@Peter_Kropotkin what should you say when your life sucks? There’s only one thing to say.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I just saw this last night, live, and it was fantastic. I can’t not share it, given the thread title.
A good theory should meet the following basic requirements:
- Clarity – It must be clearly defined and free of vague concepts.
- Consistency – The statements and principles within the theory should not contradict each other.
- Empirical Support – It must be supported by observable and testable evidence.
- Falsifiability – It should be possible to test the theory and potentially prove it wrong.
- Predictive Power – It should be able to make reliable predictions about future observations or outcomes.
- Scope – It should apply to a broad range of phenomena, not just isolated cases.
- Simplicity (Parsimony) – It should be as simple as possible while still explaining the relevant phenomena (Occam’s Razor).
- Usefulness – It should have practical applications or provide insights that help in understanding or solving problems.
- Coherence with Existing Knowledge – It should fit well with established scientific facts or provide a convincing reason for contradicting them.
1 Like
Setting aside #4 (the bit about “falsifiability”), if you haven’t given the slightest measure of critical thought as to what my theory entails…
(of which you clearly have not)
…then how do you know if whether or not it adequately fulfills the rest of those listed conditions for being a “good (logical) theory” regarding the ontological status of God?
Furthermore, I expressly stated that my theory is “logical” if you compare it to all of the “other theories” regarding God, handed down to us from ancient minds via the world’s religions.
So, stop implying that I have not qualified how the word “logical” applies to what I am proposing.
Anyway, with that being said, let me address your list – line-by-line – in order to see if it presents a problem for me.
1. Clarity – It must be clearly defined and free of vague concepts.
Well, I don’t know how much clearer I could have gotten in my little video clip (at least when I recorded that segment around 30 years ago). Assuming that you even bothered to watch it, was there something that wasn’t clear to you?
And regarding the notion of being "free of vague concepts"…
…I don’t think that the concept I offered in that video could be anywhere near as vague as that which is offered by science (materialism) regarding its promotion of how the blind and mindless processes of “chance” somehow (miraculously) created the universe – something of which was so perfectly encapsulated in this simple cartoon…
2. Consistency – The statements and principles within the theory should not contradict each other.
Seeing how it is clear that you haven’t put forth any effort to investigate any of the details of my theory, it is silly of me to ask the following question, nevertheless,…
…please tell me where any of my statements within the context of my theory are inconsistent and thus “contradict each other”?
3. Empirical Support – It must be supported by observable and testable evidence.
My (and Berkeley’s) theory of the universe being the MIND of a higher consciousness…
(indeed, a fully-matured version of our own minds, which is where I and Berkeley part company)
…is clearly supported by the observable and testable evidence coming out of quantum theory which suggests that all universal matter is created from what seems to be an infinitely malleable (informationally-based / holographic-like) substance whose patterns of information can be arranged (coded) in such a way at the “Implicate” level of reality (David Bohm) so as to enable it to produce absolutely anything “imaginable” up at the “Explicate” level of reality (just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created).
In other words, literally everything - in all of reality - is made of what seems to be “mind stuff.”
4. Falsifiability – It should be possible to test the theory and potentially prove it wrong.
Is materialism’s insistence that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of “chance,” falsifiable? No, it’s not. So, don’t hold me to a standard that not even science can achieve with its own proposals.
5. Predictive Power – It should be able to make reliable predictions about future observations or outcomes.
My theory predicts that at the moment of death, it (my theory) will be proven to be true. You are free to test the veracity of that prediction at any time you wish.
6. Scope – It should apply to a broad range of phenomena, not just isolated cases.
The scope of my theory not only applies to the status of the entire universe (as in all phenomena), but also to our ultimate and eternal destinies as the literal progeny of the Creator of this universe.
Is that a broad enough range? If not, I can go even broader than that with the scope of my theory.
7. Simplicity (Parsimony) – It should be as simple as possible while still explaining the relevant phenomena (Occam’s Razor).
As always, I freely admit that I could be wrong,…
…however, I suggest that the truth of reality (implicit in my theory) cannot get any simpler, nor more natural, nor more organic than that which is clearly represented in the following illustrations…
8. Usefulness – It should have practical applications or provide insights that help in understanding or solving problems.
The “insight” that my theory provides is that the only problem we humans momentarily have is the inability to understand that there is no problem, and that everything is proceeding according to design.
9. Coherence with Existing Knowledge – It should fit well with established scientific facts or provide a convincing reason for contradicting them.
I already pointed out where my theory fits well with scientific facts (reread my answer to point #3).
Furthermore, my theory, even though it incorporates elements of already existing knowledge of what humans’ “claim” God to be,…
…it simply cannot be fully coherent with that existing knowledge if it is obvious that most of that knowledge is nothing more than mythological nonsense.
In other words, it’s time to rise to a new (and unifying) plateau of understanding of what we and God truly are (even if it’s still not a perfect understanding).
In which case, I like to think of my little project of using words and illustrations to help us achieve a more logical visualization of God as being in the spirit of the following quote by Terence McKenna:
“…Thought cannot go where the roads of language have not been built…”
Little of that ever pertained to God.
If anything seeds seems to be attempting to make God more verifiable.
@seeds - do you know Kabbalah? It too is a model that is meant to allow man to become fully matured into godhood. Though something like Mao Shan Taoism might be more efficient in practice, given it is necessary to refine energies.
Do you feel you have approached god or godhood in your work?
“…Thought cannot go where the roads of language have not been built…”
That is untrue. Language is a sediment of inspired thought. Spirit isn’t bound by language and the profoundest way of thought is spirit (seen ‘from below’ as revelation, or miracle).
@ Peter Kropotkin there is an idea that Earth is a tool, created by ambitious immortal beings (not God), to strengthen, harden and refine immortal souls by trial and tribulation. Your idea of God seems to be a modern Judaeo Christian one, the version who intended everything as it is. That, by the way, is not the Biblical one who saw things getting out of hand, beyond his plans, right after he completed his creation due to interference of the snake.
It is ironically mostly Marxists, like you and Promethean, who blame God for human suffering. You could definitely blame him for initially overlooking the snake.
“When there was light it found me and named me…” - “S”
Honestly, ridiculous contradictions are not within the range of possibilities, logically speaking.
You can point as much as you like.
It’s still without value or meaning
Precisely!
Thank you, Jakob, for noticing that fact.
In my earlier years (in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) of obsessively trying to read (or listen to video or taped lectures) pertaining to all things metaphysical, I had superficial exposure to Kabbalah but I never studied it in-depth.
As with most of what I call “old paradigm” beliefs, I tried to wade through the thick weeds of their esoteric jargon in order to extract and absorb the “gist” of what they proposed, and then I moved on.
It is needless to say that I cannot prove any of this, but I feel that back in the summer of 1970, I experienced a full-blown, one-on-one encounter with God. And that is something that I tried to describe in a thread I created in the Philosophy Now forum.
Here’s a link to that thread if you are curious:
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=685773#p685773
Again, I cannot prove any of the following,…
…but I suggest that by reason of us each being the literal familial “offspring” of the Creator of this universe, means that “godhood” is already baked into the very fabric of our being, for we are each the literal “Gods” of our own minds, which, in essence, are like “parallel universes” relative to each other.
We are simply not yet fully conscious of the full-potential of our being, for only after crossing the threshold of death will that potential…
(and our true form - the same form as God)
…be revealed to us.
The bottom line is that we are each familial members of the highest species of being in all of reality,…
(i.e., the same species of being as God)
…and as such, we are each in possession of the greatest gift imaginable, for the Creator of this universe has literally replicated herself (himself/itself) through each of us.
Think of it as being a cosmic “parthenogenesis” taking place at the highest level of reality,…
…all in the spirit of the old aphorism:
“As Below, So Above”
(Btw, just so that there is no confusion regarding my use of genderizing pronouns when referring to God, our true and eternal form is genderless.)
You are over-thinking the point, for the “roads of language” I am attempting to build here are merely meant to help lead others into higher realms of thinking.
I’m talking about thoughts and ideas that the oblivious / Dunning-Kruger-ish types (you know who I am referring to) have simply never encountered before.
Unfortunately, the “road building” effort may be an exercise in futility.
Another of my favorite Terence McKenna quotes has to do with the “scientific” approach to explaining the universe…
“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”
…which takes us back to that cartoon I uploaded earlier…
In fact nothing of the formative world where the physical world takes shape, is explained by science - nothing about the emerging of biological structures is explained.
There is a very active principle at play. I dont think things are intelligently created, but I think they take shape actively. Random mutations in a world of entropy dont account for what exists.
I had read about your initial revelation, but I wondered if you had grown toward a continuum of such experience, to a matured godhood. I mean have you evolved under this insight? Or was the insight itself enough?
In Kabbalah there is a tradition of climbing the tree of life so as to ultimately merge ones waking consciousness with the miracle.
It’s metaphor, no more. If what I believe is meant by God, it has so many diverse descriptions because it can’t be described.
What is this?
1 Like
My comment was directed at Seeds rather ideosyncratic notion that he weirdly calls “god”, and i think he was being literal.
“… it cannot be described…” This is particularly true of many things that do not actually exist.
Some things that do not exist never suffer from this problem. I think we can all describe who and what is “Gandalf”. For me the credibiltiy for any idea that lacks the chance of acquiring a definitive meaning, lessens with the diversity.
Agreed.
The proponents of “Science” (hardcore materialism) falsely and naively presume that they are somehow “explaining” the emergence of biological structures by attributing it to “EVOLUTION.”
However, as I have written elsewhere, science fails miserably in explaining how the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics,…
(without the slightest hint of guidance, or teleological impetus, or any way of consciously “knowing” what they [gravity and thermodynamics] were actually creating)
…were nevertheless somehow able to cause what is presumed to be the post Big Bang fields of disparate and chaotically dispersed quantum particles, metaphorically represented by this,…
…to magically come together to form the perfectly arranged patterns of coded information that not only created this unthinkably stable setting…
…that had to be in place before “evolution” could even begin to do its thing,…
…but also managed to meticulously “equip” the above setting with every possible ingredient it would need to awaken and perpetually sustain innumerable lifeforms.
Again, ^^^all of which^^^ (according to “science”) was somehow achieved by the workings of gravity and thermodynamics without the slightest hint of guidance or teleological impetus, nor any way of “knowing” what they were actually creating.
For it is only after life and consciousness arrived on the scene,…
(billions of years later as an “accidental” result of this blind and mindless endeavor)
…would the extent of this miraculous feat of creation and unfathomable order be revealed.
RIDICULOUS!!!
I agree with you that there is indeed an “active principle” at
play here,
However, if you don’t think any sort of conscious intelligence is involved in the creation of the universe (in the creation of this “active principle”), then you’re going to have to provide a reasonable (non-vague) explanation as to how this “active principle” became an “active principle.”
Agreed.
But neither does an unaccounted-for “active principle.”
The “insight” I have acquired has led me to understand that the only way we can evolve into a fully-matured state of godhood is after we have awakened into our true and eternal form - post death.
Again, godhood is a “done deal” because it comes with being a member of the highest species of being in all of reality. I’m talking about a species of being whose members (us) are in possession of the gift of eternal life.
And the point is that if we are truly meant to live eternally, then we simply must have something logical to do to occupy infinite time.
And thus, the creation and maintenance of our own personal universe…
(created from the living fabric of our own minds - just as what I am alleging the Creator of this universe has done with her mind)
…is the only thing that makes any sense.
For not only will we be forever evolving and forever challenged to make our universe (our mind) more and more perfect,…
…but we will also be forever “fruitful,” for we too will eventually be able to pass on this wonderful gift of life to others in the same way we received it.
Again,…
(as was alluded to in that Hermetic aphorism: “As Above, So Below,” of which I changed to “As Below, So Above”)
…I am speaking of the “natural” and “organic” propagation of life taking place at the highest level of reality, where, again, the members of the highest species of being in all of reality, replicate themselves by “conceiving” their own offspring “within” themselves. as is so prominently suggested in Biblical metaphysics where the higher Beings state the following…
“…Let ‘us’ make man in ‘our’ image…”
To me, that vague vision of “merging” into “something” is all just a part of the general vagueness implicit in all of the “old paradigm” religions and metaphysics, for after the “merging,” Jakob, then what?
Either our individual (incorporeal) souls maintain their autonomy and our sense of personal selfhood (self-awareness) and thus continue to evolve eternally after being “born-out” of our physical bodies via death,…
…or…
…we blink out of existence forever.
However, if we do continue on eternally in some sort of self-sentient form, then, like I said, we must have something logical to do to occupy infinite time, otherwise, we’d probably go nuts.
And seeing how our own individual minds seem to be a rudimentary “template” of God’s mind (the universe) in that they consist of a conscious “agent” who is in possession and control over an infinitely malleable substance that is capable of being willfully formed into absolutely anything “imaginable”,…
…then I just don’t see how what I am proposing doesn’t make sense.
There’s actually a hell realm that people can get stuck in when they live forever.
Sheer insanity. Nobody makes sense. It’s a version of comedy, but it’s very disoriented.
Just adding.
I’m the closest thing you’re going to get of the god concept on earth.
Take it for what you will.
God himself is, as I see it, a product of the active principle, which itself is a product of necessity, as the most likely thing to exist instead of nothing.
There are two ways of being attentive in the world: Seemingly dominant in the West today is the need to categorise, name and fix everything, to set boundaries and isolate ‘things’.
Another way is to see events or experiences in their context and interaction with everything else. It is sometimes like trying to remove an object from a spider’s web and realising that everything else is being pulled along with it.
We want to name clear causes in order to categorise an effect, but in the entanglement of events, we discover that the causes cannot be pinned down because they lie far back in the past or far away.
If we judge everything from our point of view ‘now’, then everything seems simple. But if we step back and try to gain an overall impression, or take a ‘meta-perspective’, it’s a bit like the song, “From a Distance”. It looks completely different.
I believe that this second way of being attentive is where the seers, mystics, sages and shamans are, and they observe things that we don’t, much like a man in the desert sees more stars than a man in the city. We sometimes need a shift in perspective to appreciate what is there.
However, when one of this group makes and observation, and the person with the first method of being attentive gets hold of it, and tries to categorise, name and isolate it, it either becomes ridiculous, or it vanishes like the stars when it is too bright to see. This is why mystics often employ poetry or mythology, using metaphors and symbolism, understanding that they can only point, but others have to look.
We are all gods, in our own unique way… it’s called ‘ancestral worship’.
“I’m the closest thing you’re going to get of the god concept on earth.”
It doesn’t work like that, boss. You have to actually leave the apartment, go out into the world and suffer an onslaught of inhuman betrayal and abuse through no fault of your own at the hands of god, family, the state and its citizens. Only then will you know the secret of the universe.
As it stands, your only use right now is to serve as an example of how fucked up this world is. You are study material for anarchists, nothing more.
Not a “Western” thing at all. This is the story of language
You are confused here. This is the same thing, as your previous paragraph