'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? — universeness

Deities have been used for millenia to make people afraid, manipulate them or exploit them.

Two groups of people are at fault here.

Group 1 are those that cite deities as having conferred them divine rights. These people are opportunistic, egotistical and often have the most self serving/selfish and sinister agendas.

Group 2 at fault are those that never bothered to question group 1. For whatever reason they didn't use their common sense, logic/reason to see through the thinly veiled efforts to gain the upper hand or manipulate. Group 2 sitting idle and complaining about their treatment never organised themselves sufficiently to deny group 1 rulership.

And eventually, the tides change and revolts, mutinies etc happen.

The only way to live in peace, is to educate ourselves. Education is not so much the collection of arbitrary facts but rather a state of mind, a way of thinking. Being able to be critical, measured, reasoning etc.

That's the only way a society avoids such inequalities.
So in conclusion: people using theism as a means to gain power or oppress others is unacceptable. But, it doesn't mean theism is bad in its own right.

In essence most bases of theistic values are wisdom and kindness. And this is something I strive for.

But sadly the anti-thesis using the same knowledge base is "intelligent/cunning exploitation". Which is why so many regions were corrupted by the flaws of people.

Long story short, I don't believe a theistic theory of existence must be neccesarily flawed, hateful or sinister and thus we must avoid theists or theism at all costs.

No, I believe instead that intentions are flawed. And if a theory happens on rare occasion to actually be well developed, fundamental, logical and accurate, it confers a lot of reasoning power.

I believe reasoning power combined with good intentions is divine.
Reasoning power combined with bad intentions is sadistic/ cruel.

Hence why religions (mass popularised philosophical theories of the unity of consciousness and the universe by origin - ie one's that explain both a logical and moral basis for what existence is and where it comes from) and war (misuse of such knowledge) virtually always come hand in hand.

Idiotic and deluded people can't do much harm regardless of their intentions. Because they lack efficiency, rationale and directive. Highly intelligent people on the other hand are the best and worst of us.
So if theistic theories are truly close to the universal "truth" they generate the best virtues and are misused and abused to commit the worst evils.

That is a common dichotomy in theism as a whole.

One man's meat is another man's poison, I suppose.
I believe all theism is ultimately pernicious, as at the most fundamental level, it steals (with your consent!!!) the credit for your own sense of wonderment and awe, regarding this existence and makes it subservient to an outside source, that is not OWNED by or is an integral part of, your OWN consciousness.

A person staring up at the sky at night, from a position, not affected by light pollution, deserves to credit the awe and wonder available, TO THEMSELVES. They have A BIRTHRIGHT to OWN that experience. It is FOLLY to apply some stupid, unwarranted, notion of humility, and become fearful of some external wrath, disapproving of any notion that ONLY A CREATURE LIKE YOU OR ME can perceive the universe in such a way. So, many choose to 'thank god' or some other BS theosophist notion of reality, for the wonder and awe you have been 'gifted.' :roll:

WE are OF the universe, yes, but it is not capable of demonstrating itself as a existent in the way our ancients anthropomorphise the Earth as 'Mother' or 'Gaia' etc. That stuff is just total BS and we should never project it on to the entire universe.
The universe cannot demonstrate intent, and purpose or love and caring or even hate, despair and a need to destroy.
Only lifeforms such as WE can demonstrate such ability, WE MUST OWN THIS and not give the best of what we are, to non-existents, due to our own primal fears regarding death and some notion of failure to measure up to the idiotic, inconsistent, morality guidelines, proposed in bullshit books of man made religious scripture.
@Vera Mont is not convinced that any aspect of humanity is truly free. I think that if all of us are incapable of owning what I think BELONGS to us, such as personal wonderment and awe, free thought, the right to think anew etc. Then she will continue to have the preponderance of evidence, supporting her claim. That just makes me pissed off at all humans who can't OWN themselves!
Sometimes I am guilty of such myself and become pissed off at myself soon after!
But then ..... I think anew!

Deities have been used for millenia to make people afraid, manipulate them or exploit them. — Benj96

Group 2 at fault are those that never bothered to question group 1. For whatever reason they didn't use their common sense, logic/reason to see through the thinly veiled efforts to gain the upper hand or manipulate. Group 2 sitting idle and complaining about their treatment never organised themselves sufficiently to deny group 1 rulership. — Benj96

So in conclusion: people using theism as a means to gain power or oppress others is unacceptable. — Benj96

:clap:

But, it doesn't mean theism is bad in its own right. — Benj96

:down:

The universe cannot demonstrate intent, and purpose or love and caring or even hate, despair and a need to destroy. — universeness

So humans (which do these things) are not part of the universe? We are something else removed from a the matter and energy around us?

I think that if all of us are incapable of owning what I think BELONGS to us, such as personal wonderment and awe, free thought, the right to think anew etc. — universeness

I don't think anyone is trying to detract from your personal experience of awe and wonderment. I for one am certainly not. If anything I endorse it.

All I'm saying is that you are as much part of reality as a rock, a planet, space-time etc. And that whether we like it or not, the universe has to be conscious because we know we are and we exist within it, we are part of it.

So the universe gives rise to awareness of itself. Because you are aware, and you're made from it.

With all due respect Ben, you seem to be reading what I typed a little selectively.
You must have read:

WE are OF the universe, — universeness

So I establish my absolute agreement with that fact quite clearly. My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of.

All I'm saying is that you are as much part of reality as a rock, a planet, — Benj96

No, We are a much more significant part of the universe than a rock or a planet (specifically those with no life). ONLY WE represent intent and purpose, nothing, other than lifeforms, are capable of demonstrating such. We MUST OWN that.

My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of. — universeness

When did I say that was the case

That just makes me pissed off at all humans who can't OWN themselves! — universeness

Why is OWNERSHIP such a big issue with you? We can be of the universe, of the Earth, of our ecosystem, of our species, of our community, of our family and partake of the nested properties of those whole(s) - which is a great deal more than each of us could be or have as a stand-alone unit. But we cannot extricate ourselves from the support structure and matrix that produced us, contains and sustains us; we cannot be stand-alone units. It's not chains that bind us; it's threads of silk, which we each spin as well.

When you suggest such as 'the universe IS god,' or 'god IS spatiotemporal dimensionality,' etc.

Why is OWNERSHIP such a big issue with you? — Vera Mont

I'm surprised you ask, considering you posit 'nothing is truly free.'
If you can't take full ownership of your own existence. If you need to make some belief connection to some external intent and influence outside of 'other people and other lifeforms,' then you are not truly free BECAUSE, you (I don't mean you personally,) will always feel a subservience to that which you don't yet understand or know about.
There is much we don't know, I agree with that, but I also agree strongly with 'To boldy go .......' and not let BS dalliances with theism and theosophism, cow us in any way.

Janeway conquers a virtual manifestation of fear:

Fear exists to be conquered! Theism, theosophism, fear of death, fear of the unknown, will be conquered by humans eventually, imo.

If you can't take full ownership of your own existence. — universeness

You can pretend to be self-generated, I suppose. I'm aware that I owe my birth to all life as it evolved before me, and to my parents and the society that nurtured me as a helpless infant. I still owe my continued existence to the world that provides me air, water, food and shelter. I have no way to assess the exact amount of influence on my character and circumstances of each encounter, experience, book, conversation, each emotional connection with another being, but I acknowledge their influence - and mine on them.

If you need to make some belief connection to some external intent and influence outside of 'other people and other lifeforms,'

Not belief and not outside of "them". Where in post did you find either of those concepts?
I mean them, what I said: other people, other life forms, the earth, the universe.

then you are not truly free

That's what I've been saying: I never can be "truly free", until I'm dead.

BECAUSE, you (I don't mean you personally,) will always feel a subservience to that which you don't yet understand or know about.

Why? Connection and interdependence are not subservient, and I understand the world in which I belong about as well as I need to. I can never know or understand everything, which doesn't particularly bother me.

(Janeway was sometimes a damn fool. Feisty... but come on, In for a penny, in for a pound is a gambler's motto!)

Fear exists to be conquered! Theism, theosophism, fear of death, fear of the unknown, will be conquered by humans eventually, imo. — universeness

Fine. Good luck to them!

Not belief and not outside of "them". Where in post did you find either of those concepts?
I mean them, what I said: other people, other life forms, the earth, the universe. — Vera Mont

Not so much in your posts, but in the posts of many others. We have mostly common ground here.

then you are not truly free
That's what I've been saying: I never can be "truly free", until I'm dead. — Vera Mont

We have no common ground here, for the reasons I have already posted.

I can never know or understand everything, which doesn't particularly bother me. — Vera Mont

Good, it's doesn't bother me either, in fact it offers me enhanced purpose.

Why? Connection and interdependence are not subservient — Vera Mont

You are subservient to such, if like @benj96, you perceive or assign high credence, to some kind of already existent, omnipresent, self-aware, force/entity that may have been involved in our origins.

I understand the world in which I belong about as well as I need to. — Vera Mont

So what? So do the majority of intelligent/educated people. I don't think YOU are particularly hampered by theism, theosophism or woo woo proposals. My beef with you is ONLY on your pessimism, and your annoying, incorrect suggestion, that no aspect of human consciousness is truly free.
Are you a fully cooked determinist? Do you think the universe is totally deterministic?
Is any event in the universe truly random in your opinion?
How about quantum fluctuations?

(Janeway was sometimes a damn fool. Feisty... but come on, In for a penny, in for a pound is a gambler's motto!) — Vera Mont

The target for the clip I posted was 'fear,' and how I think humans should deal with it.
I was not trying to present the Star Trek character Janeway for a general critique.

Fear exists to be conquered! Theism, theosophism, fear of death, fear of the unknown, will be conquered by humans eventually, imo.
— universeness

Fine. Good luck to them! — Vera Mont

A pity you can't find the will to type something like, "Good stuff, I support that approach to dealing with 'fear,' completely."

As I read back some of my reply's to you Ben, I noticed that I often type 'that' instead of 'then,' in a few sentences. I edited the errors, but It's one that I keep making :rage:
It's a strange one, it's not as if the 't' is next to the 'n' on the keyboard :blush:

You are subservient to such, if like benj96, you perceive or assign high credence, to some kind of already existent, omnipresent, self-aware, force/entity that may have been involved in our origins. — universeness

I have on several threads expressly said: There may, for all I know, be a Universal Consciousness, or Allness, or Creative Force or Whatever and people can call that God or the Great Pumpkin or anything they like, but if It doesn't care about you and you can't influence It, it's irrelevant, meaningless. I don't see how you can be subservient to something that makes no rules and requires nothing from you.

I was not trying to present the Star Trek character Janeway for a general critique. — universeness

It was a freebie, from SF fan to another. So is this: I mostly liked her, but she made some emotional decisions, when caution would have been a better guide than reliance on faith.

A pity you can't find the will to type something like, "Good stuff, I support that approach to dealing with 'fear,' completely." — universeness

Sorry. You be free you and I be cowardly me.

My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of. — universeness

When you suggest such as 'the universe IS god,' or 'god IS spatiotemporal dimensionality,' etc. — universeness

Being part of a totality doesn't mean you influence the totality. Sure. I never pertained to the idea that this is the case.

At most you influence only what falls within your sphere of influence - friends, family, the people you encounter in life, the books or ideas you develop, the career you work in etc.

Of course a human can't influence anything in the andromeda galaxy. It's too far out of reach. At most we can influence our collective understanding of the universe from a human perspective.

As for habitation. You can inhabit the totality. That's all we inhabit. We don't exist outside of thr universe. We are made from it, we live in it, and we abide by its laws and principles whether we like it or not. Even when we die, we don't disappear (energetically and materially speaking). No part of us becomes mere nothingness, other than perhaps our identity and perhaps our conscious awareness as a human that once lived. Our bodies and their energy/content is not going anywhere, they are merely mixed back into mother nature's ecosystem. Reuse, recycle.

I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make. Some elab would help here.

As I read back some of my reply's to you Ben, I noticed that I often type 'that' instead of 'then,' in a few sentences. I edited the errors, but It's one that I keep making :rage:
It's a strange one, it's not as if the 't' is next to the 'n' on the keyboard — universeness

Haha its all g universeness. Probably it didn't detract from what you were articulating much. And if you feel it did or I mistunderstood you based on that minor error pleas highlight where and ill have a re-read.

As I read back some of my reply's to you Ben, I noticed that I often type 'that' instead of 'then,' in a few — universeness

:lol: :rofl: I even managed to f*** up my correction above!!!! :scream:
I meant I often type 'that' instead of 'than' !!!!!!!
No, I am sure you garnished the main points I was trying to make, well enough, amongst my f***** up 'that' and 'than' confusions.

I don't see how you can be subservient to something that makes no rules and requires nothing from you. — Vera Mont

When you consider such (if you believe such exists,) to be superior to yourself, in every way. This is how theists feel about their gods.

Sorry. You be free you and I be cowardly me. — Vera Mont

Sure, but I will continue to moan at you about it.

I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make. Some elab would help here. — Benj96

I am typing against the panpsychist/pantheistic flavour of theism, you seem to give a high credence to.

When you consider such (if you believe such exists,) to be superior to yourself, in every way. This is how theists feel about their gods. — universeness

Except I didn't, don't and won't.
As to the moaning, I've heard louder.

I am typing against the panpsychist — universeness

I'm very cautious around the word panpsychism.
I not so sure it makes sense to say the entirety of the universe is conscious or aware. More that the universe is capable of consciousness through specific systems (so far organic life, perhaps soon AI) and that these systems are a natural evolution of the laws and principles underlying physics and chemistry and the probabilities and thus possibilities they create in interaction with one another.

Because self and thus a sense of it requires an exterior world for which to perceive. How can the universe as a unit/whole have an external world to develop sense of self, identity etc.

For me anything conscious/aware, must be a thing with temporospatial location, it's surroundings feed it with input , it processes them and then generates output.

If the universe is the input and the processing and storage database/ machine and the output all at the same time, there's no reference point for anything. Input and output in this sense is meaningless because their is no centralised point or "holder of mind".

For example where would this consciousness exist in time and thus have an awareness of past, present and future. Where would it be in space and thus have a sense of location, self/indetity with respect to an environment.

If you're citing me as a panpsychist I want to be very clear that for me it's the ability to become aware that permeates the universe, and not the state of being aware. Certain systems must be employed: first matter must be used to store info, empty space can't be structured into any form of solid lasting code/memory.

Also there has to be some sort of condensation of highly reactive systems into something consistent and stable so that the consciousness it generates has any sense of its on permanence of self and has enough sensitivity (reactivity) to changes in its environment that it can perceive the flow of time with reference to its stable, stored and most importantly "confined" memory base.

So the universe has the potential for awareness. And part of it is indeed aware but I wouldn't say all of it. Consciousness is for me the property of a specific construction or arrangement of energy/matter and the information they carry.

You can convert the energy and mass in food, water, oxygen for example into the matter (neurons) and energy (neuronal firings) required to have conscious awareness. But this doesn't mean that the energy/matter when in the form of food, water and oxygen is in its own right conscious.

Except I didn't, don't and won't. — Vera Mont

Yeah, I know. Not every sentence I post to you, directly refers to opinions about you personally Vera.
Many are to emphasis points regarding the viewpoints of other posters. I already thought I had made my specific beef with you quite clear. I mainly agree with the majority of your viewpoints. We differ in that I don't suffer from the level of pessimism that is contained in some of your posts and I disagree with you that 'no aspect of human beings is fully free.'

As to the moaning, I've heard louder. — Vera Mont

I hope you shouted back!

Everything in your last post, seems perfectly valid and rational to me, so where in the analysis you just offered, do you find a rational space, to label yourself a theist????

I hope you shouted back! — universeness

Whispering sometimes gets more attention.

Whispering sometimes gets more attention. — Vera Mont

What? AH CANNY HEAR YE VERA!!!!

Everything in your last post, seems perfectly valid and rational to me, so where in the analysis you just offered, do you find a rational space, to label yourself a theist???? — universeness

Because, simply put, I cannot conceive of any idea greater than the capabilities of the universe to not only be an objectively measurable, elegant, objective and consistently rational/logical subject of investigation, but at the same time it can birth all the subjectivity, meaning, feels, uniqueness, irrationalities, deceits, misconceptions, and profound nuances of experience that comes with being conscious.

The universe is able to be aware. I find that exceedingly profound. Its not only dead, inanimate and aimless happenings, a simple automaton of chemical and energetic interactions, but also the entirety of imagination, creativity, mystery, wonder, awe, curiosity, sensuality, love, suffering, anguish. There is a certain element of "magic" - not literally ofc, but rather figuratively; in the wealth of dynamics and abilities it is able to manifest.

The full shebang
It contemplates itself.

Scientific explanations and paradigms have ultimately fallen short so far in explaining the link between inanimate dead mechanistic processes and the living breathing sensation feeling state that is "living".

So my unifying concept of the observer and observed sourced from the same basic fundamental, is nothing less than the greatest depth of innate intelligence, pure potential and capability.

For me the word "God" satisfies both the origin of consciousness or "I- hood" , as well as the environment in which "I" 's exist as unique individual and aware beings.

If science offered a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, over the explanatory ability of Duality, then I would consider another word instead of God. However I don't think science can fully elucidate this due to its limitations as a confined tool/instrument - restricted by its objective basis (irreconcilable with subjectivity - its opposite) and that is where philosophy and spirituality fill the gaps.

But for now thats what I settled on. As I said at the beginning of our discussion, my choice of definition need not encroach or detract from others unique views.

I am but one person - one personal viewpoint. I'm here to explain my choice of definition, to discuss it, to posit it as something hopefully rational to others, to distinguish it from previous notions of other theisms that came before it.

But at the end of the day, we are all free to approach reality however we see fit based on our understanding. And I have little issue with other people's choices.

Everything has truth in it. A word like "God" or "universe" is not actually that important to me. For me it's the significance of an ultimate fundamental principle that gives rise to the multitude of existants, that I'm fascinated with. Words are word. The meaning, logic and relationships underlying words on the other hand, goes much deeper, and is not so restricted.

Definitions are multiplicitous. Each one confines the idea by different parameters (assumptions, presumptions, biases, restraints).

My sole goal, is the unravel the assumptions by integrating them into a mutual coherent dynamic, where apparent contradictions can be resolved simply by re-framing the perspective, and dissolving the emerging conflict.

If you're still not convinced of my methodology or terminology, I'm entirely at peace with that decision as it is your full right to do so.

But I'm a very playful, imaginative and intuitive person, and I find a purely physicalist view of the universe underwhelming, disenchanting and just basically lacking. It explains a lot. For sure. But not enough.

I want it all.

The full shebang
It contemplates itself. — Benj96

That makes it an entity, or even The Entity, but not a deity in any conventional sense. Redefining any word to mean "whatever I imagine it means" may work inside your head, in your dream-log, in poetry, but it doesn't stand up that well in communicating your ideas to another person who speaks a known language and has access only to definitions of its words as conceived by other speakers of that language.

For me the word "God" satisfies both the origin of consciousness or "I- hood" , as well as the environment in which "I" 's exist as unique individual and aware beings. — Benj96

Ironically, I think "universeness" comes closer to conveying that, but afaik, he hasn't claimed divinity.

Because, simply put, I cannot conceive of any idea greater than the capabilities of the universe to not only be an objectively measurable, elegant, objective and consistently rational/logical subject of investigation, but at the same time it can birth all the subjectivity, meaning, feels, uniqueness, irrationalities, deceits, misconceptions, and profound nuances of experience that comes with being conscious. — Benj96

I don't think you can call the above quote, 'simply put.'
Your conception of the universe is forgivably romantic/dramatic, but when you boil it down, it seems to me, that all you say above, is that you think that its valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Humans demonstrate all the properties you mention above and can 'birth' entities that can do the same, and we are OF the universe. It's the same old stuff! There are those who think life exists ON planet Earth, and there are those who project this into musing that the Earth itself, is a living entity. I am in the former category and I think you are in the latter.

For me the word "God" satisfies both the origin of consciousness or "I- hood" , as well as the environment in which "I" 's exist as unique individual and aware beings. — Benj96

So you call the universe god, and assign it 'magical' status. I find that romantic, but unhelpful.
@180 Proof, accuses me of having a similar approach in my thoughts about how humans may have a very positive relationship with a future ASI, so, I am not suggesting you are doing any great harm here. But I do think you are letting theism and its traditional invocations of the supernatural woo woo, in by a side door. Which is not the case, in my ruminations, regarding a future ASI.

If science offered a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, over the explanatory ability of Duality, then I would consider another word instead of God. — Benj96

Well, I hope future science provides you with such a path towards your personal salvation from theism.
Hallelujah brother!!

But I'm a very playful, imaginative and intuitive person, and I find a purely physicalist view of the universe underwhelming, disenchanting and just basically lacking. It explains a lot. For sure. But not enough.

I want it all. — Benj96

That's all fine Ben, but you also have to be responsible for what you type, say and do.
The theists will be grateful to you for supporting their words and their concepts. You have to decide if that is damaging to the future of our species or not. Damaging to our ability to totally free ourselves from restrictive woo woo notions.

Is the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward? — Benj96

I discussed this topic with Bing Chat recently. Here:



Oh, btw. Avocado pits can be used as a resource for the production of vegetable oil. Just sayin'.