You are making this more complicated than it need be. Something’s got to be uncaused or we wouldn’t be here. God is the best choice for such an uncaused being.
Perhaps, but there is a case to be had between more complicated and more simple.
Pure logic , You mentioned very early on, is a language which developed, occurs and is meant for correspondence between god and men.
I would concur, bit its only a beginning.
The whole problem with it is that men have rejected reason hundreds of years ago as a viable form of / and for proof.
Take the proof or the discissions going on right now for shadow. Ontological proof is difficult enough, whereas logic foreshadows the proof which are instrumental in trying to distinguish the levels of.conscious manifestation from higher to lower appearances-
Lower levels , ironically are displaced and transformed into the Higher levels, as they become transformed .
There are many indications of transformation, and direct experience with the sources of higher consciousness , and they should lead to the approximate situation by which the approach to the highest becomes possible. albeit seemingly against all odds.
Further more to those whose only proof can consist of material miracles, it is now the day, when the transformation can only subsist of spiritual ones.
Despair and regret should be relegated to the primal source of antiquity, where reason still made sense!
To wit: Based on a very wide broad spectrum array of reason and insight, the following defense could/should be applied here:
“Carl Jung interprets Gnosticism the way he interprets alchemy: as a hoary counterpart to his analytical psychology. As interpreted by Jung, Gnostic myths describe a seemingly outward, if also inward, process which is in fact an entirely inward, psychological one. The Gnostic progression from sheer bodily existence to the rediscovery of the immaterial spark trapped in the body and the reunion of that spark with the immaterial godhead symbolize the Jungian progression from sheer ego consciousness to the rediscovery of the unconscious within the mind and the integration of the ego with the unconscious to forge the self. For Jung, Gnostics are the ancient counterpart to present-day Jungian patients. Both constitute a psychological elite. Where most persons are satisfied with traditional means of connecting themselves to their unconscious, Gnostics and Jungians are sensi tive to the demise of those means and are seeking new ones. Where, alternatively, most other persons are oblivious to the existence of the unconscious altogether, Gnostics and Jungians are preoccupied with it. Gnostics project their unconscious onto the cosmos and are therefore striving to connect themselves to something external, not just, like Jungians, to something internal. Interpreting in Jungian terms the Gnostic myth Poimandres, I argue that Jungian psychology makes enormous sense of the myth, but not in the way that Jung envisions. Upon rediscovering his spark, the Gnostic seeks to reject his body altogether rather than to mesh the two. He does strive to reunite with the godhead, but the godhead is immateriality itself rather than, like the body, matter. Indeed, the godhead, taken psychologically, is only a projection of the unconscious onto the cosmos, so that the unconscious is thereby reuniting with itself.”
Take it, if You wish, on even it’s face value, or not, for proximate or more remote politically aligned purposes., John.
Let me explain this in the simplest possible way that I can explain this to a human.
Almost every possible decision that you make in this species will send you to hell.
A zero sum consent violating reality is not divine.
We live in a hell realm.
If you’re smart, not just in this small species, but cosmically smart, as long as even a SINGLE being in all of existence is having their consent violated in some way, shape or form, you will forever regret all your memories.
You have to understand, there’s not the ‘grand leader’, we have to get all our souls together to make decisions.
Actually, that’s not true. I could easily exist without evolution. Almost every creationist (billions) on earth believe evolution is a conspiracy theory. They seem to have no problem with this. I’m an atheist. I can see more than every creationist (you included) combined
I believe evolution is true. Evolution is the only known process for creating life. If you wouldn’t consent to evolution, you couldn’t exist to withhold your consent.
For one, you ignored me when I said that god could create beings without evolution. Even more to the point, you claim that god always creates beings to be lesser than god forever! Sound like god has an inferiority complex! But let’s move on!
You can’t consent if you don’t exist. I have no clue why you’re asking me that question!
Actually, like every possible being in existence, god needs otherness to exist. This means that god is dependent upon other uncaused being in order to exist.
No. It factually doesn’t work that way. If there is nothing outside or inside of a being, this being cannot perceive its own existence. It’s a non existent being.