I do believe that Ideas are “interactive” between bodies and the universe/existence. But a “Call to Action” implies a hierarchy of Command and Authority. Biology is more complex than any centralized Authority. Species act autonomously and disregarding Authority, most of the time. Trees, funguses, plants, are not “Called to Action” by Ideas, for example. So Ideas then, by your definition, are confined to (presumably) only intelligent animals, and only a portion of intelligent humans, is it not?
It would be pretty cool to Call-to-Action the Tree Ents though… have them uplift their roots out of the ground and attack Isengard… sadly, Ideas aren’t All-Powerful. Even ideas have Limitations, which is what I want to get at.
Will the idea of God as a form of existence not suit you? God knows Himself through changes and was forced to split into matter, space, and time, because only in conditions of division is knowledge possible. I hope it’s not too hard to realize that trees and fungi are a consequence of a rational idea? But at the same time, it’s also its realization. And power? Well, everything is God’s will — even your objections, too. Command? How do you imagine commanding a stone? It’s one thing to have power and management. The first is destructive, the second is a system, based on right. By the way, “interactivity” is more of an absurdity, an attempt to resolve the conflict between the subjective and the objective, refusing to understand that only in the combination of these two measures is understanding possible.
How?
Isn’t this a logical fallacy?
What’s there to explain? “Everything is God’s will” – that’s the universal answer. God was created for this purpose – to explain what’s not understood. Do you need an explanation as to why God needs fungi and trees? Easy. God knows Himself through the particulars of His own changes. That’s why God consists of everything that exists and it changes. Is it easier for you now? Has the “error” disappeared?
By your own logic, Everything needs explaining.
Do you believe there is only “One” God?
Perfect, or even more advanced, reasoning does not rely on faith at all. Is this hard for you to grasp? Reason only requires assumptions. That’s why there is no lie associated with faith.
“One God” is the most practical concept for explanations and any questions. On the other hand, the idea of “many gods” arises from the unwillingness to understand unity. “One God” means understanding existence as being governed by an all-powerful personality. With “many gods,” issues of division arise—who is responsible for what? Remember the Romans—it’s easy to laugh at their gods. Or the biblical lie, where God is portrayed as an idiot, and worship is offered to the Lord. With one God, everything is simpler, and thus, brilliant. There’s no faith; it’s pure logic.
The truth is that if you’re interested in how the universe is really structured, you’ll have to explain what “Nothing,” “Chaos,” and “Absolute” are. But if the concept of an “existing God” is difficult for you, it’s doubtful you’ll understand what “a non-existing God” is. Though the latter forms the basis of almost all religions. The essence of faith is the exclusion of reason and the inability to string a couple of words together without lies.
..so a nihilistic view, of how existence became itself. [is that via Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, or someone-similar else?]
How very quaint..
…or is it how Being exists itself? (mind you, I did not read what Demon said)
That’s not a very convincing argument…
I don’t have any problems with ‘God’. I do have problems with humanity speaking upon God without Authority, though. If you want to argue that God is completely subjective, and “any opinion” is as good as the next, then you equate God with the ramblings of schizophrenics and drug-addicts, homeless bums on the Californian streets. Nobody listens to them, or should. So it matters who speaks upon God, and exactly how. That’s kind of the subject-matter of this thread, the ‘physical’ implications of spiritual concepts and ‘how’ exactly they exist.
There are hundreds and thousands of core-concepts around God that are relevant and powerful, for example, God being a “Father” (Paternalism) of the human specie. That is something I, and most people, even Secularists, can understand. Is God the “All Father”? How, Why? Does humanity have “One” paternalism, one male lineage that dominates all others? One Authoritative beginning and end?
As to your conceptualization of Nothingness, Chaos, and Absolution, I suggest you choose one specific topic at a time. I don’t want to derail this thread too wildly, even more so than it already is.
Not cute. And it’s not nihilism at all. People who are unable to understand, because they don’t want to understand, are forced to use labels. And this does no honor to the intellect.
I don’t want" is the same as “I can’t.” And the existing God — is an attitude towards existence as a rational, omnipotent personality. Moreover, God is a cannibal who feeds on souls. A sadist because he enjoys souls that are salted with tears and seasoned with sorrow. No resemblance to a “Father.” Additionally, God is a bastard and a scoundrel — He uses people as tools for knowledge but couldn’t care less about them. The tools reproduce themselves — why pity them? But… to understand the existing God, at a minimum, one must think about the non-existent. Step over your “I don’t want.
You had said.. 
How exactly? Simple.. it ain’t.
There is nothing to show of this ‘divine message’, but there are some folk who are getting rich and trying to take over the world.. coz the universe sure ain’t.
“Nothing,” “Chaos,” “Absolute”.. sounds like nihilistic talk to me, cowboy. 
.
Verbiage, coz.. unnecessary.
If there are no definitions and no desire to understand, then knowledge appears as mere chatter.
There was a man — Sri Aurobindo, an Indian philosopher, mystic, poet, political figure, and one of the spiritual leaders of Neo-Hinduism.
He is often attributed with a quote stating that the indigenous people did not see Columbus’s ships because their minds could not comprehend them.
You are no different from those “natives.”
A truly reasonable person would first try to understand what they are being told, before passing judgment.
God is an “attitude”? Interesting, I haven’t heard that argument before. Most interpretations of God, in my life, refer to ‘Him’ as the “All-Father”, Father of All, Absolute Paternalism. I lean toward that interpretation, because it “makes sense” to me. Maybe God and Divinity is about intuition over the intellect. Because intellectual arguments tend to fail, when it speaks for or against Godliness and Divinity.
Rationality is not the most powerful reasoning faculty. Because much of, if not all Rationality, is designed to ‘justify’ post Hoc mistakes, errors, and fallacies already committed by the Subject. Rationality isn’t really “pointed forward” in time; it is not good at planning. This is demonstrated through endless Confirmation Biases, inherent in humanity, and through religious and political belief-systems.
Trying to legitimize God through Reason, is like a dog or ape or cat trying to legitimize Humanity through Reason.
So, this means that ‘God’ as a concept is forced into something you either Build up, or Tear down, Creation or Destruction. But it’s a Choice of the individual.
It’s interesting to me how individuals seek Power in life. Some do it through Beauty. Some do it through Fame. Some do it through Politics. Most do it through Wealth. But, are there not ‘higher’ values? Greater systems? I’m suggesting, Spirituality, Religion, Morality.
Self-Consciousness is a growing, relatively newer aspect of Human development, existence, and civilizations. The “inner-monologue” phenomenon, in Ancient times, was interpreted as The Gods ‘speaking through’ humans as conduits. This represents the phase of humanity and intellect pre-language, and as language first develops. It’s symbolic of that early seed of Self-Consciousness. Awareness, Information, Knowledge, these are also forms of powers worth seeking out.
What prevents us from asking ourselves? Why is the concept of “God” necessary? Such a question is by no means idle; it is, in fact, defining of God. Animals, plants, and what we call “inanimate” nature get by just fine without the concept of “God.” Yet, only humans felt the need to invent this concept. This is why the question is not, “Does God exist?” but rather, what, and more importantly, why, do we need to call something “God”?
Are you really interested? Will you be able to grasp the concepts? They are milestones of understanding. For example: Power — a system of prohibitions, followed by temporary permissions and concessions to please the one who set the prohibitions. Think about it. Everything is by God’s will.
God — a cannibal who feeds on human souls. A sadist — constantly instigating wars, catastrophes, disasters. Finally, He torments people with old age and, in the end, kills them to devour their soul.
How do you feel about God’s power? Earthly, governmental power — by God’s will. Should we be surprised that governmental authority embodies all the desires of God, the sadist and cannibal? For this, God rewards with blessings and the opportunity to plunder nations.
Can you conceive of this? To accept reality as it is?