The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

[JohnJBannan]

E=MC^2 is not claiming anything goes faster than light. It is only showing energy and mass equivalence.

[Ecmandu]

E=MC^2 is not claiming anything does faster than light. It is only showing energy and mass equivalence.

By order of operations in math C^2 is done first (Before multiplication).

[JohnJBannan]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... does-emc2/

[Ecmandu]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/27/why-does-emc2/

No. You really don’t get it. “C” literally stands for “cosmological constant”. If it can be added to, then it is no longer the cosmological constant! Duh! Very basic logic.

John, you yourself stated that the photon has the most unique properties about 3 posts ago (the only timeless particle)... regardless of what you think about my argument against your ‘timeless’ claim, this special status that you’re giving the photon is that it travels at the cosmological constant (hence the letter “c”)... if “c” ever increases... it’s no longer “c”!!

Now if the equations used something like “p” for photon, we wouldn’t be having this discussion!

[JohnJBannan]

You really aren’t making any points here. Your assertion that multiplying c x c is somehow improper flies in the face of General Relativity and physics. Multiplying C x C is part of the equation E=MC^2, and is necessary to calculate work in the joules unit.

[Ecmandu]

You really aren’t making any points here. Your assertion that multiplying c x c is somehow improper flies in the face of General Relativity and physics. Multiplying C x C is part of the equation E=MC^2, and is necessary to calculate work in the joules unit.

You’re totally dodging the point or ignoring it.

C

Literally means “cosmological constant”

Like I stated before ... if they used the term “vp” (velocity of a proton). We would not be having this discussion!!

You see, Einstein was a religious man. What’s the number 1 concept of religion? Light. So instead of calling it the velocity of a photon, he decided to call light the cosmological constant. If a cosmological constant can be added to, it’s not a cosmological constant (duh!). Einstein was a horrible example of a human being in a great many ways ... evangelical Christians (all of them morons) love Einstein.

[Meno_]

I think categorically seeking a religious motive, in stead another front can be opened.

Such as , how do the primal philosophical questions relating to the naturalistic fallacy: Is factual 'is' conceptions reducible to 'ought' types of propositions help to ingenie the question,- may be appropriate her.
As well the other current dialogue dealing with the Darwinian justification. I am not implying a trespass into these other forums, only noticed coincidentally, that they are currently indicative of pertinent , maybe not totally coincidentally formed inquiries.

If not, it may still be worth a try.

[JohnJBannan]

Ecmandu,

“Now we're getting to the c² part of the equation, which serves the same purpose as the star-on and star-off machines in "The Sneetches." The c stands for the speed of light, a universal constant, so the whole equation breaks down to this: Energy is equal to matter multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Why would you need to multiply matter by the speed of light to produce energy? The reason is that energy, be it light waves or radiation, travels at the speed of light. That breaks down to 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second). When we split an atom inside a nuclear power plant or an atomic bomb, the resulting energy releases at the speed of light.

But why is the speed of light squared? The reason is that kinetic energy, or the energy of motion, is proportional to mass. When you accelerate an object, the kinetic energy increases to the tune of the speed squared. You'll find an excellent example of this in any driver's education manual: If you double your speed, the braking distance is four times longer, so the braking distance is equal to the speed squared [source: UNSW Physics: Einsteinlight].

The speed of light squared is a colossal number, illustrating just how much energy there is in even tiny amounts of matter. A common example of this is that 1 gram of water -- if its whole mass were converted into pure energy via E=mc² -- contains as much energy as 20,000 tons (18,143 metric tons) of TNT exploding. That's why such a small amount of uranium or plutonium can produce such a massive atomic explosion.

Einstein's equation opened the door for numerous technological advances, from nuclear power and nuclear medicine to the inner workings of the sun. It shows us that matter and energy are one.”


https://science.howstuffworks.com/scien ... ormula.htm

[Ecmandu]

E=MC^2 opens up nothing. Splitting an atom needs no equation. You just split the damn thing.

If the “universal constant” as you worded it means nothing can travel faster than it, than your kinetic energy jargon is meaningless.

Look at the term used in the equation and why a theistic (propaganda) society would have us all convinced that nothing travels faster than light!! BUT!! Light can be squared!! It’s absurd.

[JohnJBannan]

II. THE ARGUMENT FROM CREATIO EX NIHILO (BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The creatio ex nihilo argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that because all physical reality in the cosmos is caused there must be an uncaused transcendent reality that causes physical reality to appear from non-existence. Anything with parts is caused by those parts. If those parts were uncaused, then the parts could not change because a changed part would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. The order of uncaused parts would also be uncaused, because parts require order and could not exist in an uncaused state without an uncaused order. Anything made of uncaused parts would be uncaused, because the uncaused order of uncaused parts cannot be changed, because a changed order would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. Therefore, any composite that can change cannot be uncaused and its parts cannot be uncaused.
Because physical reality in the cosmos entails only parts and composites that can change, then physical reality cannot be uncaused. Because matter which experiences time can be caused from or transform into timeless photons, then time itself cannot be uncaused. Moreover, physical reality cannot cause itself, because if part A is caused by part B which in turn is caused by part A, then the ultimate cause of part A would be itself which is impossible because a being cannot be contingent on itself. The cause of physical reality must ultimately be an uncaused reality that does not change and cannot be made or transform into something else. The ultimate cause of physical reality must therefore transcend physical reality and cause physical reality to appear from non-existence or creatio ex nihilo. Because physical reality cannot be caused by nothing, this uncaused transcendent reality is not nothing but what we call God.

[Meno_]

II. THE ARGUMENT FROM CREATIO EX NIHILO (BY JOHN J. I)
The creatio ex nihilo argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that because all physical reality in the cosmos is caused there must be an uncaused transcendent reality that causes physical reality to appear from non-existence. Anything with parts is caused by those parts. If those parts were uncaused, then the parts could not change because a changed part would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. The order of uncaused parts would also be uncaused, because parts require order and could not exist in an uncaused state without an uncaused order. Anything made of uncaused parts would be uncaused, because the uncaused order of uncaused parts cannot be changed, because a changed order would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. Therefore, any composite that can change cannot be uncaused and its parts cannot be uncaused.
Because physical reality in the cosmos entails only parts and composites that can change, then physical reality cannot be uncaused. Because matter which experiences time can be caused from or transform into timeless photons, then time itself cannot be uncaused. Moreover, physical reality cannot cause itself, because if part A is caused by part B which in turn is caused by part A, then the ultimate cause of part A would be itself which is impossible because a being cannot be contingent on itself. The cause of physical reality must ultimately be an uncaused reality that does not change and cannot be made or transform into something else. The ultimate cause of physical reality must therefore transcend physical reality and cause physical reality to appear from non-existence or creatio ex nihilo. Because physical reality cannot be caused by nothing, this uncaused transcendent reality is not nothing but what we call God.

Exactly, unless ... the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.

[JohnJBannan]

Meno,

You misspelled “genius”.

[JohnJBannan]

II. THE ARGUMENT FROM CREATIO EX NIHILO (BY JOHN J. I)
The creatio ex nihilo argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that because all physical reality in the cosmos is caused there must be an uncaused transcendent reality that causes physical reality to appear from non-existence. Anything with parts is caused by those parts. If those parts were uncaused, then the parts could not change because a changed part would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. The order of uncaused parts would also be uncaused, because parts require order and could not exist in an uncaused state without an uncaused order. Anything made of uncaused parts would be uncaused, because the uncaused order of uncaused parts cannot be changed, because a changed order would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. Therefore, any composite that can change cannot be uncaused and its parts cannot be uncaused.
Because physical reality in the cosmos entails only parts and composites that can change, then physical reality cannot be uncaused. Because matter which experiences time can be caused from or transform into timeless photons, then time itself cannot be uncaused. Moreover, physical reality cannot cause itself, because if part A is caused by part B which in turn is caused by part A, then the ultimate cause of part A would be itself which is impossible because a being cannot be contingent on itself. The cause of physical reality must ultimately be an uncaused reality that does not change and cannot be made or transform into something else. The ultimate cause of physical reality must therefore transcend physical reality and cause physical reality to appear from non-existence or creatio ex nihilo. Because physical reality cannot be caused by nothing, this uncaused transcendent reality is not nothing but what we call God.

Exactly, unless ... the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.

You misspelled “genius”.

[Meno_]

II. THE ARGUMENT FROM CREATIO EX NIHILO (BY JOHN J. I)
The creatio ex nihilo argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that because all physical reality in the cosmos is caused there must be an uncaused transcendent reality that causes physical reality to appear from non-existence. Anything with parts is caused by those parts. If those parts were uncaused, then the parts could not change because a changed part would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. The order of uncaused parts would also be uncaused, because parts require order and could not exist in an uncaused state without an uncaused order. Anything made of uncaused parts would be uncaused, because the uncaused order of uncaused parts cannot be changed, because a changed order would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. Therefore, any composite that can change cannot be uncaused and its parts cannot be uncaused.
Because physical reality in the cosmos entails only parts and composites that can change, then physical reality cannot be uncaused. Because matter which experiences time can be caused from or transform into timeless photons, then time itself cannot be uncaused. Moreover, physical reality cannot cause itself, because if part A is caused by part B which in turn is caused by part A, then the ultimate cause of part A would be itself which is impossible because a being cannot be contingent on itself. The cause of physical reality must ultimately be an uncaused reality that does not change and cannot be made or transform into something else. The ultimate cause of physical reality must therefore transcend physical reality and cause physical reality to appear from non-existence or creatio ex nihilo. Because physical reality cannot be caused by nothing, this uncaused transcendent reality is not nothing but what we call God.

Exactly, unless ... the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.

You misspelled “genius”.

Sorry, genius .....or, ingenious ......

[gib]

John,

I thought you had abandoned our discussion. I just noticed your reply below, so let me respond to it:

God does not create in time. Therefore, God does not lead to infinite regress.

I would think this would be the only way if indeed God created the universe and time is a feature of this universe. But infinite regresses are not temporal in nature, they are logical. God as an explanation of the universe leads to an infinite regress if that explanation is really an explanation for existence itself. Saying God created existence falls short because it obviously means God existed before he created anything, which is to say there was already existence, which is to say God couldn't have created existence. On the other hand, if God as an explanation for the universe is not an explanation for existence more generally (as if we live in a multiverse and we're only interested in explaining this universe), then there's no problem invoking God as an explanation for the universe, or at least it doesn't lead to an infinite regress.

An indivisible unit of spacetime does not have space or time.

What do you mean it doesn't "have" space or time? It is space and time. A unit of anything is still an instance of that thing. Like how an H2O molecule is still water. However, you split that molecule into two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom and then it ceases to be water. This was the point I was making about the fundamental unit of spacetime being the 10^-33 seconds and there being further sub-units of pre-time entities, at least two of which are needed to make spacetime.

It is that which creates space and time. I told you it was weird. It doesn’t have geometry either, but creates geometry. Don’t think of it like the tiniest cube of spacetime possible. It is rather an indivisible unit of spacetime reality.

This is what I need help with. What is a "spacetime reality" as opposed to just "spacetime"? The problem I am having is that I don't see what causes spacetime to cease to be spacetime once you cross a certain threshold of repetitive division. The water analogy is very useful here. Until you get a single molecule of H2O, water is still water no matter how many times you divide it. But once you carry out a further division on the H2O molecule, you cease to get water and instead get hydrogen and oxygen. At least with water, I can understand what's so special about that step. It's the step where you're no longer simply getting fewer and fewer of the same kinds of things (H2O molecules), but different kinds of things. At what point does something like this happen with spacetime, and why?

Infinite regress is impossible, because time and causation must have a beginning. See OP Beginningless Time Paradox and Beginningless Causation Paradox.

I did, remember? I already explained why not all infinite regresses are of the same kind, and that not all kinds are logically problematic.

[JohnJBannan]

Gib,

God’s existence is not created existence. God is uncaused. Created existence is caused. God’s uncaused existence can logically precede caused existence. No infinite regress is required.

An indivisible unit of spacetime creates spacetime and cannot be what it creates.

[Ecmandu]

[quote="JohnJBannan"]Gib,

God’s existence is not created existence. God is uncaused. Created existence is caused. God’s uncaused existence can logically precede caused existence. No infinite regress is required.

An indivisible unit of spacetime creates spacetime and cannot be what it creates.[/quote

That’s very problematic in its own right John.

So there’s no motion; god...

And then there’s suddenly motion; god

That means god made something out of nothing!

If god can make something out of nothing, then why not a universe without god?

[Meno_]

John wrote,

"Exactly, unless ... the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.


You misspelled “genius”.


Sorry, genius .....or, ingenious ......"

The difference is both subtle and/or obvious,

This is the point that Marx failed @, he downplayed the essential as an existential disqualification , using quantified "sense data".

It became appearent soon that Russel's idea led to infinite regress, and that regress was the unfathomable Nietzche said was reflexive, it " looked back" upon reflecting on it.

The axiomatic reflexive must be over come, the subtle must give way to the original reflection.

That original reflection is the material, but underneath it is a world of difference.

That world is even deeper, way deeper, then the mirror image world, the automation befuddling mere material existence, and it begs for that difference, lest all become a shadow world.

Existence is the shadow of the ideal, and that begging, further begs a remembrance. That remembrance is what is inscribed in eternity.

That eternity is the immediate, unmoved, mover.

The either this (material) could only be understood to deduce unto a point, a point in time-space , specifically limited one , that could be understood to bracket an specific existential ssituation.
An epoche.

With the failure to contain the regressive existence between what should have taken place, and what did? 30 years of displacement into a suspended animation took place.

That generation , held in suspended animation, fractured a carefully assembled detente, and reflected disingenuously into it's material negative.

The genius knew better, It's memory could be re-assembled instantaneously.

Of course the irreduceability of it leads to lower levels of fragmentation, past the critical point, and that is why containment becomes a primary defense against total chaos.

This is why, policy triumphs against social discursive points of reference.

The consciously constructed god of necessity is a real as the one which presumably developed from inorganic matter.

If the latter, then such development needs transcendentally objective premises, and becomes an eternal ontological reality. It becomes it, and it is becoming.

The former, is forever haunted by Descartes' evil genious, the latter is assured primacy in a miraculous world, and lucky the one who find the genie to obey the command.



Note: in a manner of speaking, once this command is obeyed, Faust is forgiven. The problem with the evil genius is that it predicated on a chaotic reassamblage, wherein the absolute regression can never be exactly authenticated with enough hurt, or extension into the particular from the universal, that it can keep the reflection in a consistent mode.

The devil dissuaded humility, and can not transcend it into a pride that can never be accounted for. That becomes the genie's out, through an extension, a gap, that need not hold to a fallacious system ( when a devilish person seeks an absolute wish to be granted within the first wish)

And that follows from sequential needs of greed, since even it knows that if it wishes everything at first, he may not have anything else to wish for next. It can not remember that there may really be other things to wish for beyond the absolute, because it has no belief in it.


There are ontological references to such:

Jesus refusing Satan's offer of everything He could envision from a high hill.

And then the difference between a ' genie, and genius:

'So there is no linguistic relation between the two words, but they were eventually bound through phonetics and similar meaning. ... By coincidence, the Arabic word jinn means a kind of supernatural being below the angels, and starting in the 18th century, the word genie (and also genius) became conflated with jinn.'

And it is possible that such co-incidence was far more.

[JohnJBannan]

Gib,

God’s existence is not created existence. God is uncaused. Created existence is caused. God’s uncaused existence can logically precede caused existence. No infinite regress is required.

An indivisible unit of spacetime creates spacetime and cannot be what it creates.[/quote

That’s very problematic in its own right John.

So there’s no motion; god...

And then there’s suddenly motion; god

That means god made something out of nothing!

If god can make something out of nothing, then why not a universe without god?

God did not make something out of nothing as if nothing was a pre-existing material. God made something appear from non-existence.

[JohnJBannan]

John wrote,

"Exactly, unless ... the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.


You misspelled “genius”.


Sorry, genius .....or, ingenious ......"

The difference is both subtle and/or obvious,

This is the point that Marx failed @, he downplayed the essential as an existential disqualification , using quantified "sense data".

It became appearent soon that Russel's idea led to infinite regress, and that regress was the unfathomable Nietzche said was reflexive, it " looked back" upon reflecting on it.

The axiomatic reflexive must be over come, the subtle must give way to the original reflection.

That original reflection is the material, but underneath it is a world of difference.

That world is even deeper, way deeper, then the mirror image world, the automation befuddling mere material existence, and it begs for that difference, lest all become a shadow world.

Existence is the shadow of the ideal, and that begging, further begs a remembrance. That remembrance is what is inscribed in eternity.

That eternity is the immediate, unmoved, mover.

The either this (material) could only be understood to deduce unto a point, a point in time-space , specifically limited one , that could be understood to bracket an specific existential ssituation.
An epoche.

With the failure to contain the regressive existence between what should have taken place, and what did? 30 years of displacement into a suspended animation took place.

That generation , held in suspended animation, fractured a carefully assembled detente, and reflected disingenuously into it's material negative.

The genius knew better, It's memory could be re-assembled instantaneously.

Of course the irreduceability of it leads to lower levels of fragmentation, past the critical point, and that is why containment becomes a primary defense against total chaos.

This is why, policy triumphs against social discursive points of reference.

The consciously constructed god of necessity is a real as the one which presumably developed from inorganic matter.

If the latter, then such development needs transcendentally objective premises, and becomes an eternal ontological reality. It becomes it, and it is becoming.

The former, is forever haunted by Descartes' evil genious, the latter is assured primacy in a miraculous world, and lucky the one who find the genie to obey the command.



Note: in a manner of speaking, once this command is obeyed, Faust is forgiven. The problem with the evil genius is that it predicated on a chaotic reassamblage, wherein the absolute regression can never be exactly authenticated with enough hurt, or extension into the particular from the universal, that it can keep the reflection in a consistent mode.

The devil dissuaded humility, and can not transcend it into a pride that can never be accounted for. That becomes the genie's out, through an extension, a gap, that need not hold to a fallacious system ( when a devilish person seeks an absolute wish to be granted within the first wish)

And that follows from sequential needs of greed, since even it knows that if it wishes everything at first, he may not have anything else to wish for next. It can not remember that there may really be other things to wish for beyond the absolute, because it has no belief in it.


There are ontological references to such:

Jesus refusing Satan's offer of everything He could envision from a high hill.

And then the difference between a ' genie, and genius:

'So there is no linguistic relation between the two words, but they were eventually bound through phonetics and similar meaning. ... By coincidence, the Arabic word jinn means a kind of supernatural being below the angels, and starting in the 18th century, the word genie (and also genius) became conflated with jinn.'

And it is possible that such co-incidence was far more.

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.

[Meno_]

John wrote,

"Exactly, unless ... the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.


You misspelled “genius”.


Sorry, genius .....or, ingenious ......"

The difference is both subtle and/or obvious,

This is the point that Marx failed @, he downplayed the essential as an existential disqualification , using quantified "sense data".

It became appearent soon that Russel's idea led to infinite regress, and that regress was the unfathomable Nietzche said was reflexive, it " looked back" upon reflecting on it.

The axiomatic reflexive must be over come, the subtle must give way to the original reflection.

That original reflection is the material, but underneath it is a world of difference.

That world is even deeper, way deeper, then the mirror image world, the automation befuddling mere material existence, and it begs for that difference, lest all become a shadow world.

Existence is the shadow of the ideal, and that begging, further begs a remembrance. That remembrance is what is inscribed in eternity.

That eternity is the immediate, unmoved, mover.

The either this (material) could only be understood to deduce unto a point, a point in time-space , specifically limited one , that could be understood to bracket an specific existential situation.
An epoche.

With the failure to contain the regressive existence between what should have taken place, and what did? 30 years of displacement into a suspended animation took place.

That generation , held in suspended animation, fractured a carefully assembled detente, and reflected disingenuously into it's material negative.

The genius knew better, It's memory could be re-assembled instantaneously.

Of course the irreduceability of it leads to lower levels of fragmentation, past the critical point, and that is why containment becomes a primary defense against total chaos.

This is why, policy triumphs against social discursive points of reference.

The consciously constructed god of necessity is as real as the one which presumably developed from inorganic matter.

If the latter, then such development needs transcendentally objective premises, and becomes an eternal ontological reality. It becomes it, and it is becoming.

The former, is forever haunted by Descartes' evil genious, the latter is assured primacy in a miraculous world, and lucky the one who find the genie to obey the command.



Note: in a manner of speaking, once this command is obeyed, Faust is forgiven. The problem with the evil genius is that it predicated on a chaotic reassamblage, wherein the absolute regression can never be exactly authenticated with enough hurt, or extension into the particular from of the universal, that it can keep the reflection in a consistent mode.

The devil dissuaded humility, and can not transcend it into a pride that can never be accounted for. That becomes the genie's out, through an extension, a gap, that need not hold to a fallacious system ( when a devilish person seeks an absolute wish to be granted within the first wish)

And that follows from sequential needs of greed, since even it knows that if it wishes everything at first, he may not have anything else to wish for next. It can not remember that there may really be other things to wish for beyond the absolute, because it has no belief in it.


There are ontological references to such:

Jesus refusing Satan's offer of everything He could envision from a high hill.

And then the difference between a ' genie, and genius:

'So there is no linguistic relation between the two words, but they were eventually bound through phonetics and similar meaning. ... By coincidence, the Arabic word jinn means a kind of supernatural being below the angels, and starting in the 18th century, the word genie (and also genius) became conflated with jinn.'

And it is possible that such co-incidence was far more.

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[JohnJBannan]

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.

Would you consent to evolution? If not, you wouldn’t exist.

[Ecmandu]

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.

Would you consent to evolution? If not, you wouldn’t exist.

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

[JohnJBannan]

Ecmandu,

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.