Jokes aside, I'd say we reexamine the evidence carefully, thoroughly, and then ... — Agent Smith

Yeah I think it's prudent to keep an open mind and follow multiple lines of thinking to there end to see where that leads. Be thorough yet measured.
Almost all arguments in life have a counteragument which must be considered also - the sign of a good philosopher is to hold two contradictory statements at once without necessarily accepting either.

I think that is the process of branching out one's network of reasoning - like a tree, or a brain.

Finally, I would even be careful about using the term "evidence" too objectively. Are not historical propositions and philosophical arguments and beliefs not parts of the whole sum of "evidence" just as much as scientific discovers are?

The persistence of gods even in the age of information (explosion) implies that we've good reasons to continue believing in gods. What are these reasons, pray tell. — Agent Smith

Well indeed. I think the persistence of gods despite a scientific revolution and information explosion means that perhaps they are more fundamental than we previously believed. As things that are fundamental and constant will not change through time - despite the systems they govern evolving and progressing around their axis.

Another good reason that we may persist in believing gods exist is based on morality. An ethical consideration. If God's or a singular god are the basis for a fundamental logic (or "logos" - see heraclitus) and we know that knowledge or wisdom comes from understanding this logic/this architecture for what is possible and what is not. Then we can make better decisions.

Would you prefer a well informed person or an uneducated one to govern society or make judgements in the interest of society? In this way knowing such a god would place that person in a better position to be ethical.

Its not enough to have what you think are good intentions to be moral. You must also have knowledge. A delusional person going around with what they believe to be good intentions is a very dangerous person indeed. Hitler is likely such a case.

I suspect he didn't think or contemplate very much at all before acting. On the contrary all the wisest rulers and greatest philosophers contemplated almost constantly to ensure they could give sufficiently good guidance as to minimise harm. Think of a Greek statue and what is its pose? A person sitting and staring off into space with their hand rested beneath their chin. An act of contemplation and self reflection.

↪Benj96 Name (of the space god)? — Agent Smith

Haha it seems that from my research online now such as god has been described numerous times and with several variations on interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_deity#:~:text=Within%20Greek%20mythology%2C%20Uranus%20was,Poseidon%2C%20who%20ruled%20the%20sea.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on "sky deities" for your interest and browsing.
Uranus was one such god of the sky/ air/ether or space based on whatever people at the time understood space to be. Zeus also had similar attributes. Cosmic god.

The persistence of gods in humanities history seems very telling. There is something deep within us that wants to be connected to/part of our universe... To personify it as the universe personified us by creating life through its various physical and chemical phenomena/laws.

I don't understand how noting the limitations of our knowledge in the context of all that is true amounts to saying we could not learn anything that is true or what behavior is better from what is worse — Paine

I don't believe acknowledging that we don't know everything instantly means that we know nothing, nor does it mean we can't improve our knowledge.

I think we have varying degrees of knowledge of what is true and what is better between all of us. Some people are delusional and others quite wise indeed. And we all judge eachother from these respective reference points based off what we hold to be personally true.

What else could be "true"--that which everyone would think is the case after everyone knows everything? That's hardly a meaningful or useful thing to spend our time discussing — Ciceronianus

So you don't believe that everyone could at some point know everything about how reality works - have a unanimous reality together? I understand how it sounds far fetched but consider this:

"If there are infinite ways to be ignorant -(to hold irrational beliefs, delusions etc about reality), then on the contrary pole should there not be only one way to be privy to the truth?"

If this is the case and everyone knew the truth, they wouldn't argue angrily with one another but rather simply discuss its endless implications.

but I haven't heard of a god of space. Is there one? — Agent Smith

I believe so. Space exists relative to matter, to objects. If there were no material objects/molecules/atoms, the space within/around them by contrast would lose all sense of reference, would lose its "relativity". Just as darkness by itself with no light isn't really darkness. Its only darkness by contrast. Contrasts are the gradient by which change from A to B occurs and thus information. If there was no gradient between things, nothing to distinguish them, then there would be no information. If there is no information - then there is no existence.

In a singularity where all energy and matter are just "potential". And time is not occuring, has not been set in motion (by objects and energy interacting), then there is no space either. No objects, no time, no space.

So conclusion yes there is a god of space.

Yep. But see how Benj entirely misses the point?

Benj's approach is making stuff up instead of working stuff out. There's not much point in further comment. — Banno

Haha if that's what you want to believe that's fine. No harm no foul. But at the end of the day I think we all observe the reality around us, hypothesise possible explanations (make stuff up/create ideas regarding existence) and then exercise/ apply that understanding (however inaccurate or accurate it may be) by asking others if they have similar views and if not then why?

And in this way we are exposed to new lines of questioning, new arguments that we may have not considered before, and re-evaluate our beliefs either accepting or rejecting one's that sound logical and or ethical.
Thus we create a paradigm for ourselves to navigate reality.

Is that not the process of reason? Be it scientific reason or spiritual intuition.

I think i reached a point where I saw limits with the strictly scientific approach to understanding nature. As I don't believe you can objectify everything and everyone completely. I think one would find it difficult to "prove" the existence of ethics with scientific measurement - despite ethics being incredibly important in preventing science from doing harm. Likewise I find it difficult to see how a tool like scientific method can prove consciousness (the hard problem), as ironically, the method pre-supposes an observer.

How can one turn scientific method on ourselves entirely - by getting inanimate objects to observe and measure conscious entities to prove we exist. Therefore the hard problem is a fundamental limit to science.
It would be analogous to using a knife to dissect an object to see what's inside. And then to turn that knife on yourself to dissect yourself to see what's inside. It's not ethical or sensible.

I think this is exemplified by quantum phenomena - where the observer, by observing, by measuring... Changes the outcome. This would seem to indicate at a fundamental level of reality that when observed quanta are particulate (objectified) but when not observed they are only "potential" to be (a waveform).

Thus I turned to other disciplines of understanding to fill in the gaps that science cannot prove. I turned to philosophy and spirituality. It sounds reasonable that to understand the truth of things in reality we must not only address the existence of scientific facts but also the existence of subjective beliefs.

Science and faith don't have to be at odds with one another, its just that at their extremes, at their greatest level of dogma- they refuse to entertain the others way of understanding things.

We create a God ourselves, and then we realize that He is not just and then compalin about that. — Alkis Piskas

In other words we look at the universe/reality and see injustice, and believing we are powerless to do anything about it we are angry at "that which may have the potency to rid injustice".

Except we are not powerless. We are as much mediums to channel benevolence as any other. We can make every act we do serve truth if we want to. Rarely do people want to benefit one another at a large scale (humanity) because to do so is to pit yourself against all injustice/ to flag yourself as an obstacle against injustice carrying out its evil mischievousess. And therefore to put yourself in harms way so that another may be protected from it.

Tell me if you were God for a day... Would you spread your knowledge, your truth of truths, with the intent to save strangers that you have never met? Would you sacrifice your safety to demonstrate unjustness as the wrath of hatred falls upon you? Would you be a martyr?

If the answer to this is no, if you'd rather only regard your nearest relatives and friends as worthy then you condemn those you do not know to your apathy. You would not care in this case what happens to others in the world that are currently suffering..

In all honesty if you aren't prepared to face injustice alone, to carry that burden for others, then you do not practice the truth, you would not know it nor possess its true power/authority.

Scripture demonstrates that those that spread truth and are killed for it by those that find it convenient to do so, to uphold their own version of what is right, have a superior sense of morality for the simple fact they were killed. Anyone who murders for their beliefs are not just.

he explicitly cautions against thinking our knowledge as being able to approach all that is true: — Paine

But if knowledge of god is not approachable by his/her subjects then what ought to be the purpose of a true god? If god is not the ultimate truth then we have no means by which to be ethical (as truth pertains to morality through use of the truth to do right by one another, as opposed to lies and deceit) and also we would have no means to pursue rationality (as the truth pertains to knowability/knowledge and by proxy logic) - that which is consistent and permanent in the world. The laws of existence.

If ethics and reason don't exist and are not approachable then we would be dismally lost. Totally ignorant (lacking all sense of what is ethical and what is reasonable).

But common sense serves to show the contrary. We know somewhat of that which is just and that which is rational.

Sorry, I was referring to philosophical idealism (all that exists is consciousness and materialism is just mind when viewed from a particular perspective) as per Schopenhauer, Berkeley, Hegel, Schelling, and these days Kastrup and Hoffman — Tom Storm

Ah okay. Understood. Well in that case I believe idealism and pragmatism (what is realistic) operate in contention with one another. You cannot have idealism without realism they are opposites. Mutually dependent..
Does that clarify my position a bit better? If not speak your mind and we are free to discuss it further :)

That is the sort of thing I don't know. — Paine

Yes I understand, he demonstrates favouring belief in a truth over venturing to explain nature through explaining this truth he believes. In essence he shows commitment to a belief without feeling the need to explain it to others. At most this demonstrates his choice of personality - faith over skepticism, ironically by being so skeptical that he reduces what he could believe to one thing - the only remaining thing that he is prepared to believe faithfully. Many people hold similar views. The spiritual. They accept and settle for a belief despite others asking them to please kindly explain why such a belief is reasonable to accept.

I hope i interpreted what you were examining correctly. If not feel free to elaborate and forgive me if I missed the mark.

And its okay not to know by the way. That gives you good leg room to flex your logic and pursue truth whatever you conclude that it is for you.

Personally a god that actively deceives me is not one I wish to know. I feel a righteous god is one that welcomes me to understand their truth if and when I am prepared to accept it into my life. A just God would reveal themselves to me through the truth they speak, rather than allow me to flounder in nonsense and delusion.

To say something is observable is to privilege empiricism and to make assumptions about the observer and what is being observed. How does one rule out idealism, for instance? — Tom Storm

Sorry I took so long to come back to this. Such an articulate/coherent thought you present here. Your question is a good one.

To say something is observable I don't believe privileges empiricism because if it did then we would not be able to observe "belief" in action. Yet we observe belief (personal truths of others/reality according to them) all the time.

You can observe a person behave in accordance with their values even if you have no empirical evidence that their values exist/should exist. For example, you can observe a person go to a church, mosque or other religious institution and pray to their God. You can understand through their actions that they must really believe in such an entity - otherwise they wouldnt pray, despite the fact that you yourself may not believe in such a god. You have no empirical/objective proof outside the fact that that person is an object with a phenomenon associated with it which you are observing.

One can argue that that is or isn't "empirical" evidence or subject to "observation". That choice is yours to make.

How does one rule out idealism you say? My answer to that is why would you want to rule out idealism? Idealism stands as a goal, a noble one at that. Idealism stands for a world which can be better than it is now. It stands for evolution, for progress and for improvement. Without a sense of idealism, without a hope for the ideal, we are left broken, defeated and feeling worthless. We are depressed, disenchanted and dangerously close to suicidal ideation instead of the ideation of a better life.

We must inspire good ideals in others to prevent them from succumbing to depression and suicide. If we value their life that is. Which we should. :)

↪Benj96 You completely missed my point then. A is B is an abstract, the mistake is you assuming this maps one-to-one onto reality when you apply Electricity and Energy … I even gave such an example to show the distinction between objects that exist and abstractions.

Bring me number one and show it to me and you can then convince me there is no difference. Better still paint me a picture of ‘AND,’ ‘OR’ or ‘IF’ that everyone will recognise as such without painting the words. — I like sushi

Ah yes indeed. I see where you are coming from. You're right in that abstraction and objectivity are not exactly the same thing. There is division here. However they are connected to one another, as all things are.

I can draw "one" but only symbolically. If I show many pictures to a child of a singular thing - an apple for example and then I show them pictures of two of the same thing - two apples... By contrast I can demonstrate the meaning of one verses two. In that way I can teach an abstract concept using physically observable objects.

It would not be prudent of me to show a picture of one apple and then show a picture of two bananas and say that is the difference between one and two. The child would be confused because the two fruit are different in more ways than just number. That's why in all the children's counting books we have we use the same iteration in multiples of itself. One apple, two apples, three and so on.

Does that make sense? If not let me know where I've gone wrong.

Furthermore abstraction is analogous to thought, imagination, ideas. And we know that such abstraction can become concrete, can become an object through the actions of the conscious person that holds the thought in their mind. For example an artist can take an idea in their head and demonstrate it on a medium to convey that inner thought to another. An inventor can do the same, and a musician, an author, anyone in any discipline can create from what is not yet real and bring it into reality for others to appreciate and interpret in their own unique way.

Truly wonderful the mind of a child is. — Master Yoda

Yes indeed. The mind of a child is perhaps one of the purest ones there is. I think children remind us of what we lose along the way - curiosity, innocence, the simple pleasures of wondering the who's, what's, wheres and whys of the world.

We love children for this. For what they teach us, for what they remind us to be in life. Life is meant to be fun and games. We must protect that ideology for as long as we are able while we are parents, while our children grow up and explore their world. Because the future is ultimately theirs. We would not want harm to come to that future if we know how to avoid it.

Dear Australian brother, I have a feeling it's about Fitch's paradox of knowability (there was a thread on that about 6 moons ago).

The issue can be exemplified with the statement "aliens exist" (status: unknown) — Agent Smith

Interesting. I've never come across fitches paradox. But if by "alien" we mean a conscious being that is "other" - different from us I think you'll see the paradox dissolves as we know that other people (other conscious entities) exist around us. To call them alien however may alienate them - make them feel upset that we don't see them as the same as us.

I sometimes wonder if our ancient early ancestors were around today and encountered us what they might think? They would see some strange less hairy animal, wearing strange materials, much taller than them, communicating in some strange complex sounds they don't understand and having all of this baffling technology. Would they fear us or be curious? Probably both.

Would we on the other hand be benevolent towards them? Or would we discard them as simpletons/inferior and not worthy of our attention and protection. Does this line of thinking sound familiar? This is the paradigm we have towards all other living things - animals, and plants, fungi, bacteria etc. Are they owed reverence for their individual functions/purposes? Or ought we abuse them because we think we are better?

Do you think humanity is ready to meet an alien civilisation on another planet knowing that we struggle to see eye to eye with even our own collective species? Do you think a more advanced and benevolent civilisation would come visit us if they felt we would attack them out of fear and ignorance?

Isn't the now of a few hours ago the same now as the present time? Or do you have the capacity to divide time into a multitude of distinct, particular, and separate nows, such that a past now would be distinct from the present now — Metaphysician Undercover

Both are correct depending on the perspective of one's reasoning. You cannot exist in any time but now that much is clear. "There is no time like the present". Try living 20 years ago right now - you'll find that sadly we cannot time travel backwards. That's why as a conscious object we have the grandfather paradox of time travel.

However we have memories. And when we focus our attention on them we recall and "relive" in our minds eye the events that took place in the past. That's why we can say someone is "living in the past" if they spend too much time fixating on it - usually due to loss, guilt or some sad emotions they're struggling to let go of.
This thus creates the illusion that the past still exists... But it only truly exists in the conscious memory of a sentient being.

Imagine you took away your memory. All of it. If you cannot remember the past you have no reason to believe it ever exists. Nor do you have any anticipation of a future by deduction. And if you have no past and no future the present moment loses all chronological meaning - time effectively vanishes.

Except we cannot remove our memories while we are alive and have a healthy functional brain. Our structure as physical objects allows us the stability to experience change around us. That is what consciousness needs to be aware of itself as an object. As life/ living things do.

People with dementia - losing the integrity of their brains structure... Are confused for time and place and forget and re-remember who they are and who their relatives are for this very reason. Their brain is struggling against the decay that comes with ageing.

But I knew it was true when I wrote that post a few hours ago, so it's not only now that I know it to be true.

And yes, if I don't remember that it was true, I wouldn't know it was true, but it would nevertheless remain true.

Being true and being known are two different things.

Something can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced... — Banno

But I knew it was true when I wrote that post a few hours ago, so it's not only now that I know it to be true. — Banno

Okay let me explain it another way :)
Imagine for a moment that you are god as the entire universe. As a single entity - all of time, all of matter, all energy and all space is within you as a singularity - the ultimate one thing - pure potential to be. The logos. The entirety of information - the entirety of truth of thinks, knowledge, self awareness.

You are not "nothing" before the big bang as people commonly argue, you are "potential" because you haven't created "something" yet and thus you haven't created nothing by proxy. You are the 0 that has potential to be - 1 and +1, you are the neutral that has the potential to be positive or negatively charged, etc.

In this state... Your sentence something can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced is not valid as you argued. For the reasons I outlined above.

Now imagine you are human but with knowledge of your relationship to god. You understand both how you are like him/her/it and how you are not like him/her/it. You are an object. Only one small part of the whole. You cannot be in all places as an object. You cannot observe everything from all places or all points in time. You have a present past and future because you are not travelling at the speed of light.

In this case... As you are now.. Then you're statement "some thing can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced" can be valid. It's a contradiction/paradox created by self reference, by how you choose to limit your self awareness and your knowledge of the whole truth.

We know the full truth exists because its logical and ethical to do so.
The whole Truth is the paradigm between opposites. Its order/ chaos = creation/destruction = rational/ irrational = knowledge/ignorance = self awareness/ lack thereof = power/impotency = love/hate = authority/ subordinance = moral imperative/immorality. That dynamic is an elegant/ beautiful thing. All the same and yet different, contradictions/paradoxs and yet also not. The choice to accept the truth or not is yours as is your free will.

But that's just not so. I went to a Harry Manx concert last night. Past truth. — Banno

Yes you know its truth from the present moment. From the reference of now. You remember you went to the concert. The memory you formed is currently stored in your neurons. If that structure wasn't there now you woukdnt be able to recall what you did even if others could remember on your behalf having seen you at the concert. Therefore if say something happened to you and nobody else saw it. The only place any evidence, any truth of that claim would exist - is in the structure of your brains.
To others your truth would be a mere belief to them - something they cannot trust/prove absolutely. While if many people observed it it would be fact.

Remembering the truths you know is a present moment activity.

If, If something is ‘true’ then you must know it, then anything that is true is known: there are no unknown trues; we know everything.

Basic logic. — Banno

We can only know truth from the present - this moment in time. The truths of the distant past and the truths of the distant future get progressively less sure/ verifiable the further one tries to predict in either direction. Therefore we can only know the constant rules/principles of truth that always apply regardless of time (universal laws) but not the individual consequences of such a truth. It governs and we can understand why it governs but we cannot know all that it governs as we are not the entire universe but humans.

But what is in principle unknowable? Maybe "Germany wins the World Cup in 2030." Right now, that is unknowable. We have no way to know that. So right now, does it have a truth value? — Hanover

Well that is a matter of time. The passage of time elucidates the truth of things as they happen. For us objects bound by linear time - we cannot know of future truths because we are limited by the rate of happenstance.

But for the universe as a whole - all points in time, all states of being and all possibilities are included in the set of the universes existence. In that case Germany winning the world Cup in 2030 is only a possibility from the reference point of the universe. It is not for humans to know the future of all things because we are change - subjects of time. It is only ultimate all inclusive truth to know of the destiny of such things as the truth exists in all moments - past and present and future while we can only exist in the present.

We can know how the truth works structurally but not temporally.

If A is B then B is A — I like sushi

I disagree. If A (electricity) is B (energy) then B (energy) is A (electricity). But this is not strictly true. Because heat, light potential and chemicals are also forms of energy. Therefore A (electricity) is at most a "subset" of but not the equivalent to/ not "all" of B (energy). It is energy but only one type.

If truth only exists in the abstract then truth is only equal to belief/ imagination/ concepts held by the mind. But we know truth is not only abstract things/constructions as the mind is not the only thing that is true. It is not the only thing that exists. Material concrete objects also obviously exist. We can observe them and objectively measure them using scientific method.

This confidence does not, however, support the idea that all of what is true can be known. — Paine

Yes this is true for a human. All knowledge and happenings throughout the entirety of the existence of the universe at all points in time and space cannot be known by a single person of x amount of years lifespan.

But knowledge of the omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience of god can be known as the sum of all things (people and the universe) combined. This can be appreciated by an individual person. And in this way God and said person(s) are in commune with one another. As opposites of a spectrum of magnitude and ability. Humans are limited by their short existence but not by their ability to apply logic and derive truth pertaining to god.

The truth is consistent at all levels of magnitude and pervades the universe from the smallest (quantum) to the largest (newtonian and relativistic).

In our ignorance, we can seek the truth but cannot claim that we know enough about it to say what is possible in relation to it. If it were possible to do that, we would already be a lot less ignorant. — Paine

Well you can. When you reach the truth you are in a process of subtraction (of inaccuracies you previously believed) Descartes got very close with "I think therefore I am" however it can be further reduced to "I am".

You know that you exist. And that is all you need to know what existence is. What the truth is. You are aware so you can observe and you think so you can reason about what you observe. And you have memory so you can gather and make your conclusions. You can choose to be taught by 1).self reflection 2). Observation of the "external" world 3). By other people or 4). A mixture of all of these things. A combination is probably best.

(And also Wikipedia lol)

My thought was a response to the claim that truth is knowable. Taken as the unchanging that is assumed to be the condition for all that exists, how can we, as "systems that change/are under the influence of change", know that truth is knowable? — Paine

Because we have logic - that which connects the delusional (changeable/erratic and ineffectual systems) to the Truth. It's the bridge we have tread many times back and forth through science and religion/spirtuality alike.

Change is the equivalent to irrationality, to an aimless chaotic rambling. This is why we call numbers that never repeat themselves "irrational numbers". And because we are systems that change we must be trained to take in and see the truth around us. We must convert our inefficient network of neurons in our brain into something more efficient and more logical (able to approach truth) . This is the foundation of education.

So to answer your question... We know the truth is knowable as changing systems because we may educate ourselves by being curious, listening and asking questions to our teachers. Just as children do I suppose. Are children not ignorant until taught and are they not innocent until educated?

I was thinking of it more as ignorance wanting what it lacks. If what is knowable can be established outside of that desire, then it does not have a job or a place to stay. — Paine

Pure ignorance does not want the truth. It doesn't feel it lacks the truth because it is so ignorant it thinks it already has the truth. Pure ignorance is extremely dangerous because it thinks its being just (telling the truth/judging others with the truth) all the while having no wisdom/knowledge (the truth) to do so. It is arrogant, it lacks empathy and nothing can ever be its fault.

Ignorance lives in its own world of delusion, having a false sense of power and authority.

However if ignorance decides to become curiosity... Or is shown there is better on offer elsewhere, it can begin the long rambling road to honing down on truth. Picking up and accepting into themselves pieces of truth along the way by using their newly found curiosity and consequently ever improving logic and morality. Applying those truths to reveal the full complete puzzle and eventually becoming the truth.

It's a spectrum. A duality. It always has been and it always will be.

our system of logic — Benj96

Yes "our" (regular people who don't believe or understand how or why they are God). If god is a person then their system of logic wouldnt contradict ours (the rest of humanity) because it would co-exist. The false separation (logical paradoxes - that we frequently discuss in philosophy/science) between god and humans version of the truth would simply be a matter of how much understanding/knowledge one has... How much of the truth one is prepared to accept.

Flaw and perfection must co-exist. Opposites contradict eachother and yet they exist. Flaw exists for the sake of being ignorant of the truth... And to allow for a means of self reflection, learning, progress, evolution and natural selection. Trial and error.

Perfection exists as the truth. An unchanging ideal worthy of pursuit. A motivator and a source of curiosity as to the revelation of its true nature. And we know that all we ever do every day as humans is pursue perfection (beauty/elegance, morality/ethics, authority, power, wisdom/knowledge, recognition/fame) through art, stories about heroes and villains, through career, adoring talented people and celebrities, through having wealth or political clout.

Because we all determine our "self" identity by what is similar/ acceptable and what is different/ rejectable,
We limit ourselves. But science has already clearly pointed out that on a fundamental level we are entirely one with the universe through the cascade of entropy as well as our atoms and energy and matter. We don't really take on the seismic consequences of that fact. Nor do most of us want to... The responsibility is of epic proportion.

So if contradictory things can really happen, then there is reason to suspect the world painted by logic. — PhilosophyRunner

God would allow contradictory things to happen.
Most paradoxes(of time, of self reference) only exist from the perspective of the most objectified self - a human and not the whole self - the universe.
If God didn't allow contradiction there would be no ability to point out our flaws/eachothers flaws in comparison with what we think is ideal (which is likely a flawed ideal in its own right, subject to contradiction by even bigger ideals and greater truths, right up to the biggest of which would be being God and knowing the truth of all things - contradictions included, why they are there, how they shape the limits of a subjects sense of self. How they divide belief from fact when in the whole truth - as a god, belief and fact are synonymous, true belief = true fact...

Contradictions/paradox divide 2 subjects so that they can both believe their version of the truth is real and the others not. That's why a benevolent god is forgiving because they have the greatest empathy for all individual truths no matter how misguided. For they know better sort of like how parents know better for their children and while the child may not understand and get frustrated, the parent must believe it is right even if the child despise them. Because they want to protect them.

But our system of logic cannot cope with contradictions — PhilosophyRunner

Yes our system of logic can't cope with contradiction... But that is a matter of self- perception. It's relative to .self". The human awareness of self is specific to us as small finite objects where we don't really see everyone else as a part of us but as "other" - not self.
A person prepared to believe they are truly everything cannot be selfish because their self is all people... Discrète Selfishness has thus lost meaning. They are instead selfless as they treat all people as they woukd treat their own body... Because they know they are really all people fundamentally.

It's equivalent to being an "ethical solipsist". If you want to believe you are the center of the universe - as our mother's so aptly remind us we are not so as to not let our ego inflate... Then you had better have a good enough reason to be.. You had better do it for everyone elses betterment .. Be truly selfless. Otherwise you are the most selfish and dangerous person in the world (think Hitler).

If you were god for a day... And you were a "good" god. You would speak the truth. And because evil and deceit must exist as an opposite to truth (opposites must exist they are dependant on one another) you would surely bring the wrath of hatred against yourself. The more you spread truth the more liars would loath you and want to rid of you. The sad fact being god woukd allow them because he will not kill those who wish him dead. He/she would be good and would understand their flaws no matter how heinous.

Almost no human actually wants the responsibility of godly benevolence burdening their shoulders... No one but god himself/herself. However many different forms and times they may arrive to our aid.

A question I have would be, can anyone else in the position of the God-who-is-for-now-human, also go through the same learning process and gain the same powers? — PhilosophyRunner

Haha an excellent question. Because the ultimate truth is the same/contant and unchanging for any and all people once elucidated. When one is not "God-for-the time being" they still have some erroneous beliefs about ultimate truth to contend with. When they finally break that illusion they deceived themselves with, they inherent the ultimate truth and are rid of deception - even if only temporarily before they eventually forget again - once they welcome back into their life flawed beliefs (by accident through lack of contemplation or on purpose because they are tired of being god and don't want to be moral/benevolent again - ie they want deceit/flaw back again. Then it's anyone else's game to do the same thing again.

In that way gods truth can be shared between anyone as all of them are a part of him/her. People can withold the truth from eachother - which is immoral or they can share it and watch as another becomes more and more aware of who they really are fundamentally. A beautiful thing really to nurture god in another

It would just mean that our logic system is faulty. What we use as a logical system, is a flawed system. — PhilosophyRunner

Of course human logic is faulty. Humans are flawed. Otherwise we would be perfect and godly. The fact that contradictions exist means contradiction is a necessary and true thing for the universe. Contradiction and paradox are not just limits to human logic they define what human logic is. If the ultimate truth didn't include within its set the existence of contradiction then we would never encounter paradox and have no concept for it.

Why does the truth include contradictions then? Because if it didn't... Two subjects couldn't disagree about one thing and both believe they are right. It would violate multiple subjectivity (different beliefs) about reality if contradiction didn't exist.

But in this scenario, God is not really powerless, is he? For he has the power to take back his all encompassing powers, otherwise he will be stuck forevermore as a mere human. — PhilosophyRunner

Only if he/she is always aware of the truth about who they really are - there true nature.
If they simply forget the truth on occasion, they are powerless only because they have the incorrect information to hand about the truth. When they contemplate the truth and hone in on it through the logic of the truth they could resurrect the réalisation of who they are and reassume the truth. In other words they would remember that which they use to know about themselves.

everyone must just get what they deserve. — ToothyMaw

Doesnt everyone deserve a chance to change their ways though? Doesn't everyone no matter how much hurt they caused deserve the free will to start anew and repair the damage they did? I think that is just. Because if we lock up those that hurt us and punish them because they punished us it doesn't makes us any better than them. An eye for an eye doesn't work... Two wrongs don't make a right. We must rise above and forgive because without forgiveness we are imprisoned by what others believe about us. And that is a very sad prospect.

could even just be a human with no powers if he so desired, and could just make himself God again whenever. — ToothyMaw

Sounds sort of fun. To live powerless for a while and allow others have the power and then resume control when needed - for example when there is too much abuse of his/her power and to restore the natural balance of things

But largely that is the God people actually argue for, not some deistic/agnostic formulation, and, thus, that is what I am addressing — ToothyMaw

Could god not be both a person and the universe simultaneously? I mean we are not separate from the universe as a system. The human body is an "open system" of constant exchange with the environment - of energy and matter. If god is omnipotent and omnipresent then I suspect he/she/it could be both human and inhuman.

And if so what might we say of their justness/gods morality. Well as a person god could be just by doing right by others. But sadly in this duality god as the universe is ambivalent - because the system contains both good and evil, both chaos/destruction and order/creation - you cannot have justice and good without its opposite, and you cannot have free will either if only one or the other existed in isolation.

In this way... God as the universe would be flawed but god as a person would be doing their best to do good for others. To spread the truth.

I can imagine a scenario wherein my thoughts are not mine. I've certainly met many people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who claim that the thoughts in their head belong to others. But I imagine we could go broader with mere skepticism. — Tom Storm

Well isn't there two scenarios here...pathologize your thoughts not being your own or spiritualize it?

For example if you told someone " My thoughts are not my own they are part of a greater whole (a god). They could either be like "yeah right this guy thinks he's god. He's obviously delusional" and they could pathologize it as some bipolar disorder or a schizophrenia or some mental illness.

But he didn't say he "was" god he only said his thoughts are part of god. Just like the same way our body is part of the universe. And then well it would be less prudent to admit them to a psychiatric hospital without further enquiry. Just in case this person is not a schizophrenic but a sage or scholar that has studied/ searched for such a thing.

We could ask them what this god is like? And why we should even care? What's the consequences of a god for us? Is it a good god or a bad one?

And if such a person were to give good enough reason and ethical principle to believe, and or to demonstrate that reasoning in practice then maybe it is worth believing?

Is that not what Muhammad (Islam) and jesus (Christianity) tried to do? Demonstrate proof of a god or that their thoughts were with some god?

If they were alive today I wonder would we call them Schizophrenics and lock them away?

Having objective independent existence — T Clark

For me when I ask myself what is "real".. I think of that which is "true". That which exists.

1). I know my subjective experience is true. I have feelings and emotions. They exist. (my mind)

2). I know I am an object. My body exists. I am observable.

3). I know that others are objects in the physical world/universe. They are observable.

4). But I also know that these objects (people) are also subjects like myself (they have a mind).

The issue is:
Only if you agree with all four of these statements you and I are the exact same thing qualitatively and quantitatively from every perspective. We are equals. It would be ethical and rational.

If you disagree with statement 1: i have a mind - then who would you be communicating with right now? It would also be hurtful to my own feelings saying I have no mind of my own. It would not be ethical

If you disagree with statement 2: I have a body - then where am I? (Not rational)

If you disagree with statement 3: others are objects - then where are others bodies? Where are they? (irrational again)


If you disagree with statement 4: other objects are subjects: then again you would be (unethical) where are other people's minds?

That's what is true/ real.

Thank you for the reply!

I am reaching my limit for being in optimal mental capacity for now but I'll be sure to return to this later.

Have a balanced day :) — Universal Student

Haha you too! Have a lovely day :)

My first thought is that the inquiry itself is a helpful place to begin exploring.

My second thought is to determine a basic foundation of what we are dealing with. What is consciousness? What is self-awareness?

Third; what are the barriers?

Fourth; the tools to break down those barriers?

Would love and greatly appreciate to hear your thoughts and will gladly share my own in exchange.

Warm regards — Universal Student

Yes I agree. Positing the question and being curious about it in the beginning is a very good place to start.

My advice would be establishing the boundaries of the self image that you have in your mind in the first place.
Where does your "self" end and "other" begin?

And how many things do you have in common with the "other" beyond yourself and how many do you not have in common?

For example are you made of the same stuff? Is your self just you body? Is it just your mind? Could it be both? Neither? Do you behave in similar ways with what you consider "other". Do you exchange or share things between you and it?

Once you establish what exactly the limits of your "self" are, then you have a propionate "self awareness" no? Have fun with it and stay curious

Most people would agree that there are objects with a location in space and time and exist independently of conscious beings. This position is commonly called “materialism”. But for some reason, some people commonly called “idealists”, believe that there are no such objects. Instead, they claim that conscious beings and their experiences are the basis on which existence itself lies. — Hello Human

In my opinion the two are mutually dependent. What is a subject but an "object that observes" , and what is an object but the "subject of observation."
In that case there is a duality between materialism and idealism. They can cohabitate in that yes there is an objective truth/ a material reality outside of subjects (what scientific method explores and elucidates) but also subjects can never be removed fully from the observable objective reality because subjects can observe eachother.

Subject 1 can observe subject 2 as equally objective to the external environment (philosophical zombie/ mimics or solipsism - but people don't like the idea of being objectified as they see it as unethical, they would also like to exist as an agent) so subject 1 tends to observe subject 2 as both another subject and an object - something physical that has the same rights and protections from full objectification

All I've got is this old bit of scripture:
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
— Matthew 7:16 — 180 Proof

I agree. I think it's reasonable to know a good person by their deeds and not just what they say. Actions speaker louder than words. Hypocrites use words to signal virtue they don't actually themselves embrace pretending to be something they're not. Good people say and do in harmony. They practice what they preach.

Its a simple thing but an important one.