I wonder if Thor will consult the lawyers of Asgard. — universeness

He's already appealed his case up to The Shadow Proclamation, who sent it back with a sticky-note, saying: "Why can't you 4,787,901 thunder-wielding gods in this galaxy just get along?"

"

Why would an ability to get more of what you already have an extreme excess of, prevent your ultimate demise? — universeness

It won't prevent their ultimate demise. It will merely defer their demise until there is nobody left to serve them.

Does more evil make evil stronger or does it just increase the determination of good to overcome it? — universeness

Evil has always been numerically less, but its blandishments appeal to the little bit of evil in the rest of us, and its threats keep the timid from action; it is stronger than Good, because Evil is not constrained by foresight, principles, compassion or shame.
The wars of B5 never end; evil just keeps coming back in yet another shape.
Once Evil gains supremacy, it can't be defeated by Good; the only way you can fight it is with its own weapons - by becoming evil yourself. What you can do is wait for the evil ones to consume the system until it collapses, then start over and prevent Evil from taking control. Horizontal, egaitarian societies had strategies to prevent consolidation of power; stratified, pyramidal societies facilitate it.

(* even so, those spider-bat spaceships were the coolest thing in sf)

I am less impressed with the abilities of evil than you seem to be.
In B5 the shadows (villains) and the vorlons (hero's) turned out to be as bad as each other in how they wished to control the younger races. Just like the nefarious capitalists and the philanthropic capitalists of today.
As in B5 we can do better without both.
It's an old debate now between us Vera. To me, our views fundamentally align in many ways but, imo, at times, you show signs of being rather tired of 'fighting the good fight,' and you have became a little defeatist and disappointed with your own species.
But I think you still secretly believe that our race is worth saving.

even so, those spider-bat spaceships were the coolest thing in sf — Vera Mont

I also like their scream:

you show signs of being rather tired of 'fighting the good fight,' and you have became a little defeatist and disappointed with your own species. — universeness

In 2016, somebody stepped on my pink sunglasses; now I have to use the yellow ones.
It's not disappointment: I've been aware of the shortcomings of our species for six decades or so. What I've figured out is that "the fight" is not "good". Fighting can only ever be destructive and a war mentality produces bad leaders. I generally think subversion is a more effective strategy.

I also see that these top-heavy, overpriced, young-eating regimes have always toppled within a few hundred years of their founding. At first, the empires were small and local; their fall didn't reverberate very far. Then they grew bigger and richer, affecting entire continents both through their conquest and their demise; then bigger still, more diverse and psychologically unhealthy, until the sun never set on the last and biggest two. Their hegemony was quietly, subversively assumed by global corporate power, and now it's too big for any nation to escape, and the consequences of its collapse will also be inescapable.

Afterward, however harsh the prevailing conditions, the much diminished and impoverished human race can restart the enterprise on a better foundation. We - that is, the quiet good people who'd rather work than fight - will have left them seeds, skills, technological and historical knowledge. They might make the same mistakes - but at least they'll have a chance to avoid those mistakes, with guidance from the best of their ancestors, instead of the worst of their contemporaries.

(That's my bed-time story....)

It corrupts the human psyche even more effectively than power — Vera Mont

Well in many ways money and power are synonymous. The most powerful people on earth are those that either have a). The greatest wealth or b). The greatest political influence or both. Usually they're intermixed.

On average, 1/670. That's not so bad, given what a foot-soldier's life is worth compared to an emperor's. — Vera Mont

You're correct. Some human lives are more dispensable merely by profession and compensated poorly for that possibility. Military, especially in countries at war or with civil unrest are such an example. How much does one pay for someone to risk their life and health on a day to day basis?

Do what you love, share what you make, take what you need.
Learn what you can, teach what you know. — Vera Mont

Absolutely. Brava. I like this proverb/quote.

The usual conservative reaction to social welfare or GBI is: "Nobody will have an incentive work." — Vera Mont

I think this is at most partially true. People I think are generally happiest when their life has purpose. That purpose can come from anything but usually comes from career or if not career then hobbies funded by a less than desirable career. In either case there is always incentive to work so long as one is fit and able.

On the other hand, there will always be a small cohort of people that don't work nor want to work. And are for lack of a better word "social deadweight" as they don't contribute to taxes or their pension and take more in social welfare payments then they ever contributed.

But this is going no where any time soon. However it is an opportunity for jobs in careers focused on encouraging those that refuse to work to become inspired, to socially integrate, to find purpose or develop skills in the areas they enjoy so that they may participate in the workforce in a way they actually might enjoy.

Will 100%of people ever be employed? Of course not, but funding the small percentage that don't want to to stave off homelessness and crime is certainly the best option verses leaving them financially helpless regardless of their attitude.

Laziness exists. And we as people who pay tax must pay for their upkeep. You can argue it as unfair. But you can also argue it as being at a distinct financial advantage. You will have more privileges and financial freedom than anyone who settles for living off the state.

I think this is at most partially true. — Benj96

I think it's 100% untrue. Conservatives have been taken in by/invested in the prevailing capitalist fiction that people are motivated by material self-interest alone. That, once their survival needs are met, people just want to lie around, doing nothing - or worse, blissing out on mind-altering substances.
And maybe a great many products of our present system do feel that way - because they have given up any hope of autonomy or opportunity to develop their best talents or explore the limits of their imagination. And it doesn't help that they've been systematically dumbed down, brutalized and demoralized by the hierarchy.

Will 100%of people ever be employed? — Benj96

Eventually, there won't be jobs for anyone except servants and a few health care specialists. But it doesn't matter. Nobody should ever be "employed". People do want to work; they do not want bosses.
The happiest men I have ever seen were gathered around a malfunctioning machine, or a building site, or a rescue operation or a drafting table. Sometimes they're happy doing their own project, but they're even happier in a project they can share voluntarily, as equals, contributing to a team effort. They're unhappiest, they're taking orders from some idjit who gets double the money they get and hasn't a clue what they're actually doing.
Besides, it's even more corrosive to a person's psyche to lord it over other people than to be lorded over. That's the proverbial power corrupting to which I referred. And I do maintain that wealth is even more corrosive; that owning a mine or factory makes someone even crazier than commanding a battalion.

And maybe a great many products of our present system do feel that way — Vera Mont

I agree in the sense that entertainment is the religion of the masses. Social media has shown our endless hunger for being entertained. It's quite hedonistic in that way

To read such words from you is disappointing.
What are the attributes of the god you believe in? — universeness

I'm sorry to disappoint you haha. The attributes of such an entity in my mind is that it is non-local, because it is in all locations. It is non substantial (in any specific or discrete manifestation) because it is all substances. It doesn't have a spatiotemporal dimension because it is those dimensions themselves. It is neither good nor bad but does form all dichotomies/opposites. It is neither inanimate nor animate as it is both what is observed as well as all observers and the content of their consciousness and perceptions.

As you can see this is problematic to any monoism - physicalism, materialism or immaterialism alone and in isolation. As such a definition is already too restrictive/reductive.

So instead I chose not to deny either account but create a fusion between them - a grounds for interrelationship. Hence dualism as we previously talked about.
The tao is an excellent basis for this account and if I had to subscribe to any religion it would probably be this one. But alas any accurate God description must account for all religious contemplations and how they relate to one another. Some are more personified and others are more phenomenonological.

You wont get away with such declarations. It's not a case of imposing your views on others, its a case of justifying your views to others. If you don't open to full scrutiny then your 'theism,' will be ridiculed in the same way as all other unjustified theism. — universeness

I'm more than happy to have my views put on the chopping block. If I am to propone any such idea I must not refrain from explaining when asked to. I don't intend to "get away with" anything. I have no sinister motive.

Most importantly, my views on a God are not static but open to reform and refinement. As I don't have all the answers. But try to work from the most macroscopic downwards and try to remove logical paradox by correcting associations/relationships in a reasonable manner.

Sometimes they're happy doing their own project, but they're even happier in a project they can share voluntarily, as equals, contributing to a team effort. They're unhappiest, they're taking orders from some idjit who gets double the money they get and hasn't a clue what they're actually doing. — Vera Mont

This is for sure true. Having power tends to lead to arrogance because one equates power with entitlement/righteousness. I am in power therefore I must be correct and what I say goes, because the power I exert dictates so and I then observe the effects of such dictations as proof that what I say, is what will happen.

This leaves less room to maintain a sense of humble equality with others. Or to be contested or denied action.

The attributes of such an entity in my mind is that it is non-local, because it is in all locations. It is non substantial (in any specific or discrete manifestation) because it is all substances. It doesn't have a spatiotemporal dimension because it is those dimensions themselves. It is neither good nor bad but does form all dichotomies/opposites. It is neither inanimate nor animate as it is both what is observed as well as all observers and the content of their consciousness and perceptions. — Benj96

So an omnipresent, immaterial/omnimaterial, outside of what we conceive as spacetime, amoral/omnimoral, inanimate animate, existent.
Yeah, I see your problem!!!!
To me your rationale should reject such a proposed set of attributes as those of a non-existent rather than an existent.

Most importantly, my views on a God are not static but open to reform and refinement. As I don't have all the answers. But try to work from the most macroscopic downwards and try to remove logical paradox by correcting associations/relationships in a reasonable manner. — Benj96

Everybody has their own cunning plan to figure out the mysteries of the universe they are most interested in. I am sure your approach is as valid as my own. As long as you are enjoying the quest, and you are not hurting innocents along the way, all power to you!

So an omnipresent, immaterial/omnimaterial, outside of what we conceive as spacetime, amoral/omnimoral, inanimate animate, existent. — universeness

Not outside space-time. It is space-time as in it is the universe and its entire content. Nothing exists outside of the universe in this sense.

Yeah, I see your problem!!!!
To me your rationale should reject such a proposed set of attributes as those of a non-existent rather than an existent. — universeness

It can't reject the existence any more than it can accept it. To use dichotmies as a reason for rejection is bias. Bias towards monisms as proofs. Ie there is only one correct answer and not opposite states.

But basically, defining everything as a single whole unit, is inherently problematic. As definition is a process of exclusion/segregation/discrimination: "A but not B", "up but not down", "within but not outside" etc.
Knowning that A and B are both existants that operate contrary to one another the full set is a full dichotomy: AB (dualism) or "A + B, as well as A in isolation (monism 1) and B in isolation (monism 2). The dualism contains polarised monisms.

As long as you are enjoying the quest, and you are not hurting innocents along the way, all power to you! — universeness

Thank you I am enjoying it.
Analogy for this would be that perceiver 1 only accepts evidence 1 based on premise 1. Perceiver 2 only accepts evidence 2 based on premise 2. And so they argue with opposing logics, rationals, reasons and experiences.
Whilst the theistic concept I am pursuing would say that in both instances they have practised bias.

The truth would be someone in the middle encapsulating both bias about a common entity as a mutual relationship to one another from within the entity, using the entity as evidence or means for rejection of the entity.

I agree in the sense that entertainment is the religion of the masses. — Benj96

Yes, and religion is an entertainment of the masses, as are politics and wars. We're feeding on electronic media, but we have no baleen to filter the nourishing plankton and krill out from among the plastic derbis.

Social media has shown our endless hunger for being entertained. — Benj96

I don't think that's what we hunger for. I think entertainment is a junk-food, to fill a hole in our collective psyche; a substitute for meaningful achievement and community.

I think Marshall McLuhan was right - too bad only seven people in the world could understand his prose, and three of them didn't read English.

Not outside space-time. — Benj96

You typed:

It doesn't have a spatiotemporal dimension because it is those dimensions themselves. — Benj96

You can't posit 'it doesn't have,' because 'it is.' I am 3 dimensional, in what logical sense, could that mean I don't or a god might not have 'have' 3 dimensions?

"A but not B", "up but not down", "within but not outside" etc. — Benj96

Sure but you seem to be suggesting A and not A at the same time, which is, as I'm sure you know, against the logic law of non-contradiction.
Your quote above, reads as contradictory to me. How can you not have a spatiotemporal dimension but BE a spatiotemporal dimension?

You can't posit 'it doesn't have,' because 'it is.' — universeness

There is no difference between "has" and "is" when it is the entirety of existence. These linguistic distinctions break down, think about it, objects contained within a set "are" things that "have" properties.
The entire set is all things and is all properties or similarly has all things and has all properties. In either case it doesn't make any difference to the description. It's jist a hangup on choice of verb which is based on discrete objects not the entire universe.

It doesn't have a position in time or space for example: located on the andromeda galaxy at 3 billion years into the evolution of the universe, because it is at all times and locations simultaneously - as in a singular existant permeating all of existence - obviously, because it is all of existence.

Sure but you seem to be suggesting A and not A at the same time, which is, as I'm sure you know, against the logic law of non-contradiction. — universeness

Firstly, if contradictions don't exist, how can a law of non contradiction exist? And if they "shouldn't" exist, they do exist despite that desire. In either case contradictions exist. Insisting that they don't exist because of a law renders the premise of the law non existant. That is a contradiction in itself. Ironically.

But what I will say is contradictions exist based on premises. Change the premise and you change displace/remove the contradiction. For example the grandfather paradox is a contradiction based on the ability to time travel. If you change the premise for say "linear ttime doesn't exist outside of chronologic memorised experience" then it is impossible to travel through any physical external linear time as it doesn't exist. And thus the grandfather paradox is resolved. The contradiction may shift elsewhere or you may encounter new ones based on new premises.

And yes my theorised entity does include A and not A simultaneously it's called superposition. And thus allows for discordance, opposition, perspective, individuality of perception and belief in consciousness, observation, locality, relative motion etc.

It's like, having a picture of a 96 on the floor and not knowing what the original inscribers intended orientation is. In that way it is a superposition of truth in seeing 69 from one location, truth in seeing 96 from the opposite side, and truth is seeing the possibility for it to be either from the middle. And then arguing about "which is correct" which is absurd.

Theyre all correct within the confines of their premise (the location from which the numbers were observed). If you change the premise (angle of observation or "perspective" you change your observed logical deduction).

This is the premise for Duality.

Therefore it can be A) 69, B). 96, and AB both numbers simultaneously. Depending on what bias you want to take.

None of them individually equals the absolute truth, only a partial truth. All of them taken together as a dynamic, now that is a bit more fleshed out and balanced.

How can you not have a spatiotemporal dimension but BE a spatiotemporal dimension? — universeness

It's like saying I am Ben (a definition) and I have "Ben-ness" (the total sum of qualities pertaining to my definition).

So my theistic view runs that the oneness, or absolute fundamental entity, is and has its own quantities and qualities. It is space-time as a property (an observed phenomenon) and all individual localities and times as quantitatively measurable compartments we have assigned to it (seconds, minutes, meters, centimeters, Astronomical units etc).

So my theistic view runs that the oneness, or absolute fundamental entity, — Benj96

What is the relationship between yourself and that deity?

What is the relationship between yourself and that deity? — Vera Mont

The same as everyone else's I guess. I was born within it, I live it, I will die because of it, I breathe it, I urinate it into the toilet, I throw it in the dump, I cherish and love it, I hate it, I ask what's the point in it, I discuss it on tpf, I am deceived by it, it convinces me to think differently about it for better or for worse, it frequently eludes me, I forget it, and sometimes if I'm lucky, I relearn it, remember it - in some brief moment of clarity, swiping away some of the major dead end paths I was stumbling on. I think about it. Sometimes I don't think much about it at all. I battle it, and in other instances I find myself living harmoniously with it.

I share it, I keep it to myself. It's me, it's you and its every opinion, view and perspective, wrong, right, bizarre, immoral, virtuous. Fiction and fantasy, logic and science. Hard physical proof and intuition in equal part pertaining to its many different interpretations and academic focuses.

Ultimately, I try revel in the beautiful side of it. It's benevolent half. Because I believe that's the only side of it worth worshipping. All the good stuff, but I appreciate the fact that in order to grasp at the good, one must experience the bad and compare them to develop understanding. Thats free will. That dichotomy is mutual and neccesary - like yin and yang, like the protagonist and antithesis. The heroes and villains. A must to distinguish these two qualities with growth and gain of hopefully some concrete knowledge as to what the nature of this deity is. It is self aware, and it is not aware of itself at all, and everything in-between.

In essence everyone worships some aspect of its virtues: intelligence, beauty, power, authority, wisdom/knowledge, recognition, riches and abundance, comedy, creativity and imagination, skills/talents etc.
But we also confuse what is good about it. We live in its delusion-truthscape. We cannot unanimously pin that down and contradict ourselves and it repeatedly, and so we go to war and cause great conflicts over what aspects or parts of this deity we should value.

Does that answer your question? :)

Does that answer your question? — Benj96

Ye-e-es.... and uhu.

haha. That doesn't sound too promising, more of a "back-away slowly" thing. Oh well. Moving swiftly on I guess. In essence I was describing existence in as dynamic and interconnected a relationship as I could articulate.

In essence I was describing existence in as dynamic and interconnected a relationship as I could articulate. — Benj96

Yes, I got that. What I don't get is how what you describe qualifies as a deity, or whether something so big and round and wibbly-wobbly could have any point (I know, all points - which would still present as a continuous smooth surface). I recognize the concept and I don't perceive it, or the people who articulate it, as something to be wary of; but nor do I find any valances with which to engage.

If you are moving on with the topic, at any speed, please do; I'm still interested.

Yes, I got that. What I don't get is how what you describe qualifies as a deity, or whether something so big and round and wibbly-wobbly could have any point (I know, all points - which would still present as a continuous smooth surface). I recognize the concept and I don't perceive it, or the people who articulate it, as something to be wary of; but nor do I find any valances with which to engage. — Vera Mont

Thats entirely fair. I can understand where you're coming from. In essence, it is entirely up to the individual what credences or lackthereof they take from experience and the reality we all exist in.

The only reason I chose a Deity as the definition to which I applied all of these descriptors, is for the simple fact that part of it is conscious, and we as humans, appear to be the only thing we know of (so far ofc, I can't speak for a total lack of other life on other planets), that has cognitive capacity advanced enough to contemplate it.

So in essence, for now, it seems to have an aspect of personhood in the sense of "self" - multiple selves experiences it uniquely from their personal "I am".

And no other definition seems to quite encapsulate with such magnitude not only the objective universe, but also the ability to be aware within and from it and the seismic implications of everything, being, fundamentally connected and originating from the same mysterious thing.

But I don't blame other people for choosing other terms or seeing it as strictly a cold, dead, inanimate object of scientific exploration. Deity, non deity, universe, reality, existence, simulation, mother nature, the cosmos, for me the name is not so important, names are relatively arbitrary, call it "the great potato" for all I care haha, its the meaning, the relationships and interactions, that matter to me.

For me it's ultimately nameless, and at best I try to comprehend it to the maximum degree that my little human brain can manage with the limits of language and communication.

You went through too much of a song and dance to ask just the basic question of what is the proper response when the market supports a less eco-friendly option than is availble. The answer is you regulate so that the consumer is incentivized or forced into the desired option. It's for that reason we have unleaded gas at the pumps and all other types of environmental regulation.

We all understand we could get coal cheaper if we didn't require miners to be provided helmets, but we don't just let the market mine coal however it wants for the cheapest price.

The question isn't whether we should regulate or not. The question is how much we should regulate, with the right saying less and left saying more, with the two being divided by a fuzzy ever shifting line. The market is ultimately the product of the government, with the government deciding how the market will be permitted to run.

But I don't blame other people for choosing other terms or seeing it as strictly a cold, dead, inanimate object of scientific exploration. Deity, non deity, universe, reality, existence, simulation, mother nature, the cosmos, for me the name is not so important, names are relatively arbitrary, call it "the great potato" — Benj96

I like that last one, but people might think I mean pumpkin, so I'll stick with The Whole Shebang.
Which could and could not care less and more about capitalism.

The answer is you regulate so that the consumer is incentivized or forced into the desired option. — Hanover

I agree. But political will is a reflection of the democratic will of the public in a healthy democracy at least. So really the only things that can be "forced" on people are those things they will actually abide by. And policies have failed before not because they werent implemented but because the mass of society persisted in ignoring it and thus it became "unenforceable". You can't fine or penalise the entire population.

So yes, regulation can and does work ofc. But we must time it for when conditions are ripe for its adoption.

In this case, its likely people would be happy to abide by enforced eco-consumption but it depends on the price gap between the alternative. You won't have much success for example insisting that people buy an eco product that is essential and also 5 times more expensive than the fossil fuel counterpart. If its a little bit more expensive it's doable.

So a lot of factors to consider

The Whole Shebang. — Vera Mont

I like it. Haha. Especially because the bang aspect sort of references where it all supposedly began.

The entire set is all things and is all properties or similarly has all things and has all properties. — Benj96

Yes but the set of 'everything,' does not include non-existents. So we are left with debate regarding what credibility level should be assigned to what people 'claim,' exists. You referred to yourself as a theist.
That label has accepted definition, such as "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." The burden of justification for assigning high credence to such a proposal, is with the people who propose it as true, or even highly probable.

It doesn't have a position in time or space for example: located on the andromeda galaxy at 3 billion years into the evolution of the universe, because it is at all times and locations simultaneously - as in a singular existant permeating all of existence - obviously, because it is all of existence. — Benj96

If your god version IS all of existence, and science proposes all of existence started at the big bang, then why would it be wrong for you to refer to your god/theism as 'faith' that the big bang singularity once existed, as a very dense, very hot concentrate of energy, which was not conscious, not alive, not a mind, had no intent, could be described as a mindless 'spark,' etc. Why would that 'god' description not satisfy your need for theism? If you required a first cause mind with a plan or intent, then you are proposing an existent BEFORE the big bang singularity, WHICH WOULD put it outside of spacetime.
If you need that, then Roger Penrose' CCC can give you that, AGAIN, without the need for a mind with intent.
Any panpsychist style proposal that 'god' is an emerging totality of all existent, continuing, activity of conscious creatures in the universe, gives no credence whatsoever, to traditional theism or theosophism.
It is purely a prediction of a future totality or combinatorial.

Firstly, if contradictions don't exist, how can a law of non contradiction exist? — Benj96

If x exists at an instant of time then it is not logical that x also does NOT exist at that same instant of time. That's the law of non-contradiction. A contradiction such as NOT x, can exist, but it cannot be TRUE at the same time that X is true. Superposition does not contend with the logic laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. Superposition relates to an averaging of all possible states, at the point of measuring. It's got nothing to do with the binary logic states of 'true' and 'false' at the same time instant. In a computer for example, a logic gate is either open or closed, it CANNOT be open and closed at the same instant in time. A theist would claim that god can make a logic gate be open AND closed at the same instant of time, but I assign 0 credence to that claim, how about you?

For example the grandfather paradox is a contradiction based on the ability to time travel. If you change the premise for say "linear ttime doesn't exist outside of chronologic memorised experience" then it is impossible to travel through any physical external linear time as it doesn't exist. And thus the grandfather paradox is resolved. — Benj96

This does not 'resolve' the grandfather paradox, it simply suggests that it can never happen.
There are many musings on the grandfather paradox such as:https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a41106690/grandfather-paradox-time-travel/

Therefore it can be A) 69, B). 96, and AB both numbers simultaneously. Depending on what bias you want to take. — Benj96

This makes no logical sense to me at all. The order for reading numbers is preset! That preset is vital for the system to function correctly. If the setting is 'read left to right,' then the number IS 96. If the setting is 'read right to left,' then the number IS 69. Not following the preset rules for a system means your output will be incorrect. There is no 'bias' involved, you either pay attention to how a system actually works, or you are unable to use it correctly!

I applaud your scepticism and your wish to test the 'logic' of a given proposal, but you seem to have a need for that wow! factor, offered by supernatural posits, in the sense that you try to conflate them with the 'real' world, by suggesting stuff like god IS spaciotemporal dimensionality! :roll:

So my theistic view runs that the oneness, or absolute fundamental entity, is and has its own quantities and qualities. It is space-time as a property (an observed phenomenon) and all individual localities and times as quantitatively measurable compartments we have assigned to it (seconds, minutes, meters, centimeters, Astronomical units etc) — Benj96

So, your god is just the universe and everything in it! Why not just go with calling such 'the universe,' rather than god?

I was born within it, I live it, I will die because of it, I breathe it, I urinate it into the toilet, I throw it in the dump, I cherish and love it, I hate it, I ask what's the point in it, I discuss it on tpf, I am deceived by it, it convinces me to think differently about it for better or for worse, it frequently eludes me, I forget it, and sometimes if I'm lucky, I relearn it, remember it - in some brief moment of clarity, swiping away some of the major dead end paths I was stumbling on. I think about it. Sometimes I don't think much about it at all. I battle it, and in other instances I find myself living harmoniously with it. — Benj96

Why is this 'it' you keep referring to not 'the universe and everything in it that is not me?'
Or is this 'It' you refer to, something you perceive IS YOU?

call it "the great potato" for all I care haha, its the meaning, the relationships and interactions, that matter to me. — Benj96

Yeah, me too. The question remains, do you think your great potato is self-aware and created this universe and is used as one of the main justifications for the divine right of theists to consider themselves 'the chosen one,' and who consider the rest of us as ultimately dammed? This also allows many of them to feel unconcerned, when some use nasty systems, like capitalism and the money trick, to ensure they and those they care about, thrive, and the majority of those who live under such systems, do not. 'It's the way god wants it,' is a well used theistic thought, that informs the politics and actions of many, and certainly supports the idea that only the chosen of god, deserve salvation. :roll:
Do you agree that such a viewpoint is nefarious?
Do you think it's important not to give sustenance to such or even offer breath to its embers?
It's 2023, and we still have countries like Uganda, passing a law which is medieval in it's concept.

From Wiki:
"Christianity is the predominant religion in Uganda. According to the 2014 census, over 84 percent of the population was Christian, while about 14 percent of the population adhered to Islam, making it the largest minority religion. Anglicanism and Catholicism are the main Christian denominations in the country."

States, too. https://wpde.com/news/local/abortion-south-carolina-death-penalty-hb3549-unborn-child-homicide-assault-prenatal-equal-protection-act-roe-v-wade-fetal-heartbeat-bill-pro-life-choice-planned-parenthood-legislature-lawmakers-2-22-23 The Middle Ages is enjoying renewed popularity.

Why is this 'it' you keep referring to not 'the universe and everything in it that is not me?'
Or is this 'It' you refer to, something you perceive IS YOU? — universeness

Hello again universeness. Sorry I haven't had time to reply as finishing up some work things before the weekend. I'll be brief now and address it in a bit more detail later.

Well, I'm not outside the universe. There is an externality to myself, as perceived by me, through which I observe "others, the world and the effects of my actions" . And I am part of the same external interactive environment for others, as perceived by them, from their point of awareness.

So none of us are outside this entity thus I don't really understand your above statement. Its not a case of everything else except for myself, or myself except for everything else. But both.

Yeah, me too. The question remains, do you think your great potato is self-aware and created this universe and is used as one of the main justifications for the divine right of theists to consider themselves 'the chosen one,' and who consider the rest of us as ultimately dammed? — universeness

I think the "great potato" as you say is self aware to certain degrees. It's self aware in the sense of every living sentient thing that's ever existed thus far and their unique experiences that they had.

Furthermore, I think the way it is aware evolves and changes over time. What it is aware of/capable of doing and experiencing, where and for how long it is aware, how many individuals are aware, what senses it can use and what data/information it can collect and process to establish a sense of self - changes.

Lastly, to say it "created the universe" separates it from its creation. Which for me I think is a misleading description as it places a deity somehwere outside of "itself" (everything).

I think its nature is "Potential" (like potential to be energy/time basically) and so it has the potential to emerge into material phenomenon from something that is not "nothing" (nothing would have no abilities/potential to do anything).
Potential is distinct from true nothingness by its capabilities to be/do stuff.

So in essence it didn't create the universe, but rather potential became the universe, and that potential for change in quality and evolution persists to this day as a fundamental constant underlying physics and chemistry.

As for "chosen ones", I don't believe anyone is special or selected tbh. This is a relic of archaic religious interpretations. Favouring specific people or groups has only ever lead to dictatorships/fascism, uncontrolled egomaniacism, discrimination, inequality, corruption, war, assassinations etc. The whole concept of a chosen one or chosen group (like the israelites for example) seems ridiculous.

If we are all made of the same entity, we share in that fact. The only choice we have is what aspect of it do we wish to manifest in ourselves and our behaviour towards others.

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to make distinctions between where my theistic views come from verses preconceived notions from outdated or misinterpreted religions which I usually get lobbed at me left right and center the moment I even cough at the word theism. Because fundamentally you don't need a religion to believe in something almost incomprehensible/mysterious/elusive.

And I don't ascribe to any religion outright/in entirety but I do think they all have considerable fundamental overlap and speak of the same thing with different focuses and different errors.