Personal God

[AfterViewer]

Religious people are like a box of chocalates (assorted). They all will see the bite/light at some time in their lives.

Edited December 27, 2013 by AfterViewer

[Alan McDougall]

Religious people are like a box of chocalates (assorted). They all will see the bite/light at some time in their lives.

 

Some never see the light or have a bite at what they seek.

[SlavicWolf]

I think we have an inborn need of spirituality, of having a higher being to believe in.

 

If you examine cultures that rejected god, you'll find that they don't become more progressive by doing this. Take North Korea for example - even though they openly reject all religious as lies, their own ideology does not differ much from other religions - the leaders of the country are portrayed as absolutely perfect human beings and worshiped like gods. There are even miracles and other supernatural abilities attributed to them, and various personal items that previously belonged to them are treated like relics. So I may say that the country indeed has a personal god - they simply replaced a transcendental god with a secular one.

Edited December 29, 2013 by SlavicWolf

[Alan McDougall]

I think we have an inborn need of spirituality, of having a higher being to believe in.

 

If you examine cultures that rejected god, you'll find that they don't become more progressive by doing this. Take North Korea for example - even though they openly reject all religious as lies, their own ideology does not differ much from other religions - the leaders of the country are portrayed as absolutely perfect human beings and worshiped like gods. There are even miracles and other supernatural abilities attributed to them, and various personal items that previously belonged to them are treated like relics. So I may say that the country indeed has a personal god - they simply replaced a transcendental god with a secular one.

 

Nice post , thanks!

[SlavicWolf]

Of course that doesn't PROVE god. It proves that most people aren't capable of being rational and when they reject one BS, they automatically pick up another. There are thousands of "rational atheists" who believe in ghosts, homeopathy or aliens, others treat Che Guevara almost like a god... That's my point.

Edited December 29, 2013 by SlavicWolf

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I realise this is a few days late, but we are about stretched for staff per the holiday period.

iNow and Alan, chill (though I hope you both have by now). Alan, your response to iNow's question was trollish at best. That being said, iNow, your attack was totally inappropriate. We have a report system. You'd do well to use it to air your grievances instead of crafting insulting outbursts. Alan, you'd best make use of the report system as well if you perceive an infraction rather than attempting to enforce the rules yourself. For the record, the use of WTF really did not warrant your little protest.

[iNow]

If you examine cultures that rejected god, you'll find that they don't become more progressive by doing this. Take North Korea for example...

This is little more than an example of cherry-picking. North Korea clearly has other political and social circumstances to be considered other than a "rejection of god." Perhaps you should explore the Scandinavian countries and how progressive they are without god(s) to make sure you're not forming conclusions based on a false premise. Denmark would be a good place to start given how irreligious they are as a culture and yet how high they score on measures of well-being, social programs, and happiness.

[Phi for All]

 

Really don't agree with you, we humans make gods out of our heroes, any suggestion that differs in the least from yours is always faulty?

 

You're taking your own metaphor too literally. By defining "gods" as anyone/anything we have great adoration for, or follow (figuratively, as in "maintain an avid interest in") closely, you've removed any real meaning the word has.

 

Many of my more religious family members would be greatly offended at your attempt to conflate religious figures with entertainment figures. Of course, the Catholics have had trading cards for the saints for years, but I think even they would draw the line at calling Felix Hernandez a god.

[SlavicWolf]

This is little more than an example of cherry-picking. North Korea clearly has other political and social circumstances to be considered other than a "rejection of god." Perhaps you should explore the Scandinavian countries and how progressive they are without god(s) to make sure you're not forming conclusions based on a false premise. Denmark would be a good place to start given how irreligious they are as a culture and yet how high they score on measures of well-being, social programs, and happiness.

I remember rreading that in Stockholm alone there are around 2000 professional fortune tellers. And they are doing fine. This is regress, not even to polytheism but to shamanism - something even more primitive.

[Moontanman]

You're taking your own metaphor too literally. By defining "gods" as anyone/anything we have great adoration for, or follow (figuratively, as in "maintain an avid interest in") closely, you've removed any real meaning the word has.

 

Many of my more religious family members would be greatly offended at your attempt to conflate religious figures with entertainment figures. Of course, the Catholics have had trading cards for the saints for years, but I think even they would draw the line at calling Felix Hernandez a god.

While I agree with the idea that naming popular people as gods is a misnomer at best I can remember when I was a kid the religious fundamentalists having their collective panties in a knot over various music idols like Elvis and others claiming they were Idols in the literal sense and that the people who liked them were literally worshiping them.

[Alan McDougall]

This is little more than an example of cherry-picking. North Korea clearly has other political and social circumstances to be considered other than a "rejection of god." Perhaps you should explore the Scandinavian countries and how progressive they are without god(s) to make sure you're not forming conclusions based on a false premise. Denmark would be a good place to start given how irreligious they are as a culture and yet how high they score on measures of well-being, social programs, and happiness.

 

You are right, one does not have to be religious or follow any religious dogma or believe in a benevolent God or be frightened of a malevolent God, to be an upright moral person, living a loving family and altruistic life, of the highest ethics. Thus God if he exists, I hope his character reflects that of a human being I have just mentioned if he were the god of my expectations, and not the judgmental angry god of fundamentalists.

 

I would like you to read what I am going to send to fundamentalist believers. As far as the existence or non existence of God, benevolent or malevolent, what we believe or do not believe will not alter the truth, whatever that truth is!

 

Before I became religious I was a well built athlete, both very healthy physically and mentally and did not know what depression was. I rode my bike, exercised every day , without fail, and was progressing at work and at home and I was at peace with myself. After religion entered my life I became a judgmental bigot, and could no longer interact, as I should have, with my fellow workers.

 

I have educated myself over my life time and was expected to dismiss it all and accept what I knew as inane nonsense of fundamental creationists. Been the person I am (If you like how God made me) I could not accept all this rubbish and slowly I became pulled apart by what was obvious truth about the universe I knew and accept the mind bending nonsense of fundamentalists. I then began to unhinge mentally, to the dismay of dad and mom, and long years of unspeakable suffering (Bipolar affective disorder) started to rule my life. I was told by someone that I had a weakness in me, a sort lack of back bone.

 

Mental pain is even worse that any physical pain, there were times, that were so bad, that it was difficult for me to continue to survive even one more second or even a minute because of the unspeakable pain and horror of my mental state. And this was all happening, when I was supposedly held up in the arms of an infinitely powerful loving God. What an oxymoron that situation was?

 

Talk about becoming disillusioned with something you took as absolute truth, words cannot describe what I went through to regain my sanity!

 

Some of the religious fundamentalists I mention below, are my best friends, educated people, but blind to logic in this area of their lives!

 

It was then that I began to struggle with obvious nonsense that fundamental believers, who insisted against all logic on believing, such inane nonsense that the universe and the earth been made by God in just six days. I asked them if he were that good why did he need six days, why not just make the whole thing in a single moment? How on earth could Noah put all the animals, even two of each species into his wooden boat? Did he go to Antarctica to get the penguins, to Australia , to fetch all the Marsupials, to the Artic Circle to find polar bears? The bible says the flood covered all the mountains of the world, then it must have covered mount Everest as well, if this were true, more water would have rained out of the sky , than there was water in all the oceans of the earth, how did all this excess water disappear?

 

I gave them simple examples to prove the earth could not possibly be only six thousand years old. Just one example there are fossilized trees, that have more show scientifically that that they lived long before six thousand year ago. Another simple example I gave, was the ice core taken from the Antarctic ice sheets, which show annual rings similar those on trees, going back hundreds of thousand years. The speed of light is another factor, we know by the red shift of remote galaxies etc that the universe must be billions of years old, but all this logic to no avail, these supposedly intelligent people, continue to insist all of creation was done in a mere six literal 24 hour earth days and the earth is only six thousand years old, in spite of the fact that archeology digs have found human settlements, hundreds of thousand years before present day.

 

If you a ask fundamental creationist , what about the fossils of ancient animals , such as dinosaurs or pre-homo-sapient man, they want us to believe God put them there in the rocks of the earth and confuse the issue, so that we accept the Bible literally and without question, this of makes God into a deceptive liar?

 

In other words God wants us to dispense with reason and logic, let our brains fall out of our heads and become unthinking robots.

 

Alan

[Alan McDougall]

While I agree with the idea that naming popular people as gods is a misnomer at best I can remember when I was a kid the religious fundamentalists having their collective panties in a knot over various music idols like Elvis and others claiming they were Idols in the literal sense and that the people who liked them were literally worshiping them.

That is exactly what I meant, I did not mean the heroes or idols that people worship or adore have any god-like powers, but take the case of the late Elvis Presley, he is long dead, but people still flock to his mansion every year, as if he were a god- like being they would like to resurrect from the dead.

 

Can I go off topic just this once please?

 

I by the way was a fan of Elvis as a boy , but he was not an idol to me, I just loved his rock and roll music especially the song 'I'm all shook up" He really messed it up by taking part in those pathetic plastic movies during the 1960's.

[tar]

Alan,

 

Had a thought as to heros as related to the thought of God.

 

Other people's conception of what it is about the world that they should be cogniscent of, that they should emulate, that they should revere, that they should be judged by and hold themselves responsible to "live up to", is not likely to match the discription of such that a certain person personally has.

 

Heros are outside, objectively experienced examples, of emulatable behavior. God, in most people's minds is the total of all objective, outside reality, viewed as a person to whom everyone and everything is beholding. Thus it is not so strange to hold a certain human, who appears to be "doing it right", as a hero. Such is certainly the case with Mohammed, and Moses, and Jesus, and Sidhartha, and there are contemporary humans like Mendella, or Dawkins, that people hold as heros, to emulate, to "be like".

 

Since the subjective choice of a particular human as the final arbiture and judge of correct thinking and behaviour is not likely to be the "correct" and only choice possible, then the only option left is to go with ones own "personal god", as the trumping consideration.

 

Regards, TAR

And as none of us, can claim sole ownership of objective reality, and it appears that we each and all are members of and are talking about the same, one, objective reality, there is not a significant difference between having the universe as your hero, and believing in a personal god.

Edited December 31, 2013 by tar

[Alan McDougall]

Alan,

 

Had a thought as to heros as related to the thought of God.

 

Other people's conception of what it is about the world that they should be cogniscent of, that they should emulate, that they should revere, that they should be judged by and hold themselves responsible to "live up to", is not likely to match the discription of such that a certain person personally has.

 

Heros are outside, objectively experienced examples, of emulatable behavior. God, in most people's minds is the total of all objective, outside reality, viewed as a person to whom everyone and everything is beholding. Thus it is not so strange to hold a certain human, who appears to be "doing it right", as a hero. Such is certainly the case with Mohammed, and Moses, and Jesus, and Sidhartha, and there are contemporary humans like Mendella, or Dawkins, that people hold as heros, to emulate, to "be like".

 

Since the subjective choice of a particular human as the final arbiture and judge of correct thinking and behaviour is not likely to be the "correct" and only choice possible, then the only option left is to go with ones own "personal god", as the trumping consideration.

 

Regards, TAR

And as none of us, can claim sole ownership of objective reality, and it appears that we each and all are members of and are talking about the same, one, objective reality, there is not a significant difference between having the universe as your hero, and believing in a personal god.

 

Yes if we talk, what we assume to be our subjective truth, we should walk our talk so those who watch us, would not take us as nothing more than another example of a hypocrite. I mean whatever our particular beliefs are, be they religious, atheistic or agnostic, we must abide by them, unless persuaded to change our position on what we believe as truth, by logical argument.

[tar]

Alan,

 

But how should one act, when it is only he, or only she, that is watching? To whom is one ultimately responsible?

 

It can not be just Grandpa and Grandma, Mom and Dad, one's friends and family, one's workmates or heroes, to which one holds themselves responsible. It has to be something that will still be the case after death. Perhaps children, ones own, or those of like kind. Or some image of all Grandpas and Grandmas, Moms and Dads, friends, workmates, fellow beings, and heroes, children and living, feeling, senscient beings that ever were or will be, all meshed together, as one type or sort of thing to be a part of, to care about, and to have your actions and thoughts matter to.

 

While putting a particular subjective limit on the nature and import, characteristics and desires of this overall image is somewhat unlikely to "be as true" for another, as it is for you, there remains the beauty and order and magnificance of the solar system, and the existence of flowers and rainbows, all of which seem to have no claim on having put any thought into being what they are, and seem to have no particular reason to care about anything...except there remains the fact that they have existed, do exist, and will exist, quite without our judgement of them...yet we seek somehow, their approval of our thoughts and actions...as if we are somehow obligated. Either that, or we think we are obligated only to ourselves, which seems sort of a baseless assertion.

 

Regards, TAR

[Alan McDougall]

Alan,

 

But how should one act, when it is only he, or only she, that is watching? To whom is one ultimately responsible?

 

It can not be just Grandpa and Grandma, Mom and Dad, one's friends and family, one's workmates or heroes, to which one holds themselves responsible. It has to be something that will still be the case after death. Perhaps children, ones own, or those of like kind. Or some image of all Grandpas and Grandmas, Moms and Dads, friends, workmates, fellow beings, and heroes, children and living, feeling, senscient beings that ever were or will be, all meshed together, as one type or sort of thing to be a part of, to care about, and to have your actions and thoughts matter to.

 

While putting a particular subjective limit on the nature and import, characteristics and desires of this overall image is somewhat unlikely to "be as true" for another, as it is for you, there remains the beauty and order and magnificance of the solar system, and the existence of flowers and rainbows, all of which seem to have no claim on having put any thought into being what they are, and seem to have no particular reason to care about anything...except there remains the fact that they have existed, do exist, and will exist, quite without our judgement of them...yet we seek somehow, their approval of our thoughts and actions...as if we are somehow obligated. Either that, or we think we are obligated only to ourselves, which seems sort of a baseless assertion.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I really agree with your words above, finding them resonating as true in my inner self, thanks

 

Our legacy should be an important reason for us to live loving, upright moral lives, these attributes require no dogma, but are intrinsic in good people.

 

People who surround us today are part of the present and will also be part of the future. For people who are intellectually enlightened and “tuned in as we suppose we are,” it becomes easy to discount people who have a different perspective from ours as wrong.

 

Yet the future is being created by all of us. If we believe we have a purpose, then so does every butterfly, pocket mouse, and beam of light. We will deposit our legacies into the future>

 

We have all experienced ideas, that we might consider as coming outside of ourselves, such as thoughts that spring from “nowhere,” words that come from our “intuition,” and ideas that persists, why is there evil, do we really have a free will etc.

 

Regardless of our beliefs, the most basic of all questions is., Why does anything exist?

 

I have spent a rather protracted life (73 years in fact) seeking the knowledge of wisdom in action, and the way true to apply what I have learned to my four daughters, who have all turned out exceptional successful human beings.

 

If I could paint a portrait that reflects my life in vivid color, it would contain blotches of dark when I did some things I was not proud of, white of love, red of suffering, grey of indecision, black of depression, rays of rainbow light of hope and joy, blue of peace, green of the beauty of nature. By taking a few steps back to observe my portrait at some distance I think I would see a composite that satisfies me and gives me reason to hope that it will hang on the mental walls of all those who have known me during my life and all also in the hearts of those people that will come long after my passing from this very brief mortal realm.

 

Alan

[Moontanman]

Alan,

 

But how should one act, when it is only he, or only she, that is watching? To whom is one ultimately responsible?

 

It can not be just Grandpa and Grandma, Mom and Dad, one's friends and family, one's workmates or heroes, to which one holds themselves responsible. It has to be something that will still be the case after death. Perhaps children, ones own, or those of like kind. Or some image of all Grandpas and Grandmas, Moms and Dads, friends, workmates, fellow beings, and heroes, children and living, feeling, senscient beings that ever were or will be, all meshed together, as one type or sort of thing to be a part of, to care about, and to have your actions and thoughts matter to.

 

While putting a particular subjective limit on the nature and import, characteristics and desires of this overall image is somewhat unlikely to "be as true" for another, as it is for you, there remains the beauty and order and magnificance of the solar system, and the existence of flowers and rainbows, all of which seem to have no claim on having put any thought into being what they are, and seem to have no particular reason to care about anything...except there remains the fact that they have existed, do exist, and will exist, quite without our judgement of them...yet we seek somehow, their approval of our thoughts and actions...as if we are somehow obligated. Either that, or we think we are obligated only to ourselves, which seems sort of a baseless assertion.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I don't see how being obligated to ourselves is a problem. Why should something after death "be" much less be something we are responsible to and why shouldn't being responsible to ourselves ultimately be the most important thing? I have to live in my own skin, I know what is right and what is wrong both internally and externally, they might not always agree but not being ashamed of my own actions is far more important than what some "thing" outside of reality feels about "me".

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Well there is the rub. To be something is exactly not being everything else, but the distinction requires the rest to be so.

 

It is certainly a question of mine, as to how far into the future one should hold themselves responsible, since, as you state, the "being" part seems to end at death, and with it any further interaction...good or bad...except I have already a kinship and feeling of belonging to this universe. I already know about stars that themselves have a lifetime, and that they are locally of the second and third generation sort...that the heavier elements and such that make up the Earth and its environs where part of the enviroment from which life emerged, and that the coming together of chemicals in a certain allowable pattern, was repeated long ago in the formation of mitochondria that acknowledged and remember itself, and reproduced the pattern so that even fleeting it was real. Undeniably real.

 

And as the people that lived in the 19th century are dead now, they are also alive in our memories, and our genes, and that being the case, it will also be the case that us now will be in the memory...our legacy as Alan puts it...in the consciousness of conscious people in the 23rd century. People die, but peopleness has not ever been extinguished, since the dawn of Man.

 

So there is good reason to believe in life after death. Just not your own particular example of it.

 

So if I were to die, those and that that I have touched in my life would still be alive, and remember me, and when they die, those and that that they have touched will remember them.

 

Knowledge of this condition...of being both mortal and distinct, and in and of a greater thing, is in my estimation, the proof of, and the nature of the thought of God, or of spiritual thoughts, or religious understandings of all sorts.

 

One might consider it impossible for hydrogen, even after 13.6 billion years to become a peanut butter cup...except it did, so its not impossible. So if life grabbed form and structure from a universe tending toward entropy, and reproduced the pattern for this brief and fleeting moment that life on Earth might be considered, then its already a victory, we are already established, and have already won the rights to be us, and if we so desire, can consider it a collective, complicated effort, in which no part did not play a role.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Lightmeow]

I think we have an inborn need of spirituality, of having a higher being to believe in.

 

If you examine cultures that rejected god, you'll find that they don't become more progressive by doing this. Take North Korea for example - even though they openly reject all religious as lies, their own ideology does not differ much from other religions - the leaders of the country are portrayed as absolutely perfect human beings and worshiped like gods. There are even miracles and other supernatural abilities attributed to them, and various personal items that previously belonged to them are treated like relics. So I may say that the country indeed has a personal god - they simply replaced a transcendental god with a secular one.

 

I agree with this. With North Korea, they still in touch with the primitive self. Also, they are using their leader, as a metaphorical way to have a god, without having one. This, in a sense is kind of like what the Egyptians did, with their pharaohs. I guess that any god is a metaphor to something, like how the Greeks and Romans used Zeus for lightning, est.

 

I feel like this is also were religion gets all screwy. Most of the books, id est Bible among others, would say that man was created for the universe. Now if we were to find intelligent life, we would have to ditch all religions, because I highly doubt that the green martians are worshiping an old bearded man, and a guy that was nailed to a cross. Then they would say that those people are metaphors, and religion would evolve, like it did when we found out that Venus had phases or that the Earth was not flat. I have no clue about religion, and sometimes can's discuss it, so thats why I go to politics.

 

Regards

[Alan McDougall]

Moontanman,

 

Well there is the rub. To be something is exactly not being everything else, but the distinction requires the rest to be so.

 

It is certainly a question of mine, as to how far into the future one should hold themselves responsible, since, as you state, the "being" part seems to end at death, and with it any further interaction...good or bad...except I have already a kinship and feeling of belonging to this universe. I already know about stars that themselves have a lifetime, and that they are locally of the second and third generation sort...that the heavier elements and such that make up the Earth and its environs where part of the enviroment from which life emerged, and that the coming together of chemicals in a certain allowable pattern, was repeated long ago in the formation of mitochondria that acknowledged and remember itself, and reproduced the pattern so that even fleeting it was real. Undeniably real.

 

And as the people that lived in the 19th century are dead now, they are also alive in our memories, and our genes, and that being the case, it will also be the case that us now will be in the memory...our legacy as Alan puts it...in the consciousness of conscious people in the 23rd century. People die, but peopleness has not ever been extinguished, since the dawn of Man.

 

So there is good reason to believe in life after death. Just not your own particular example of it.

 

So if I were to die, those and that that I have touched in my life would still be alive, and remember me, and when they die, those and that that they have touched will remember them.

 

Knowledge of this condition...of being both mortal and distinct, and in and of a greater thing, is in my estimation, the proof of, and the nature of the thought of God, or of spiritual thoughts, or religious understandings of all sorts.

 

One might consider it impossible for hydrogen, even after 13.6 billion years to become a peanut butter cup...except it did, so its not impossible. So if life grabbed form and structure from a universe tending toward entropy, and reproduced the pattern for this brief and fleeting moment that life on Earth might be considered, then its already a victory, we are already established, and have already won the rights to be us, and if we so desire, can consider it a collective, complicated effort, in which no part did not play a role.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Moontanman,

 

Well there is the rub. To be something is exactly not being everything else, but the distinction requires the rest to be so.

 

It is certainly a question of mine, as to how far into the future one should hold themselves responsible, since, as you state, the "being" part seems to end at death, and with it any further interaction...good or bad...except I have already a kinship and feeling of belonging to this universe. I already know about stars that themselves have a lifetime, and that they are locally of the second and third generation sort...that the heavier elements and such that make up the Earth and its environs where part of the enviroment from which life emerged, and that the coming together of chemicals in a certain allowable pattern, was repeated long ago in the formation of mitochondria that acknowledged and remember itself, and reproduced the pattern so that even fleeting it was real. Undeniably real.

 

And as the people that lived in the 19th century are dead now, they are also alive in our memories, and our genes, and that being the case, it will also be the case that us now will be in the memory...our legacy as Alan puts it...in the consciousness of conscious people in the 23rd century. People die, but peopleness has not ever been extinguished, since the dawn of Man.

 

So there is good reason to believe in life after death. Just not your own particular example of it.

 

So if I were to die, those and that that I have touched in my life would still be alive, and remember me, and when they die, those and that that they have touched will remember them.

 

Knowledge of this condition...of being both mortal and distinct, and in and of a greater thing, is in my estimation, the proof of, and the nature of the thought of God, or of spiritual thoughts, or religious understandings of all sorts.

 

One might consider it impossible for hydrogen, even after 13.6 billion years to become a peanut butter cup...except it did, so its not impossible. So if life grabbed form and structure from a universe tending toward entropy, and reproduced the pattern for this brief and fleeting moment that life on Earth might be considered, then its already a victory, we are already established, and have already won the rights to be us, and if we so desire, can consider it a collective, complicated effort, in which no part did not play a role.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

We know scientifically that energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed into another form. Our mortal bodies are just bundles of composite energy of a particular type and form, we do not know for sure if consciousness is powered by energy or not. However, is it so far fetched to suppose on death of our physical body,that the energy that had sustained its form in life could, dissipates and evolve into a different form of energy and life form that might appear ghostly to us. We know neutrinos hardly interact with solid matter and can go through the entire planet without slowing down.

 

Why then is it so far out to hope that we might continue evolve into other forms of energetic life after we perish, maybe in this hypothetical afterlife, entropy would have a much lesser effect/affect on it, and this gives us hope for existing far beyond the barriers imposed on us by human evolution?

 

There is one thing I would like to mention about consciousness, it has no barriers like the walls of our homes,or the confined of our brains, we can expand our consciousnesses to embrace the whole universe, just by using our imaginations.

 

Was it Albert Einstein who quoted 'The universe is not stranger than you think, it is stranger than you can think"

Edited January 1, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[tar]

Alan,

 

Well, if consciousness seems to have no barriers, then a single consciousness, thought to be contained in a human, would not be limited to the confines of that human. You would have sort of a logical problem in that although you can imagine your consciousness containing all things...it really does not. Holding a image of a thing, is not the same as holding the thing. And in the other direction, if you think about Cleveland, is your consciousness actually IN Cleveland? I think not.

 

But in terms of what a "personal god" is made of, I think it is related to thinking. That is, thought itself, is not limited to physical rules, and can take short cuts, break physical rules, see patterns where desired, make analogies, switch grain size, flip perspectives, and make metaphores and such, that don't really have to "work" and fit together with reality.

 

If you hear a small noise behind you, you can imagine turning around and seeing a monster standing there, or a mouse, or imagine that its "nothing", and if you were to turn around, you would see the room exactly as you remember it. But you really can not be sure, based on your imagination, what the case is. You have to turn around and see.

 

So imagination might seem to have no limits or barriers, but it really does. It is limited to what has already been internalized and memembered, and by definition, is not the actual thing, but an image of it.

 

I don't think we can really talk of consciousness as a substance or creature or energy existing in the external world, if its so obviously a thing that works only in the imagination, and does not fit the rules of the external, waking world.

 

Regards, TAR

As an example, I heard a Catholic man say that he knew what the Nuns where proposing was not real, the first time they lied, and where NOT stuck by lightning. (or otherwise admonished by hand of God).

 

It appears to me that someone else's personal god has NO effect on me, that I do not imagine, myself.

 

This leaves open the possibility of agreeing on the same image, and going by it, but does not make the image real to anybody or anything that does not agree.

Perhaps the subject of personal gods becomes somewhat complicated when many hold an image of the same one. Such a collective image could certainly be proposed as a explanation for the major religions of the world.

 

Take the Muslim Religion for example. 10s of thousands of people cirlcing the stone, reciting Mohammed's words. Sort of a mass self hypnosis, backed up by the fact that everyone else is reciting the same words, and holding the same image. It becomes thusly "real" in the external world, by virtue of the image's existence in the consciousness of so many others.

Edited January 2, 2014 by tar

[Alan McDougall]

 

Alan,

 

Well, if consciousness seems to have no barriers, then a single consciousness, thought to be contained in a human, would not be limited to the confines of that human. You would have sort of a logical problem in that although you can imagine your consciousness containing all things...it really does not. Holding a image of a thing, is not the same as holding the thing. And in the other direction, if you think about Cleveland, is your consciousness actually IN Cleveland? I think not.

 

But in terms of what a "personal god" is made of, I think it is related to thinking. That is, thought itself, is not limited to physical rules, and can take short cuts, break physical rules, see patterns where desired, make analogies, switch grain size, flip perspectives, and make metaphores and such, that don't really have to "work" and fit together with reality.

 

If you hear a small noise behind you, you can imagine turning around and seeing a monster standing there, or a mouse, or imagine that its "nothing", and if you were to turn around, you would see the room exactly as you remember it. But you really can not be sure, based on your imagination, what the case is. You have to turn around and see.

 

So imagination might seem to have no limits or barriers, but it really does. It is limited to what has already been internalized and memembered, and by definition, is not the actual thing, but an image of it.

 

I don't think we can really talk of consciousness as a substance or creature or energy existing in the external world, if its so obviously a thing that works only in the imagination, and does not fit the rules of the external, waking world.

 

Regards, TAR

As an example, I heard a Catholic man say that he knew what the Nuns where proposing was not real, the first time they lied, and where NOT stuck by lightning. (or otherwise admonished by hand of God).

 

It appears to me that someone else's personal god has NO effect on me, that I do not imagine, myself.

 

This leaves open the possibility of agreeing on the same image, and going by it, but does not make the image real to anybody or anything that does not agree.

Perhaps the subject of personal gods becomes somewhat complicated when many hold an image of the same one. Such a collective image could certainly be proposed as a explanation for the major religions of the world.

 

Take the Muslim Religion for example. 10s of thousands of people cirlcing the stone, reciting Mohammed's words. Sort of a mass self hypnosis, backed up by the fact that everyone else is reciting the same words, and holding the same image. It becomes thusly "real" in the external world, by virtue of the image's existence in the consciousness of so many others.

 

 

Of course imagination, which is a process of consciousness does not always reflect reality, but it can, I am able to imagine the moment I met my wife, so many years ago, almost as vividly as the real event. Imagination is limited, but the question that begs an answer is whether our consciousness is confined to the brain neurons in our head, or can it exists as some sort of an entangled quantum field, hovering outside our physical brains, if this were true then maybe my idea of consciousness embracing a greater reality might be a possibility

 

Below is a little essay I wrote some time ago

 

My faith is that something much greater than myself exists and that I am tiny fragment of that great tree, which gives me hope and joy that that my life could continue into the infinite and eternal.

 

Are we not all a continuum of conscious energy like a keyboard from the slow waves of the electromagnetic spectrum, all the way into the highest frequency waves of localized composite energy fields so maybe I shall continue to play my whole living keyboard with every blessed cell in my body and with my whole heart and mind until it is so until I achieve my goal of everlasting life.

 

The uncertainty in the predictability of the actions of quantum particles like electrons, indicates a seemimngly presence of self awareness/consciousness in them! All matter finally boils down to these quantum particles. So, does this might suggest that universe is self aware, and is this awareness spread across all things, that make up this universe, starting from the quantum particles to the macro universe itself. Thus the universe could be the highest level of awareness?

 

If the universe were self aware, then what is your/my awareness all about? Probably we are a low levels of discrete awarenesses, that becomes complete when they merge finally with the higher level universal awareness?

 

The entire universe might just an infinitesimal fragment, of a much Greater Reality, to whom everything must evolve towards and all existence a process of ongoing evolution from the moment of creation , if such an event really happened..

Edited January 2, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[tar]

Alan,

 

Nice poem/essay/thing.

 

I have not yet "figured out" where to draw the line between metaphor and that which the metaphor is about. Perhaps "a line" would not do the job.

 

Does art imitate reality, or is it a real reflection of it?

 

Its like trying to determine what cold is, in and of itself, when cold is just the absence of heat, without any "substance" of its own.

 

I will have to pass on any kind of response that would link back to the topic of personal gods. I am rather at a loss at the moment in terms of any "based" response. We might just have to leave it, at that...a dream/feeling/knowledge of connection to some greater thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Alan McDougall]

Alan,

 

Nice poem/essay/thing.

 

I have not yet "figured out" where to draw the line between metaphor and that which the metaphor is about. Perhaps "a line" would not do the job.

 

Does art imitate reality, or is it a real reflection of it?

 

Its like trying to determine what cold is, in and of itself, when cold is just the absence of heat, without any "substance" of its own.

 

I will have to pass on any kind of response that would link back to the topic of personal gods. I am rather at a loss at the moment in terms of any "based" response. We might just have to leave it, at that...a dream/feeling/knowledge of connection to some greater thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I think we all have a profound need for something greater than ourselves to guide us through life, it could be the works of a wise philosopher, or a righteous king, as per Plato's republic or Christ. When little children this is usually their father as was most definitely true in my case. Most of us fear death, we try to put it into the attic of our minds, but every now and again we are forced to recognize the absolute certainty that it will ultimately happen to us in a very personal way. My recent very near approach to actually dying in 2011, due to total AV heart block was a very sobering event, indeed!

 

Below is a poem I wrote some years ago when I was reflecting about death/god etc.

 

Infinity Road

 

As I approach the infinite long dark night

I resist and resist it with all my might

I try and try to comprehend this end

This final end which all men must descend

 

It a sleep that all must take?

Or is it an eternal end that all must make?

I like to dream of awakening in light not dark

In a beautiful place to which all righteous men depart

 

Do we sleep the sleep of forever?

Or do we awake some other place Altogether?

Does the answer to this ultimate question

Remain forever a process of eternal redemption?

 

On one glorious day from timeless sleep I awoke

And heard a beautiful and kind voice that sweetly spoke

My faithful son at last you have became to understand

Exactly your place in this troubled land

 

You my beloved have truly never ceased to seek

The infinite destiny that in eternity for you I keep

So for you and your family no eternal death awaits

Because of your zeal to know your fate

 

Soon I will bring you all to this most Holy Place

And there I will you never forsake

Very soon, you shall hear a sweet call in the dark of night

Come, come into the Holy Glory of the Father Spirit of Mighty Might

 

I walk in the cool of evening along sweet meadows I have never seen

I smell the beauty of grasses that have never been

Strange golden streams of crystal water flows

As blue glory of mighty skies above glows

 

I search the long forgotten memories in the attic of my mind

Along the twisted channels the very depth soul that I could not find

I see before me things so wonderful I knew from long ago

I puzzle over the enigma of knowing what I do not know

 

Out there far beyond the knowledge of any man is revealed

Something of such great mystery to it my heart had appealed

Why have I on this one thing so many years stalled?

Is this infinite knowledge from many man would be appalled?

 

Walking on through the shade of great trees that give eternal life

I hear the sweet forgotten voice that comes to free all from everlasting strife

High green new grasses in this new do land grow

As transparent waters chuckle dance, sparkle, and flow

 

Alan McDougall16/2/2007

 

© Alan McDougall 2013

Edited January 2, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[Rajnish Kaushik]

my reply is straight that

I have my personal god and they are my Parents only my god (personal)