God is in Everybody but not Everybody is Good

[Obvious Leo]

Are you visible, can you see you?

The emergent form of matter and energy that comprises me is visible to anybody with the sensory apparatus to detect it. However I will never be visible to anybody in the form in which I currently am so the observer of me will be required to make his own cognitive map of me as best he can and this map can only ever be based on a holographic representation of me the way I was at some finite time in the past. Obviously I am not exempt from this a priori law of nature when I choose to observe myself. I can only observe a self which exists no longer.



The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

From “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam”

[Dontaskme]

Are you visible, can you see you?

The emergent form of matter and energy that comprises me is visible to anybody with the sensory apparatus to detect it.

So the one seeing your form of matter is invisible then like I said.

You state the sensory apparatus can see you in matter form, so that must be you seeing your self in form then, but what I'm asking is, can you see that one who is seeing you in form, the one you claim to be you.?? I didn't ask if any other body could see you I asked if you could see you.

If you can only see the form, ie: your body, then is it the body seeing itself, or is the body the already seen?

I can only observe a self which exists no longer.

But you are still here else you could not respond to me, so who is this one, can you see this one, since this one must be you?

[Obvious Leo]

Alas my Zwahili is a little rusty so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Dontaskme]

Alas my Zwahili is a little rusty so I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have no idea what your talking about either.

Never the twain shall meet, until they do.

Leo: The emergent form of matter and energy that comprises me is visible to anybody with the sensory apparatus to detect it.

God damn it Leo, who is seeing the energy that comprises you?

You say the sense apparatus detects the visible, but you have not explained how this happens, it's no good just saying something unless you can back up the assertion with evidential fact?

So how does the sensory apparatus detect energy as being visible? visible means something seen, we know something seen, but what I'm asking you is how is something seen? who and where is the seer of the seen?

[Obvious Leo]

I've already told you I don't buy the dualist narrative and you've made no attempt to provide an argument in its favour. The seer and the seen are one and the same.

[Dontaskme]

The seer and the seen are one and the same.

Yes they are. That's what I've been saying, and trying to get you to say it, now you've said it, good, now what is there to philosophise over?

[faulkner1]

I've already told you I don't buy the dualist narrative and you've made no attempt to provide an argument in its favour. The seer and the seen are one and the same.

and who told you dontaskme is into some "dualistic narrative" he/she makes premises that are neither dualistic nor the opposite, it's his/her own premises. Also this dualistic religion is total bs. It assumes a false premise so u can assume another flawed philosophy which is even more nonsense than the first one wrong premise.

The seer is not the same as what he sees, there is no "seen", there is the object, and you see it, or. If you were the same as your cellphone, you wouldnt exist. Not even your brain is the same as a computer

[faulkner1]

That's like saying Zeus is in everyone.

[gaffo]

God is within every being. But it is not necessary that every being is good. The question that arises is how can every being have God, but not be good?

The answer: every being has God because every being is empowered, is ignited, is energized by the power of God. But every being is not good because this being has got its ego and this ego carries with it a mind, memory, an intellect or karmas of past lives and experiences.. And because a being carries its own karmas, its mind, its intellect, it need not be good.

Why are there so many terrorists? Why are there so many thieves, gangsters and rapists? Because these people are experiencing the result of their karmas. The law of karma, being reformative, is reforming these people as they live and equating their karmas or these people are redeeming their karmas with circumstances, actions, pain, pleasure and all kinds of things.

Therefore, remember that everybody has God, but not everybody is good. Our challenge is not to see the ‘everybody’ who is not good, our challenge is to see beyond, and see the God that is within everybody. By seeing that God, our God will always be manifested.

AiR

you make two default assumptions:

1. God is Good.
2. Men are not.

I'm an Athiest and so make no claims upon the nature of God. - and if "He is" - still no matter, you assumption He is good is not to be taken cart blanch.

as for man, prob/maybe my personal bias, but think via default is good.

the bad ignore thier inner voice of goodness and do bad. (so their nature is good, but they kill their inate goodness).

but that is just my view on the matter, could be totally wrong..................i concern myself with my own conscience and so if i;m wrong about my views of others (which is via my understanding of myself and valuing charity) that fine i guess.

[gaffo]

What do you mean by the following?:

"The answer: every being has God because every being is empowered, is ignited, is energized by the power of God."

Has every being told you this is another question?

PhilX

Dear Philosophy Explorer,
When I look up at the ceiling of my office room, I see 20 bulbs that are lit bright and shining. I don’t ask them if they have electricity in them. I can see it. They are bright and lit by the power of electricity that flows through them. That is what I mean when I say every being has God. Our soul, our prana, our chi, our energy, or our Atman ignites and enlivens us, and this is what I mean by every being has God power within.

Does the Devil have God in him?

PhilX

yes - assuming that God exists and Ahriman is His creation...which the "Bible" affirms.

[gaffo]

Let's assume the word "good" refers to "nice" people not much keen on hurting others. In practice, "bad" people are those who damage what you care about.

Why isn't everyone good? Without destruction there can be no growth. Old forms must make way for new ones. These dynamics play out in nature and they play out in humans who are, despite some protestations, also part of nature. So some people are unsettled and tempestuous and therefore more inclined towards destruction than more settled souls. Does it make those people "bad" - on an existential level - or just a natural phenomenon akin to tiny volcanoes, earthquakes and cyclones?

On a personal level there's not much question about goodness and badness, but existentially I'm not so sure. Being a tempestuous and destructive being is a dirty job that diversity dictates someone will inevitably have to do. Be glad if it's not you, and to not come across their paths.

..........sort of get your point.

for myself MOTIVE matters (for to me that relates to the "inner voice")............ACTIONS for mean nothing.

for ex, maybe one guy's actions though he is a dick and ignores his conscience, but his actions just happens to save a 100 kids lives.

the other poor schmuck is villanized for infinity.............he heard his inner voice and acted via his conscience, but sadly his actions unknown to him at that time resulted in the death of 100 kids.

...............

history champions the former and vilanized the latter.

i personally do the opposite.

[Greta]

Let's assume the word "good" refers to "nice" people not much keen on hurting others. In practice, "bad" people are those who damage what you care about.

Why isn't everyone good? Without destruction there can be no growth. Old forms must make way for new ones. These dynamics play out in nature and they play out in humans who are, despite some protestations, also part of nature. So some people are unsettled and tempestuous and therefore more inclined towards destruction than more settled souls. Does it make those people "bad" - on an existential level - or just a natural phenomenon akin to tiny volcanoes, earthquakes and cyclones?

On a personal level there's not much question about goodness and badness, but existentially I'm not so sure. Being a tempestuous and destructive being is a dirty job that diversity dictates someone will inevitably have to do. Be glad if it's not you, and to not come across their paths.

..........sort of get your point.

for myself MOTIVE matters (for to me that relates to the "inner voice")............ACTIONS for mean nothing.

for ex, maybe one guy's actions though he is a dick and ignores his conscience, but his actions just happens to save a 100 kids lives.

the other poor schmuck is villanized for infinity.............he heard his inner voice and acted via his conscience, but sadly his actions unknown to him at that time resulted in the death of 100 kids.

...............

history champions the former and vilanized the latter.

i personally do the opposite.

Where did the motive come from? Are vicious murderers and rapists that way inclined as babies? And if they were always inclined to be bad, that would be ultimately a terrible misfortune of genetics. Life experience tells me that such people are never actually happy; to be wicked is a curse. As I say, "it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it". It's entropy in action on a human scale.

Of course "the wicked" present upbeat display behaviour but it always hides intense stress, anger and sadness. It's simply logical that happy and content people are interested in constructing a good life rather than interfering with others.

[gaffo]

Where did the motive come from?

personally believe motive (conscience) is an inborn instinct.


per the Human a Social Animal

Are vicious murderers and rapists that way inclined as babies?

per my prior post on the matter i believe all men are born with the instinct of conscience as the social animal we call man.

the retrobates have that "inner voice" but "kill/ignore" it for gain at the time the commit immoral acts.

of course this is my view and my "Faith" per my view of man.

maybe i'm utterly wrong as the Theists are WRT to their Gods.............

might be so.

all i can do is try to be honest in my views on the matter and allow to be corrected when given counter evidence.

And if they were always inclined to be bad, that would be ultimately a terrible misfortune of genetics.

indeed it would.

I do not beleive in eugenics and my "Faith" reject the conception that some are born without the "moral gene".

I suspect there are several genes and some are more endowed than others - but none are born without - and that even the lest of those, are not beyond "Salvation" if given a decent environment.

but maybe my faith is missplaced and i'm being sentimental?

who knows.

not me surely.

- i only speak for myself and hope near all others share my nature - if a few do not then they don't and nothing i can do about it (i don't think there are any/many - as a univseral humanist person)

but "faith is blind" sometimes.

so who knows................

Life experience tells me that such people are never actually happy; to be wicked is a curse. As I say, "it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it". It's entropy in action on a human scale.

Of course "the wicked" present upbeat display behaviour but it always hides intense stress, anger and sadness. It's simply logical that happy and content people are interested in constructing a good life rather than interfering with others.

agreed.

[gaffo]

little off topic - but a subject that interest me (warfare)..............still striving to understand it.

Killing is not murder - per the genes of man.

the former is common and even championed within historical context.

ww1/ww2 etc......

the latter not so much.

the "killing gene" must serve a social function for mandkind. otherwise we would not make war.

maybe those that murder are using the same genes in the wrong circumstance? (not really the point of my post - just a thought on the matter).

my point is that War most serve a positive gain for man (in the neolithic realm for sure - now with nucs/etc not so much).

just what "Good" does the "War gene" do for man the animal 20,000 yrs ago?

a matter i've thought about for years now and not gained understanding.

----i have "Faith" that it has to be "Good" via evolution, we are "here" and evolution is about survival. so the "killing gene" has to serve mankind in some way (warfare is too common/excused to be an aboration instead of a central trait of man)