Defining god, god is a possibility

[Artimas]

So we have to define things better so that we may move forward, language evolves and is the first step in ones own evolution, understanding language and defining it logically/reasonably.

So we may begin with some very basic definitions of what god is and other content of the holy Bible’s/texts around the world.

The very god one talks about in the Bible is knowledge(subconscious), any sin in the Bible being talked about is anything of which may lead to ignorance from desire. The subconscious is the external aspect of god, consciousness is the trap of which one may fall into desire or too literal of thinking which leads to no understanding of what one may know, if ignorant and continuing in such ignorance.

The aspect of free will is to choose a path of fear which possibly leads to wisdom/understanding or a path of satisfaction(more fear in disguise as temporary relief in a present moment)

So if this is how god is defined and talked about as,
is knowledge not eternal, yet absolute?
Is knowledge not perfect in its design and how it functions with and in striving to understand it?
Is ignorance (hell) not imperfect?
Is living in ignorance (hell) also not eternal death with the reward of temporary satisfaction? Thus is the trap of desire within the present moment of which one interacts with, death by choice by the determination of value on the literal/physical, which value is subjective, hence a will being free in seeking wisdom.

Who remembers an ignorant man in history unless to make example of him to avoid error? Hence, ignorance is living death and eternal in its trap.

An angel - another individual whom crosses ones path who offers an explanation through an understanding in something that another individual may not understand or know yet. One whom appears authoritative to one whom knows less, yet humble to he who understands the same amount or more.

Prophet - One whom understands their connection to the external force of the subconscious and its messaging through imagery to the conscious mind (god). One whom spends the majority, if not their whole life dedicated to correlating the imagery into words for the general public to understand as well.

A demon - an individual whom crosses ones path who offers no explanation based off of understanding but instead one whom has a lesser understanding if any, one whom is trapped in ego, not humble or seeking to learn from another whom, may be easily spread and can be eternal based off of choice.

Circumcision in the Bible - cutting of the foreskin to lessen the potency of ‘desire’ through sex. What other use is cutting the nerves off if not an attempt to weaken the potency of desire? Less pleasure = less potency of possibility entrapment of satisfaction/ignorance.

Unclean - any and everything that may lead one down a path of ignorance and it’s traps.


The subconscious has no discretion of time, proof? Observe the subconscious animals in nature and try to find me their clock which they invented or conscious measurements of change they have developed.

So if the subconscious is the external force of god and also has no discretion of time, when one speaks with the subconscious, they speak with something of the future, perhaps oneself of the future for whom would deem one important enough to give such profound messaging other than oneself and ones seeking it.
The reason the subconscious has to use imagery is because it is how we function, we must attach imagery in order to understand something, if not, describe to me, blue, without attachment of an image of it and so with imagery one must be humble and accepting to understand.

So here we have proven,
God is eternal, god is absolute, god is timeless and also the language in which god has to speak, through the only definitions that may make sense, thus if it makes sense through logic/reason, it is truth.

Please, feel free to add on or come with questions of what other things in the Bible may mean, I am still working on correlating everything because I am still alive and seeking understandings.

[Dan~]

I believe the main argument for the jewish god is in reverse order.

Firstly, God exists, why? Because everything needs a cause and a creator.
Why does everything need things? Mysteriously things have causes and needs.

God is this, therefor x and y.
Instead of there is x and y, how does these things effect what God is like.

The earth has a fair amount of predators.
Does that mean God wants predators and predation?

There is war; does that mean God wants war?

Why is God all powerful?
What if that is because the theologens feel a great need for gods?
They never even kicked the bucket of the concept of a universal satan figure.
That is definitely a problem.

[Dan~]

Christians in many cases believe that bad can come about, almost spontaniously out of thin air.
Normally, we can say : heat = heat. Cold = cold.
That is all fine, but what if good = good, and evil = evil?
How can pure goodness (God) produce evil things?
They would say God is incapable of evil.
But if God causes all, then what is he like?

[Artimas]

I believe the main argument for the jewish god is in reverse order.

Firstly, God exists, why? Because everything needs a cause and a creator.
Why does everything need things? Mysteriously things have causes and needs.

God is this, therefor x and y.
Instead of there is x and y, how does these things effect what God is like.

The earth has a fair amount of predators.
Does that mean God wants predators and predation?

There is war; does that mean God wants war?

Why is God all powerful?
What if that is because the theologens feel a great need for gods?
They never even kicked the bucket of the concept of a universal satan figure.
That is definitely a problem.

Predators are subconscious, not conscious, so how can a predator understand fully of what it does, can it be wrong or bad if it doesn’t understand? If there is no predator then there is too much prey and if no prey then there is no predator or a point to being one. Predators actually create fear along with their environmental benefits, which fear as you already know is a key aspect in evolution and conscious evolving.


Free will does exist, a choice between remaining ignorant and choosing education struggle/fear vs temporary relief and comfort. Man chooses war due to fear created by the illusion of temporary satisfaction. War has two reasons, one stemming from lack of education and one stemming from reason, to deal with tyrannical populace that come from ignorance.


The subconscious mind will criticize the conscious mind if it understands the causation/effects of bad intentions, this is guilt, remorse, etc. When one understands something wrong there are negative emotions and other facets that are hellish experiencing. Guilt and judgement from subconscious is integrated into our being unless ones body or mind is dysfunctional. (Psychopathy)


There is no need, it just is. Call it what you will but it exists as the very system we participate in and the very capabilities of the subconscious mind and it’s warning of and to the consciousness’ negative aspects and being illusory.

Satan was actually a metaphor for light coming to Earth. Which light brings knowledge along with consciousness evolving out of the subconscious.
Satan is the very ability of being a conscious entity able to observe subconsciousness in physical reality and in unlimited mind. The subconscious to tests humanity since we are conscious of it of which a range of bad and good comes from desire, though ultimately it is our own conscious choice of picking which path to follow, illusory satisfaction or confronting fear which may lead to knowledge. Consciousness is illusory as well.

Mankind is the beast described in the “mark of the beast” it is a metaphor of man whom lets desire and instinct take over their consciousness and the evils they commit from the point of ignorance they stand from.

[Artimas]

Christians in many cases believe that bad can come about, almost spontaniously out of thin air.
Normally, we can say : heat = heat. Cold = cold.
That is all fine, but what if good = good, and evil = evil?
How can pure goodness (God) produce evil things?
They would say God is incapable of evil.
But if God causes all, then what is he like?

Well god doesn’t because god is wisdom, wisdom is good and requires humility and a just/ethical obligation. All evil stems from points/aspects of ignorance.


God is both wisdom to be sought through consciousness and also the subconscious aspects of reality. So wisdom is good and a entity(predator) that is subconscious does not understand, (innocence).

So there is no evil of which stem from god.
Wisdom is unbiased, humanity is what uses it from standpoints of understanding or standpoint of ignorance(lack of understanding).

Evil requires intent, truly understanding prevents intent.

God also isn’t a he, it is one thing, though it has many masks or faces.

One has to be conscious at a high level, to use or even have knowledge. Therefore consciousness is free will. Also due to knowledge existing and one having to feel pain in order to understand. The will may only become more free by pursuit of an understanding of which has requirements and sacrifices.

[Prismatic567]

So we have to define things better so that we may move forward, language evolves and is the first step in ones own evolution, understanding language and defining it logically/reasonably.

So we may begin with some very basic definitions of what god is and other content of the holy Bible’s/texts around the world.

The very god one talks about in the Bible is knowledge(subconscious), any sin in the Bible being talked about is anything of which may lead to ignorance from desire. The subconscious is the external aspect of god, consciousness is the trap of which one may fall into desire or too literal of thinking which leads to no understanding of what one may know, if ignorant and continuing in such ignorance.
...
...
Please, feel free to add on or come with questions of what other things in the Bible may mean, I am still working on correlating everything because I am still alive and seeking understandings.

Your OP need to more precise, does it mean,

1. God is possible to be thought only
2. God is possible to be thought and real
3. God is possible as (whatever predicate)
4. God is possible -whatever ??

Note the 'subconscious' is only relevant to the human mind.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... bconscious

There are talks of animal consciousness but it is different from human consciousness that has a higher degree of self-awareness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

God is only relevant to theists but not to every human.
There are various properties that are attributed to what theists deemed to be a God, i.e.

1. An entity or Being.
2. an empirical God
3. a transcendental non-empirical God, aka the Absolute
4. ?

This Being aka God has its own specific consciousness, i.e. God consciousness.
The problem is how can you talk of God if you have not proven God exists as real?

If it is real [to me it is impossible] how can you reconcile God's consciousness to human consciousness or its subconsciousness which are both brain activities?

My thesis is;
1. There is no real God existing as real, God is an impossibility to be real.
2. The idea [philosophical] of God is an emergence out of the human mind [psychology] to deal with a desperate inherent existential crisis of a person.

[Artimas]

So we have to define things better so that we may move forward, language evolves and is the first step in ones own evolution, understanding language and defining it logically/reasonably.

So we may begin with some very basic definitions of what god is and other content of the holy Bible’s/texts around the world.

The very god one talks about in the Bible is knowledge(subconscious), any sin in the Bible being talked about is anything of which may lead to ignorance from desire. The subconscious is the external aspect of god, consciousness is the trap of which one may fall into desire or too literal of thinking which leads to no understanding of what one may know, if ignorant and continuing in such ignorance.
...
...
Please, feel free to add on or come with questions of what other things in the Bible may mean, I am still working on correlating everything because I am still alive and seeking understandings.

Your OP need to more precise, does it mean,

1. God is possible to be thought only
2. God is possible to be thought and real
3. God is possible as (whatever predicate)
4. God is possible -whatever ??

Note the 'subconscious' is only relevant to the human mind.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... bconscious

There are talks of animal consciousness but it is different from human consciousness that has a higher degree of self-awareness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

God is only relevant to theists but not to every human.
There are various properties that are attributed to what theists deemed to be a God, i.e.

1. An entity or Being.
2. an empirical God
3. a transcendental non-empirical God, aka the Absolute
4. ?

This Being aka God has its own specific consciousness, i.e. God consciousness.
The problem is how can you talk of God if you have not proven God exists as real?

If it is real [to me it is impossible] how can you reconcile God's consciousness to human consciousness or its subconsciousness which are both brain activities?

My thesis is;
1. There is no real God existing as real, God is an impossibility to be real.
2. The idea [philosophical] of God is an emergence out of the human mind [psychology] to deal with a desperate inherent existential crisis of a person.

That thesis only works on ones who deem it as a literal being in the sky, or are trapped in delusion.

Knowledge is real, the subconscious is real, consciousness is real, light is real, dark is real, psychology is real and the list goes on.

These things all have to do with god. I have defined god above, it is knowledge as well as the subconscious interface.

If knowledge is power then god is all powerful, if god is knowledge then he is also all knowing, if the subconscious of which god functions as, in and with, cannot differentiate time then that is the source of knowing all for it knows the future and the present of which we only consciously know the past to the best of our abilities.

So are you saying ideas don’t come to you but you to them? Are you denying knowledge is power and knowledge/wisdom in itself is good?
Are you denying a subconscious exists as the prime system or operator of being?

God functions as subconscious of which the physical proof exists of it as well as it being innocent (nature and animals), the proof to us is our being able to be conscious of it, dreams, intuition, guilt, love, astral projection, ideas coming to us, etc. which is why we are warned so often by the subconscious(god) and it attempts to guide us toward developing more consciousness (wisdom), thus expanding god as well. The subconscious is external to consciousness, it feeds consciousness correlations and imagery. Subconscious exists separate to us physically as well, since we can observe animals and the difference of consciousness and a lack of consciousness, which animals and children are innocent, until a child develops conscious capability of right and wrong with an understanding of it.

Animals are subconscious(instinctive), they dream, they feel, they poop and pee, they eat and fear, they have ideas(strategy).. but they are not conscious of these things, hence they are innocent and this is what god had said, they cannot understand fully to the extent of what we can. They operate subconsciously.

We can observe our own instincts and others instincts. We can fall into traps of our own instincts, anger or running being two of the biggest observable traps.

God is the very knowledge one may gain out of consciousness and also have idea via subconscious imagery.

The only reason it seems impossible to you is because you deem it impossible, when will you understand reality is what you perceive it to be in certain facets, all you did was switch terminology around then try and disprove the terminology. I am going off of logic and reason, god was written about a long time ago, a lot of people took that and misinterpreted its meaning and then wonder where god went when they’re using the very god (knowledge and subconscious) to try and disprove itself and so now when anyone tries to understand it in another light, the only light of which makes any sense or reason, one still deems it impossible. You limit yourself and your thinking and then state that you have no control over being limited.

I have defined the terminology as what it is supposed to be interpreted as, I am not going off of the misinterpreted one, of an entity in the sky as a human image identity that controls everything.

God obviously doesn’t control everything, that was due to the coming of Satan (consciousness) awareness of instincts of fear, desire, love, etc. Though (Satan)consciousness did come/evolve out of subconscious(god).

[Prismatic567]

...
...
My thesis is;
1. There is no real God existing as real, God is an impossibility to be real.
2. The idea [philosophical] of God is an emergence out of the human mind [psychology] to deal with a desperate inherent existential crisis of a person.

That thesis only works on ones who deem it as a literal being in the sky, or are trapped in delusion.

So you do not agree with God as that being in the sky or the ontological God [St. Anselm, Descartes] of the Abrahamic which is an illusion thus delusion.

Knowledge is real, the subconscious is real, consciousness is real, light is real, dark is real, psychology is real and the list goes on.

These things all have to do with god. I have defined god above, it is knowledge as well as the subconscious interface.

Your statement 'all those things have to do with god is' is merely a thought but you have not provided proof that it is true.

What is obvious and true is, your
"Knowledge is real, the subconscious is real, consciousness is real, light is real, dark is real, psychology is real and the list goes on"
is conditioned upon the human being and not upon God. They are real only to human beings and do not exist independent of the human conditions.

Note the definition for "knowledge"

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Knowledge is conditioned upon human beings, not an unproven God.

I have posted a similar point elsewhere;

I have argued elsewhere, there is no knowledge - absolute, objective, - that is independent of the human conditions.
This is reflected in the arguments between the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists [mine] views.

Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which I do not agree, thus no pre-existed nor existing value independent of the human conditions.

The tendency towards any knowledge independent and pre-exists human beings is a psychological issue which is reducible to survival individually and collectively.

[Artimas]

...
...
My thesis is;
1. There is no real God existing as real, God is an impossibility to be real.
2. The idea [philosophical] of God is an emergence out of the human mind [psychology] to deal with a desperate inherent existential crisis of a person.

That thesis only works on ones who deem it as a literal being in the sky, or are trapped in delusion.

So you do not agree with God as that being in the sky or the ontological God [St. Anselm, Descartes] of the Abrahamic which is an illusion thus delusion.

Knowledge is real, the subconscious is real, consciousness is real, light is real, dark is real, psychology is real and the list goes on.

These things all have to do with god. I have defined god above, it is knowledge as well as the subconscious interface.

Your statement 'all those things have to do with god is' is merely a thought but you have not provided proof that it is true.

What is obvious and true is, your
"Knowledge is real, the subconscious is real, consciousness is real, light is real, dark is real, psychology is real and the list goes on"
is conditioned upon the human being and not upon God. They are real only to human beings and do not exist independent of the human conditions.

Note the definition for "knowledge"

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Knowledge is conditioned upon human beings, not an unproven God.

I have posted a similar point elsewhere;

I have argued elsewhere, there is no knowledge - absolute, objective, - that is independent of the human conditions.
This is reflected in the arguments between the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists [mine] views.

Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which I do not agree, thus no pre-existed nor existing value independent of the human conditions.

The tendency towards any knowledge independent and pre-exists human beings is a psychological issue which is reducible to survival individually and collectively.

It’s dependent on consciousness to differentiate, not that it isn’t independent of the human condition.

The human “condition” is a state of duality of consciousness and subconsciousness. The proof of it being independent of humans is the very fact that consciousness(awareness) evolved out of subconsciousness(instinct) thus our observations/perception began and so our search for truth, which truth always existed even before consciousness even if we were not able to define it, it still existed. To disagree with such is to disagree with evolution and change being based off of reaction.

So if knowledge or truth didn’t exist before awareness, how is the Earth older than we are? How is it we may discover facts that are older than humanities being conscious? God is subconsciousness and knowledge, truth and subconscious existed before consciousness, it is literally measurable/observable. Your definition of knowledge just proved my point. “Facts”, which a lot are older than our being conscious due to the very fact that we evolved to have awareness from instincts in the same system/model that we are now conscious of.

We evolved subjectivity out of objectivity, what do you even mean it isn’t independent of humanity? So explain evolution then.

Knowledge requires consciousness to be used or understood, it doesn’t mean knowledge never existed before we were aware of it, facts stay the same forever, that’s what make them facts.

[Prismatic567]

It’s dependent on consciousness to differentiate, not that it isn’t independent of the human condition.

The human “condition” is a state of duality of consciousness and subconsciousness. The proof of it being independent of humans is the very fact that consciousness(awareness) evolved out of subconsciousness(instinct) thus our observations/perception began and so our search for truth, which truth always existed even before consciousness even if we were not able to define it, it still existed. To disagree with such is to disagree with evolution and change being based off of reaction.

So if knowledge or truth didn’t exist before awareness, how is the Earth older than we are? How is it we may discover facts that are older than humanities being conscious? God is subconsciousness and knowledge, truth and subconscious existed before consciousness, it is literally measurable/observable. Your definition of knowledge just proved my point. “Facts”, which a lot are older than our being conscious due to the very fact that we evolved to have awareness from instincts in the same system/model that we are now conscious of.

We evolved subjectivity out of objectivity, what do you even mean it isn’t independent of humanity? So explain evolution then.

Knowledge requires consciousness to be used or understood, it doesn’t mean knowledge never existed before we were aware of it, facts stay the same forever, that’s what make them facts.

It is very obvious to the conventional human that the Sun, Moon, and whatever that is supposedly more than 6 millions years ago existed before the first humans emerged.

However there is another philosophical perspective and argument to the above.

Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which I do not agree, thus no pre-existed nor existing value independent of the human conditions.

At this point it is quite complicated [philosophically] to explain.

Here is a clue from the scientific [not philosophically] perspective.
From classical science it is obvious things are independent of the human conditions.
Then as Science advances, we have the observer's effect, i.e. our scientific reality is effected by human observations.
Then we have Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Then further on at present we have the Wave Function Collapse where reality of the ultimate particle of reality is dependent on the human conditions, i.e. it can be either a wave or a particle depending on the human conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

From the philosophical perspective, philosophers [the anti-realists] has long ago argued there is no absolute reality that is independent of the human conditions.
They agree, there is a convention reality where things pre-existed human beings [1-conventional] but such a reality is subjected to the human conditions [2-meta].

Note one need to dig deep into philosophy, where Russell had came up this bombshell!

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

So most people will believe the table is solid and real from the common and conventional sense, but note how Russell threw in a spanner to what is conventionally real may not be really real.
You cannot be too sure of your current stage of knowledge.

Looks like you need to research this perspective to understand [not necessary to agree] what it is all about.

[Artimas]

It’s dependent on consciousness to differentiate, not that it isn’t independent of the human condition.

The human “condition” is a state of duality of consciousness and subconsciousness. The proof of it being independent of humans is the very fact that consciousness(awareness) evolved out of subconsciousness(instinct) thus our observations/perception began and so our search for truth, which truth always existed even before consciousness even if we were not able to define it, it still existed. To disagree with such is to disagree with evolution and change being based off of reaction.

So if knowledge or truth didn’t exist before awareness, how is the Earth older than we are? How is it we may discover facts that are older than humanities being conscious? God is subconsciousness and knowledge, truth and subconscious existed before consciousness, it is literally measurable/observable. Your definition of knowledge just proved my point. “Facts”, which a lot are older than our being conscious due to the very fact that we evolved to have awareness from instincts in the same system/model that we are now conscious of.

We evolved subjectivity out of objectivity, what do you even mean it isn’t independent of humanity? So explain evolution then.

Knowledge requires consciousness to be used or understood, it doesn’t mean knowledge never existed before we were aware of it, facts stay the same forever, that’s what make them facts.

It is very obvious to the conventional human that the Sun, Moon, and whatever that is supposedly more than 6 millions years ago existed before the first humans emerged.

However there is another philosophical perspective and argument to the above.

Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which I do not agree, thus no pre-existed nor existing value independent of the human conditions.

At this point it is quite complicated [philosophically] to explain.

Here is a clue from the scientific [not philosophically] perspective.
From classical science it is obvious things are independent of the human conditions.
Then as Science advances, we have the observer's effect, i.e. our scientific reality is effected by human observations.
Then we have Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Then further on at present we have the Wave Function Collapse where reality of the ultimate particle of reality is dependent on the human conditions, i.e. it can be either a wave or a particle depending on the human conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

From the philosophical perspective, philosophers [the anti-realists] has long ago argued there is no absolute reality that is independent of the human conditions.
They agree, there is a convention reality where things pre-existed human beings [1-conventional] but such a reality is subjected to the human conditions [2-meta].

Note one need to dig deep into philosophy, where Russell had came up this bombshell!

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

So most people will believe the table is solid and real from the common and conventional sense, but note how Russell threw in a spanner to what is conventionally real may not be really real.
You cannot be too sure of your current stage of knowledge.

Looks like you need to research this perspective to understand [not necessary to agree] what it is all about.

If it is obvious that a lot of aspects to reality and things exist before our consciousness then why are you arguing?

Human perceived reality isn’t the same as mere existence and reality, the fact of that is that we build things that may function in and alter reality as we see it, ideas that stem from and are correlated through the subconscious. Our unique but diverse individual perception doesn’t create reality, it abides by it, this is the illusion. What you’re trying to say is consciousness which is the only factor in being different than subconscious animals, exists independent of reality, which obviously it doesn’t exist independent of reality because it is also here, in reality and limited based off of how far we are in evolution or how much of god we have explored and understand.

God isn’t a miracle worker, it has no true bias of playing favorites, other than what is integrated into human psyche and fed via the subconscious mind. A miracle is dependent upon value and subjectivity anyways, so has little to do with anything.
I am also not talking about things existing before humans emerged, I am talking about things existing before we were conscious of them, there’s a difference. We still existed through subconscious instincts before consciousness manifested, that’s observable now through fossils and evolution. Different species of humans based on different evolutionary eras.

What you do not obviously understand is that it is the mere terminology you fight against, god is merely a word to describe the intricate system of the subconscious mind and our being able to gain knowledge of it through consciousness. Instead of trying to describe the subconscious, knowledge and how it all works, one could narrow it down to a summary of god. The actual god, not a folly being made in mans image that works in a literal/obvious sense.


Everything is energy, who denied that? This doesn’t mean reality or existence is only real if we observe it, consciousness is what manifested through instinct and a series of reactions, not all of humanity popping up at once. Reality is objective, mans perception is not unless one follows the rules, is that not why science was developed? Our perception is what is independent of reality, which is the point of consciousness and the entire story/religious texts.. to teach early mankind to listen and communicate with the subconscious mind so one may not fall into the traps of illusory desire but instead pursue god which god is wisdom and the subconscious interface.

It looks like Bertrand himself and Science stumbled upon the face of god and cannot explain it. What is there not to understand that god is nothing but also everything possible within universal laws excluding ignorance/evil, everything manifested from the subconscious, the subconscious existed before consciousness, the subconscious is where ideas and a lot of other information is stored. Change occurred before we were able to consciously observe it, proof? Well we’re here and evolved aren’t we? While still being able to observe an ancient system of which we participated in to evolve in the very first place. Man has free will, satisfaction is an illusion and I have already demonstrated such. It is what it is, until it is what you make it.

It even stated in the Bible that man has become conscious and is now among the gods for now he may know both evil and good, which one has to be conscious to know of morality.

The Bible was merely a tool or collection of writings that explained specific yet different eras of evolution, you are getting mixed up in others misinterpretations of what the words mean due to context. It was never some being in the sky that plays favorites, that’s your own assumption and attachment of identity onto something of which has no absolute identity other than knowledge(good) and innocence(subconsciousness). It appears in the book as it plays favorites because the story is told by a narrator depicting a man whom is heeding his subconscious and using his consciousness justly to gather wisdom/understanding, evolving. Replace “lord” with subconscious mind and its integrative morality system. It’s all to do with psychology and I am afraid you pulling out physics which I advocate for and god also being it in the form of an understanding/wisdom, doesn’t disprove that.

You’re using the very knowledge of which god is and advocates for, to try and disprove what it is. You’re caught in a loop due to such. Try understanding the context and semantics.


I already understand scientific perspective but do you understand my perspective and the context/perspective of religious text? I have been among many perspectives. That’s the point, seeing in a new light, that is the power of an understanding and how correlating must be done truly to be unbiased.

The table doesn’t exist as a table unless you make it into a table, that’s human reality. It takes work to turn energy/resource, into something of desire. One must put energy in to manifest something. Sound familiar to how existence started and it’s being energy? Micro to macro. Would the table still be solid if I shred it into dust and burn it? No, but it would still be energy. I understand how perception and consciousness works. The table may appear as many things and nothing because there are possibilities within the very energy of what it is, since energy is observable(consciousness) and eternal, it appears as both nothing and something.

Obviously our perception effects /our/ reality because we can use perception/consciousness to build things that the subconscious cannot.. where do you think knowledge comes from and it’s point is? ...

[Anomaly654]

So we may begin with some very basic definitions of what god is and other content of the holy Bible’s/texts around the world.

The very god one talks about in the Bible is knowledge(subconscious), any sin in the Bible being talked about is anything of which may lead to ignorance from desire. The subconscious is the external aspect of god, consciousness is the trap of which one may fall into desire or too literal of thinking which leads to no understanding of what one may know, if ignorant and continuing in such ignorance.

There's a lot going on in the op and I don't have time to address it all so maybe a point at a time.

On what basis would you defend the idea that God--given any of the monotheistic ideas of who and what God is--is "knowledge"?

[Artimas]

So we may begin with some very basic definitions of what god is and other content of the holy Bible’s/texts around the world.

The very god one talks about in the Bible is knowledge(subconscious), any sin in the Bible being talked about is anything of which may lead to ignorance from desire. The subconscious is the external aspect of god, consciousness is the trap of which one may fall into desire or too literal of thinking which leads to no understanding of what one may know, if ignorant and continuing in such ignorance.

There's a lot going on in the op and I don't have time to address it all so maybe a point at a time.

On what basis would you defend the idea that God--given any of the monotheistic ideas of who and what God is--is "knowledge"?

God is merely a word of description. Semantics changing doesn’t assert a non existence of something.

If I switch the name of the sun to gazzle, does that mean the sun doesn’t exist anymore?

To understand the Bible One must understand the language in which it tells its story as well as the context. Which has been misinterpreted drastically. All it truly is is man kind exploring psyche and evolving and the recording of such in their present moment which their present moment is our past moment of which now we have a more complex and evolved language, do you see how it’s easy to get lost and mixed up?

Because if god is all knowing then it must be knowledge itself along with the system of which knowledge was not available unless in the duality of (conscious & subconscious), god speaks through imagery/dream due to how a prophet is described, and subconscious being innocence due to a lack of understanding via lack of consciousness.

Then one being omnipotent, Omniscient and all good, is possible.

For knowledge/wisdom is good, it is power and it is knowing.
The subconscious has no discretion of time which means it is not subject to limitations like how our consciousness is with the past/future. The subconscious speaks through imagery and feeling. A gut feeling is a sense of the future, a warning of god. A warning from the subconscious.

This should prove that ancient religious text was a work of psychology and is misinterpreted, the fact that it can make sense with/in this light of perspective.

One cannot assume what god is in the form of one identity, if one wishes to see it truly. Subconscious has no identity that’s why it communicates through imagery. That is what god uses, imagery and the subconscious tries to keep one on a just path otherwise they feel guilt if they perform ill manner with an understanding/intent.
according to how they described it in the texts.

[Artimas]

Does one disagree that reality still existed before mans evolved perception/consciousness?

Does one disagree that man evolved from subconsciousness/instinct to have a duality of consciousness?

Does one disagree that the subconsciousness feeds imagery and feeling from imagery into the conscious mind/body?

Does one disagree that the subconscious cannot differentiate between time?

Does one disagree that knowledge is power? Understanding which is wisdom, is application and understanding such effects/affects through/of application of knowledge. One can know a fact without understanding it, one can participate in something factual without being conscious of it, we observe it through evolution and animals existence and their evolution, regardless of its being conscious of it being autonomous, it exists and is measured as evolution.

The Bible and religious texts are merely guides for this newly evolved power which was conscious awareness evolving out of subconscious instinct due to pain/fear. It is a guide to heed the subconscious for what it is.

Since understanding of knowledge is reached through humility and suffering, you are humble to god.

Since knowledge/facts are eternal and external to human consciousness, god is eternal.

Since knowledge is power through understanding which consciousness is the ability evolved out of consciousness to understand, god is omnipotent.

Since god is knowledge, it is able to be understood.. you just call this “science” instead.

Does one disagree that in order to gain power through an understanding one must be humble first?

You want power? Then you must seek to understand and if you seek to understand, you must be humble. With this power, you may understand the present the future possibilities and the past, if you want to read someone’s psyche back to themself, you pay attention to their art and expressions. They subconsciously reveal themselves consciously, which can be read on the conscious. It is why the quiet weird one is scary to others, for they cannot subconsciously read them.

[Prismatic567]

...
...
I already understand scientific perspective but do you understand my perspective and the context/perspective of religious text? I have been among many perspectives. That’s the point, seeing in a new light, that is the power of an understanding and how correlating must be done truly to be unbiased.

The table doesn’t exist as a table unless you make it into a table, that’s human reality. It takes work to turn energy/resource, into something of desire. One must put energy in to manifest something. Sound familiar to how existence started and it’s being energy? Micro to macro. Would the table still be solid if I shred it into dust and burn it?
No, but it would still be energy.
I understand how perception and consciousness works. The table may appear as many things and nothing because there are possibilities within the very energy of what it is, since energy is observable(consciousness) and eternal, it appears as both nothing and something.

Obviously our perception effects /our/ reality because we can use perception/consciousness to build things that the subconscious cannot.. where do you think knowledge comes from and it’s point is? ...

I take it your whole post can reduced to the above.
If I missed out any, let me know.

Note the concept of energy, E = MC2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
is a scientific concept and theory.

According to Karl Popper [which I agree], scientific theories are at best polished conjectures intersubjectively agreed by a specific group of human scientists.
Therefore your concept of "energy = God" is not valid and independent of the human conditions.
Energy cannot exists without human participation.

As with what I had responded to Anomaly654 in the other thread, I can agree with you on whatever [in general] common sense, conventional and scientific truths you proposed.
What I note is you are not well verse with the higher philosophical perspectives [re Kant, Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, etc.] above the conventional perspectives. You need at least to understand [not necessary agree] with their arguments. I have spent many years researching their philosophy.

Note Philosophy is the path to highest possible perspective of knowledge and wisdom.
But as Russell had stated, with the ultimate, philosophically, there are no definite answers, but what is left are merely questions.

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

You on the other hand is insisting there is a final answer to all questions, i.e. God!

What you are ignoring is your [as with all human beings] own internal psychology and its defense mechanisms to reify a God out of nothing to soothe the psychological pains triggered by an inherent existential crisis.

[Artimas]

...
...
I already understand scientific perspective but do you understand my perspective and the context/perspective of religious text? I have been among many perspectives. That’s the point, seeing in a new light, that is the power of an understanding and how correlating must be done truly to be unbiased.

The table doesn’t exist as a table unless you make it into a table, that’s human reality. It takes work to turn energy/resource, into something of desire. One must put energy in to manifest something. Sound familiar to how existence started and it’s being energy? Micro to macro. Would the table still be solid if I shred it into dust and burn it?
No, but it would still be energy.
I understand how perception and consciousness works. The table may appear as many things and nothing because there are possibilities within the very energy of what it is, since energy is observable(consciousness) and eternal, it appears as both nothing and something.

Obviously our perception effects /our/ reality because we can use perception/consciousness to build things that the subconscious cannot.. where do you think knowledge comes from and it’s point is? ...

I take it your whole post can reduced to the above.
If I missed out any, let me know.

Note the concept of energy, E = MC2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
is a scientific concept and theory.

According to Karl Popper [which I agree], scientific theories are at best polished conjectures intersubjectively agreed by a specific group of human scientists.
Therefore your concept of "energy = God" is not valid and independent of the human conditions.
Energy cannot exists without human participation.

As with what I had responded to Anomaly654 in the other thread, I can agree with you on whatever [in general] common sense, conventional and scientific truths you proposed.
What I note is you are not well verse with the higher philosophical perspectives [re Kant, Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, etc.] above the conventional perspectives. You need at least to understand [not necessary agree] with their arguments. I have spent many years researching their philosophy.

Note Philosophy is the path to highest possible perspective of knowledge and wisdom.
But as Russell had stated, with the ultimate, philosophically, there are no definite answers, but what is left are merely questions.

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

You on the other hand is insisting there is a final answer to all questions, i.e. God!

What you are ignoring is your [as with all human beings] own internal psychology and its defense mechanisms to reify a God out of nothing to soothe the psychological pains triggered by an inherent existential crisis.

You’re assuming I said there is a definite answer when I haven’t. Just because I say god is knowledge/subconscious and unconscious and therefore it is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient along with timeless, with no true face other than what one draws up for it to appear as to themself, doesn’t mean I am saying there is an end to knowledge. If god is eternal, then there is always more to learn and to reveal of it, through it and by it. God is merely a description through a one word of which creates easier association an correlation. If there is a halt to knowledge then god is not omnipotent or eternal. See how that works?

That’s a load of bull, energy can’t exist without conscious perception? That’s laughable considering you can prove it by looking up into the sky every night at stars billions of years older than us. If energy can’t exist without human consciousness then how did we get here? You’re arguing against evolution being reactionary and of energy. You’re arguing that consciousness did not evolve from subconsciousness, which comes from unconscious energy and it reacting/manifesting. The law of conservation disproves what you’re stating. Energy always is and always will be. Can’t be created nor destroyed, regardless of perception. So energy isn’t older than humanities consciousness apparently to you. What is nature or natural if not something existing before man that man spawned out of? You’re falling into the trap of energy not existing due to desire not existing out of consciousness. Desire plays no role in reality, in fact desire not being observed or controlled is the issue for most if not all, which stems from where? Ignorance.

Energy exists independent of the human condition, which means reactions take place, which mean there is knowledge, just because we have to be conscious “human condition” to understand or correlate what already had existed, does not mean it doesn’t exist before or after consciousness. Things happen everyday without your knowledge. This world doesn’t function off of /our/ values. That is ego speaking. Stop trying to separate man from nature, you’re here from it, accept the facts. What came first, the chicken, the egg, or the energy that reacted and created single cell life that reacted again a multitude of other times to bring chickens that may lay eggs? I’d say that the egg is what brought chickens however, seeing as that is how genetic preservation and evolution takes place, through breeding. Just like we had to be bred into existence and we were.

The fact that you have to quote others and be rhetorical in discussion shows you are indoctrinated and believe others word rather than discover it yourself in your own perception/correlating. How can you find yourself if always listening to words of others? I did the opposite, found myself and now I pursue the voice of others to correlate, discarding what is irrelevant. You take your answers from mankind instead of your self then ask “where is thou god?! Must not exist” only way to understand and know god truly is by yourself. You think on your own, adopt nothing unless it is true. If you understand something, it means you can explain it in your own words, if you don’t understand something, you must resort to others work.

I reference others only as a point that my thoughts are consistent, not to argue or discuss my points. What point is there in using points of which that person can no longer contribute to or defend? You think you can defend them? First you must understand them and if you cannot use your own words, then what does this show?


No, you’re assuming that is what god is, a final answer. It’s not a final answer, merely one that is quick or a description of what is, through one word, “Image or word of a 1000 words” , there is no final answer, as we uncover more of god through correlation and we discover more possibilities, more possibilities will come from the old possibilities, which brings more knowledge. Knowledge(god) is eternal and external, therefore there is no final answer in seeking god. Nor should we hope to have all of its power through understanding it by being humble of it.

What’s the Big Bang if not a “final answer”? The Big Bang was literally described as “the word” which was the first reaction that started a chain reaction. God is both nothing and since knowledge may be sought in all, also everything. Sorry scientists, religious texts a thousand or more years old already beat you to the terminology, be humble and accept it. Science explained the how, why, who, what, when, where but spirituality and religion already coined the terminology. Ones misinterpretation of it doesn’t assert a non existence. Thus, it’s still standing.


I’m not ignoring my own internal psychology, that is the entire point opposite to finding god and breaking it down with logic and reason. If I were to ignore my internal psychology, then I would be ignorant to what is with little to no understanding that is continuously always building or being added to. Do you want to know what dealing with existential crisis is? Determinism as the only thing without any free will. Desire and satisfaction is an illusion, a trap. I know myself and I know psychology.

This system works from fear, not desire. Our adding satisfaction or value does not change or show anything other than what we wish for it to show, value is subjective. There is always a negative aspect to every satisfaction and it only continues more fear, so then what is desire if not temporary and is temporary not illusion?

Free will exists and determinism exists, determinism for the slave whom doesn’t see through their own illusion of wants, free will exists for the ones whom see the trap and consciously control it, the fact that knowledge exists is opposite to determinism. Knowledge and understanding of knowledge is only sought through pain, fear and humility. You seem to be the one ignoring psychology by not accepting determinism as an illusory trap of /conscious/ desire. You seem to be the one advocating to an end, by offering determinism. If everything is based off of desire and satisfaction then where does knowledge come from? The seeking will always be because the fear and pain always is and if the fear and pain always is, knowledge always remains and if we are conscious then we may rise against fear to pursuit knowledge or fall into the trap of limitation of self through and by desire/satisfaction. God isn’t the one here you use to avoid responsibility, determinism is.

Existential crisis? Hah! I don’t feel any existential crisis. Do you want to know why? Because I know myself, I am secure with who I am and appreciate what is.

I don’t need god in the way you and others have defined it, it is knowledge and you seek an understanding of it just as much as I. Not for dealing with an existential crisis but to evolve. I don’t need anything as a matter of fact. That may be the case from someone whom gives power to it but if you haven’t noticed, it gives power to us by our sacrifice and being humble. We strengthen it by expansion of knowledge, by and through an understanding/wisdom stemming from what one may know.

Be humble and accept the fact that the religious community of which was first spiritual thousands of years ago, came up with the word “god” first for describing understanding of knowledge and communication between conscious and subconscious psyche. Instead of trying to twist words to fit /your/ agenda. You limit yourself so you are limited, you believe no god and so no god appears, reality to an extent is based off of your perspective. I have many perspectives, not merely one because I have sacrificed a great deal to understand what I may currently know.

[Prismatic567]

You’re assuming I said there is a definite answer when I haven’t. Just because I say god is knowledge/subconscious and unconscious and therefore it is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient along with timeless, with no true face other than what one draws up for it to appear as to themself, doesn’t mean I am saying there is an end to knowledge. If god is eternal, then there is always more to learn and to reveal of it, through it and by it. God is merely a description through a one word of which creates easier association an correlation. If there is a halt to knowledge then god is not omnipotent or eternal. See how that works?

Didn't you assert, definitely, there is a God?
Otherwise you are an agnostic, i.e. it is 50/50 there is a God.

That’s a load of bull, energy can’t exist without conscious perception? That’s laughable considering you can prove it by looking up into the sky every night at stars billions of years older than us.
If energy can’t exist without human consciousness then how did we get here? You’re arguing against evolution being reactionary and of energy. You’re arguing that consciousness did not evolve from subconsciousness, which comes from unconscious energy and it reacting/manifesting. The law of conservation disproves what you’re stating. Energy always is and always will be. Can’t be created nor destroyed, regardless of perception. So energy isn’t older than humanities consciousness apparently to you. What is nature or natural if not something existing before man that man spawned out of? You’re falling into the trap of energy not existing due to desire not existing out of consciousness. Desire plays no role in reality, in fact desire not being observed or controlled is the issue for most if not all, which stems from where? Ignorance.

Your's a strawman. I did not mention conscious perception.
I stated human conditions.

Note the existence of 'energy' is ONLY confirmed by Science which is conditioned by human scientists. According to Popper, scientific theories as such are polished conjectures.
If you insist God is energy [scientific and human related] then your God is also man-made.

Energy exists independent of the human condition, which means reactions take place, which mean there is knowledge, just because we have to be conscious “human condition” to understand or correlate what already had existed, does not mean it doesn’t exist before or after consciousness. Things happen everyday without your knowledge. This world doesn’t function off of /our/ values. That is ego speaking. Stop trying to separate man from nature, you’re here from it, accept the facts. What came first, the chicken, the egg, or the energy that reacted and created single cell life that reacted again a multitude of other times to bring chickens that may lay eggs? I’d say that the egg is what brought chickens however, seeing as that is how genetic preservation and evolution takes place, through breeding. Just like we had to be bred into existence and we were.

As stated above what is supposedly 'energy' emerged out of human participation, thus cannot exist independent of human conditions.
I understand your views, i.e. that is from the common sense, conventional and scientific perspectives with their respective assumptions of independence. But from the philosophical perspectives you cannot include the assumption of independence from the human conditions.
I have highlighted are philosophical arguments from the philosophical anti-realists to counter such an argument, e.g. Kant, Heidegger, Russell and others.

The fact that you have to quote others and be rhetorical in discussion shows you are indoctrinated and believe others word rather than discover it yourself in your own perception/correlating. How can you find yourself if always listening to words of others?

I did the opposite, found myself and now I pursue the voice of others to correlate, discarding what is irrelevant.

You take your answers from mankind instead of your self then ask “where is thou god?! Must not exist” only way to understand and know god truly is by yourself. You think on your own, adopt nothing unless it is true. If you understand something, it means you can explain it in your own words, if you don’t understand something, you must resort to others work.

I reference others only as a point that my thoughts are consistent, not to argue or discuss my points. What point is there in using points of which that person can no longer contribute to or defend? You think you can defend them? First you must understand them and if you cannot use your own words, then what does this show?

If you look at all solid researched proofs and theories, they are supported by a long lists of reference in their bibliography.
Those that I had quoted are the giant shoulders of philosophy backed by logical and irrational arguments not just any tom, dick or harry's view.

When you stated, I found myself and is unable to substantiate your arguments [from self backed by others] it could be no different from a schizo who claimed the gnomes in his garden are really real because he has a solid conversation with them. It is also no different from the views of those who sell snake-oils.

No, you’re assuming that is what god is, a final answer. It’s not a final answer, merely one that is quick or a description of what is, through one word, “Image or word of a 1000 words” , there is no final answer, as we uncover more of god through correlation and we discover more possibilities, more possibilities will come from the old possibilities, which brings more knowledge. Knowledge(god) is eternal and external, therefore there is no final answer in seeking god. Nor should we hope to have all of its power through understanding it by being humble of it.

Then you should qualify, god is not the final answer and assert there is no final answer.
You cannot be certain things exist independent of the human conditions.

Note Wittgenstein,
'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'

This meant you must shut up on any thing that is supposedly final and not possible at all.

Note I have argued, knowledge is always conditioned and subjected to the human conditions. There are no knowledge [god] that is independent of the human conditions.
Besides it is ridiculous to associate 'god' with 'knowledge.'

What’s the Big Bang if not a “final answer”? The Big Bang was literally described as “the word” which was the first reaction that started a chain reaction. God is both nothing and since knowledge may be sought in all, also everything. Sorry scientists, religious texts a thousand or more years old already beat you to the terminology, be humble and accept it. Science explained the how, why, who, what, when, where but spirituality and religion already coined the terminology. Ones misinterpretation of it doesn’t assert a non existence. Thus, it’s still standing.

The 'Big Bang' is a scientific theory which is merely speculative but it is inferred and well supported by human acquired knowledge of the known universe.

Religious texts on the Big Bang? where their evidence? In any case, religious texts are human made, thus subject to the human conditions.

I’m not ignoring my own internal psychology, that is the entire point opposite to finding god and breaking it down with logic and reason. If I were to ignore my internal psychology, then I would be ignorant to what is with little to no understanding that is continuously always building or being added to. Do you want to know what dealing with existential crisis is? Determinism as the only thing without any free will. Desire and satisfaction is an illusion, a trap. I know myself and I know psychology.

So far, you have not demonstrated you have sufficient knowledge of your own internal psychology, especially in the manner of why you are asserting the views you are presenting.
So, what is the existential crisis to you?

This system works from fear, not desire. Our adding satisfaction or value does not change or show anything other than what we wish for it to show, value is subjective. There is always a negative aspect to every satisfaction and it only continues more fear, so then what is desire if not temporary and is temporary not illusion?

Note sure what is the main point in the above?

Free will exists and determinism exists, determinism for the slave whom doesn’t see through their own illusion of wants, free will exists for the ones whom see the trap and consciously control it, the fact that knowledge exists is opposite to determinism. Knowledge and understanding of knowledge is only sought through pain, fear and humility. You seem to be the one ignoring psychology by not accepting determinism as an illusory trap of /conscious/ desire. You seem to be the one advocating to an end, by offering determinism. If everything is based off of desire and satisfaction then where does knowledge come from? The seeking will always be because the fear and pain always is and if the fear and pain always is, knowledge always remains and if we are conscious then we may rise against fear to pursuit knowledge or fall into the trap of limitation of self through and by desire/satisfaction. God isn’t the one here you use to avoid responsibility, determinism is.

Btw, I have not discuss free will and determinism here. It it is necessary in this topic.
There are relative free will and determinism, but there are no absolute free will and determinism.

Existential crisis? Hah! I don’t feel any existential crisis. Do you want to know why? Because I know myself, I am secure with who I am and appreciate what is.

This is why I stated you are short on your own internal psychology.
DNA wise, the existential crisis is inherent in ALL human beings. Its subliminal manifestation is within a range of degrees where it is high for the majority with a drive to cling to a God to soothe the subliminal existential pains. Note the term 'subliminal' is critical here.

This 'existential crisis' is also well documented in psychedelic researches, especially LSD and bad trips.

I don’t need god in the way you and others have defined it, it is knowledge and you seek an understanding of it just as much as I. Not for dealing with an existential crisis but to evolve. I don’t need anything as a matter of fact. That may be the case from someone whom gives power to it but if you haven’t noticed, it gives power to us by our sacrifice and being humble. We strengthen it by expansion of knowledge, by and through an understanding/wisdom stemming from what one may know.

Nah, God as knowledge [human based] is a ridiculous idea.

Be humble and accept the fact that the religious community of which was first spiritual thousands of years ago, came up with the word “god” first for describing understanding of knowledge and communication between conscious and subconscious psyche. Instead of trying to twist words to fit /your/ agenda. You limit yourself so you are limited, you believe no god and so no god appears, reality to an extent is based off of your perspective. I have many perspectives, not merely one because I have sacrificed a great deal to understand what I may currently know.

If I believe I can fly solely by myself without external equipments, then I can fly?
If I believe a square-circle exists, then there will be a square circle?

The currency within this philosophical forum is rational arguments.
So far, what you have provided are merely your personal unsubtantiated and irrational arguments re "an independent God is a possibility".

[Artimas]

You’re assuming I said there is a definite answer when I haven’t. Just because I say god is knowledge/subconscious and unconscious and therefore it is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient along with timeless, with no true face other than what one draws up for it to appear as to themself, doesn’t mean I am saying there is an end to knowledge. If god is eternal, then there is always more to learn and to reveal of it, through it and by it. God is merely a description through a one word of which creates easier association an correlation. If there is a halt to knowledge then god is not omnipotent or eternal. See how that works?

Didn't you assert, definitely, there is a God?
Otherwise you are an agnostic, i.e. it is 50/50 there is a God.

That’s a load of bull, energy can’t exist without conscious perception? That’s laughable considering you can prove it by looking up into the sky every night at stars billions of years older than us.
If energy can’t exist without human consciousness then how did we get here? You’re arguing against evolution being reactionary and of energy. You’re arguing that consciousness did not evolve from subconsciousness, which comes from unconscious energy and it reacting/manifesting. The law of conservation disproves what you’re stating. Energy always is and always will be. Can’t be created nor destroyed, regardless of perception. So energy isn’t older than humanities consciousness apparently to you. What is nature or natural if not something existing before man that man spawned out of? You’re falling into the trap of energy not existing due to desire not existing out of consciousness. Desire plays no role in reality, in fact desire not being observed or controlled is the issue for most if not all, which stems from where? Ignorance.

Your's a strawman. I did not mention conscious perception.
I stated human conditions.

Note the existence of 'energy' is ONLY confirmed by Science which is conditioned by human scientists. According to Popper, scientific theories as such are polished conjectures.
If you insist God is energy [scientific and human related] then your God is also man-made.

Energy exists independent of the human condition, which means reactions take place, which mean there is knowledge, just because we have to be conscious “human condition” to understand or correlate what already had existed, does not mean it doesn’t exist before or after consciousness. Things happen everyday without your knowledge. This world doesn’t function off of /our/ values. That is ego speaking. Stop trying to separate man from nature, you’re here from it, accept the facts. What came first, the chicken, the egg, or the energy that reacted and created single cell life that reacted again a multitude of other times to bring chickens that may lay eggs? I’d say that the egg is what brought chickens however, seeing as that is how genetic preservation and evolution takes place, through breeding. Just like we had to be bred into existence and we were.

As stated above what is supposedly 'energy' emerged out of human participation, thus cannot exist independent of human conditions.
I understand your views, i.e. that is from the common sense, conventional and scientific perspectives with their respective assumptions of independence. But from the philosophical perspectives you cannot include the assumption of independence from the human conditions.
I have highlighted are philosophical arguments from the philosophical anti-realists to counter such an argument, e.g. Kant, Heidegger, Russell and others.

The fact that you have to quote others and be rhetorical in discussion shows you are indoctrinated and believe others word rather than discover it yourself in your own perception/correlating. How can you find yourself if always listening to words of others?

I did the opposite, found myself and now I pursue the voice of others to correlate, discarding what is irrelevant.

You take your answers from mankind instead of your self then ask “where is thou god?! Must not exist” only way to understand and know god truly is by yourself. You think on your own, adopt nothing unless it is true. If you understand something, it means you can explain it in your own words, if you don’t understand something, you must resort to others work.

I reference others only as a point that my thoughts are consistent, not to argue or discuss my points. What point is there in using points of which that person can no longer contribute to or defend? You think you can defend them? First you must understand them and if you cannot use your own words, then what does this show?

If you look at all solid researched proofs and theories, they are supported by a long lists of reference in their bibliography.
Those that I had quoted are the giant shoulders of philosophy backed by logical and irrational arguments not just any tom, dick or harry's view.

When you stated, I found myself and is unable to substantiate your arguments [from self backed by others] it could be no different from a schizo who claimed the gnomes in his garden are really real because he has a solid conversation with them. It is also no different from the views of those who sell snake-oils.

No, you’re assuming that is what god is, a final answer. It’s not a final answer, merely one that is quick or a description of what is, through one word, “Image or word of a 1000 words” , there is no final answer, as we uncover more of god through correlation and we discover more possibilities, more possibilities will come from the old possibilities, which brings more knowledge. Knowledge(god) is eternal and external, therefore there is no final answer in seeking god. Nor should we hope to have all of its power through understanding it by being humble of it.

Then you should qualify, god is not the final answer and assert there is no final answer.
You cannot be certain things exist independent of the human conditions.

Note Wittgenstein,
'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'

This meant you must shut up on any thing that is supposedly final and not possible at all.

Note I have argued, knowledge is always conditioned and subjected to the human conditions. There are no knowledge [god] that is independent of the human conditions.
Besides it is ridiculous to associate 'god' with 'knowledge.'

What’s the Big Bang if not a “final answer”? The Big Bang was literally described as “the word” which was the first reaction that started a chain reaction. God is both nothing and since knowledge may be sought in all, also everything. Sorry scientists, religious texts a thousand or more years old already beat you to the terminology, be humble and accept it. Science explained the how, why, who, what, when, where but spirituality and religion already coined the terminology. Ones misinterpretation of it doesn’t assert a non existence. Thus, it’s still standing.

The 'Big Bang' is a scientific theory which is merely speculative but it is inferred and well supported by human acquired knowledge of the known universe.

Religious texts on the Big Bang? where their evidence? In any case, religious texts are human made, thus subject to the human conditions.

I’m not ignoring my own internal psychology, that is the entire point opposite to finding god and breaking it down with logic and reason. If I were to ignore my internal psychology, then I would be ignorant to what is with little to no understanding that is continuously always building or being added to. Do you want to know what dealing with existential crisis is? Determinism as the only thing without any free will. Desire and satisfaction is an illusion, a trap. I know myself and I know psychology.

So far, you have not demonstrated you have sufficient knowledge of your own internal psychology, especially in the manner of why you are asserting the views you are presenting.
So, what is the existential crisis to you?

This system works from fear, not desire. Our adding satisfaction or value does not change or show anything other than what we wish for it to show, value is subjective. There is always a negative aspect to every satisfaction and it only continues more fear, so then what is desire if not temporary and is temporary not illusion?

Note sure what is the main point in the above?

Free will exists and determinism exists, determinism for the slave whom doesn’t see through their own illusion of wants, free will exists for the ones whom see the trap and consciously control it, the fact that knowledge exists is opposite to determinism. Knowledge and understanding of knowledge is only sought through pain, fear and humility. You seem to be the one ignoring psychology by not accepting determinism as an illusory trap of /conscious/ desire. You seem to be the one advocating to an end, by offering determinism. If everything is based off of desire and satisfaction then where does knowledge come from? The seeking will always be because the fear and pain always is and if the fear and pain always is, knowledge always remains and if we are conscious then we may rise against fear to pursuit knowledge or fall into the trap of limitation of self through and by desire/satisfaction. God isn’t the one here you use to avoid responsibility, determinism is.

Btw, I have not discuss free will and determinism here. It it is necessary in this topic.
There are relative free will and determinism, but there are no absolute free will and determinism.

Existential crisis? Hah! I don’t feel any existential crisis. Do you want to know why? Because I know myself, I am secure with who I am and appreciate what is.

This is why I stated you are short on your own internal psychology.
DNA wise, the existential crisis is inherent in ALL human beings. Its subliminal manifestation is within a range of degrees where it is high for the majority with a drive to cling to a God to soothe the subliminal existential pains. Note the term 'subliminal' is critical here.

This 'existential crisis' is also well documented in psychedelic researches, especially LSD and bad trips.

I don’t need god in the way you and others have defined it, it is knowledge and you seek an understanding of it just as much as I. Not for dealing with an existential crisis but to evolve. I don’t need anything as a matter of fact. That may be the case from someone whom gives power to it but if you haven’t noticed, it gives power to us by our sacrifice and being humble. We strengthen it by expansion of knowledge, by and through an understanding/wisdom stemming from what one may know.

Nah, God as knowledge [human based] is a ridiculous idea.

Be humble and accept the fact that the religious community of which was first spiritual thousands of years ago, came up with the word “god” first for describing understanding of knowledge and communication between conscious and subconscious psyche. Instead of trying to twist words to fit /your/ agenda. You limit yourself so you are limited, you believe no god and so no god appears, reality to an extent is based off of your perspective. I have many perspectives, not merely one because I have sacrificed a great deal to understand what I may currently know.

If I believe I can fly solely by myself without external equipments, then I can fly?
If I believe a square-circle exists, then there will be a square circle?

The currency within this philosophical forum is rational arguments.
So far, what you have provided are merely your personal unsubtantiated and irrational arguments re "an independent God is a possibility".

God is terminology of which existed before more specific terms such as subconscious and the understanding of what wisdom, psyche and evolution entail. Since wisdom, psyche and evolution exist are eternal and all powerful external to us and within us, then yes, god is definite.


Well I thought what you meant as human condition is consciousness. But now I see it is just a word for being conscious of the subconscious, which is being aware of ‘god’ due to it being external to consciousness but also apart. You call it the “human condition” when it is instinct and subconscious/unconscious mind and reality. Consciousness is the true ‘human condition’ as it appears to be illusory outside of pain.

I don’t insist god is merely energy by itself and no energy is not man made, understanding it is. There is once again, a difference. God is the reaction of the energy in which brings a possibility that is observable as knowledge of which one must be humble to understand it, which is in a sense, ‘bowing’ before god. The understanding of which leads to a further exploration of god(knowledge). Also, energy was confirmed long before we established science, fire, sustenance, spirituality chakras, etc.. are all forms of observable energy and it’s functioning before science, confirmation doesn’t necessarily imply understanding.


How is it an assumption if we are it and became from it, external of understanding it... it isn’t an assumption when we can observe it now. You are using an assumption that I shouldn’t use an assumption of which ‘isn’t’ an assumption. We’re here, there’s the evidence. Morality is embedded in the subconscious, good and evil are merely values attributed through consciousness, illusory. It is what it is, external to our being conscious of it, how do you think consciousness came to be in the first place? If the subconscious was once alone, then it is external to consciousness and shows consciousness evolved from it. The fact is, an understanding was born external to an understanding, which shows knowledge existed solo, subconsciously, instinctively.

Obviously consciousness coming is what makes the “human condition” observable it does not mean it did not exist independent, previous to consciousness, which it seems you are implying.


Hardly, every man comes to an understanding on his ‘own’ by being humble to knowledge. If you don’t agree that a true understanding is reached through self perception by following of the rules and system of philosophical endeavor/universal law then you advocate for rhetoric. References aren’t paragraphs that are words from others accepted just because they seem authoritative, references are others who one uses to try and solidify an argument by trying to show consistency of which I have no doubt they have writing of value but in this specific case of reality existing external to humanity, is not based on an unbiased truth, I am not disproving references, I am disproving your argument, of which you have been relying on references to fight for you instead of in your own words and if one cannot use their own words to formulate an argument then they speak, rhetoric, which is not based on ones own understanding through their own unique language/perception. You have become humble to the man/reference of which their argument is subjective and could be biased, instead of being humble to the knowledge where ones own unique understanding may be correlated and even refined to a more reasonable/logical extent, this is where you err.


I am not sure what you think “human condition” is, it’s subconsciousness, instinct that spawned out of dualities and contrasts. A reaction is knowledge, regardless of humanity existing, reactions exist. This is observable now and you keep trying to defend your argument with what if, not me. I am using my conscious ability right now to explain to you, that knowledge is reaction and reaction is older than man, which is observable, right now as being conscious, which consciousness and even man itself evolved from it.. wisdom is not ridiculous and god being knowledge is not ridiculous, you may only think so because you didn’t coin what is, first, and are not humble to who did due to a blatant indoctrination of bias towards science of which science only proves the point I have made using the definitions I have provided to understand the context of religious texts. It’s ridiculous to you, because you have a wrong assumption of what god means or implies due to lacking an understanding of context. God is not a one answer, it is a series of eternal ongoing understandings of knowledge. The word god is just a word to summarize such.


Religious described the first subconscious/unconscious reaction as “the word”. They didn’t show as much evidence as science but they described it, knowing without understanding, which only continues to prove my point. Science is merely a tool of god to explore it further. Religious terminology was coined first and should be respected and understood for what it truly is. If you support the Big Bang then you also support the idea in religious text in the terminology of “the word”.

I have not demonstrated such? How so?
You are the one who can’t understand terminology from a religious perspective, of which I can and I also understand perspective from a scientific and philosophical perspective as well, demonstrated such already.

An existential crisis is when one questions their very being, what, why, who, when, where, how of which answers are both objective and subjective but should be based off of a model of thought that follows the rules of understanding. An existential crisis appears frightening but if one understands themself for what they are and can be then it isn’t as frightening as it may seem, it is what it is and it is what it could/can be. I do not give value to pain for pain is pain, regardless of the value in which I give it.


I didn’t say it doesn’t exist, I said I don’t fear it because I understand myself and my interaction with reality, I accept it for what it is, outside of my valuing, have you? Of which if it is outside of my conscious valuing, then it is external to my and humanities existing. Existential crisis is fear/pain, fear is a lesson/opportunity to learn through and of the unknown.


Ok and that is an opinion, not a fact. Think it all you want, it only becomes a truth for you, not reality. Knowledge isn’t human based, understanding is. Get it straight.


Your flying doesn’t appear through a subconscious interface that demands humility to be understood, your flying isn’t a reaction of which spawned from subconscious/instinct, thus it is not objective. God is knowledge and the subconscious interface that everything operates on, in, through and with, not unreasonable illogical, exaggerated ideas that are straw men in comparison.

My arguments are based off of what already is/was, this is the language and context of what the Bible has written, I am defending it through reason and logic of which you don’t understand due to your indoctrination of science and lack of humility/understanding of religious context and in the method/language of which it has written its texts. Same meanings, different words. How about for once instead of trying to refute, you try to understand, maybe you will? Accept the fact that men 1,000s of years ago knew what science does now, without a full and as intricate understanding, obviously.

[Prismatic567]

..
My arguments are based off of what already is/was, this is the language and context of what the Bible has written, I am defending it through reason and logic of which you don’t understand due to your indoctrination of science and lack of humility/understanding of religious context and in the method/language of which it has written its texts. Same meanings, different words. How about for once instead of trying to refute, you try to understand, maybe you will? Accept the fact that men 1,000s of years ago knew what science does now, without a full and as intricate understanding, obviously.

Noted all your points but the critical one is this.

"Human conditions" is anything to do with human beings [subconscious, conscious, physical, mental, whatever].
Humans are part and parcel of reality, there is no way you can separate humans from reality, even when it is obvious in one perspective the Sun, Moon, etc. pre-existed before there are humans.
I have pointed up, this is meta-philosophical thinking as presented since the ancients and the modern philosophers, e.g. the Buddha did it 2,500 years ago and others before that.

Obviously humans experienced and many knew of various aspects of reality long ago but there is no basis to relate these understanding with Science which has its own specific Framework and System.

I am defending it through reason and logic of which you don’t understand due to your indoctrination of science and lack of humility/understanding of religious context and in the method/language of which it has written its texts.

Regardless whether it is Science, Religion or Spirituality, as I had stated the currency [of value] in this forum is logical and rational arguments.
So far you have not presented any argument which is sound.

All you did is compelling me to accept whatever the ancients claim, but provide no arguments at all.

Here is a sound argument, e.g.;

P1. The ancients [10,000 years ago] claimed the Earth is a round object.
P2. Here is the evidence [see image below]which can be verified that the Earth is round,
C1. Therefore the Earth is round

More verifications can be done to prove P2 is true.




The conclusion above is true and sound subject to the agreed framework, but is it not 100% true and definite from other perspectives, e.g. the Earth is not perfectly round, slightly spherical, has jagged edges with mountains and deep valleys.

[Artimas]

I have already provided the evidence of what psyche, evolution and how all of it interrelates with each other, you have to understand it on your own. I am responsible for my providing of evidence or knowledge, not ones understanding it. I try helping understand it but one must care enough to accept an understanding. I have explained how, what, why, when, where, who.


What - god is knowledge of which existed independent of mans consciousness or understanding of it, god existed before man when existence was coming, the first reaction(observable knowledge) that may be traceable using science.

How - there has to be nothing for everything to be possible and so a series of reactions (knowledge) began in, through existence.

Why - because something is better than nothing, it’s an objective value by existence, existing in itself.

When - time is not differentiated to the subconscious/unconscious psyche and so when is not really a matter/issue but for human consciousness, billions, trillions, a very very long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Where - from a single point/reaction of which expanded into our position, leaving us as a primordial ball of chaotic soup until cooling and slowly condensing into forms of matter which subconsciously formed single cell life and so on.

Who - we’re The who possible in/by it, god is knowledge and an external aspect to us, identity, consciousness. Our understanding requires humility due to serving knowledge.

I understand how an argument for evidence works. Which I have provided. You must accept it and I can’t force you to.

You keep looking at god in your view instead of my view so then how can you understand the evidence of it’s in my language and you’re not trying to understand me but instead, refute.

We have already been separated from reality, it just wasn’t /our/ reality, it was existence without mankind, primordial of which we have imagery of, both literally in scientific method/physics, objective and also through psyche/subjective, dreams, astral projection, exploring psyche.

[Prismatic567]

I have already provided the evidence of what psyche, evolution and how all of it interrelates with each other, you have to understand it on your own. I am responsible for my providing of evidence or knowledge, not ones understanding it. I try helping understand it but one must care enough to accept an understanding. I have explained how, what, why, when, where, who.


What - god is knowledge of which existed independent of mans consciousness or understanding of it, god existed before man when existence was coming, the first reaction(observable knowledge) that may be traceable using science.

How - there has to be nothing for everything to be possible and so a series of reactions (knowledge) began in, through existence.

Why - because something is better than nothing, it’s an objective value by existence, existing in itself.

When - time is not differentiated to the subconscious/unconscious psyche and so when is not really a matter/issue but for human consciousness, billions, trillions, a very very long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Where - from a single point/reaction of which expanded into our position, leaving us as a primordial ball of chaotic soup until cooling and slowly condensing into forms of matter which subconsciously formed single cell life and so on.

Who - we’re The who possible in/by it, god is knowledge and an external aspect to us, identity, consciousness. Our understanding requires humility due to serving knowledge.

I understand how an argument for evidence works. Which I have provided. You must accept it and I can’t force you to.

You keep looking at god in your view instead of my view so then how can you understand the evidence of it’s in my language and you’re not trying to understand me but instead, refute.

We have already been separated from reality, it just wasn’t /our/ reality, it was existence without mankind, primordial of which we have imagery of, both literally in scientific method/physics, objective and also through psyche/subjective, dreams, astral projection, exploring psyche.

Your above points are merely statements but not supported by arguments at all.

It is not your or mine view that counts.
What you need is to present universal rational arguments.
Note the argument I provided where the ancients claimed Earth is round, it is not my view but rather sound universal arguments.

Note your statements;

What -
P1-god is knowledge,
P2 [knowledge] of which existed independent of mans consciousness or understanding of it,
P3-god existed before man when existence was coming, the first reaction(observable knowledge) that may be traceable using science.

Note I countered your P1, knowledge is only from humans.

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

So you have to prove I am wrong but in your case Knowledge is independent of man's consciousness and understanding of it.
Then you have to prove God is knowledge.

In addition, you have to define 'who is God' in your own terms if different from the conventional meaning, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I suggest these syllogism for you;

1. All of reality is knowledge
2. God is all of reality
3. Therefore God is knowledge

or

P1 Knowledge exists
P2 God is knowledge [3 above]
C1 Therefore God exists

The above at least has some logical footing, but ultimately the above is linked to the human conditions.
You will need to justify the above premises with the relevant supporting details.

If not the above, you need to start and come up with syllogisms that has some logical footings instead of you throwing unorganized statements all over the place.

Btw, I have spent many years as a theist and then a non-theist, I am confident you [based on what you have posted] will not be able to cover all the holes in whatever the arguments you will raise.

[Artimas]

I have already provided the evidence of what psyche, evolution and how all of it interrelates with each other, you have to understand it on your own. I am responsible for my providing of evidence or knowledge, not ones understanding it. I try helping understand it but one must care enough to accept an understanding. I have explained how, what, why, when, where, who.


What - god is knowledge of which existed independent of mans consciousness or understanding of it, god existed before man when existence was coming, the first reaction(observable knowledge) that may be traceable using science.

How - there has to be nothing for everything to be possible and so a series of reactions (knowledge) began in, through existence.

Why - because something is better than nothing, it’s an objective value by existence, existing in itself.

When - time is not differentiated to the subconscious/unconscious psyche and so when is not really a matter/issue but for human consciousness, billions, trillions, a very very long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

Where - from a single point/reaction of which expanded into our position, leaving us as a primordial ball of chaotic soup until cooling and slowly condensing into forms of matter which subconsciously formed single cell life and so on.

Who - we’re The who possible in/by it, god is knowledge and an external aspect to us, identity, consciousness. Our understanding requires humility due to serving knowledge.

I understand how an argument for evidence works. Which I have provided. You must accept it and I can’t force you to.

You keep looking at god in your view instead of my view so then how can you understand the evidence of it’s in my language and you’re not trying to understand me but instead, refute.

We have already been separated from reality, it just wasn’t /our/ reality, it was existence without mankind, primordial of which we have imagery of, both literally in scientific method/physics, objective and also through psyche/subjective, dreams, astral projection, exploring psyche.

Your above points are merely statements but not supported by arguments at all.

It is not your or mine view that counts.
What you need is to present universal rational arguments.
Note the argument I provided where the ancients claimed Earth is round, it is not my view but rather sound universal arguments.

Note your statements;

What -
P1-god is knowledge,
P2 [knowledge] of which existed independent of mans consciousness or understanding of it,
P3-god existed before man when existence was coming, the first reaction(observable knowledge) that may be traceable using science.

Note I countered your P1, knowledge is only from humans.

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

So you have to prove I am wrong but in your case Knowledge is independent of man's consciousness and understanding of it.
Then you have to prove God is knowledge.

In addition, you have to define 'who is God' in your own terms if different from the conventional meaning, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I suggest these syllogism for you;

1. All of reality is knowledge
2. God is all of reality
3. Therefore God is knowledge

or

P1 Knowledge exists
P2 God is knowledge [3 above]
C1 Therefore God exists

The above at least has some logical footing, but ultimately the above is linked to the human conditions.
You will need to justify the above premises with the relevant supporting details.

If not the above, you need to start and come up with syllogisms that has some logical footings instead of you throwing unorganized statements all over the place.

Btw, I have spent many years as a theist and then a non-theist, I am confident you [based on what you have posted] will not be able to cover all the holes in whatever the arguments you will raise.

Nonsense, my posts show the evidence and how it interrelates by it existing. Do you deny an external subconscious to consciousness? Do you deny having to be humble before knowledge to gain an understanding? Do you disagree with guilt and internally integrated aspects of judgement or criticism in the psyche? Animals as well with their instincts.


I have provided universal arguments already. Ok and God being what it is is the ancients claiming that god is knowledge/subconscious aspect to everything which we communicate with and feel, which it /is/ external to consciousness and was before it, they demonstrated this in their own terminology and referred to human psyche/subconsciousness and the duality spawning out of darkness, evolving into light via the Big Bang “the word” in the holy bible. I have provided reasonable, logical arguments already that you have not addressed. Not my view either, it’s the view of the holy bible and the view of ancients, which has been misinterpreted, so dismiss the “conventional” meaning of god which is based off of a lack of understanding of which one can disprove it only because the “understanding” of it is not correct. The misunderstanding you have and try to argue against, doesn’t exist as something you can even argue against.


Knowledge is evidence, evidence always existed from the very first reaction, this is observable now that reactions(knowledge) came before us and also lead up to us. Understanding is what we may do with knowledge, application of what already was and create what can/could be from what was/is.

Human consciousness granted through evolution is the ability of comprehending evidence/knowledge, but one has to be humble to accept knowledge to understand it, knowledge came about by subconscious instinctive reacting.
So if knowledge is subconscious and always existed then knowledge is eternal regardless of humanity existing, if knowledge grants power, then it is all powerful and exists to be taken through being humble, if in order to gain an understanding one has to be humble and accepting, then that is a demand of something external to you.

Which proves the subconscious/knowledge is external to human consciousness/humanity and if god is the subconscious aspect which is external to our conscious psyche and the subconscious has always been due to reactions creating evidence/knowledge, it has no differentiation between future and past, subconsciousness manifested and brought us to this point without any discretion of time, it was in the blink of an eye for the universe but measurable to us due to our evolved conscious state.
If man has a subconscious external to conscious awareness and it feeds imagery than this can be summed up as a source or type of communication method between something external and consciousness.

Address the points and stop trying to take me in your own definition of which you have defined through misconception/misinterpretation or adopted misinterpretation. The “conventional” meaning of god is a misinterpreted meaning so how can one defend against an argument based off of a misunderstanding other than showing how, why and what you misunderstood. Which I /have/ demonstrated multiple times, potently.


Address the points:

Does one disagree that reality still existed before mans evolved perception/consciousness?

Does one disagree that man evolved from subconsciousness/instinct to have a duality of consciousness?

Does one disagree that the subconsciousness feeds imagery and feeling from imagery into the conscious mind/body?

Does one disagree that the subconscious cannot differentiate between time?

Does one disagree that knowledge is power? Understanding which is wisdom, is application and understanding such effects/affects through/of application of knowledge. One can know a fact without understanding it, one can participate in something factual without being conscious of it, we observe it through evolution and animals existence and their evolution, regardless of its being conscious of it being autonomous, it exists and is measured as evolution.

The Bible and religious texts are merely guides for this newly evolved power which was conscious awareness evolving out of subconscious instinct due to pain/fear. It is a guide to heed the subconscious for what it is.

Since understanding of knowledge is reached through humility and suffering and god is knowledge/subconscious, you are humble to god.

Since knowledge/facts via subconscious are eternal and external to human consciousness, god is eternal.

Since knowledge is power existent external to consciousness and available to wield/apply through understanding which consciousness is the ability evolved out of the subconsciousness to understand, god is omnipotent.


Does one disagree that in order to gain power through an understanding one must be humble first?

You want power? Then you must seek to understand and if you seek to understand, you must be humble. With this power, you may understand the present the future possibilities and the past, if you want to read someone’s psyche back to themself, you pay attention to their art and expressions. They subconsciously reveal themselves consciously, which can be read on the conscious. It is why the quiet weird one is scary to others, for they cannot subconsciously read them.”

My statement is that god is the subconscious interface that is knowledge as well due to instincts creating observable reactions to consciousness but did such subconsciously without our existing, which is demonstrated and shown in evolution and our own being able to make conscious sense of it.

So if god is knowledge and the subconscious interface external to mankind and consciousness, then address the points I have already laid out about subconscious/knowledge and its functions/functioning.


You didn’t counter my points because you never addressed the definition of god as it is here in this thread, defined via logic and reason. I have already demonstrated how a fact or knowledge can be known without an understanding, the understanding is what is reliant on human consciousness/existence. It literally says in the very definition you wrote

In the definition of knowledge you showed. Which demonstrates my point of knowledge existing being external to consciousness or humanity.

which is /acquired through/ experience or education /by perceiving/, discovering, or learning.

Acquired /through/, /by/ perceiving. It doesn’t state knowledge did not exist external to consciousness(perceiving) it only defines it as something that may be understood via consciousness, which I have already demonstrated here. Knowledge is external to man kinds existence. Understanding knowledge, is not.

I have already proven you wrong because you haven’t addressed the points and definitions I provided, you stick with the misinterpreted “conventional” idea of god which cannot be disproven or proven because it is not the correct understanding of what it is from the very beginning.

So address what I have defined.

Knowledge is only linked to subconsciousness, not to conscious understanding. Ones has to make a conscious choice to understand something.


P1. God is every reaction which is evidence/knowledge external to human existence or being conscious of it which has been and is demonstrated by evolution and our putting dates on finds older than the species of man. God is the subconscious interface that evolved consciousness, it is in both human psyche external to consciousness and also in reality as observable subconscious knowledge.

P2. Every now observable subconscious reaction before and after mankind is knowledge/evidence external subconsciously/unconsciously to consciousness.

Evolution proves and demonstrates such by findings older than our species, it also demonstrates such that this knowledge can be misunderstood which shows knowledge is external to understanding, which understanding stems from being conscious and humble. Which shows knowledge/subconscious exists outside of human consciousness/humanity


The points have been argued already here by me, address them as such.

[Prismatic567]

My statement is that god is the subconscious interface that is knowledge as well due to instincts creating observable reactions to consciousness but did such subconsciously without our existing, which is demonstrated and shown in evolution and our own being able to make conscious sense of it.

So if god is knowledge and the subconscious interface external to mankind and consciousness, then address the points I have already laid out about subconscious/knowledge and its functions/functioning.


You didn’t counter my points because you never addressed the definition of god as it is here in this thread, defined via logic and reason. I have already demonstrated how a fact or knowledge can be known without an understanding, the understanding is what is reliant on human consciousness/existence. It literally says in the very definition you wrote

In the definition of knowledge you showed. Which demonstrates my point of knowledge existing being external to consciousness or humanity.

which is /acquired through/ experience or education /by perceiving/, discovering, or learning.

Acquired /through/, /by/ perceiving. It doesn’t state knowledge did not exist external to consciousness(perceiving) it only defines it as something that may be understood via consciousness, which I have already demonstrated here. Knowledge is external to man kinds existence. Understanding knowledge, is not.

I have already proven you wrong because you haven’t addressed the points and definitions I provided, you stick with the misinterpreted “conventional” idea of god which cannot be disproven or proven because it is not the correct understanding of what it is from the very beginning.

So address what I have defined.

Knowledge is only linked to subconsciousness, not to conscious understanding. Ones has to make a conscious choice to understand something.


P1. God is every reaction which is evidence/knowledge external to human existence or being conscious of it which has been and is demonstrated by evolution and our putting dates on finds older than the species of man. God is the subconscious interface that evolved consciousness, it is in both human psyche external to consciousness and also in reality as observable subconscious knowledge.

P2. Every now observable subconscious reaction before and after mankind is knowledge/evidence external subconsciously/unconsciously to consciousness.

Evolution proves and demonstrates such by findings older than our species, it also demonstrates such that this knowledge can be misunderstood which shows knowledge is external to understanding, which understanding stems from being conscious and humble. Which shows knowledge/subconscious exists outside of human consciousness/humanity


The points have been argued already here by me, address them as such.

You cannot complain and blame me for not understanding your views.
The onus is for you to present your ideas clearly upon feedbacks.

I cannot infer any logical conclusion from your P1 and P2 above.

I have suggested you establish some reasonable syllogism then justify the premises.
Note your conclusion in the OP is stated as 'God is a possibility' and 'God exists'

In this case you have to show how you arrive at your conclusion, e.g.

P1 God is X
P2 X is a possibility
C3 therefore God is a possibility.

You will have to define the terms God, X and possibility and justify P1 and P2 to form your conclusion.
Note what I have suggested in the most basic and universal approach.
You can restate the syllogism but the form has to be the same, i.e.

P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z

or you can use other acceptable forms.

Your critique of the term 'knowledge' from wiki as independent is wrong. I suggest you read the whole article. Therein Plato defined 'Knowledge' as Justified True Belief [JTB] which are all human activities in interaction with an external thing or of one self. Even then this definition is insufficient due to Gettier.
But the point is knowledge cannot arise without human experiences and thinking.

Knowledge is an emergence from the human conditions interactions with things which in one limited perspective are supposedly external to the human conditions.
E.g. we have knowledge of an apple which supposed exist independent of human conditions. Theist claimed to have knowledge of God which is supposedly exists independent of human beings.
It is ridiculous to claim God is knowledge.

Therefore there is no knowledge if there are no human beings to interact with the supposedly independent external things.
Note in another perspective, the philosophical anti-realists are arguing even the supposedly independent external things are not absolute independent.

It is the same with consciousness and subconsciousness which are not independent of the human conditions.


I suggest you use the following syllogism to present the argument systematically and most will understand [not necessary agree] to give whatever necessary counter arguments or agree with it. i.e.

P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z

You can start with the conclusion C3 'God [X] is a possibility[Z]' and works backward to formulate your premises 1 or 2.

[Artimas]

My statement is that god is the subconscious interface that is knowledge as well due to instincts creating observable reactions to consciousness but did such subconsciously without our existing, which is demonstrated and shown in evolution and our own being able to make conscious sense of it.

So if god is knowledge and the subconscious interface external to mankind and consciousness, then address the points I have already laid out about subconscious/knowledge and its functions/functioning.


You didn’t counter my points because you never addressed the definition of god as it is here in this thread, defined via logic and reason. I have already demonstrated how a fact or knowledge can be known without an understanding, the understanding is what is reliant on human consciousness/existence. It literally says in the very definition you wrote

In the definition of knowledge you showed. Which demonstrates my point of knowledge existing being external to consciousness or humanity.

which is /acquired through/ experience or education /by perceiving/, discovering, or learning.

Acquired /through/, /by/ perceiving. It doesn’t state knowledge did not exist external to consciousness(perceiving) it only defines it as something that may be understood via consciousness, which I have already demonstrated here. Knowledge is external to man kinds existence. Understanding knowledge, is not.

I have already proven you wrong because you haven’t addressed the points and definitions I provided, you stick with the misinterpreted “conventional” idea of god which cannot be disproven or proven because it is not the correct understanding of what it is from the very beginning.

So address what I have defined.

Knowledge is only linked to subconsciousness, not to conscious understanding. Ones has to make a conscious choice to understand something.


P1. God is every reaction which is evidence/knowledge external to human existence or being conscious of it which has been and is demonstrated by evolution and our putting dates on finds older than the species of man. God is the subconscious interface that evolved consciousness, it is in both human psyche external to consciousness and also in reality as observable subconscious knowledge.

P2. Every now observable subconscious reaction before and after mankind is knowledge/evidence external subconsciously/unconsciously to consciousness.

Evolution proves and demonstrates such by findings older than our species, it also demonstrates such that this knowledge can be misunderstood which shows knowledge is external to understanding, which understanding stems from being conscious and humble. Which shows knowledge/subconscious exists outside of human consciousness/humanity


The points have been argued already here by me, address them as such.

You cannot complain and blame me for not understanding your views.
The onus is for you to present your ideas clearly upon feedbacks.

I cannot infer any logical conclusion from your P1 and P2 above.

I have suggested you establish some reasonable syllogism then justify the premises.
Note your conclusion in the OP is stated as 'God is a possibility' and 'God exists'

In this case you have to show how you arrive at your conclusion, e.g.

P1 God is X
P2 X is a possibility
C3 therefore God is a possibility.

You will have to define the terms God, X and possibility and justify P1 and P2 to form your conclusion.
Note what I have suggested in the most basic and universal approach.
You can restate the syllogism but the form has to be the same, i.e.

P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z

or you can use other acceptable forms.

Your critique of the term 'knowledge' from wiki as independent is wrong. I suggest you read the whole article. Therein Plato defined 'Knowledge' as Justified True Belief [JTB] which are all human activities in interaction with an external thing or of one self. Even then this definition is insufficient due to Gettier.
But the point is knowledge cannot arise without human experiences and thinking.

Knowledge is an emergence from the human conditions interactions with things which in one limited perspective are supposedly external to the human conditions.
E.g. we have knowledge of an apple which supposed exist independent of human conditions. Theist claimed to have knowledge of God which is supposedly exists independent of human beings.
It is ridiculous to claim God is knowledge.

Therefore there is no knowledge if there are no human beings to interact with the supposedly independent external things.
Note in another perspective, the philosophical anti-realists are arguing even the supposedly independent external things are not absolute independent.

It is the same with consciousness and subconsciousness which are not independent of the human conditions.


I suggest you use the following syllogism to present the argument systematically and most will understand [not necessary agree] to give whatever necessary counter arguments or agree with it. i.e.

P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z

You can start with the conclusion C3 'God [X] is a possibility[Z]' and works backward to formulate your premises 1 or 2.

Is this better at all?

P1 God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality which interrelate, similar to how dna functions in biology. We function as dna to/of it and expand on our own level at the same time. It's fractal.

P2. god is a possibility - why?
The subconscious/unconscious interface is found through the interrelating concepts of knowing and understanding by the different levels of consciousness there are, of which consciousness is a different level from the subconscious, one who is subconscious still knows, still feels, still has instincts, but what separates them from a higher level of consciousness is understanding those facets, which there is a form of consciousness that is external to knowing because we had to know before we could understand. So god is what exists before and after, the reactions of which we deem verifiable by evolution. Science is the tool to verify this by how subjects of knowledge interrelate, subjects such as, psychology, history, biology, archaeology, etc. Which show proof of evolution and these subjects focusing on the interrelation of different times, we of which focus now on the present or future and understanding of the past. An understanding(consciousness) had been separate from knowing/instinct at some point which is verifiable by/through the study of evolution/change. This shows there are levels of consciousness, knowledge stemming from a being awake but not being able to interact with being awake, bound by instinct. An understanding of knowledge demonstrates the differentiation between what knowledge and an understanding are. We increase in consciousness as we know more but an understanding of knowledge is a choice in direction of knowledge. First there was a subconscious though and that is what I am showing is the god of which exists, because things still are in a state of only knowing and not understanding. It's an interrelation of subjects and time to be summed up into a one word. Ultimately it's a matter of semantics and ego though of the acceptance of that word god, the fact that one has to admit that people whom were ancient understood that it is present, they did not understand the why, how, when, what, etc. Because they didn't have science. Science is a tool of interrelating subjects which demonstrates past, present and future if science uses and heeds psychology. This shows consciousness is growing and that god as existent as the subconscious/unconscious aspects are also growing, since nature is evolving due to knowledge existing, which knowledge exists independent of the next level of consciousness (understanding). So to have knowledge one has to perceive it (experience) to know still, so be conscious, which is the subconscious, the next level of the subconscious is consciousness itself, which is an understanding of what one may know. So since we may observe nature still growing and be growing ourselves from it and in it, this is the interrelation that proves god by it still being past, present and future. Since we can observe the subconscious facets and are still evolving consciousness.

It is like a staircase, knowledge/perception/subconscious is a step below full fledged consciousness, which is being able to understand knowledge/perception/subconscious, while still having a subconscious/knowledge/perception due to our preservation through breeding/evolution.

So the demonstration of different levels of consciousness, consciousness in the form of an understanding of knowing and the subconscious in the form of knowing/knowledge as experience/perception existing separate from each other shows that knowledge is independent of consciousness which is an understanding of knowledge/subconscious.
One can know something, have knowledge of something which is a subconscious instinct(curiosity) without understanding it fully, which understanding is being fully conscious of it. That's the evidence in a present moment.
God is the knowledge(subconscious) that we may now understand. It's a view of past and present as well as future which is in the subconscious as well, due to it's not being able to differentiate between time, knowledge stems from reaction, experiencing. So we humanity may and may have experienced all and nothing at the same time by being involved in this entire series of reactions which we can both have knowledge of which is instinctual and understand it (Conscious choice), do you see the interrelation? between knowledge/understanding or Subconscious/Conscious.

[Prismatic567]

Is this better at all?

P1 God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality which interrelate, similar to how dna functions in biology. We function as dna to/of it and expand on our own level at the same time. It's fractal.

P2. god is a possibility - why?
The subconscious/unconscious interface is found through the interrelating concepts of knowing and understanding by the different levels of consciousness there are, of which consciousness is a different level from the subconscious, one who is subconscious still knows, still feels, still has instincts, but what separates them from a higher level of consciousness is understanding those facets, which there is a form of consciousness that is external to knowing because we had to know before we could understand. So god is what exists before and after, the reactions of which we deem verifiable by evolution. Science is the tool to verify this by how subjects of knowledge interrelate, subjects such as, psychology, history, biology, archaeology, etc. Which show proof of evolution and these subjects focusing on the interrelation of different times, we of which focus now on the present or future and understanding of the past. An understanding(consciousness) had been separate from knowing/instinct at some point which is verifiable by/through the study of evolution/change. This shows there are levels of consciousness, knowledge stemming from a being awake but not being able to interact with being awake, bound by instinct. An understanding of knowledge demonstrates the differentiation between what knowledge and an understanding are. We increase in consciousness as we know more but an understanding of knowledge is a choice in direction of knowledge. First there was a subconscious though and that is what I am showing is the god of which exists, because things still are in a state of only knowing and not understanding. It's an interrelation of subjects and time to be summed up into a one word. Ultimately it's a matter of semantics and ego though of the acceptance of that word god, the fact that one has to admit that people whom were ancient understood that it is present, they did not understand the why, how, when, what, etc. Because they didn't have science. Science is a tool of interrelating subjects which demonstrates past, present and future if science uses and heeds psychology. This shows consciousness is growing and that god as existent as the subconscious/unconscious aspects are also growing, since nature is evolving due to knowledge existing, which knowledge exists independent of the next level of consciousness (understanding). So to have knowledge one has to perceive it (experience) to know still, so be conscious, which is the subconscious, the next level of the subconscious is consciousness itself, which is an understanding of what one may know. So since we may observe nature still growing and be growing ourselves from it and in it, this is the interrelation that proves god by it still being past, present and future. Since we can observe the subconscious facets and are still evolving consciousness.

It is like a staircase, knowledge/perception/subconscious is a step below full fledged consciousness, which is being able to understand knowledge/perception/subconscious, while still having a subconscious/knowledge/perception due to our preservation through breeding/evolution.

So the demonstration of different levels of consciousness, consciousness in the form of an understanding of knowing and the subconscious in the form of knowing/knowledge as experience/perception existing separate from each other shows that knowledge is independent of consciousness which is an understanding of knowledge/subconscious.
One can know something, have knowledge of something which is a subconscious instinct(curiosity) without understanding it fully, which understanding is being fully conscious of it. That's the evidence in a present moment.
God is the knowledge(subconscious) that we may now understand. It's a view of past and present as well as future which is in the subconscious as well, due to it's not being able to differentiate between time, knowledge stems from reaction, experiencing. So we humanity may and may have experienced all and nothing at the same time by being involved in this entire series of reactions which we can both have knowledge of which is instinctual and understand it (Conscious choice), do you see the interrelation? between knowledge/understanding or Subconscious/Conscious.

Your P2 above is the conclusion not a premise. From what I gathered from the above, your syllogism is as follows;

P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
P2 - ??? [none, where?]
C3 -Therefore God is a possibility

To fit the above into the proper format;

P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z

Your argument would have looked like this,

P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
P2 - the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality is a Possibility
C3 -Therefore God is a possibility

Then you should justify why P1 and P2 are true, and your conclusion will be true.

If you accept the above, then my counter arguments to your P1 is this;

P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
You have to prove an external reality exists independent of the human conditions. Note I highlighted the Philosophical Realist [yours] versus Philosophical anti-Realist [mine] issue.
You have to understand the above and prove your view is true, but I am sure your's is not tenable.

But even Assuming there is an external reality.
Your God as interface argument can be modeled as such;

Human psyche < ---------God ---------> Reality

The interface between the human conditions and external reality is not God.
The interface are waves, electromagnetic waves.
If there is an apple externally, its the electromagnetic waves that travel from the apple to the brain. Thus the interface is the electromagnetic waves which can be scientifically verified. There is no God as the interface.

Generally God is omnipresent, thus present within humans and all of reality, thus there is no need for interfacing.

If the electromagnetic waves can be explained by Science why do we need theology or theism to explain it?
It is the same for your claim God = energy, which can be explained by Science [via conjectures albeit polished conjectures].
If you insist, then, your God is scientific and thus at best merely conjectural. But no sane scientist will accept this theory of God as scientific.

The since P1 is false, your P2 is also false and do not follow to the conclusion, i.e. non-sequitor.

My point is your tendency to cling to the idea of a God is purely due to the desperate existential psychological impulses that are inherent in ALL humans and active in most theists.

I suggest you must get the syllogism format first, then justify P1 and P2 as true.

P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z

Note Y in both premises are crossed out to arrive at the conclusion.
The above is very basic, there are other considerations to ensure the conclusion is logical [without fallacies, e.g. equivocation, etc.] and sound [rational].

Rushing into throwing statements all over could be a waste of time.