Define “gods” 
This is what I said in one of my former posts (see above):
The Germanic word “God” originated from the substantivized second participle of the Indo-Germanic *ghuto-m of the verbal root *gheu- “to call, to invoke”. According to this, the gods would be the beings called (for instance by magic word).
I describe it by referring to history, to mythology, to the history of mythology, and especially to the history of language.
I think that one should take into account how people led their lives at that time. You can only define the word “God” if you say that you are making a scientific or philosophical investigation. Otherwise, you have to stick to the meaning that history gives. Meanings and definitions are not the same. Words have meanings and are not usually defined. Terms or concepts, however, are defined so that they can become words, i.e. acquire meanings.
Well, you only want a definition,i guess, but then you must also say what you want to use this definition for.
Now I am curious about your definition of the term or concept “God”.
_
I liked this post (although he had others concerning different definitional concerns for God) -
And this one -
The issue I have with James to this regard, is that he defines God as the 1 superiority. James considered himself an expert and so he perceives hierarchy as the law.
Existence is actually stranger than this… we have concepts like infinite regress and strange loops that make it possible for everyone to be God without violating the consent of a single existent.
Is there purpose to this negative zero sum existence ?
Only 2
1.) guard yourself to stay out of the deepest hell realms
2.) put everyone in their individual heaven forever
— the rest of this life has no purpose.
That is clearly not the work of even a slightly benevolent hypothetical creator being. God, if existent, can most accurately be defined as the supreme consent violator.
Every being in all of existence is having their consent currently violated. Doesn’t speak well for such hypothetical being.
If our definitions and perceptions of God could be proven to be non-existent, where would we stand, who would we have to stand on?
_
I just realized that in a different setting - I am having this same conversation concerning social media law -
Without the consistent enforcement of the law - there can be no universe at all.
James was saying that God (by definition) is that enforcement (omnipotent - impossible to defy) that creates the universe itself.
Maybe obsrvr,
Let’s say you have a dream where you have to put a condom in the microwave for exactly 16 seconds to save existence!
Makes perfect sense at the time… and then when you wake up, you’re like “what the fuck was that?! It makes no sense”
There are only 2 real laws in existence:
1.) existence will always exist
2.) as long as the consent of any being is being violated, existence is evil
That’s it.
Perhaps that is your dream - from which you have not yet awoken.
Every single fucking being in all of existence is having their consent violated in some way, shape or form. That’s not a dream. That’s reality.
That means that the holy name of god is: the supreme consent violator
Ni dieu ni maître, monsieur ecmandu
Or when (and if) you wake up you will find that it means that “every fucking being in all of existence” is yearning to do the impossible and suffering the consequences (suffering Hell).
I already know how to make existence perfect individual heavens for everyone, forever, without the possibility of violating a single consent forever.
It’s not impossible. Knowing all this; I have a vantage point that is informed with which to analyze existence; a vantage point that you lack.
Being awake is simply knowing that zero sum realities never work… that when you win, you lose and are sent to hell, and when you lose, you’re already in hell.
It’s the flaw of existence… hell forever for everyone.
You are not even close to awake. You haven’t even taken on adult responsibilities yet.
Until you isolate where you are, (which you haven’t done yet), you can’t start doing the work. You’re not doing the work yet.
Here’s how to make existence perfect:
You use platonic forms in a holographic 1 dimensional tube… platonic forms are the only non sentient existents in existence, they are aggregate templates that allow us to abstract categories.
Attached to this 1 dimensional holographic tube (each part has the nested whole) is us… desired Infinite regress strange loop hyper dimensional mirror realities…
We are mirroring the platonic forms to make a reality as immersive as this one with us being the only non reflected being in our reality (which makes it so that it’s impossible to violate another beings consent - even a virus, a microbe, a photon)
The mirror is bound to our individual desire manifestation matrice and we can change the shape of the mirror at will to make reality whatever we want it to be forever, using all the infinite raw materials in the platonic form tube.
I actually think it’s bizarre that you think you are awake and I am asleep. You couldn’t even define awake without my help.
Okay obviously we know how to make reality perfect in theory… but like how do we actually do it? Like what are we supposed to do? Do we make something? What’s the deal?
Unfortunately, we have to get all beings to agree to the same upgrade of existence at the same time for this to work. It’s an aggravating waiting game.
We all made this together, we all change it together.
You must understand, as obsrvr doesn’t, that the entire point of our reality is to keep an infinite number of beings who were never born and never die, entertained forever (instead of infinite boredom)
Forever is boring as fuck! So we made innovations… spirits, evolution, god, enlightenment, hell, heaven, reincarnation, memory wipes etc…
Actually, the ONLY way the current plan works is to keep us asleep forever.
Now! Try to explain this to someone who chose not to ever be awake again, because they remember infinite boredom in their subconscious ! It’s like talking to someone who tore their eyes out and cut their ears off. The REASON people don’t think I’m on this insanely high level of cognition for reality is that they chose of their own volition (per the current plan) to never be woken up!!
That’s the way the current plan works! I’m well aware of this. It’s all of us or just the old (currently implemented) plan (which was all of us).
Now! You have to understand! The old plan (what we’re in right now) took us trillions and trillions and trillions of eons to make. There is a very strong spiritual aversion to waking up… the spirits all remember what it’s like to be bored forever
They don’t want to go there again.
Perhaps you would agree when I said that truth can also refer to the ideal or spiritual realm, that is, it does not have to refer to the real or material realm alone.
Supremely
I don’t understand why you are saying that. Truth is founded in the ideal/divine/conceptual realm.
A man needs a god because he is grateful for his existence. That is the first property of pagan gods. That man is grateful to them.
A hierarchy of gratitudes makes almost for a pantheon.*
Somehow, gods also actually exist and do stuff.
Whether we can judge this stuff as good or evil, it depends on what we believe about ourselves.
The origin of things is a logic, or what we apprehend as a logic; it is the coupling of possibility and necessity, which produces a system in which we apprehend ourselves. This whole deal has been called “I am that I am” but not God; God in that system (Hebrew) comes 3 steps lower on the ladder of the necessities following the fulfillment of possibility.
Beyond this “I am that I am” (not what I am, merely that I am) is a series of negations which together amount to a possible refutation of negation. It’s merely a way of showing that for there to be nothing at all is very hard, logically speaking.
*why there is no devil in pagan pantheons; instead there are other peoples gratitudes- people with different gods, things theyre grateful for which might contradict our own. Like Ecmandu always talks about. That is real, and he should find his own pagan gods and be done with the misery. He’s right, so was I once and suffering equally, but I realized finally that such understanding is not truthful to nature. Nature contradicts herself in being fully apprehended - she likes to hide, that is why the Requirement of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same is an error - it is an injustice to nature. Affirming it here and there might be seen as a pinch in the but-tocs and result in good vitality. But as a logos it will destroy the soul.
Assuming there is only one truth, interesting. Truth is an applied principle, truth can be applied to the concept of one plus one equals two but is this small summation “THE TRUTH”?