When you hear the word Idolatry what comes to mind? Hinduism? Tribal religions?
Somehow Buddhism escapes this slur even thought we see Buddhist Temples have the Idol of the Buddha. Most of the Buddhist practitioners are white and that seems to protect them from mockery!
But what about other religions?
If such a person as a God exists and I posit that this being wants to visit us on earth, for Christians he or she must come down as a young blond white male and answer to the name Jesus. Do some magic, miracle and he is it!
If he came down as a woman or a black man, they will kick him out!
If he comes down as a brown man and says his name is Rama, he would be really asking for it!
For Muslims he would have to come down as a bright light and speak with a booming Darth Vader like voice, male, of course!
Idolatry 101!
The original title for this post was Idolatry 101 but the system wouldnât let me use it even though my post had nothing to do with other âsimilarâ posts - a bit irritating
Given that âGodâ is a human concept and the first saying in the Tao is quite true, even to the imagined deity. The god that can be described, is not god at all, but only a human concept. Even the Buddhist would ask if such a being is really there. And what does God want to do with race? Because the N.A. and even many Black people hardly want a white Jesus, not to mention, if Jesus ever existed, he certainly was not white, given that he was allegedly born in the Middle East. IMHO, itâs all idolatry and mythology.
Iâve found it really liberating realizing that God is the product of our conscious mind as driven by our human & brain experiencing life, keeping in mind, that our human body and brain are the product of Earthâs evolutionary processes.
If one really, really wants to interpret God as a thing,
perhaps one needs to look for âGodâ within deep-biology & deep-time
since awareness and direction is something all living beings possess, to one extent or another.
Our amazing body brain is whatâs managed to infuse âGodâ with meaning.
But why the need to imagine god as a person, and not a âstate of beingâ.
Existenceis the state of being real or participating in [reality](Reality - Wikipedia).
It can refer both to individual entities and the world as a whole. The terms "being ", ârealityâ, and âactualityâ are often used as close synonyms.
Existence contrasts with nonexistence , nothingness, and nonbeing. A common distinction is between the existence of an entity and its [essence], which refers to the entityâs nature or essential qualities.Essence - Wikipedia
IMO, the Universal State of Being is an ideal mathematical object and nature, devoid of all human attributes. God is just an anthropomorphized idealization of that ideal.
Who says âThe Creatorâ is a person? In N.A. tribes Wakan Tanka or Great Spirit is not a person. Mother Earth and Father Sky are very angry because the people have refused to listen, thus Climate Change. BTW, why would said deity need be a âheâ? What if it is a âsheâ or even has no gender at all and is beyond human conception? Could it be Mother Earth is all powerful and is currently retaliating?
I agree.
That is why I brought up âThe Creatorâ or Great Spirit (Wakan Tanka). Like the Tao, Native American beliefs are more earth oriented.
What if itâs a state of being that is like, say a vision, where you communion (with whatever you want to call that hallucination) with your âspirit guideâ?
Is it? Is it a god or a spirit? No, Iâve not been drinking the N.A. Kool-Aid⌠OK maybe I have, because Iâve been to a Sweat and all, but only in the process of learning their various ways, just as Iâve learned about other beliefs. Iâm only throwing out thoughts and personally, if I were to think of an all powerful, Iâd rather it be more like the Tao or the N.A. beliefs.
IMO, it is both what we have named God and Spirit, sans conscious motive.
It is a state of mathematical Logic that guides all quantifiable, physical interactions.
Note that the term âspiritâ describes an abstract object, no different than the abstract description of a âmathematical objectâ like the idealized âPlatonic solidsâ.
Note that according to Chaos theory, mathematically Self-0rganizing patterns (Platonic solids) emerge from a dynamic state of chaos. Hence any notion of "Intelligent Design is moot. The Universe itself is a quasi-intelligent object.
A God is not necessary for this universe.
Chaos theory
Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1]
Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[2] Chaos theory - Wikipedia
God does not need to come and visit. The mathematical guiding principle that is responsible for the emergent universal order is already present and an inherent potential of spacetime.
Note that the mechanics of gravity and electro-magnetics are universally applicable.
These are 2 of the expressed and quantifiable spacetime properties that self-organize the patterned geometry of spacetime and everything within it.
I disagree. Youâre making it abstract by putting shape and mass to it. Itâs not solid and has no shape at all. The spirit/god/Tao that can be described is not a spirit/god/Tao at all.
You are putting a description to it, so what you say is not it. Neti Neti (Hindu- Not this, not that). This is your idea of deity. Your concept and the fact that you can describe it and make it solid, makes it not a deity at all.
This maybe true, but IF there is a deity, it is far beyond human concept. To put any concept to the idea of a deity is only a concept and not a deity at all. However, IF there is a âGreat Spiritâ, it is in everything and everyone in the Universe, including the Universe itself. It may flow like a river through everything and everyone in the Universe, including the Universe itself, but to actually describe it, is not correct at all, because it is beyond human concept. IF it even exist at all and IF it does, why would it have to visit anything or anyone or even any planet, IF it is in everything and everyone in the Universe, including the Universe itself. You see, there are some beliefs that state âwe are all oneâ, as in the Cherokee Morning Song. The translation of the old Cherokee language is âI am oneâ, but it is not the physical form that is being spoke of, but rather spirit, which has no form.
This is your concept, which is good, for you, but this concept doesnât apply to all concept, especially if one has a belief that to describe it is to not describe it all. To describe a concept, yours or anyone else, is to not describe it at all. There is no geometry to something that has no mass, shape, or anything else. It just is and is not. It canât be described at all and any attempt just makes it a concept that doesnât actually exist. If this makes me a strong atheist in the end, instead of soft one, so be it, but your idea is just as much of a concept as any Abrahamic religion, which doesnât exist either.
If we are all stardust from the Universe, it makes sense that whatever It is, is also part of the Universe and much like stardust too, but at this point is beyond our concepts, as well as our scientific findings, IF it exists. Therefore, whatever It is, It probably has already visited and through Climate Change, is already attempting to destroy life as we know it.
If it is not nothing but it cannot be described is a meaningless observation.
Just because it cannot be described does not make it ânothingâ.
All gods and deities are something, or else they donât exist. And we did describe them.
(see post 10)
How many gods have existed but are no longer extant? Only the unknowable god is still alive?
Definitions of deity
noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.
Moreover, it is always given a consciousness that creates and responds to dynamic events and âprayerâ.
And that is where the entire concept becomes tangled and incomprehensible.
But we KNOW that our environment and indeed the entire universe is an object and exhibits a certain Logical aspect that guides all dynamic events.
We describe the Logical aspect to universal geometry as âmathematical in essenceâ. This does is not make it sentient and or receptive to prayer, but it renders all gods and deities moot.
I believe your error here is in losing sight of the physical reality ~ human mindscape divide.
and trying to reduce consciousness ( thoughts) to a physical entity.
Quite the opposite. Mathematical essence is not physical. It becomes physically expressed. But before maths become expressed in nature as regular patterns it exist only as Potential, the unrealized excellence that may become reality.
If there is a God it is pure âpotentialâ" and logical in essence. but that term is already used and described by science, so Gods are out.
Potential
Unit 1: What is Energy?
Section B. Two Main Forms of Energy
The energy we sense all around us seems to have many forms. Fires burn, rubber bands snap back, flashlights turn on and shine, objects fall, and things appear to be hot, cold, or just the right temperature. With so much going on, how can we figure out what forms of energy these things and events have? After hundreds of years of observation and experimentation, science has classified energy into two main forms: kinetic energy and potential energy. In addition, potential energy takes several forms of its own.
1. Kinetic Energy
Kinetic energy is defined as the energy of a moving object. A thrown football, a speeding automobile, a marathon runner, or a rock falling from a cliff, are examples of objects that have kinetic energy.
Potential energy is defined as the energy associated with the arrangement of a system of objects that exert forces on one another.Potential energy is stored or released when the arrangement of the objects and/or the forces they exert on each other changes in some way. Systems of objects ranging from atoms to planets can be arranged in many ways, resulting in many forms of potential energy: chemical, elastic, electrical (electromagnetic), gravitational, nuclear, and thermal energy*.***
*Although potential energy is often referred to as âstoredâ energy, two misconceptions may arise when referred to in this way. First, saying that energy is stored in something may imply that energy is some sort of invisible substance, which it isnât. Second, consider a textbook held above a classroom floor. Many would say that the textbook has potential energy stored within it, and it is often convenient to think that only the textbook has potential energy. However, the textbook has potential energy because it is part of a system that includes the Earth, one in which both exert gravitational forces on each other. In other words, the textbook would not have potential energy if it were not for the Earth.
Or, I might go so far as to say, The State of Being. The state that is the laws of nature, that makes everything happen, and holds us together for now, but will one day let us go. No emotional drive is needed, because nothing that State does can be argued. We can wish it was different, but mostly thatâs is not understanding it.
You can see the oneness with the State of Being when someone knows they have the facts behind them so they feel in tune with the flow. If you challenge them, they canât be triggered. This sometimes looks like arrogance unfortunately.
Thatâs not what Iâm saying. It is beyond human concept, which cannot to be describe, but if one attempts to describe it, they are not describing it at all. If you do attempt to describe it, you are creating a human concept that is not that at all.
Nope. Once it is described, it is a human concept and not that at all. If there is no concept of it, there is nothing to defend or even fight for. It just is.
Still not it. That definition is nothing more than a human concept. Once you realize that and realize that it isnât describable, whatever it is in the Universe and everything else, then there is what the Gnostics call âGnosisâ. No one worships what Iâm talking about and yet, it is part of everything and everyone, especially the Universe, but it doesnât quite exist because science hasnât found or it truly is star stuff. Once it is named though, it is no longer âWakan Tankaâ (great mystery). Yet, it is this âGreat Mysteryâ that keeps us exploring the the universe.
Yet, you still misunderstand. The mystery, whatever it is, is what keeps humans exploring the universe.
You are getting there.
Youâre still missing the point. It is not the logic, the math, or anything else, but rather the unknown, the indescribable, the unnameable, mystery of the Universe. Sure, you can try to slap an equation on it, but once you name it, what else is there to do with it? Once you discover it, itâs no longer an undefined mystery. Without the mystery of what we do not know, humans would not continue.
You are still trying to label it. Think Buddhism is N.A.ism doesnât get it for you.
Yes, you are starting to understand or do understand and yes, it sometimes looks like arrogance. This oneness can be with your lover (Imzadi, for example), a close friend (doesnât need to be sexual), nature, a pet, the eye contact with a wild animal, or looking out into the vastness of space. This state of being, oneness, numiness, state of awe, can be oneness with the vastness of the Universe. Yet you cannot begin to name it or even put a finger on it, once it is named, it could lose itâs power of âonenessâ. Unfortunately, science could one day blow it out of the water and it too, like all other human concepts it just that- a concept.
That said, the oneness or what have you with the earth, is being destroyed by humans and we may die before we even can fathom what it really is.
Of course, once one realizes it is meaningless to try to label it, it becomes easier just to accept it and appreciate those feelings of that state of being, that feeling of oneness. That is what gives it power and the person âgnosisâ. Instead, people are labeling it as a god, or what have you, and destroying everything and everyone for that concept.
But you are posing a contradiction in terms.
You say it is something that is outside our comprehension. but it is still something.
I agree with Tegmark that this âsomethingâ is mathematical in its very essence and that solves all speculations about the nature of that âunknowableâ something and thereby is knowable, testable, falsifiable, usable, and reliable.
All other interpretations are âmeaninglessâ. Unknowable is a meaningless term, unless one claims that he/she knows the unknowable and is in communication with it.
If everything is of a mathematical nature, God must be of a mathematical nature.
Any declaration of ability to know the unknowable is a contradiction in terms.
And according to Anil Seth that amounts to an âuncontrolled hallucinationâ.
Okay, youâre affirming that Mathematics is part of our conscious reality.
The âessenceâ? You mean the ultimate nature of a thing?
Kinetic Energy
Potential Energy
Where does E = mc2 fit in?
From a materialist point of view you could say Energy is the ultimate nature of things, down at the Planck scale, it pops into and out of existence from a primal âsoupâ.
Atoms, arenât a nice little solar system arrangement across empty space, itâs made out of covalence shells, with electrons moving so fast they are smeared out, into waves patterns, that is electrons in motion, energy manifesting itself into matter.
So to imply that energy is not part of the material, physical world, misses the mark.
Which brings us back to the uniqueness of our human wonderland of our thoughts and a most fundamental duality.
Getting a little tired of words being removed from the English language. Science can show something is unknowable in the same way it can prove a negative.
Sure, from the human perspective.
But whoâs to say our human perspective is that trustworthy, or the only perspective to be concerned with.
I wonder if part of the problem here, is that Write4u represents a perspective that viscerally rejects the notion of mystery. They rather believe that given enough facts everything is solvable.
Whereas I, and I believe Mriana, have become comfortable with the notion of a pervading Mystery regarding our existence.
Ironically, once again, this morning, the universe came through for me in another serendipity event. The discover of young lad, Jake Brown, and his YouTube channel SubAnima - so far Iâve only watched two, but both were worth watching a second time and from the looks of it, heâs got plenty more along those lines.
Heâs definitely broken through the âAbrahamic (self-centered/self-serving)* straitjacketâ that (it seems to me) many continue to cling to. Jake Brown is current on science and he believes in evidence based learning,
and go figure, science is discovering that our material selves are way the heck more complex and mysterious then we thought.
*{note: Thatâs a clinically descriptive way to summarize their general group think⌠offensive though it may sound to some, it is, what it is. }
==================
How NOT To Think About Cells
Oct 14, 2022 - SubAnima
A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying âmolecular machinesâ.
But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells?
Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?
âWhat am I?â is one of the oldest questions in philosophy but we may have been asking the wrong question this whole time. We are dynamic processes moving through time, informational aggregates predicting our future selves, but we are not made of atoms.
[quote=âcitizenschallengev4, post:17, topic:10479â]
Okay, youâre affirming that Mathematics is part of our conscious reality.
No. Mathematics have nothing to do with consciousness. The Universe does not need to be conscious. it needs to be functional and mathematics accomplishes that task without motive or desire.
The âessenceâ? You mean the ultimate nature of a thing?
No, Mathematica are an inherent property of the universe.
es¡sence , noun
The inherent nature of a thing or idea.
The true nature of anything, not accidental or illusory.
[quote=âmriana, post:15, topic:10479â]
Youâre still missing the point. It is not the logic, the math, or anything else, but rather the unknown, the indescribable, the unnameable, mystery of the Universe.
Who says? It seems to me that the very opposite is true.
Once we know what it is or how it works, WE USE IT!
Sure, you can try to slap an equation on it, but once you name it, what else is there to do with it? Once you discover it, itâs no longer an undefined mystery. Without the mystery of what we do not know, humans would not continue.
But that is not demonstrated at all. The more we know the more we DO!
After we learned to navigate to the stars, did we stop exploring the world?
Will we ever be able to explore the entire Universe? But does that unexplored portion need to be mysterious to be interesting to humans?
[quote=âcitizenschallengev4, post:19, topic:10479â]
Organisms Are Not Made Of Atoms
Of course they are. Those types of claims are just sophistry.
We also know that atoms themselves are made up of still smaller âvaluesâ of the sub-atomic world.
But the table of elements is the list of atoms that constitute all of the physical world.
p.s. atoms are mathematical objects, patterns with very specific enfolded potentials.
