path etc.
Also, there is the issue of making one’s contribution towards the harmony and success of humanity. For example, imagine if everyone had followed the advice of Jesus two thousand years ago and continued to for generations. We would presumably be living a better life by now.

*For me this process is part of endeavouring to live my best life. On the assumption that if one is following divine guidance, or direction, one is living a slightly better life than if one had not.

Why is X constructed? If the equivalent of everything we know in X is already present in Y, then why do we need X?

It’s a thought experiment. It shows a way in which a world of rigid material, where consciousness is so inevident, could have originated from a reality which is not rigid, but ethereal and consciousness plays much more of a role.
One reason could be that the ethereal beings wanted to try out something more concrete, more solid, more complex. After all what they’ve created here is so unimaginably complex. It could be that complexity they are interested in. And then they thought how could we then inhabit this amazing world we’ve just created. The result being the biosphere and humanity. In humanity they might see something more like home, with a conscious sentient, highly intelligent being.

I occasionally imagine that every atom, molecule, every movement. Is held in place, orchestrated by a team of ethereal beings. Some holding the atom in place, others providing energy, others moving things around, orchestrating time and cause and effect. Working alongside millions of others in the atoms around them. To create the artificial world we inhabit. Indeed, at the heart of each one of us might be one of these beings experiencing life through a physical body, in this world.

In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, God is wholly other*1 (Holy), so to equate oneself with God would be blasphemy. Therefore, Christian Mystics have always been viewed as outside the mainstream of Catholic doctrine. And, those who strive to remain on good terms with enforcers of orthodoxy, could never imagine themselves as a manifestation of God (Atman or son of God), or would hide it if they had such experiences.

It’s a contemplation technique, based on the idea that everything being an expression of God, and by implication is God, in essence. As to whether the person is God, or to what extent, that is not known. So when I think in this way, I’m not concluding that I am God, in that I can create things. But rather that somewhere in the self there is a connection to God, a conduit. But in order to channel that God the person would have reached the exhalted state of transfiguration like Jesus for example. So while I know I am a long way off any such stage of development, I consider that I am part of God and can allow myself to feel the comfort and communion of that realisation.

Such contemplation techniques allow one to free oneself from conditioning and enable one to mould one’s thought processes and ideas to those more condusive to spiritual development.

Consequently, my philosophical notion of the human Soul/Self*3 as an instance of G*D substance (more like causal Energy than ghostly Spirit) is merely an intellectual knowing, with little or no emotional feeling.

Yes, that’s fine, intellectual knowing is what we’re all here for (on this forum).