Does God really exist, in any shape or form ?

[Meno_]

...according to some people allegedly 2k years ago.

Pedro, do You think of 2000 years as some huge stretch of time?

If time slices are separated like cards, and shuffle them , then shoot the complete deck in a future virgin , uninhabited planet, would or could appearent distortions be explained away by the level of that symbolic envelope?

Sure, gods of all kinds will appear out of nowhere BH seers able to explain to potential believers.

Things like disk like figures streaming over the sky. recorded throughout the annals of time, were at first interpreted as heavenly occurances, and they still are interpreted as flying saucers.

The more explanations added to more and more speculations, make things even more nebulous conversation pieces.

Jules Verne astounded the world with a trio to the moon, but now such things do not excite imaginations , even in an age that has been there and done that.

No , the mystery grows BH leaps, and bounds ( forgive the anology) to a point, truly, that the imagination and fact can not be discerned.

Ancient time is bound up in an instant with post modern with grossly warped space, and it truly is a curvature , albeit one whose circumference and radius are yet to approach absolute measurment, even within the horizon of our universe,, not less of multiples.

What if, there ars unlimited multi universes which belong to a super universe, and those to progressively to a super universes !

I know this description is nit one belonging to epiphenomenology, but it does make some sense in a super-matrix .

A Moebius type of eternal recurrance would make more sense, but, it would be seem to be more in terms of constructing a metaphysics to confirm the level of conformational description.

In this description, density situations would vary, with whole worlds disappearing between live ones, do to super black whole activity.

Therefore the single God universe may be just as likely to be contextual within the structural integrity of that level of developed life. But here may be a catch:

The death of the only appearant universal may not spell doom if that God, and all they have to do is go around that limit, and appear on the other side.

Such God has to 'exist' on every plane, by necessity, otherwise the conscious validity if this Word, couldn't take up consciessness to describe
a developmental Darwinism.

A lack of description would hinder the genesis of any trait that would begin a seemingly chaotic developmental trajectory, without that necessities the beginning of the mirroring between Man and God.

Symbols are literal bridges, floating in eternal space-time , as do their bubbly counterparts.

The top of that heap of overlapping giant cell divisions and regroupings, is some thing akin to
central commands, reducing again the One into the many.

Simultanious joyful expectectation with fear in this scheme.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I just grabbed a number the gentleman said, or I think he said. It hardly matters because it's absolutely not true anyways, it's just a "feels." This whole "God is everything" silliness is an attempt to incorporate oriental themes and also Aristotelianism, and never did anyone until like the 60's think to say something as actually silly as "God is everything." It makes no sense. It is like saying "cow is everything."

But since someone else apparently said something, than there is no need to examine this.

---


But to answer your point, 2k years is not a lot at all. It is sort of the year modernity was invented, that is to say, an actual factual Platonism weaponized to take over the world. In Asia it happened a tad earlier, with buda, but not much earlier. Whole gigantic cycles of history had happened before that.

[Pedro I Rengel]

In terms of density alone, the 500 years prior to year 0 were a longer time than the 2000 years that followed. And even those were a short time.

I can't complain too much though. Through Platonism, Rome conquered the world. Every last corner. So you take the good with the bad.

[Meno_]

And beyond that distinction perhaps, after the Enlightenement.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm gonna assume you mean "after the Renaissance." And considering that the Renaissance basically constituted a very slow digestion of concepts mostly created in those 500 years I mentioned, it is still by far less dense.

I'm not saying nothing happened. I'm just referring to relativity of movement. Length of time per se.

[Meno_]

I'm gonna assume you mean "after the Renaissance." And considering that the Renaissance basically constituted a very slow digestion of concepts mostly created in those 500 years I mentioned, it is still by far less dense.

I'm not saying nothing happened. I'm just referring to relativity of movement. Length of time per se.

Yes of course, but by distinction there is no good or bad value, relatively speaking, between the two corresponding epochs, and that differential neutrality, became moralistically prevalent after the enlightenment , although precursers were evident after the Rennaissance.

It is strange how the temporal relativity of epochs, especially the above mentioned can mirror this between the youth , and the middle age of individuals.

It is a fact that this occurrence is understood widely about the difference between subjective and objective senses of individuals, as they mature.

As if, there is some social-psychologocsl connection between them , mirroring a sort of common reductive process..

[Gloominary]

Flateliners as a movie earned an F by most critics.

However flatlining may not give credit to an inquery of this sort, unless such endeavor is meant to fail. What will hapoen, as opposed to what certainly will, has always been a contentious effort, and the reflected movie is understandibly should consist of an inflected negative.

The failures if the movie didnt take away from what must be recorded .

You should try DMT.
I hear the brain sometimes floods itself with DMT before death.

[Meno_]

Flateliners as a movie earned an F by most critics.

However flatlining may not give credit to an inquery of this sort, unless such endeavor is meant to fail. What will hapoen, as opposed to what certainly will, has always been a contentious effort, and the reflected movie is understandibly should consist of an inflected negative.

The failures if the movie didnt take away from what must be recorded .

You should try DMT.
I hear the brain sometimes floods itself with DMT before death.

I'm only on grass, how does it compare with DMT?

[Gloominary]

Putting noumenon/phenomenon aside, what makes God impossible for man to comprehend?
Is it our unfamiliarity with God?
Is it God's vastness?
Is it God's complexity?
Thing is, all these three qualities, unfamiliarity, vastness and complexity applies to everything in degrees.
God by definition may be (one of) the most unfamiliar, vast or complex things, but all things are more unfamiliar, vast and complex than we can comprehend, but does that mean we cannot know them at all or sufficiently?

A pencil isn't just a solid, cylindrical object you can write with, it is a world unto itself.
There's more going on inside of it and its relationships with the cosmos than you could ever comprehend in a million life times.
Since you can't even begin to comprehend a pencil in its entirety, does that mean you cannot know it at all or sufficiently?
What you can comprehend about a pencil alone, could not be used to design a pencil, I mean design it molecule by molecule, does that mean the pencil is essentially unknowable to you, and so beyond your ability to affirm its existence?

The thing about pencils is that it's potentially possible to comprehend everything about one, even if it takes more than a million life times, because there is nothing internally contradictory about what a pencil has to be in order to be a pencil (its necessary essence).

Is that how you define God?
A being whose essence is at least in part, internally contradictory, and so in part, incomprehensible?
I'm sure for many theologians and laymen God is not contradictory.
For them, he may be more vast than we, in our (relative) finitude, can ever completely comprehend, but not because any part of him is contradictory.
Even with our finest computers we cannot fully comprehend a grain of sand, where it came from, how it came to be, all its components and their relationships with themselves and others, and where its headed, let alone the entire cosmos, but that doesn't mean some part of the cosmos is necessarily contradictory, or random, nor does it mean we can't get the gist of what's going on.

Man's knowledge is negative, too, not just positive.
There are known knowns and known unknowns.
For instance, I don't know what a UFO is, it could be God, an extraterrestrial spaceship, a time machine, some atmospheric phenomenon presently unknown to science, but at least I know it exists and how it appears, I may be able to infer a few things about it based on that, and I know enough to know there's probably quite a bit more to it than meets my eye I may never know.
In the same way, God may be like a UFO, there may be parts we know thoroughly, parts we know roughly, parts we infer, and parts we know are there, but know little or nothing about beyond that.
Really all things we know work this way, it's just that with God, the known unknowns may be vaster.

However, even if part of God's essence is defined as contradictory, or random, can we not know contradiction or randomness to some extent?
A piece of randomness may be impossible to predict, but it may be possible to predict it's impossible to predict.
Can true contradiction exist?
By definition no, a contradiction is really just a longwinded way of positing nonexistence.
But apparent, but false contradiction, like how the same person can be kind one minute, and cruel the next, that may exist in God, as it does in us.
God may have many sides to him, just as we do, just as the cosmos does, its yins and yangs.
Some opposing in some ways, yet complementary in others, like how death begets life and adversity strength.
I think this is what many theologians meant when they said God is contradictory.

[Destiny]

Get on it please

Yes. Unless a person is dumb, deaf & blind...



But God is in my experience a bit more complicated than just "the good guy".

[obsrvr524]

"No matter how obsequious and pervasive (omnipresent) - no matter how influential and effective (omnipotent) - no matter how clever and aware (omniscient) - fraud and lying only exist if the majority believes it exists. It is all just a conspiracy theory myth spread by desperate losers. They must be confounded and silenced for the good of society."

- Big Brother (aka the CCP).

[Dan~]

The gods were famous ancestor spirits and nature spirits which gained followers.