A New Type of Theology in a New World

What can I say?

In regard to this new type of theology that seems to revolve around concepts and definitions of God, would someone here like to bring this around to the factors that most concern me in regard to God and religion:

1] a demonstrable proof of your own conception or definition of God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of conceptions and definitions of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed…but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual’s conception or definition of God and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular conception and definition of God or religious/spiritual path

No. Whether you understand reality or not your mind makes stuff up. That’s the point, that a mind makes stuff up whether you know it’s real or not. The mind causes you to have bad dreams, whether you know it’s not real or not. Nothing you can do about it. It’s why eye-witness testimony is not reliable, because the Human mind makes stuff up when there is a gap in information, even if the person really thinks it to be true. The mind simply fills in gaps in information, and there will never be a point that the information is complete in the mind, so there will never be a point one can say there is no gap to fill.

It is not a story, that’s how it works.

I can look at a chair and tell you that I’m going to move it BEFORE I move it. Then I move it. I CAUSED the chair to move by simply thinking about moving the chair, and then moving it. My thoughts were the initial cause of the chair to move. The in between links between my thoughts and the chair moving are irrelevant. I thought, and then a time later the chair moved.

How could it possibly more abstract than your idea that God is a mere concept? Being is not abstract. Without it you would be nothing. If it’s like something to be you than you are. If not you’re a bot or a zombie, that is, you are not.

I’ll try my best.

Change in a way is demonstrable enough in the fact that we know it happens. For example, everything is moving. The Earth is moving around the Sun. The Sun is moving around the Sagittarius A* black hole. And in fact there is no absolute zero in our Universe. No absolute zero means everything is vibrating as demonstrated by string theory. And if everything is vibrating, it is changing, no matter how slow or inconsequential it may be.

On the other hand, there may be Universes where there is no change. If change is God than no change means there is no God. And a Universe that can’t change can’t possibly have a cause or an effect.

Concepts are abstract enough to be universally applied much of the time. Some concepts are abstract enough to not really mean anything. Beings however are are usually subjugated to a finite point. Zeus was worshipped; now he isn’t. He is not accredited towards the change of many things anymore. The same will happen with Yahweh. If Yahweh wasn’t accredited towards the change he applied on Earth - which I would argue he didn’t even do - then nobody would worship him.

On the other hand, the concept of change and what causes it is so universal that nobody can deny it. Find me a language which change isn’t in their dictionaries. It’s impossible. Change is elusive sometimes, yes, and we don’t fully understand it currently, but we know it so well already that it is impossible to deny.

Dasein, presence, or what I would argue the seeking of patterns will always be an issue. A cloud could look like Mickey Mouse. Is the cloud Mickey Mouse? No. Does Mickey Mouse exist? No. Yet some people may look at that cloud and identify it as such. Will the cloud change and become new images to the people who see them? Of course. Mickey Mouse changes, but ironically enough change does not change.

Well, if change is God, and not all changes are positive, it makes a strong argument that change itself causes evil too. Evil could be analyzed differently to various people too, and what a positive or negative change would look like could be entirely subjective.

As far as conceptions and definitions of God, Earthseed doesn’t offer the kind of bullshit that we see other religions. It’s simple. Earthseed states that change is God; syntheism is the theology of Earthseed, and while Earthseed is a fictional religion it doesn’t mean it’s a fictional idea, and there’s been to my knowledge four real religions that have existed under the umbrella of Earthseed. Terasem, Exaltism, Turing Church and Astronism. If you were to call me any of the first three I would agree with your assessment in fact. All four are Earthseed but touch and develop their basis on different patterns in the transhumanist and futurist tree. Terasem is straight transhumanist; Exaltism is focused on extropianism; Turing Church is cosmist; And Astronism is astrological. And out of the four I would argue that Terasem has the most ability to change the future, even if the question of the religion’s future is already at stake.

So the change or the reality is somehow always unknowable. You know, I am very fond of the Baha’i Faith. Much of what they say has me nodding my head. But the prophet of that religion, Baha’u’llah, addresses and acknowledges God as the unknowable. If God is unknowable then what is the point of religion? I will read arguments by Baha’is that literally contradict what they say simply by saying that God is unknowable and God is known by the prophets. It doesn’t make any sense.

What I believe is God is both knowable and unknowable. And different parts of God are known by some while not known by others. If God is change than this can be the only answer. For example, the change just by typing this; you know I am typing this but you don’t know what kind of computer I am using to process this. You don’t know the situation, or the being (myself) but you know that change is being made regardless. That is how I know God exists.

No you didn’t. Are you psionic? Are you literally levitating the chair with your mind by picturing that it is moved? And just because you picture something doesn’t mean it literally happens. When I’m caught outside in a rain storm I often think about getting hit by lightning. Did the picture of myself get hit by lightning actually cause me to get hit by lightning? Of course not. I’ve never been struck by lightning.

Edit: I should also note that not everything that happens happens because someone thought of it. The lightning happens naturally, no one thought of it. I can type this and think of the words two seconds in advance. I know what you are trying to say. Typically thoughts are attached to beings which have the spirit to do those actions. That the being is more important than the action. For non-living things the spirit doesn’t really exist however. Could you argue that that a rain cloud has spirit? Of course. But then why not just call it energy or something like that? And does not all energy or spirit change things as well? Unless you talk about potential energy; like with an unused battery.

I was going to argue on the basis of the amounts of definitions of what being and change has.

Being has nine. Change has thirty-four.

You have a good point sir. I will consider it.

Edit: But wouldn’t you say that all beings change? I consume food and beverages that I gain nutrition and recycle the waste. A being that doesn’t change typically isn’t alive. Even in one day I could get a hair cut and look like a completely different person. Life exists because of the duplication of DNA; change.

That’s called ‘intention’, everything else after that is mechanical.

We are intentional / mechanical Beings…

Mackerni,
To evolve literally means to change. Don’t you think it’s funny that you are declaring God to be evolution??? Traditionally they are opposing forces, like Democrats and Republicans. Trying to define a Democrat by calling them Republicans is…well I have no words for that.

CAUSE is something you need to learn about. If I have a thought about doing something, and then plan and execute that plan, then my thoughts were the initial cause of the result of the actions. If I think about moving a chair, and then actually move it, then my THOUGHT was the initial cause of the chair moving. That is not “levitating” the chair, that is what CAUSED the chair to move. Sure, you can say there were intermediate actions that followed the initial cause, but those were all following the INITIAL cause, which was the thought, or “intention.” If I wouldn’t have thought to move the chair then the chair would not have moved. My thought CAUSED the chair to move, albeit with follow on actions, which were also caused!

There are watches, and cars, and computers now. 13.7 Billion years ago there were no watches, cars, and computers. Watches cars and computers evolved from scratch 13.7 billion years ago. 13.7 billion years ago there was no Earth, but now there is. The Earth evolved and eventually created computers. See?

Call it what you want to. So you’re saying my “intention” (which is a thought) caused the chair to move?

All evolution is change but not all change is evolution.

And the thought to move the chair happened in your brain when your neurons changed and decided to move the chair. The neurons in your brain decided to move the chair, you just agreed with it enough to actually do it.

The Earth changed. We evolved from Earth.

Again, to evolve means to change, so to change is to evolve. You are defining God to be change, so you are defining God as evolution.

I’m pretty sure the God people don’t want you defining them as evolution people. They deny evolution in favor of the “God did it” concept.

They aren’t the same. Not all changes necessarily have come from evolution. Evolution as it is defined relates to the DNA structure in living things. You are using the term evolution very liberally. And not all change is evolution. If I rearrange my house I didn’t cause it to evolve, I simply changed it.

Well if evolution is change and God changed something wouldn’t that mean God caused some sort of evolution to occur? You aren’t making any sense.

Yes they are! The word evolve literally means to change. Evolution as a “theory” is that things CHANGED into what they are today, as opposed to God saying “let there be light” and suddenly there was light.

To evolve is to change and to change is to evolve. Evolution is simply change. Creatures evolve by adapting to their environment. They change because their environment changes and they evolve by “equalizing” with that environment.

Evolution is no different than putting an ice cube into a glass of water, the ice cube is cold and the water is warm. Eventually the ice cube evolves by warming up and melting, and the water gets colder. They are coming to an equilibrium with each other. When the ice cube is gone the water comes to an equilibrium with the room temperature.

Ever wonder why chameleons change colors, or creatures blend in with their environment? You think that’s an accident? They EVOLVED, they changed to adapt to their surroundings. They changed. They evolved.

I disagree and I have already expressed why. You can take it or leave it. The fact that you didn’t even quote my entire argument is evidence of self-denial.

You can disagree all you want to, but the fact remains that to evolve means to change. For you to define God as change is…laughable!

Change is a product of time, space and causality all of which are a priori superimpositions of the mind on perceptions to produce the phenomena we experience. That’s all a representation of the Matrix that is your mind.

Yet change exists without the mind as well. In fact, most of the change that happened after the Universe was created happened before any life even existed. Your idealism is commendable but reality, and change, still exists without it.

So you’re saying I believe in telekinesis, is what you’re inferring here?

Intention leads to action, through ‘will’ caused by ‘need’ probably… simply thinking about moving the chair, doesn’t move the chair, as in the case of the paralysed… well, without the help of technology, that is.

The mind is the only way we have of knowing anything. So to say what exists or existed without the mind is impossible. All we know as objects are phenomena. Without a mind there are no phenomena.Phenomena are the way things appear to a mind not the way things are in themselves? Without a point of view we can’t say anything about anything. With a point of view we can say what it looks like not how it is. There is no view from nowhere. And “where” is a product of mind which represents things in space.

Ah, the classic “if a tree fell in a forest and nobody was around would it make a sound?” I would contend that it did make the sound, because I believe the nearby plants, and the tree, can hear itself. This has already been demonstrated in shows like Myth Busters. Does the plant have a mind? Does the plant have a spirit? On the argument between human idealism and panpsychism I side closer, if not entirely, on the panpsychism part of this debate. Without change there is no cause and effect. Without cause or effect there can be no causer. Without a causer the being cannot exist. Therefore change is God; not the being.