A Simple Theory for God

[Greta]

So you are of the same level of consciousness as a beetle or a microbe?

Who or what do you think this consciousness is that believes it occupies a different level of consciousness to that of a beetle when it is perfectly clear that there is only consciousness or oneness expressing itself as every thing conceptually speaking... as and through embodied awareness.

... Take away the beliefs,thoughts,ideas about any conceptual thing and see what's left ? ....what's there/here then?

What's left is we still have somewhat intelligent and aware human beings and much simpler, less broadly aware beetles.

We might all be made of the same stuff but we are not the same, unless one embraces Olympic class postmodernism.

[Dontaskme]

What's left is we still have somewhat intelligent and aware human beings and much simpler, less broadly aware beetles.

I don't think you understand - human is a concept, and concepts are not aware. Awareness is the only reality... aka LIGHT or GOD

Awareness pervades everything. Is everything. It doesn't have a label, but knows all labels as they arise in it as thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.
No conceptual thing is knowing this..there's just KNOWING one with the knowing.

Intelligence is not a belief, idea, or thought, intelligence is the engine of life, prior to any thought belief or idea about it....it's the invisible heart that drives the whole process. This function is not human or beetle, those are mentally constructed concepts, they don't actually exist in and of themselves. No one has ever seen a human, it's a concept, an idea known by that which has no identity whatsoever yet pervades every aspect of the living universe.

There is the belief that one can see an object, but there is no thing seeing ..there's just seeing...to see a human this ''seeing'' would have to be outside the human looking at the human...the looker simply cannot do that...looking cannot see the looker, so how can it be said that a human is looking at an object when the human is just a concept/idea...has an idea ever been seen...?

Then perhaps one may as well say well I can see myself when I look in the mirror, but even then it is seen that the object seen in the mirror does not actually reveal the looker because an object seen is just the looked upon by the what's looking ..there's still no trace of the looker within the looked upon. The whole universe is just a grand illusion of light and sound for no one.

To assume there are levels of consciousness is an arbitrary constructed idea arising in no thing imagining it's some thing higher or lower, bigger and better, brighter or dimmer. This phenomena is unique in the consciousness expressing as a human as concepts arise forming the illusion of duality. In reality there is no duality. That idea is a phantom functioning of an assumed entity that's not actually there in reality.

The body of the universe is ultimately intelligent no matter what configuration it happens to take evidenced in the functioning itself. We could even say the heart is the most intelligent thing in the whole universe. Yet there is no brain in a heart, so the whole idea of comparison is ridiculous, and who in the heck is here to define intelligence or consciousness as having levels except the phantom idea, I personally don't make comparisons about things like that because what authority do I have to make such?

My guess, is that both the micro and the macro worlds are functioning from the same one intelligence.

[Dontaskme]

In bigger brains we often don't find more complexity, just an endless repetition of the same neural circuits over and over.
Research suggested that bigger animals may need larger brains simply because there was more to control. More nerves were needed to move bigger muscles.

The intelligence of a tiny creature would not necessarily be greater than say a human creature as the intelligence would be in exact perfect proportion to it's size and weight which has nothing to do with the level of conscious awareness a creature has, because creatures are not aware. There is only awareness..it's not a located thing, it's all things everywhere at once. Awareness has no size or weight. Creatures are appearances of awareness. Awareness does not appear in the creature.

The human brain got too big in that it artificially created a mind, a phantom self adding weight to this already weightless formless boundless freedom of beingness.. which is not an intelligent thing to do in all logic. Take the weight of the belief in a separate mind and what's left is effortless living. What's intelligent about separating oneself from the whole not to mention the feelings and emotions that arise with that sense of separation, the feelings of me, me, me, why me, it's a misery and confusion attitude - quite a disadvantage in my opinion.

PS..the beetles are doing exactly the same things as we are, they eat drink poo, and reproduce, they may even build safe havens to rest their weary heads after a long day working to survive, in other words we're all completing the same functions necessary for survival, it's no big deal, and that's about as good as it's ever going to get.

[BradburyPound]

Why make God part of minds of evil and perversion? I'm not sure your model is credible.

What model of God is credible?

A model of the real and true One.

In other words non existent.

[attofishpi]

i am in agreement with you

Stop messing with my emotions, atto -- I've got you on "ignore" (such that I have to actually open your posts in order to read them) -- which means you must have been obnoxious and rude enough for me to do such a thing, even though I've already put whatever-it-was out of my mind.

So where is whatever it was?

What appears to be new is that your are comprehending this connectedness as "God" which i have been banging on to you since you started posting.

Oh dear, what have I done?!! No... that is not the case. I was only using the word "God" to appeal to theists. It appears I succeeded, and now I am an honorary member of theism?!! Eeek! For me, "God" is a word... and I don't even like the word.

Yes its frustrating to know that atheists and theists alike will attribute their misconstrued ideas about what you are actually talking about when the term "God" is raised.
Some years ago i thought about calling it Pluto to alleviate the problem, but then it would be a lot of work to explain my conception of Pluto rather than simply the ruler of the dead.

Theists assign all kinds of things to this idea of "God".

Yes, but not as much as the atheists. In an argument with an atheist regarding 'God' - they will draw on every conceivable piece of the buy bull\koran etc.. and rub your face in it!

That's what has ruined the word for me. "God" has become the name of something definable... and if man can define it, it is distorted and limited by man's agendas and limitations.

Dare i say it, i agree again.

What I speak of, what I feel/sense, what I try to honor -- is not contained in human definitions. I do my best to describe my experiences and the implications they seem to suggest, but I do not have a name for it, nor would I try to rally people to agree or adopt something particular -- because as soon as people do that, THEY become the creators of their own definable creation, and then they worship that creation.

So Pluto is out of the question? I hardly think i would stoop low enough to worship it!

What I feel compelled (for unknown reasons) to do, is to dispel apparent intoxication with anything in particular. If someone is simply sharing the usefulness they find in one thing or another... beautiful. If, however, they are presenting it or themselves as some sort of supremely right or advanced entity/thing, which other people should acknowledge as true, then my radar goes on and I feel inspired to point out that it is ALL human creation, and nothing is more true (for all) than anything else. We can dress things up however we want. What matters is who we are and what we do as a result of it. It seems foolish (to me) to worship "the dressing".

And "God" is a form of dressing (to me).

Now, this is where you could be confusing people me included. Its one thing to say, ok God exists but i don't like wo/man's connotations associated with the word, so i'll call the term God a dressing. And its another thing to say God is a dressing - in other words - call it whatever but there is no God. I think you mean the former, but it doesn't play well in a philosophical debate.

You started this thread "A Simple Theory for God", and straight away people are quizzing you as to your perception as to what this being might be to you, which is great - because in general around here, being a "philosophy forum" people don't immediately jump at applying their own attributes or definitions to God, they're open to your definition first. Now if you posted on a Christian or Atheist forum you'd be in trouble.

Of course! But just as someone is able to present their ideas as fact and reality that others should agree to if they have any sense or morals, then those who don't share those views/conclusions must respond to point out how absurd that "locked-in view" (and self-gratifying view) is. The reason I use such phrasing as "superimposing one's reality/fantasy onto another" is when people claim that NOT BELIEVING THE WAY THEY DO, is some sort of measuring stick for another person. So instead of honoring the divine nature of another person REGARDLESS of their own views, some people think that their reality/fantasy reigns supreme for all... and that, to me, is superimposing one's limited notions (as some sort of "<imate truth") on top of the vast diversity and divine nature that is truly being reflected.

Yes, but all along i've gotten extremely angry at being told i have a fantasy - ya know like ive made up a pile of stuff that renders it a void that should not be subject to rational logical scrutiny. Instead of immediately jumping to "that's your own personal fantasy", you should be looking at the points presented and giving the poster rational logical arguments against it if you see flaws.

I don't know why it APPEARS that way to you, because I truly don't feel that way. On this forum, many of us have a tendency to get a bit passionate with our "arguments" -- and what I react to is when a theist makes all-inclusive conclusive claims. There are two reasons I do this that I see: 1) The idea of God is not a required/definitive universal path for all, and it shouldn't be suggested otherwise; and 2) It seems useful to question everything that humans think they know. That's what my motives are -- I do not see all theists in the same basket. I see a lot of commonality between myself and theists, but I don't follow the story that they do.

How do you know? You don't know all the theist stories, here we are and one of us has a similar belief to what the other once believed but now knows.

I don't care what story they follow. I only care when they tell me that their story is the one true story. Do you see the distinction that I'm making?

Yes, you are closing yourself in when someone simply makes points about what they have come to understand, instead of going at them with hammer and tongs of rational refutation.

My super-Christian mom who had once called me the devil, later told me that I was more spiritual than she was. That was one of those stellar moments when it felt like the universe was giving me a big hug. People get so locked into their IDEAS... that they don't even see the beautiful energy vibrating right in front of them! And belief systems do not magically transform a person's energy from what it is inclined and maintained to be. Religions can become a false front/destination that allows people to lapse into a stupor of believing one self-glorifying thing or another, and excusing themselves for anything, and essentially being blind and lazy and dead to varying degrees. It's just like anything that we sell/give ourselves to so completely. It's unnatural, and I think it causes a kink in the free-flowing life force.

This is what I'm making up... for better or worse... and I'm saying it is as valid of a reality/approach/perspective as anyone else's made-up shit.

No, you are not making anything up. You are rationally deducing from past and present life experience to come to this point of view. There are two points i would like to make IF there is a God. (and remember, you can argue against these points if you wish, but don't ever tell me im having a fantasy - please )

1. through eternal life, how can we all have an equal chance if we are not reincarnated into the path that we deserve.
2. there is a bloody good reason you were born into the family and values that raised you.

[Lacewing]

you must have been obnoxious and rude enough for me to do such a thing, even though I've already put whatever-it-was out of my mind

So where is whatever it was?

I could find it if I had to, but I prefer not to go there. As long as you're being nice, that's all I want to focus on.

Theists assign all kinds of things to this idea of "God".

Yes, but not as much as the atheists.

Where do you think all of this stuff originated? Do you think non-theists just manufactured it out of thin air? Do you think non-theists perpetuate it and make it a part of every day life all by themselves? Or is it actually reflected ALL OVER THE PLACE TO ALL SORTS OF EXTREME DEGREES?

Even if it's not an accurate reflection of YOU... that doesn't invalidate that non-theists are bombarded with it ALL THE TIME. So how can you hold it against non-theists for speaking to THAT?

Its one thing to say, ok God exists but i don't like wo/man's connotations associated with the word, so i'll call the term God a dressing. And its another thing to say God is a dressing - in other words - call it whatever but there is no God. I think you mean the former, but it doesn't play well in a philosophical debate.

Well, as I've said... in the best way I can describe... I don't think there is a god; I think everything is connected, and there is vast potential and power and understanding and perfection through THAT "unity". I don't like the word "God" as a descriptor because of all the connotations associated with it AND I don't believe there is anything that needs to be called out separately from all that is. It's like looking at the ocean, with it's vast forms of life and currents and characteristics and claiming that some part/essence of the ocean is controlling everything, and may even have an agenda. Such a concept just doesn't make sense to me. It makes sense that it's all working together naturally... without agenda.

Yes, but all along i've gotten extremely angry at being told i have a fantasy - ya know like ive made up a pile of stuff that renders it a void that should not be subject to rational logical scrutiny. Instead of immediately jumping to "that's your own personal fantasy", you should be looking at the points presented and giving the poster rational logical arguments against it if you see flaws.

First, I'm sorry if that terminology is so offensive. If someone tells me that I'm living in a fantasy, I laugh... and might even say, "Yes! And isn't it glorious?" I just accept that ALL of this is a fantasy (because of all the potential/colors to paint with)... and we make of it what we will (like artwork that comes and goes). Second, I HAVE asked many questions and made many points to counter or explore what posters are saying or claiming, and usually THAT is completely ignored and skipped over by the poster... BECAUSE (I think) there often IS NO LOGICAL OR CONCLUSIVE ANSWER they can provide... and/or the poster knows that the points are calling their view into QUESTION, and they don't want to go there (they want to see themselves standing on solid, unmoving ground). So, the concept of "a fantasy" remains, because there's really no courageous exploration going on.

I see a lot of commonality between myself and theists, but I don't follow the story that they do.

How do you know? You don't know all the theist stories, here we are and one of us has a similar belief to what the other once believed but now knows.

I'm simply speaking to the belief in a god... that's not a story/idea I share. There may be all kinds of other ideas we do share.

you are closing yourself in when someone simply makes points about what they have come to understand, instead of going at them with hammer and tongs of rational refutation.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't just shut off when someone says they believe in a god -- and I don't just stop listening to what their experience reveals. Is that what you're suggesting? There are wonderful things revealed from every direction. What I DO "go at with fangs and claws" is all the other attitude/ego/righteousness/conclusive/condemnation stuff. THAT is a whole different manifestation... and I think it obscures the beautiful stuff that we could all find in common.

There are two points i would like to make IF there is a God. (and remember, you can argue against these points if you wish, but don't ever tell me im having a fantasy - please )

1. through eternal life, how can we all have an equal chance if we are not reincarnated into the path that we deserve.
2. there is a bloody good reason you were born into the family and values that raised you.

Sure atto, IF there is a god, those points could be one scenario for how it all works. I just think there are so many scenarios that could be... AND I think it can shift continually, based on vibrations on an individual level as well as a broader, more collective level... so I think our human concepts are kind of dinky for comprehending all of that. I don't really believe in "stories" or "plans" on a cosmic level. I just think it's an amazing swirl of ongoing creation and synchronicity, and -- based on my own experiences -- I think we can phase in and out of various vibrations, within which "reality/characteristics" vary.

I think the truth of "what is", is so far beyond human stories and ideas of a god. If we were to look into the source of it, I think we would recognize that we are "it" manifesting into all.

(I will respectfully try to remember not to use the fantasy word against you. If you get me riled up, I may forget.)

[Greta]

What's left is we still have somewhat intelligent and aware human beings and much simpler, less broadly aware beetles.

I don't think you understand - human is a concept, and concepts are not aware. Awareness is the only reality... aka LIGHT or GOD

I do not subscribe to what is essentially radical fundamentalism - not religious fundamentalism - but general fundamentalism. A lack of interest or acceptance in the phenomenon of emergence.

If one boils reality down to "God" then one never again need carry thosee twin burdens of curiosity or interest ever again. That might be a relief for some personalities, but not mine. Curiosity, more than anything, is what gets me out of bed in the morning.

[ken]

What model of God is credible?

A model of the real and true One.

In other words non existent.

If you believe God is non existent, then so be it, but why ask the question what model of God is credible when it appears you do not even believe God exists?

By the way the way you view and define God I also view this God as being not possible and thus non existent also.

[Dontaskme]

I do not subscribe to what is essentially radical fundamentalism - not religious fundamentalism - but general fundamentalism. A lack of interest or acceptance in the phenomenon of emergence.

If you think/believe you have to subscribe to a belief system, then it's that belief about yourself aka the(phenomena of emergence) the one that feels it has to believe in itself.. is lost in the dream story of separation...a lie..and not the truth of what's actually being discussed here, but you being you always divert from what's relevant to the topic discussion using your human mental intellect which I have no interest in obviously. If I wanted to discuss matters regarding the human intellect I wouldn't be writing on a God thread. And that's my job, to debunk everything that is of the human intellect.

So moving on to what is relevant to the topic here...

What or to whom do you think emergence is pointing to? lets talk about that for a minute, explain what you mean exactly by emergence?

What is it that you believe is becoming visible? and for your information, what is manifest is the invisible and that's what I'm interested in, so your comment about lack of interest is confusing to me. Who is the one that lacks interest? ...I'm interested in truth , not lies.

There is no belief required in order to be. Take it from me, who is not stuck in-tention...to lose the tension of who is who here, one simply has to shift from belief to clarity...try using teflon the non-stick method ..a non-stick approach may unhinge any confusion or not, which might be the case with you at this time.

No ''thing'' ever emerged except the idea, which is formless not contracted. Who you are has no interest in any thing other than what it is already being. No man can serve two masters.

If one boils reality down to "God" then one never again need carry thosee twin burdens of curiosity or interest ever again. That might be a relief for some personalities, but not mine. Curiosity, more than anything, is what gets me out of bed in the morning.

What's getting you out of bed in the morning is not who you think it is.
The curious one is the seeker.The seeker vanishes in the sought, because what's sought is what's seeking. I'm just trying to relax the tension, it's time to stop thinking and start living. I mean really start living, when I free myself from thought, is when I really live...effortlessly, and beautifully. It's what I AM

[Dontaskme]

If one boils reality down to "God" then one never again need carry thosee twin burdens of curiosity or interest ever again. That might be a relief for some personalities, but not mine. Curiosity, more than anything, is what gets me out of bed in the morning.

Greta, you are missing the whole point, but it's not your fault. My job is to find just about anything I can just so I can hopefully show you the whole point regarding what the true definition of God actually is. God is not what the human intellect thinks it is.


Question: Is 'Being' compelled to 'find' truth?

Lisa Cairns: Ultimately it's Beingness doing it all, but the way Beingness programs everything is that these bodies are designed to move towards pleasure. For instance: If you listen to a non/dual speaker, the effect for some will be pleasure, so we go back to that (just like we train animals with food). We're just a very complicated animal and we work on the same principal. That, is Beingness finding truth; suddenly it wants to reveal itself again. Therefore, it moves the body most probably through the pleasure sensation towards that message. I doubt the body would stay if it were really painful or uninterested in the subject.

The impulse comes and the body moves towards that pleasure and the 'listening' happens. Really, though, it's not the body listening at all. Ultimately Beingness is the 'body' AND the 'speaker'. Beingness is the body that is listening, and the speaker that is speaking about it. It's playing every role simultaneously. There is no separation.

Question: Ok. So I can't screw up.

Lisa Cairns: No, never. The apparent separate self has always been told that it can screw up, so it will have those sensations of 'doing' something wrong. It lives in the world of "I could go the wrong way".
There is no possible way you could ever go wrong. It's fantastic.

Question: Ok. Cool ! Oh look a butterfly!

[Greta]

DAM, I know you think you are imparting new information to me but I have either thought or read every thought you have written here - all of them. It's all old news, some of it dating back to the ancient Greeks.

However, unlike you, I don't believe those thoughts but entertain them as possibilites. They are just ideas like many others that can't be proven or disproved, and are usually not practical anyway.

[Dontaskme]

DAM, I know you think you are imparting new information to me but I have either thought or read every thought you have written here - all of them. It's all old news, some of it dating back to the ancient Greeks.

However, unlike you, I don't believe those thoughts but entertain them as possibilites. They are just ideas like many others that can't be proven or disproved, and are usually not practical anyway.

So be it, no need to prove what already is unproven.

https://wallpapers.wallhaven.cc/wallpap ... 232622.jpg

Oh yes, but you'll come to the God threads anyway, just in case you feel like you are missing out on something.

[Dontaskme]

DAM, I know you think you are imparting new information to me but I have either thought or read every thought you have written here - all of them. It's all old news, some of it dating back to the ancient Greeks.

If it's old news then how about telling me something I don't know. Can we tell each other anything we don't know?...is that even possible?


None of us have any clue as to what it is we are talking about ..it's just sound believed to mean something, by an invisible mind....aka this dead as a doornail memory we believe is a real person. That's a truth the mind cannot accept/handle.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I do not subscribe to what is essentially radical fundamentalism - not religious fundamentalism - but general fundamentalism. A lack of interest or acceptance in the phenomenon of emergence.

If you think/believe you have to subscribe to a belief system, then it's that belief about yourself aka the(phenomena of emergence) the one that feels it has to believe in itself.. is lost in the dream story of separation...a lie..and not the truth of what's actually being discussed here, but you being you always divert from what's relevant to the topic discussion using your human mental intellect which I have no interest in obviously. If I wanted to discuss matters regarding the human intellect I wouldn't be writing on a God thread. And that's my job, to debunk everything that is of the human intellect.

So moving on to what is relevant to the topic here...

What or to whom do you think emergence is pointing to? lets talk about that for a minute, explain what you mean exactly by emergence?

What is it that you believe is becoming visible? and for your information, what is manifest is the invisible and that's what I'm interested in, so your comment about lack of interest is confusing to me. Who is the one that lacks interest? ...I'm interested in truth , not lies.

There is no belief required in order to be. Take it from me, who is not stuck in-tention...to lose the tension of who is who here, one simply has to shift from belief to clarity...try using teflon the non-stick method ..a non-stick approach may unhinge any confusion or not, which might be the case with you at this time.

No ''thing'' ever emerged except the idea, which is formless not contracted. Who you are has no interest in any thing other than what it is already being. No man can serve two masters.

If one boils reality down to "God" then one never again need carry thosee twin burdens of curiosity or interest ever again. That might be a relief for some personalities, but not mine. Curiosity, more than anything, is what gets me out of bed in the morning.

What's getting you out of bed in the morning is not who you think it is.
The curious one is the seeker.The seeker vanishes in the sought, because what's sought is what's seeking. I'm just trying to relax the tension, it's time to stop thinking and start living. I mean really start living, when I free myself from thought, is when I really live...effortlessly, and beautifully. It's what I AM

The point is not to serve any master but mastery of the self, be that material or spiritual.
Living is to embrace your existential experience, not succumb to false abstractions; which spirit and body both are.

[Greta]

And that's my job, to debunk everything that is of the human intellect.

... it's time to stop thinking and start living. I mean really start living, when I free myself from thought, is when I really live...effortlessly, and beautifully. It's what I AM

I was first contemplating the notion of non-thinking and wordless thought over four decades ago. While you have have only recently learned the trick of switching off your mind and are obviously excited about it, it's been about 45 years for me so forgive me if I seem a little blasé about your "revelations".

There is some irony that philosophy forums are increasingly infected with ignorant people who try to compensate for their intellectual deficits by reddefining ignorance as a virtue, superior to knowledge. If you debate their points then you must necessarily "lose" every time because even in disagreeing you have committed the "sin" of thinking. You must either agree or lose, or better still, ignore.