I believe that any being that is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient would not be forced to do anything and therefore does not have to concern itself with our foibles and needs. If it does so, hopefully that will be a good thing, but this could just as easily be a bad thing as well.
Well mystic paper attempts to describe reality entire as an intimately connected thing, hence there is nothing outside of it. See also may philosophical anti Spinoza formula below*
I do not believe that they come and go at my word or anyone else's.
If someone calls your name do you not come? Names to the ancient Egyptians were an integral part of the souls composition. ...still, you are probably right.
For me, I feel a sense of "something greater" but I just don't see it as an ever-present reality watching over me and interceding left and right.
I agree, I think that ‘mind’ as infinite and universal [ceugant] is part of what we are, as if we are raindrops falling to its sea. One may attribute godliness to that because it is whilst a part of us also beyond us, its vastness and incomprehensibility brings us to the idea of god/ess or similar things, though that would be absurd if it be nothing more than the extended mind and that which all things are at their base. See also* [below]DJ Droood
I agree with what you are saying here, and it was part of the process that moved me away from theist thinking...I decided that if there *were* gods, they were either A)malevolent B)insane C)not omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient D)they don't give a crap and are about as concerned with us as we are with the "issues" of microbes living on our toothbrush D)only as "powerful" as the energy I feed into them, like blowing up a balloon.
I am inclined to agree with you completely here, even though many of us have seen such deities in our visions, it would seam they at best have limited effect in the world [probably only in the realm of mind], so frankly I couldn’t give a damn about any manner of gods ~ in the context of worship at least. I do think they can be teachers but here again we must be careful how much we trust their wisdom and its source. All in all a tentative approach or even non-alignment is the wiser approach these days.
Perhaps in the past, the gods claiming more powers than they actually have was done to facilitate some manner of respect. …still they had plenty of opportunity to teach us different [perhaps they did and such is our journey?]. What one has to remember are times when peoples gods completely let them down e.g. when north American climates changed and land turned to desert, the tribes often went to extreme measures to bring a better future, but to no avail. I would think in such a case one could believe in any manner of deity and be brought the same conclusion!
I truly believe that man has moved [or is moving] beyond its childhood and no longer needs gods. *
Proof that a monotheistic god does not exist…
Quote from another forum to start us off, philosophers cannot prove the formula wrong so I recon I have it in the bag!…
This is a question for everybody, and especially agnostics. We know that their are two possibilities, god exists or he doesn't.
There are not two possibilities, god cannot exist... [a monotheistic one that is]
Let us take omnipresence, in the diagram below you see a simple formula I made, it shows how omnipresence is the collection of presences, and it is impossible to have anything at all outside of the circle [such as god], which ‘has‘ omnipresence. The same thing applies for omniscience or anything ‘omni’. equally you can only have universals on this scale, you cannot have the absolute because it would have to mix with the universals and be within the circle, when ever anything is part of the circle it is either universal or particular, you canot have a whole which excludes the omni/universals.
Edit note; of course we can think of omnipresence as like a space or some manner of presence which is everywhere and yet nowhere, this though is then not definitively ‘omnipresence’ as that term would have to include all [‘omni’] presences too. All ‘p’s are ‘p’, where ‘p’ = ‘p’
[if god is a 'p' [anything whatsoever] then he is part of existence not to one side of it, if so he would be universal and not mono].
The monotheistic god does not exist; end of!
All quotes from ilp philosophy forums, I selected the ones I felt were most relevant. its all the circle of knowledge y'know.
It could be that the ’spirit’ of our direction, level, and dimension of thought and existence is limited, whereas God’s ‘spirit’ is supreme and His capacity almighty. This contradistinction would place us in an infinitesimal domain with God’s expanse in a dwelling place of eternity.
Also, it could be that God’s nature is an ‘Omni‘ spirit with no material form. With man and his physical nature, any correlation of spirit with God’s would have to take place in his thought. But thought, with its experiences and actions, is limited to its own purposes and endurance.
I don’t see how it matters as to size comparatives, we are much bigger than particles, and yet the same rules apply to us. Define infinitesimal? It is just a mathematical metaphor, if existent you couldn’t place anything into it [but it is not existent].
It doesn’t matter if gods form is material or not the principle is applicable to anything. Secondly his omnipresence is deemed as the collection of all presences e.g. ours the world etc, so we are talking about at least the collection of material presences, even if there is more. Either way the formula applies.
Existence - the state or fact of existing; being.
Truly ‘existence’ should include everything ‘that is’ and that must include the non material, really the terms ‘material’ and ‘non-material’ present a false dichotomy, if something is, be it within either of those categories, then it should be classified as equally real. I can see how we need to use the term ‘existent’ for the manifest and not the un-manifest or pre-universe state, but that is a comparative aspect of its meaning, really everything exists or it simply is not anything. Either that or we need a new term for anything which 'is'.
I think ‘reality’ is one thing that cannot be transcended, existence maybe such as in the above context, but reality cannot be. Initially this is a matter of semantics, but we must ascribe terms to there proper use in context, or use other terms. Here reality describes a place where anything which is, ‘is‘ weather existent or not, material or not.
So we may return to my formula in such context and re-read it as true. God cannot be outside the circle, and especially if the notion [‘god’] is expected to include ‘all’.
the truth is naked.
once it is written it is lost.
what is life; life is not a question.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
death cannot be experienced.
life is not brought to us in slices of unrealised perfection, we get the whole cake.