To the non-believers

>I would guess that you associate non-believers with cynicism and nihilism
More like I associate non believers to be less revealed to wisdom that comes from being in a more realized state, higher consciousness, and therefore live better happier more fulfilling lives. And those that are ignorant of the wisdom (that comes from seeking the nature of God whether consciously or unconsciously and realizing the nature of man) tend to be more dis-regulated, create more chaos, suffering, and overall live an inferior quality of life because of the karma of their ignorant actions.
> I would just rather enjoy my experiential reality and learn from that as opposed to having someone tell me the ethos I should subscribe to
I absolutely agree here. One must make up their own mind and decide for themselves.

there's a god; he's all that is

NEXT

>having your mind open is frying it

the absolute state of dogmatic materialists

We observe laws of physics because if they didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to observe them. It's just the anthropic principle my dude.

There is also the Is that isn't God

>that image

Damn i wish that was me

Don't target the non-believers with the platonic conception of deity. Rather explain how this is inconsistent with a God removed from his creations and a personal God, as the jerkoff Christians believe.

What are you even saying

I disagree and am going with Parmenides on this point that everything is and nothing is not, therefore what is not could never be anything at all. Everything is God and God is everything, systematizing further is to speak in terms of the world of becoming which is a fine and sobering past time

I guess it could only be jahweh, a Canaanite storm deity

Ehh...

All I'm saying is nearly every atom in your body is replaced every several years. Yet all that is you is retained. To question the large scale of consciousness is only natural of the waking life. But how can you question the protiens, the amino acids- rna, dna. How can you say consciousness doesn't permeate to levels beyond our cognition? A lot of sacred geometry and phonetics reveal the patterns that emerge within infinite planes. These windows of synchronicity open the universe to itself. To say how large or small or how great or little these awareness are is ignorance born of logical pessimism. Separation is an illusion born of light (space and time) and what synchronized infinities come to perceive within it. The grand awareness afflicted by scale, weight... limits. Yet constantly permeating, finding and escaping itself. It's chaos and it's as natural as nature itself. Order is orderless, and chaos creates crystal lattices of geometric and electromagnetic perfection. To close your mind to your very soul is nothing but a sad sight. Whether you wish to credit or discredit Watts, the metaphysical is by law as real as the physical. And to say more than one occupant views out the windows of perception is nearly, if not more, eerie than accepting the solitude of oneness and the illusion of separation.

the so-called rules are just learning aides for humans.

Really? I've forgotten things and my preferences/sensibilities have constantly changed throughout my life... I don't see how 'all that is me' has been preserved, nor do I sense a particular static attribute which defines me but rather a flux of variable attributes which causes 'me' in every sense to be changing from moment to moment.

>All I'm saying is nearly every atom in your body is replaced every several years
WRONG

Because that idea of a God is a way of anthropomorphising the cosmos. The problem with reconciling univocity with the idea of an intelligent cause is that it continues to privilege being (or rather, “a” Being, IE god) over non-being and therefore is just as much of a human imposition on the divine as it is a reduction of the cosmos to something intelligible on a human level. The idea of a “creator” anticipates a metaphysical judgement (god or not god), rather than incorporating the indeterminacy between the two into a metaphysics that refuses to affirm one or the other but is ultimately still talking about the same thing. Read more Spinoza

Show me where it's wrong.

Of course they've changed but the waking still recalls the has been. If anything what you said strengthens the argument. What was there is no longer yet can still be perceived.

It's about the perception of constant change being to be maintained and recalled even throughout various states if constant change. We're talking consiousness across planes. How constant physical change still maintains a constant nonphysical attribute which itself changes more to nonphysical stimuli rather than physical. The honest question of humanity isn't our self awareness, it's how self aware we choose to be. And in what sense we decide to apply the term self aware.

Hey is there any philosophy that says that we are self organizing into a larger entity the same way cells become us? I.e. we are an evolving constituent of an emergent thing.

The world is only intelligent in the sense of systems of mathematical and spiritual equation guided underhand by an often morose pseudo-metaphysical concept: regeneration and entropy, therein both extended by purely physical (the equation) as well as the aforementioned metaphysical (the hand guiding the equation). It is not as we are, in that sphere of reasoning. It operates as, say, a hollow soul, filled with the parts it needs but not the substance to make it whole. I suppose one could argue that the purpose of nature is to fill that soul, but it seems more an argument of semantics and sophistry than of any real substance. But then all discussion of metaphysics is, and even the words I'm typing now have no real meaning save for what we ascribe them. All intellect is like that. I guess, in which case, the question is can the world (or nature, I suppose) make meaning itself, or is it philosophically amorphic and emotionally inert? Does it exist in the physical confines of a three-dimensional space, and as such can only limit iself to three-dimensional thought patterns? I can't personify the cognition of an ecosystem on such grand scale and expect to reach any conclusive result, really.

So I guess, in all, this question is unknowable bullshit.

stop trying to look smart. explaining and relationing dimensions and God.

Good thoughts

Bump

I don't, the world is what it is regardless of our thoughts.

What do you mean by intelligent?

Complex phenomena can emerge from the interactions of a set of simple processes, see Conway's Game of Life.

I have an adult level capacity to scrutinize ideas I like and recognize when they are supported by assumptions. Sorry.

look at evolution that is intelligence. Look at the design of our earth which can allow for life as well as the magnificance of the universe. It is not just some random design but there are things that come into being through various built in laws of this universe that you learn in science. this i just one small description of a piece of the whole picture. can you imagine
it called making up your own mind.

>As long as you understand it and are reaching towards it its already enough.

Nobody needs to understand or do anything, you wannabe self-aware universe-nipple.

You dont NEED to do anything, you dont NEED to think, you dont NEED to work, yiu really dont need to understand anything, that is if you want to reach a version of your own personal hell. I am talking about how to realize the diving spark within us humans so that we man transcend ourselves and be closer to God and our own personal version of heaven.

This is just pure ignorance, I know you don't really think everyone trying to find their spirituality is on drugs.

>How do you explain the world having a intelligence of it's own?
I can't even make it through your first sentence without already being on shaky ground. What world has an intelligence of its own? Our planet? The universe? What is it being compared to, that you know it has intelligence? And what do you define intelligence as?

>How do you explain the world having a intelligence of it's own?
Why do I have to explain it? Does not knowing all the rules invalidate the rules which science gives us? No. I'll stick to certainty, thank you very much.

Just because I don't know how something works doesn't mean God exists.

I can see them, I just fucking hate them
I hate existence, I wish I could disappear into nothingness. Kill my consciousness

>>How do you explain the world having a intelligence of it's own?
>I can't even make it through your first sentence without already being on shaky ground. What world has an intelligence of its own? Our planet? The universe? What is it being compared to, that you know it has intelligence? And what do you define intelligence as?

The design of this world is not a stupid design, it is also not random. It is a design that allowed all this magnificance to unfold. There elements in this world such as that of ying yang that you can see everywhere but to those humans who have greater understanding of it their life is more aligned and more balanced. intelligence according to google is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." well man obv has intelligence but does the world has intelligence? It is foolish to think that the world which gave life to man does not have some sort of inner design which allowed man to be this way. Is evolution intelligence? it's goal is to make have life adapt to its environment in the best way, is that not intelligent? sure it doesnt "think" as we do but the energy is that one which has a purpose and direction.

>I can see them, I just fucking hate them
>I hate existence, I wish I could disappear into nothingness. Kill my consciousness

This right here. the spirit of the devil is with you user. seek the higher nobler road. seek the light, seek freedom.

>The design of this world is not a stupid design, it is also not random.
Again, what is "this world?" And what designs are you comparing it to, to know it's not stupid or random? One step at a time, buddy