Out of curiousity what is your background and what do you do to pass the time outside of youtube? Are you a career student,son of a Caballistic Rabbi? You fascinate me with your esoteric words of wisdom and because of that I am really curious how you molded yourself in your present form? I can imagine your background is illustrious/luminous/enlightening. Thanks!
i like that, intuition of the infinite. it is a game of semantics, words. aesthetic experience of order, beauty, novelty. good line. writing my novel, one page at a time. keep up the good work.
Is that really a Whiteheadian view? As I understand it, Whitehead's God is finite, and therefore able to change with the universe. The infinite, in Whitehead's view, is not God, but creativity.
i dont like watching the amazing atheist videos.. they are filed with hate and add little to the discussion.. "the major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur"
when spinoza wrote about his 'god' in the ethics people were disgusted at how atheistic it was.. a century later, they were disgusted at how theistic it was.. first god was nowhere then everywhere..
What do you think of the notion of God as Being rather than God as a supernatural being? I mean, isn't atheism really a rejection merely of a theistic understanding of God? I myself am exploring viewing God in non-theistic terms and categories. Thank you for your video post, I enjoyed it.
Sadly atheism, particularly in the United States, has become far more than a simple rejection of the theistic implications associated with God. The word "understanding" ceases to be a part of the mix with many mainstream outspoken atheists, for the notion of understanding would have to yield to the notion that those who believe in God, in whatever capacity, are as legitimate in their beliefs as atheists claim to be in their lack of belief. Mainstream atheists are fueled with the preconception...
...that those who believe are lacking in not only intelligence, but also lack the ability to think rationally, and are therefore forced to bear an unfair burden to prove their case (until they are blue in the face) to a group of people who do not share an equal burden, for their principles are founded upon the very merits of the rejection of the possibility that they very well could be wrong, a sentiment that whilst usually taking a back seat in argument, is so very much their Achilles heel.
The "God, in whatever capacity" might be supernatural. In this case there is no rational talk about Him. Perhaps, that is what atheists mean saying "lack the ability to think rationally".
Note, a lot of people are talking about God without giving any (rational) definition first. "Intuition of the infinite" is the best illustration of lack of definition. I for myself cannot tell do I believe or not: there is no accepted definition of God.
I cannot speak to the rationale of atheists, for my own beliefs are by definition the antithesis of the fundamentals that seem to be the foundation of their "beliefs." But look, the idea of attaching a human definition to God, who by His very nature is the epitome of all we hope to achieve in life and death, is not workable. It is like attaching standards to that which cannot be seen, heard, felt, or known, except through channels that we have been taught draw us closer to God. Those things...
@MageSutek "attaching a human definition to God, who by His very nature is the epitome of all we hope to achieve in life and death" - But you are already making this "human definition" of God in this sentence. And you seem to know His nature.
"except through channels..." Is there a hint to immaterial channels that don't need energy for passing information? It would be irrational from atheist point of view, as these immaterial channels belong to the supernatural.
...are scripture, the words of spiritual leaders, but most importantly to me, faith. It comes down to faith being a simple principle: the belief that not all power can be seen or heard. It is impossible to "define" God. Along with warfare, the attempt to derive a deliberate and all-encompassing definition of God has been a human pursuit since the dawn of time. I like "intuition of the infinite." I understand why you have adopted agnosticism, and believe me, I have felt so detached from God...
...sometimes that I have thought about throwing up my hands and just calling it quits, but that action would have massive consequences, not only in my life, but in the lives of those around me. I am okay with believing in the Creator without the benefit of being able to define Him, for I see His work all around me. He has given me the makeup that has allowed me to meet some incredible people, fall in love, learn from smart people like the guy who owns this channel, to become more educated...
@MageSutek "I am okay with believing in the Creator without the benefit of being able to define Him" - but it would be so nice to know what are you believing in.
The idea of a demiurge created us was always very natural for me because of my fractal vision of the world. The only problem I had was the necessity to accept a supernatural God.
...and to live a life with standards founded in ethicality and morality. I sin and make mistakes. I have a mouth on me and I can be a real asshole sometimes, but at the end of the day, I know that I am not alone even when all the people have gone and the lights have gone out. There are definitions of God, but what there is not is a definition of God that is universal and applicable to all of humankind. I am okay with this, even if it is a modality to break down those of faith by those with none.
@MageSutek "...and to live a life with standards founded in ethicality and morality" - I was raised in a non-religious family and had no faith. At certain point of my life I came to the idea of God. There was no change in my ethicality and morality because of it, except maybe more forgiveness to others and to myself; but it can be simply because I grew up.
I would sooner adopt a life in which God was not readily defined than I would a life in which God did not exist just because I did not believe in a higher power because it lacked a standard definition. I can think of no greater conceit than to presume that humanity is its own custodian of creation and destruction. There has always been opposition against the faithful and I believe there always will be. It is how we allow that opposition to affect us that weighs in on our merit as good people.
@MageSutek "I would sooner adopt a life in which God was not readily defined than I would a life in which God did not exist..." These are my feelings, too.
And that's why I'm always amazed by the notion of a supernatural God, because the supernatural for me means non-existing, which is sad. I cannot understand why so many people define Him as supernatural and believe in something that does not exist.
The world and the universe are so vast and so ageless that the wealth of spirit is the only true wealth; it is okay to be in doubt. Some of the greatest philosophers and theologians struggled with doubt throughout their lives more often than they did not. Ultimately, the faithful will be vindicated, at least that is my hope. I cannot conceive of a world without the idea of God within it. Whether religion comes or goes is unimportant, but spirituality, well, it has brought me my definition.
@MageSutek "I cannot conceive of a world without the idea of God within it."
Within it means a subset of the whole world. That means, in its turn, that you believe in a natural God rather than a supernatural, transcending the world. Am I right?
@MageSutek "Whether religion comes or goes is unimportant..."
It can be true if you are independent from the society.
I have a strong feeling that the institutional religion has perverted the notion of God intentionally in order to simplify the process of manipulating of the people.
Of course, if you interpret "religion" as "reconnect" (as Matt does; see also wiki, one of the possibilities is "re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," "), that makes difference.
Thanks for the compliment on my writing; it is really my one strength in life these days. My apologies for the latency in my response to your comments. I have been indisposed, as it were. Concerning God; supernatural has some weird connotations, and while I think it would be okay to apply them in attempting to describe God, I would agree that the element of rationality would be somewhat diminished in the eyes of an atheist. In my experience, atheists will use whatever elements of language and...
...singular thought to discredit those individuals who have a belief in God. The premise upon which atheists formulate their counterarguments (and their derision) concerning the existence of God hinges on the idea that those who believe must be irrational, or in some capacity, lacking the ability to explain the mystery of God short of supporting claims with a faith-based argument. I would posit that in the conversation about God's existence, "rationality" has now become a subjective term, as...
...atheists claim to speak from a rational stance whilst arguing with believers who insist that they too are rational. As far as definitions are concerned, I fear I cannot give you one. I was once a seminarian and I admit to terrible lapses in faith; one of the reasons I withdrew as an initiate was because I was hooked on definitions and explanations when faith was called for as an end unto itself. I like "intuition of the infinite." Human beings have to have definitions in order to function...
...or we very quickly lose our hold on reality. We define the passage of events with time. We have currency to define the worth of material goods. So when it comes to defining that which cannot readily be seen, heard, touched, or measured by any standard, it is thrown into the category of "irrational" or "intangible." So we put forth this idea of faith. We believe because we have been told it is so. We have even been urged to believe on penalty of punishment. Yet there are claims from those...
...who allege to have "seen" God manifested through visions, oddly not of God Himself, but of the Virgin Mary and martyred saints. There are claims of unexplainable (in human terms) miracles; people have been healed of earthly ails in God's name, people have witnessed exorcisms through God's grace, claims of angelic visions are numerous, and 92-98% of the world's population believes in a creator greater in scope than human beings. Christians call the creator God. The closest definition that...
...I have resolved to claim as "rational" is: God is love. I have seen love and kindness achieve miraculous things during my stint on earth. Love can heal, it can ease tensions, and it is a universal principle upon which humans base their most mundane hopes and expectations of others. Love can unite enemies and it can ease suffering. I think it is okay to be lacking in definitions if you have love in your heart and desire to live your life with the capacity to love and to be loved. Him is love.
@MageSutek Sorry for not responding for so long - I was fluing. I was afraid you didn't respond to my comments because they were offending. I wanted to add "I'm glad it wasn't a case" but found it somehow egoistic in case you were sick. I'm glad you are back, and thanks for your response.
"God is love" is the best definition, I agree. It doesn't require for farther explanation and even makes the very argument of God's existence senseless. But love...
@wholethinker goes together with understanding the world is unified; division to enemies and friends is merely an abstraction. Though it is difficult to feel this world's unity in everyday's life.
"...population believes in a creator greater.." - I believe in creator without involving any faith; from my childhood it seemed to me logically obvious, and today I explain it to myself rationally.
Maybe this tendency to explain everything in a rational way is against the man's (irrational) nature?
@wholethinker No worries. I hope you are better now. When I came to this page to read some of the comments, I noticed that someone or some people had marked many of your comments as "spam," which kind of pisses me off, because it not only obscures your comments from view, but it establishes a message to YouTube that the comments you leave are somehow just spam in nature, when in fact they are quite the opposite. My suspicion is that if the authorities see so many reports, one may be in...
@MageSutek I believe it was a script marking my comments, because I quoted you by copy and paste creating repeated text strings. I don't believe it was a visitor doing this: the thread is old, the comments were not to the video, and they didn't express polar opinion. Men usually enjoy attacking openly, using "idiots", etc. as the best prove of their position.
Probability of manual flagging is low, though as in a joke "If one is diagnosed with paranoia, it doesn't guarantee he is not watched".
...line for sanctions against their account. Because one disagrees with what you have to say does not entitle them to mark it as spam and leave you to face the consequences. I cannot think of a more blatant act of cowardice in the scope of trying to silence someone. So if the person or people who are doing this happen to read my comments, I would ask that they cut it out, because it is unfair to everyone when a conversation is broken apart because it does not sit well with the sensibilities...
@MageSutek "So if the person or people who are doing this happen to read my comments" Just for the test purpose I copied your text, hope this comment will be flagged. :)
Seriously, I don't believe anybody (except two of us) is reading these comments.
...of others. Anyway, no, you did not offend me. Worry not about offending me, as I have a long fuse, unless I am bombarded with wanton ignorance, in which case my fuse is decidedly short. I am glad you agree with my "love" explanation, although I do not think love must coincide with an understanding that the world is unified, as it is very clearly not. It is terribly fragmented. However, I believe that it is love that has the power to unify when and where there is fragmentation. If...
@MageSutek The world is "terribly fragmented" only in our vision of it, I think. It's not only my opinion: David Bohm expressed similar ideas, and of course much better than myself. He believes the fragmentation is needed for understanding of the world, but is not it's inherent property. Bohm is a scientist, and I appreciate science.
...division amongst enemies and unification amongst friends is the gauge by which love is measured universally, I find it apropos, abstraction or not. The word abstraction has an implicit undertone that connotes something unreal. Love, like division and unification, is quite real. I would stipulate that love begets the latter. Nevertheless, I agree that it is difficult to feel the love, even within what we perceive as unification. On the other topic, it seems that you believe in a creator...
@MageSutek About real and unreal - I agree, love is real, and it is more real than face or finger because latter are abstractions. I always ask people: where are the borders of my face? are you sure, maybe a bit closer to the neck? For me it is an indication this fragmentation is cultural or/and scientific, it is man-made.
...without involving faith, although I find that concept difficult to understand. Is faith not the basis upon which we establish our "tangible" explanations for our belief in God? I believe rationality would be tossed out the window if you say you believe in the creator, but you lack physical/empirical evidence and do not see faith as necessary. I guess I would have to ask, what else is there? What seems logically obvious to us is the very thing atheists use to mock us when we come to try to...
@MageSutek To explain how I got the idea of our creator without faith, I have to tell long story. Though I remember how patient you were trying to get the point an youtuber was (not) making, I think, it would be too much. Maybe I will write something better structured and with better reasoning than I'm able right now. My Englich is improving too slow... but there is a progress: one year ago this comment would take me one hour to write.
The idea of a creator is a result of my observations.
...defend our belief systems. I have often said that humanity is inherently irrational. We knowingly destroy our habitats despite the critical consequences, we murder our own kind because some differ from the whole, we wage war on one another, we do weird stuff like interbreed (quite unnatural to be sure), and we horde our stuff and seek to amass wealth as an end unto itself. We have become pretty fucked up over the short time we have been a species. Not sure what awaits us as a whole. Scary.
@MageSutek Yes, we are irrational, and what amazes me, we still exist; but it won't last forever. I hope we will create something before getting extinguished.
There can be no sensible and worthwhile investments in debating most members of the atheist community, for one who chooses to believe, whether that belief stems from religion itself or a simple spiritual connection to the esoteric, is an automatic handicap in the minds of those who would seek to spread a message of disbelief, not for the purpose of learned scholarship, but to cripple their opposition, and their gamesmanship is well honed and practiced. YouTube atheists, in my experience...
...can be cruel, judgmental, unwilling to waiver in the slightest when it comes to their own "beliefs," and are more interested in the dolorous unkindness and derision that is associated with most debates in which they choose to engage others than the possibility of reaching a point of rational and principled disagreement whilst at the same time maintaining a respectful countenance that leaves open the possibility for changes in opinions or viewpoints. Moreover, the "movement" has become so...
...intertwined with blanket intolerance of those with opposing views that their belief systems have begun to cross moral and ethical lines, when in the past it was just standard malice. One who believes can never expect to be on equal footing with one who does not believe, for the standard of equal footing is no longer a requisite for any sensible discourse. You either conform to the belief that God is an ill-conceived manifestation of the mind, thus illegitimate, or you renounce your beliefs.
If God is an intuition of the infinite, as humans I believe we naturally tend to approach Him at first by what we see as most incredible and mysterious to us. And what is that? Our consciousness of course. That emergent "I" that has the privilege of the beautiful combination of experience (content) and meaning (context). But God is something beyond experience, or meaning, or their animated coexistence in consciousness. Our perceptual awareness merges with other consciousness and BOOM!...
Defining terms *is* important, and should be done more. Sometimes I think there can be a false consensus , as in only an apparent one, between people on both sides of the God thang. I mean, they might agree that, 'of course we're not talking about *silly*, *fundamentalist* notions of God', whilst having very different ideas about what constitutes a sensible one. I used to 'accept' that ID was beyond the pale- not any more. (not that it matters!)
so to sum up, I agree with you, Fred, that God has something to do with sparks of experience, but I think God is more than a spark in the brain. The physical world is no less experiential than that part of the physical world called the brain. God is not an idea in the head, but the soul of the world (Plato's psyche cosmu), that center of experience which prehends the expansion of space-time as a whole in each moment with the intention of persuading the universe toward more beauty and goodness.
@0ThouArtThat0 Do you think beauty is the ultimate end product of catastrophy, destruction, and disorder? Does existence have a tendancy for spiraling in and out of order and disorder or termed order out of chaos? Its interesting to think about what the driving force was that started it all and may end it all and itself called god, until the spark regenerates and starts the process all over again. Isn't existence a perpetual infinite constant? Is god simply the cosmic intentive/consiousness?
In a sense, do you think you're God, Matt?
seigneurvoland666 11 months ago
mat you have become a lighthouse, beautiful
cardellacole4 1 year ago
It's really interesting to me how, independently, we've come to have rather similar views. At least from the videos I've seen thus far.
DarkBowser 1 year ago
Out of curiousity what is your background and what do you do to pass the time outside of youtube? Are you a career student,son of a Caballistic Rabbi? You fascinate me with your esoteric words of wisdom and because of that I am really curious how you molded yourself in your present form? I can imagine your background is illustrious/luminous/enlightening. Thanks!
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
do you think this beauty and harmony is what math reveals?
CPLains 1 year ago
i like that, intuition of the infinite. it is a game of semantics, words. aesthetic experience of order, beauty, novelty. good line. writing my novel, one page at a time. keep up the good work.
innerstellarman 1 year ago
"God is an intuition of the infinite."
Is that really a Whiteheadian view? As I understand it, Whitehead's God is finite, and therefore able to change with the universe. The infinite, in Whitehead's view, is not God, but creativity.
silversoul7 1 year ago
no one knows...no one knows...no one knows....no one knows....(if u think u do then all youve done is created another religion by men)
pointlessfilms 1 year ago
"That there is anything is evidence of God" Good comment
TDP788 1 year ago
i dont like watching the amazing atheist videos.. they are filed with hate and add little to the discussion.. "the major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur"
sexdrugsRnR 1 year ago
when spinoza wrote about his 'god' in the ethics people were disgusted at how atheistic it was.. a century later, they were disgusted at how theistic it was.. first god was nowhere then everywhere..
sexdrugsRnR 1 year ago
my girlfriend says science does change and shift but it's "linear"
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
What do you think of the notion of God as Being rather than God as a supernatural being? I mean, isn't atheism really a rejection merely of a theistic understanding of God? I myself am exploring viewing God in non-theistic terms and categories. Thank you for your video post, I enjoyed it.
KevinBenedict89 1 year ago
Sadly atheism, particularly in the United States, has become far more than a simple rejection of the theistic implications associated with God. The word "understanding" ceases to be a part of the mix with many mainstream outspoken atheists, for the notion of understanding would have to yield to the notion that those who believe in God, in whatever capacity, are as legitimate in their beliefs as atheists claim to be in their lack of belief. Mainstream atheists are fueled with the preconception...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...that those who believe are lacking in not only intelligence, but also lack the ability to think rationally, and are therefore forced to bear an unfair burden to prove their case (until they are blue in the face) to a group of people who do not share an equal burden, for their principles are founded upon the very merits of the rejection of the possibility that they very well could be wrong, a sentiment that whilst usually taking a back seat in argument, is so very much their Achilles heel.
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek I like your writing.
The "God, in whatever capacity" might be supernatural. In this case there is no rational talk about Him. Perhaps, that is what atheists mean saying "lack the ability to think rationally".
Note, a lot of people are talking about God without giving any (rational) definition first. "Intuition of the infinite" is the best illustration of lack of definition. I for myself cannot tell do I believe or not: there is no accepted definition of God.
What is Him?
wholethinker 1 year ago
I cannot speak to the rationale of atheists, for my own beliefs are by definition the antithesis of the fundamentals that seem to be the foundation of their "beliefs." But look, the idea of attaching a human definition to God, who by His very nature is the epitome of all we hope to achieve in life and death, is not workable. It is like attaching standards to that which cannot be seen, heard, felt, or known, except through channels that we have been taught draw us closer to God. Those things...
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek "attaching a human definition to God, who by His very nature is the epitome of all we hope to achieve in life and death" - But you are already making this "human definition" of God in this sentence. And you seem to know His nature.
"except through channels..." Is there a hint to immaterial channels that don't need energy for passing information? It would be irrational from atheist point of view, as these immaterial channels belong to the supernatural.
wholethinker 1 year ago
...are scripture, the words of spiritual leaders, but most importantly to me, faith. It comes down to faith being a simple principle: the belief that not all power can be seen or heard. It is impossible to "define" God. Along with warfare, the attempt to derive a deliberate and all-encompassing definition of God has been a human pursuit since the dawn of time. I like "intuition of the infinite." I understand why you have adopted agnosticism, and believe me, I have felt so detached from God...
MageSutek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MageSutek "scripture, the words of spiritual leaders, but most importantly to me, faith" Why not to explain all these in a materialistic way?
"the belief that not all power can be seen or heard" - it doesn't imply we need supernatural explanation if we cannot see something (yet).
"definition of God has been..." what's wrong with the Spinozean understanding what is God? Why He should be supernatural, a demand of the majority?
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker "I understand why you have adopted agnosticism, and..."
I just curious how you decided I'd adopted agnosticism, and how it is connected to your detachment (sometimes) from God. I simply missed your point.
wholethinker 1 year ago
...sometimes that I have thought about throwing up my hands and just calling it quits, but that action would have massive consequences, not only in my life, but in the lives of those around me. I am okay with believing in the Creator without the benefit of being able to define Him, for I see His work all around me. He has given me the makeup that has allowed me to meet some incredible people, fall in love, learn from smart people like the guy who owns this channel, to become more educated...
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek "I am okay with believing in the Creator without the benefit of being able to define Him" - but it would be so nice to know what are you believing in.
The idea of a demiurge created us was always very natural for me because of my fractal vision of the world. The only problem I had was the necessity to accept a supernatural God.
wholethinker 1 year ago
...and to live a life with standards founded in ethicality and morality. I sin and make mistakes. I have a mouth on me and I can be a real asshole sometimes, but at the end of the day, I know that I am not alone even when all the people have gone and the lights have gone out. There are definitions of God, but what there is not is a definition of God that is universal and applicable to all of humankind. I am okay with this, even if it is a modality to break down those of faith by those with none.
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek "...and to live a life with standards founded in ethicality and morality" - I was raised in a non-religious family and had no faith. At certain point of my life I came to the idea of God. There was no change in my ethicality and morality because of it, except maybe more forgiveness to others and to myself; but it can be simply because I grew up.
wholethinker 1 year ago
I would sooner adopt a life in which God was not readily defined than I would a life in which God did not exist just because I did not believe in a higher power because it lacked a standard definition. I can think of no greater conceit than to presume that humanity is its own custodian of creation and destruction. There has always been opposition against the faithful and I believe there always will be. It is how we allow that opposition to affect us that weighs in on our merit as good people.
MageSutek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MageSutek "I would sooner adopt a life in which God was not readily defined than I would a life in which God did not exist..." These are my feelings, too.
And that's why I'm always amazed by the notion of a supernatural God, because the supernatural for me means non-existing, which is sad. I cannot understand why so many people define Him as supernatural and believe in something that does not exist.
wholethinker 1 year ago
The world and the universe are so vast and so ageless that the wealth of spirit is the only true wealth; it is okay to be in doubt. Some of the greatest philosophers and theologians struggled with doubt throughout their lives more often than they did not. Ultimately, the faithful will be vindicated, at least that is my hope. I cannot conceive of a world without the idea of God within it. Whether religion comes or goes is unimportant, but spirituality, well, it has brought me my definition.
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek "I cannot conceive of a world without the idea of God within it."
Within it means a subset of the whole world. That means, in its turn, that you believe in a natural God rather than a supernatural, transcending the world. Am I right?
wholethinker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MageSutek "it is okay to be in doubt..." Do you mean yourself or myself?
wholethinker 1 year ago
@MageSutek "Whether religion comes or goes is unimportant..."
It can be true if you are independent from the society.
I have a strong feeling that the institutional religion has perverted the notion of God intentionally in order to simplify the process of manipulating of the people.
Of course, if you interpret "religion" as "reconnect" (as Matt does; see also wiki, one of the possibilities is "re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," "), that makes difference.
wholethinker 1 year ago
Thanks for the compliment on my writing; it is really my one strength in life these days. My apologies for the latency in my response to your comments. I have been indisposed, as it were. Concerning God; supernatural has some weird connotations, and while I think it would be okay to apply them in attempting to describe God, I would agree that the element of rationality would be somewhat diminished in the eyes of an atheist. In my experience, atheists will use whatever elements of language and...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...singular thought to discredit those individuals who have a belief in God. The premise upon which atheists formulate their counterarguments (and their derision) concerning the existence of God hinges on the idea that those who believe must be irrational, or in some capacity, lacking the ability to explain the mystery of God short of supporting claims with a faith-based argument. I would posit that in the conversation about God's existence, "rationality" has now become a subjective term, as...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...atheists claim to speak from a rational stance whilst arguing with believers who insist that they too are rational. As far as definitions are concerned, I fear I cannot give you one. I was once a seminarian and I admit to terrible lapses in faith; one of the reasons I withdrew as an initiate was because I was hooked on definitions and explanations when faith was called for as an end unto itself. I like "intuition of the infinite." Human beings have to have definitions in order to function...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...or we very quickly lose our hold on reality. We define the passage of events with time. We have currency to define the worth of material goods. So when it comes to defining that which cannot readily be seen, heard, touched, or measured by any standard, it is thrown into the category of "irrational" or "intangible." So we put forth this idea of faith. We believe because we have been told it is so. We have even been urged to believe on penalty of punishment. Yet there are claims from those...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...who allege to have "seen" God manifested through visions, oddly not of God Himself, but of the Virgin Mary and martyred saints. There are claims of unexplainable (in human terms) miracles; people have been healed of earthly ails in God's name, people have witnessed exorcisms through God's grace, claims of angelic visions are numerous, and 92-98% of the world's population believes in a creator greater in scope than human beings. Christians call the creator God. The closest definition that...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...I have resolved to claim as "rational" is: God is love. I have seen love and kindness achieve miraculous things during my stint on earth. Love can heal, it can ease tensions, and it is a universal principle upon which humans base their most mundane hopes and expectations of others. Love can unite enemies and it can ease suffering. I think it is okay to be lacking in definitions if you have love in your heart and desire to live your life with the capacity to love and to be loved. Him is love.
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek Sorry for not responding for so long - I was fluing. I was afraid you didn't respond to my comments because they were offending. I wanted to add "I'm glad it wasn't a case" but found it somehow egoistic in case you were sick. I'm glad you are back, and thanks for your response.
"God is love" is the best definition, I agree. It doesn't require for farther explanation and even makes the very argument of God's existence senseless. But love...
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker goes together with understanding the world is unified; division to enemies and friends is merely an abstraction. Though it is difficult to feel this world's unity in everyday's life.
"...population believes in a creator greater.." - I believe in creator without involving any faith; from my childhood it seemed to me logically obvious, and today I explain it to myself rationally.
Maybe this tendency to explain everything in a rational way is against the man's (irrational) nature?
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker No worries. I hope you are better now. When I came to this page to read some of the comments, I noticed that someone or some people had marked many of your comments as "spam," which kind of pisses me off, because it not only obscures your comments from view, but it establishes a message to YouTube that the comments you leave are somehow just spam in nature, when in fact they are quite the opposite. My suspicion is that if the authorities see so many reports, one may be in...
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek I believe it was a script marking my comments, because I quoted you by copy and paste creating repeated text strings. I don't believe it was a visitor doing this: the thread is old, the comments were not to the video, and they didn't express polar opinion. Men usually enjoy attacking openly, using "idiots", etc. as the best prove of their position.
Probability of manual flagging is low, though as in a joke "If one is diagnosed with paranoia, it doesn't guarantee he is not watched".
wholethinker 1 year ago
...line for sanctions against their account. Because one disagrees with what you have to say does not entitle them to mark it as spam and leave you to face the consequences. I cannot think of a more blatant act of cowardice in the scope of trying to silence someone. So if the person or people who are doing this happen to read my comments, I would ask that they cut it out, because it is unfair to everyone when a conversation is broken apart because it does not sit well with the sensibilities...
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek "So if the person or people who are doing this happen to read my comments" Just for the test purpose I copied your text, hope this comment will be flagged. :)
Seriously, I don't believe anybody (except two of us) is reading these comments.
wholethinker 1 year ago
...of others. Anyway, no, you did not offend me. Worry not about offending me, as I have a long fuse, unless I am bombarded with wanton ignorance, in which case my fuse is decidedly short. I am glad you agree with my "love" explanation, although I do not think love must coincide with an understanding that the world is unified, as it is very clearly not. It is terribly fragmented. However, I believe that it is love that has the power to unify when and where there is fragmentation. If...
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek The world is "terribly fragmented" only in our vision of it, I think. It's not only my opinion: David Bohm expressed similar ideas, and of course much better than myself. He believes the fragmentation is needed for understanding of the world, but is not it's inherent property. Bohm is a scientist, and I appreciate science.
wholethinker 1 year ago
...division amongst enemies and unification amongst friends is the gauge by which love is measured universally, I find it apropos, abstraction or not. The word abstraction has an implicit undertone that connotes something unreal. Love, like division and unification, is quite real. I would stipulate that love begets the latter. Nevertheless, I agree that it is difficult to feel the love, even within what we perceive as unification. On the other topic, it seems that you believe in a creator...
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek About real and unreal - I agree, love is real, and it is more real than face or finger because latter are abstractions. I always ask people: where are the borders of my face? are you sure, maybe a bit closer to the neck? For me it is an indication this fragmentation is cultural or/and scientific, it is man-made.
wholethinker 1 year ago
...without involving faith, although I find that concept difficult to understand. Is faith not the basis upon which we establish our "tangible" explanations for our belief in God? I believe rationality would be tossed out the window if you say you believe in the creator, but you lack physical/empirical evidence and do not see faith as necessary. I guess I would have to ask, what else is there? What seems logically obvious to us is the very thing atheists use to mock us when we come to try to...
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek To explain how I got the idea of our creator without faith, I have to tell long story. Though I remember how patient you were trying to get the point an youtuber was (not) making, I think, it would be too much. Maybe I will write something better structured and with better reasoning than I'm able right now. My Englich is improving too slow... but there is a progress: one year ago this comment would take me one hour to write.
The idea of a creator is a result of my observations.
wholethinker 1 year ago
...defend our belief systems. I have often said that humanity is inherently irrational. We knowingly destroy our habitats despite the critical consequences, we murder our own kind because some differ from the whole, we wage war on one another, we do weird stuff like interbreed (quite unnatural to be sure), and we horde our stuff and seek to amass wealth as an end unto itself. We have become pretty fucked up over the short time we have been a species. Not sure what awaits us as a whole. Scary.
MageSutek 1 year ago
@MageSutek Yes, we are irrational, and what amazes me, we still exist; but it won't last forever. I hope we will create something before getting extinguished.
wholethinker 1 year ago
There can be no sensible and worthwhile investments in debating most members of the atheist community, for one who chooses to believe, whether that belief stems from religion itself or a simple spiritual connection to the esoteric, is an automatic handicap in the minds of those who would seek to spread a message of disbelief, not for the purpose of learned scholarship, but to cripple their opposition, and their gamesmanship is well honed and practiced. YouTube atheists, in my experience...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...can be cruel, judgmental, unwilling to waiver in the slightest when it comes to their own "beliefs," and are more interested in the dolorous unkindness and derision that is associated with most debates in which they choose to engage others than the possibility of reaching a point of rational and principled disagreement whilst at the same time maintaining a respectful countenance that leaves open the possibility for changes in opinions or viewpoints. Moreover, the "movement" has become so...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...intertwined with blanket intolerance of those with opposing views that their belief systems have begun to cross moral and ethical lines, when in the past it was just standard malice. One who believes can never expect to be on equal footing with one who does not believe, for the standard of equal footing is no longer a requisite for any sensible discourse. You either conform to the belief that God is an ill-conceived manifestation of the mind, thus illegitimate, or you renounce your beliefs.
MageSutek 1 year ago
If God is an intuition of the infinite, as humans I believe we naturally tend to approach Him at first by what we see as most incredible and mysterious to us. And what is that? Our consciousness of course. That emergent "I" that has the privilege of the beautiful combination of experience (content) and meaning (context). But God is something beyond experience, or meaning, or their animated coexistence in consciousness. Our perceptual awareness merges with other consciousness and BOOM!...
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Defining terms *is* important, and should be done more. Sometimes I think there can be a false consensus , as in only an apparent one, between people on both sides of the God thang. I mean, they might agree that, 'of course we're not talking about *silly*, *fundamentalist* notions of God', whilst having very different ideas about what constitutes a sensible one. I used to 'accept' that ID was beyond the pale- not any more. (not that it matters!)
gerontodon 1 year ago
what is mother,???
o' mom is in the car, why do you ask?
never:mind
theosophers 1 year ago
@theosophers or...
what is mother???
o mom is a spark plug in the car, why do you ask?
nevermind
regemo 1 year ago
@theosophers You expressed the essence of both, scientific and religious way of thinking.
wholethinker 1 year ago
so to sum up, I agree with you, Fred, that God has something to do with sparks of experience, but I think God is more than a spark in the brain. The physical world is no less experiential than that part of the physical world called the brain. God is not an idea in the head, but the soul of the world (Plato's psyche cosmu), that center of experience which prehends the expansion of space-time as a whole in each moment with the intention of persuading the universe toward more beauty and goodness.
0ThouArtThat0 1 year ago
@0ThouArtThat0 Do you think beauty is the ultimate end product of catastrophy, destruction, and disorder? Does existence have a tendancy for spiraling in and out of order and disorder or termed order out of chaos? Its interesting to think about what the driving force was that started it all and may end it all and itself called god, until the spark regenerates and starts the process all over again. Isn't existence a perpetual infinite constant? Is god simply the cosmic intentive/consiousness?
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago