'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
XspartaX

avatar

Posts : 2
Join date : 2012-07-26

PostSubject: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect.    Mon May 27, 2013 2:07 pm

Good and Bad. The two change from culture to culture. That is because different cultures, have different objectives and a different priority given to each objective. There, in order to judge what is correct/incorrect, one must first find a Universal objective. An objective which "wants" to be realized in any position in the Universe. For there to be an objective, there must be a mind which is at least, capable of "creating" this objective. A God, even if it is the Universe itself. If this is untrue, whatever I say from now on, even if the rest of the text is filled with contradictions, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Even in the "extreme" case of killing a neighbor, again, there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is you - Suspect
Let´s "work" with the concept of not being a God in the Universe. Look at that word. Universe. It is everything(don´t get me going on the Multiverse...). Including you. You have a mind. You can create objective(Or at least you have the illusion of choice, in which case it would not be intended by the Universe, but by a God which isn´t the Universe, or, by the "randomness" allowed according to the laws of physics). Since you really are a part of this Universe, I think you can safely say that your objectives are part of the Universes objectives(all which is able to create objectives, are part of the Universes objectives). Even if two people are to be fighting in a ring, in which both wish to win, these are objectives the Universe has. There is no contradiction because it doesn´t mean they both get accomplished(maybe physics would say that both possibilities do happen? Not absolutely sure.). Still.. nothing wrong in the "extreme" case of killing. Or in the "extreme" case of the contradiction. Unless there is no intent to kill, and no intent to be contradictory, because no intent means no mind who created the end result by first establishing what the end result would be. If the Universe really was God, even accidents would cease to be accidents because the floor on which you fell on and died, would still be part of God. It was intended that you fell and died. But not in the case in which the Global Consciousness is called God. These would still be accidents...

 

___________
Can a perfect dad be created by a perfect dad?
Emotions assume a shape - The shape of life.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3501
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect.    Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:38 am

XspartaX wrote:
Good and Bad. The two change from culture to culture. That is because different cultures, have different objectives and a different priority given to each objective. There, in order to judge what is correct/incorrect, one must first find a Universal objective. An objective which "wants" to be realized in any position in the Universe. For there to be an objective, there must be a mind which is at least, capable of "creating" this objective. A God, even if it is the Universe itself. If this is untrue, whatever I say from now on, even if the rest of the text is filled with contradictions, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Even in the "extreme" case of killing a neighbor, again, there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is you - Suspect
Let´s "work" with the concept of not being a God in the Universe. Look at that word. Universe. It is everything(don´t get me going on the Multiverse...). Including you. You have a mind. You can create objective(Or at least you have the illusion of choice, in which case it would not be intended by the Universe, but by a God which isn´t the Universe, or, by the "randomness" allowed according to the laws of physics). Since you really are a part of this Universe, I think you can safely say that your objectives are part of the Universes objectives(all which is able to create objectives, are part of the Universes objectives). Even if two people are to be fighting in a ring, in which both wish to win, these are objectives the Universe has. There is no contradiction because it doesn´t mean they both get accomplished(maybe physics would say that both possibilities do happen? Not absolutely sure.). Still.. nothing wrong in the "extreme" case of killing. Or in the "extreme" case of the contradiction. Unless there is no intent to kill, and no intent to be contradictory, because no intent means no mind who created the end result by first establishing what the end result would be. If the Universe really was God, even accidents would cease to be accidents because the floor on which you fell on and died, would still be part of God. It was intended that you fell and died. But not in the case in which the Global Consciousness is called God. These would still be accidents...

Intention and choice are the result of complex processes taking place in organisms like animals, with the faculties to produce these phenomena. Intention and choice are also abstractions, sensations that these animals attribute, after the fact or at least alongside, to/of the causality of the intentional act itself. Whatever causes the choice also causes or participates in the causality of whatever produces the feeling of "free choice" in us, in that through which the choice manifests.

This is the simple version. The complex version is more difficult, since it includes the fact that human illusions are literally real and possess physical property and causality to humans and to whatever humans influence. Thoughts and feelings are not merely transcendental illusions or epiphenomena, but are tangible and real. What emerges from the brain-body also influences as a cause the brain-body. This is what consciousness is, the complex and insane self-reflection and self-reflexive causal looping and circles of sensate affection taking place between multiple dimensions and levels of physiological-psychological existence. If anything, thoughts and feelings are certainly more important and central to human consciousness than the molecular-atomic levels from which these thoughts and feelings "arise", according to mere science. The base physiological level is only the foundation upon which higher-order expressions of force and causality occur, and to appeal only to the foundation is to exclude the higher emergence, the greater and more comprehensive unities and powers.

That being said, there is no reason for there to be a god or universe perspective or intention, in fact this defies logic. We know what life is, we know what consciousness is, we know what bodies and brains are, so there is no reason to think that phenomena like life and consciousness are able to occur other than how they do, other than how and why they must occur. I could pretend that this grapefruit here in front of me is conscious and aware of itself, that it is a god and participates in the universal divine creation of all things, but that is just a fucking idiotic delusion, it means nothing at all. Consciousness and life are kinds of highly complex and subtle activity of certain kinds of material structures and relations. Where do we see these kinds of structures and relations anywhere out in "the universe" or anywhere other than in more evolved mammals? Nowhere.

To think that the universe requires intention, causality, choice, freedom or consciousness is a gross distortion of basic logic, where it is not only wishful thinking of the intellectually and passionally poor. As to good and bad, good and evil, these are cultural constructs imposed into the individual against which the individual partially reacts and pushes back, forming his own unique interpretation and vantage upon the dominant moral ideas. If one pushes back enough and becomes a creator here, he becomes a philosopher and starts to flirt with self-sufficiency, with true freedom. Ethical ideas and feelings are methods, modes of causing certain things to happen, to potentiate and to hold in existence. These things are other affective and cognitive states. It's all about methods of regulation and relation, regulations regulating other regulations, relations relating other relations. The real concern are the quality and quantity of these, their scope, their capacity to soar, to climb in themselves, to reach and to hold, to suffer, to comprehend and encompass, to discard and abandon, to self-value and to give cause for the emergence of greatness. In short, to apprehend truth. This is the philosopher's method. The philosopher's method is an improvement upon and extension of the method of all life, and until finding coherence in the philosopher life is only half-alive, at best. This is why life constricts the sphere of its awareness and potency-to-act, so that its affection not extend too far and draw itself out beyond the bounds of a contained and limited existence -- it is life's way of self-managing its own self-valuing and meaning in order to not burn out on its own nihilism, in order to create something of a semblance of truth for itself, that it might act, live and enjoy, and find value in itself and its living.


 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful

#Odinwar
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect.    Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:55 am

The philosopher worships that which the Gods worship. Those who worship Gods are our parents, and we are equally thankful, because we understand that all that they are was necessary for us to become, and pitiful, for they are so far below in comprehension as to be like other animals that aren't us. Will our children, too, worship gods? If we do things right, yes. God is lazyness of thought, and the quality of that which one is able to be lazy about determines the quality of the God.

Dionisus gave us wine. The philosopher worships the wine, our parents the Dionisus.

Our gods will be of a higher order, and in distilling atheism, God's worship, from them, new Gods will begin to exist from creations they make (Merlinian creation). Those will be distilled too.

I fucking love evolution.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4068
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect.    Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:04 pm

It is not the reality of 'intention'/'freedom of choice' but the ethics caused by a certain perspective on the idea of these things, that - is real, exists, potentiates. Thus God does not exist, but the idea of God exists and is, where not itself a power, a fuel for a power-generating machine - the religious mind. And when this mind applies itself to 'discover' (invent) further this God, it is possible that this God becomes a ruler over the minds of many men, and thus a solid reality, even though not an entity, but a mere 'word made flesh'.

Worship is thus acceptable (to me) only if it explicitly serves a certain purpose for which a great will has to be summoned. The object of worship (the god) is to be symbolically related to the reality it is meant to help bring about. I look at all religions in this way - a cryptogram of a destiny. It is very tragic to see people being born within the collective compulsive urge to worship for the sake of social acceptance - billions of lives simply sacrificed to the self-fulfilling prophecy of worldly nothingness.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect.    

Back to top Go down
 
God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: