Abstract;
In this response I’m going to respond to primary points that I think move towards my thinking on the matter more than not.
Meaning, I’m not going to inline quote and respond to each individual point.
I could, but it wouldn’t mean anything.
For instance, the vast majority of your first quote and response hasn’t much in it that is tangibly effective beyond thought exercises.
When it comes to spirituality, I work very pragmatically personally.
If it hasn’t any direct and applicable tangent, then it is of no use for me to agree or disagree with in any regard.
I could go through if you really want, but the discussion wouldn’t be a good representation of my actual thinking on the matter as I haven’t a bone in me that concerns over the concept of infinite matters of metaphysics.
So, with that; here’s how my mind thinks on the matter (which I believe is what you are after ultimately):
Why do I need there to be a judge of existence?
A sentient thing running the entirety of all of existence is not something that I just say is not really all that practically logical at this point; I more rest on that even if it were the case; it has no direct affect upon my person either way.
See, while the first part of that sentence is what many would focus on; honestly, I find it more to the point to focus on the second.
Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.
I wouldn’t have any net gain in any reactive manner, nor a net loss.
It would be as if we proved the logical likelihood of advanced alien life as seen on Star Trek.
The first is the common.
The second is rarely used and would be misunderstood in most cases if used for the second definition.
If there is a god of some kind; I don’t really care if they are good or bad.
They are a god in that idea.
By default, that indicates that what they want is far more powerful than what any other thing wants.
If they suck, tough.
Sucks living in Afghanistan, but…well…there you have it; people do.
People generally just want gods to be nice because the idea of a god that isn’t would suck.
Personally, I don’t care either way.
Again, if they are good or bad; there’s going to be no difference to how things are ticking in life on this Earth as if they do exist then obviously whichever way they bend is already in play and I’m good with what is here; elated even. All of it.
No.
Existential
2. grounded in existence or the experience of existence
Specifically; the latter of that, “experience of existence”, which defines existentialism.
Reverence
- blah, blah : especially : profound adoring awed respect
Profound adoring awed respect (and gratitude) for this experience of existing as a human being.
It is the conceptual sense of connection for myself to all that is not me.
I hold four principle relationships of being human.
You and yourself
You and others
You and inanimate objects
You and existing
The fourth is where metaphysical concepts of gods would slide in by relating existing to the second form of relationship of an “other” that can be interacted with in some caliber of logic and reason in a relationship of behavior; even if not personified.
For myself, the fourth has no connection to the second in a sense of a god (sentient ultimate).
Instead, it relates to all previous three as that which is made up of those recursively.
Environment is a mix of all of this, but commonly thought of by most as the last three.
I don’t.
I didn’t say that I don’t use any logic.
I was stating that I pay attention to my emotions first as that is where sense begins in regards to spirituality.
If I want to know what I am touching, the first thing I pay attention to is my skin as it is the sense for touch.
I then apply reason after the fact.
With spirituality, I start at what I feel and meditate on the emotion without name.
Just the physical sense of it.
I let that expand and rest.
After that has been seated well in my body and my body has had time to experience that emotion at length; I then begin meditating upon what my body has felt by sifting through conceptual labels; as one does tasting (salty, no, zesty, yes, spicy, yes, hot, no, peppery, yes, sweet, somewhat, etc…) until you put your finger on what it is.
Doing so is easy once you hit the mark because once you utter the right reference for yourself, your body leaps as easily as it does when you figure out what that taste was.
Also, the emotions that I am speaking of are about two layers below an emotion like Anger.
They are below intuition.
It is where such emotions rest as existential depression or gratitude rests.
What drives general disposition in emotion.
This is why I use intuition.
Because intuition is right above such emotional senses, and so serves as an elevator up to to cognitive layers (since neurology has verified the functional use and real existence of intuition as an important and highly accurate source of decision making regarding implicit input of the senses to the cognitive level; basically, if you don’t overtly pay attention to it, then you lack a label and your implicit memory recorded it. Intuition is the part of your brain and central nervous system that processes those implicit recalls and transfers them into simplified impulse decisions to the cognitive neurology.)
It would be far, far more difficult to attempt to shoot straight from cognitive reason down below intuition and dig out a raw sense of primary existential emotion from your body due to the nature of our neurological markup and its relation to our tactile biology*.
(*tactile biology is a term I use to refer to the peripheral nerves, muscle tissue, cellular level of that area, and skin layers combined. )
I am not suggesting that intuition is better, nor that reason is better.
I use both for their specific uses; I do not use just one or the other.
They are both my tools, and I use both extensively.
You missed the rest of that; it’s a grouped answer. Let me rephrase.
I don’t see any problem regarding gods, because I don’t care to have a god.
Even if a god showed up and said “howdy”, I’d just wave and say “howdy” back and move on.
It wouldn’t change what I value spiritually one bit.
We could remove the word and I would still hold the same.
I only offered the word to let you know that the idea of an all is god, god is all is an established theology.
I’m not saying there is no god.
I don’t believe in a god, true.
But I’m not saying there isn’t one.
Most importantly, I’m saying I don’t actually care if there is a god, gods, or not.
Why should I care about that if I do not?