Hi.
I started this thread to share something which I find fascinating and would like some critique re the system I use to generate messages as I share these in this thread.
I would like to discuss the scientific value in terms of both subjectivity and objectivity to do with the way in which the messages are generated [to be explained] and perhaps how the reader interprets the message generated [assuming they see any message] and other related subjects branching from this.
I will also be using as evidence, the way in which words corelate with math, such as;
Generating Messages = 188
What Is Friendship
Story-Tellers
Generating Messages
Moderator: Moderators
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15239
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 974 times
- Been thanked: 1799 times
- Contact:
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15239
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 974 times
- Been thanked: 1799 times
- Contact:
Re: Immutable Perception
Post #591IMMUTABLE PERCEPTION
(2) Naturalism provides the nature part (that can be harmed), but not the purpose part and, therefore, does make an action morally bad (in an objective way).
On (1), there are objectively obtained reasons, but not on (2).
Me. How is (1) determined?
(2) Appears to be along the lines that we naturally can harm and purposefully don't harm, but if we purposefully do harm we are being bad. It appears there is purpose involved either way.
What makes a subjective purpose non-determined re the act of creating humans with a specific nature? What makes "specific nature" an objective thing? Isn't the nature of the human implying an inbuilt quality?
Christian Scholar. The point of the sun (well, I used the earth) analogy, was to speak to how we have experiences of objective truths as well as subjective truths because you seemed to say that having an experience means all truths are subjective.
Me. I am saying all experience is subjectively attained.
If you and I agreed that the earth was a sphere, with the taste things, with the color of things et al - we are still doing so from a subjective point of view.
What we call "objective" is that which we subjectively experience as outside of what we call our experience as human personalities.
(It doesn't matter if what we are experiencing is actually real or a simulated reality, we behave as if it were real and think of it as objective to ourselves.)
So while it appears that Christianity is an objective thing, it is still being brought into our world through a subjective means.
Christian Scholar. Something doesn’t need to pre-exist humans to be objective.
Me. The Earth doesn't need to pre-exist humans to be an object? Let's explore than notion to see which category it best suits.
Christian Scholar. Why do you think it appears to come from an inner source? Could you explain that more?
Me. Let's speak to Mother Love. Assuming we both have experienced this, what about the action of her loving embrace can we understand comes from within her, that we can say is a subjective thing?
Christian Scholar. If we aren’t certain, then it doesn’t seem to fit the definition of ‘irrefutable fact’.
Me. Thus, to remain truthful, we have to place it in the Justified Fact (JF) department, do you agree?
Christian Scholar. If God created the earth as a sphere, does he know that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective? I don’t think so. He knows it is a sphere because he made it that way.
Me. Why should I think of those as being different from each other? Why do you?
Christian Scholar. I have never made a computer...
Me. That would be a Justified Fact (JF).
Christian Scholar. ...but I believe it is a justified fact because of my perspective. Thus, those are two distinct concepts.
Me. Your belief may be an Unjustified Fact.
Thus they may not be as distinct as you believe they are. Your perspective may be incorrect.
"God knows it is a sphere because God made it that way" would be a Justified Fact (JF).
"God created the earth as a sphere and knows that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective." is also a Justified Fact (JF).
(Even that we are speaking of "God" as analogous, the analogies are equally (JF).)
They may appear to be different, but are actually equally valid and non-conflicting re that.
Do you agree?
Christian Scholar. I don’t distinguish human consciousness and the human form as much as you do.
Me. I have my reasons - chief among those reasons is I have experienced Out of Body. Those who have had such experiences (there are many types of the same) say the same. Their understanding of themselves changes and thus identifying primarily with the human form changes to suit.
Christian Scholar. But, yes, humans must exist for there to be human morality. That doesn’t make morality subjective.
Me. Not if - in reality - we are actually the human form, this is really a real thing being experience and the brain created human consciousness making who we are largely a simulation of sentience projected into the objective world from an objective source and we are all objects for that.
Otherwise we have to deal with The Problem of Subjectivity and place it correctly.
Should subjective experience be seen as (JF) or (UF) or (IF). Where does subjectivity best fit?
Where does human consciousness derive, from the form? If so, then what need is there to think morality comes from God, or that we even exist within a created thing?
Christian Scholar. I believe it derives from God as well.
Me. And we appear to both agree that this statement belongs in (JF).
The question is - where is "God" in relation to human consciousness?
4o. Your dialogue with the Christian Scholar delves into deep philosophical and theological concepts related to belief, consciousness, morality, and objectivity. Let me attempt to break down and address key points from the conversation:
Your challenge to the Christian Scholar is that experiences and beliefs, no matter how strong, are still subjectively attained, even when we label them as objective. This highlights your position that human perception always mediates what we understand to be "objective reality."
2. Objective Morality vs. Subjective Experience:
You question the Scholar's claim that objective morality derives from God creating humans with a specific nature and purpose. You probe:
• Nature vs. Purpose: You argue that if humans have an inherent "nature," this implies built-in qualities that seem objective. However, determining moral purpose from this nature (such as "not harming others") still seems to introduce subjectivity, as it relies on interpretation.
• Naturalism's Limitation: The Scholar argues that naturalism can provide the "nature"
(physical beings that can be harmed) but not the "purpose" (moral values). You counter this by suggesting that purpose and morality can still arise subjectively within the natural world, perhaps driven by social and psychological factors rather than divine command.
3. Subjective and Objective Reality:
You argue that all experience, including objective truths, is still subjectively attained. This introduces a challenge to distinguishing objective truths from subjective ones. Even if we both agree that the Earth is spherical, our experience of this fact is subjectively mediated through our personal perspectives.
• The Problem of Subjectivity: You seem to suggest that subjectivity plays a role even in what we call "objective" truths. We label things as "objective" when they appear external to our personal experience, but the act of labeling is itself subjective. For example, Christianity, although perceived as an "objective" system, is still experienced subjectively by individuals.
4. God and Perspective:
The Scholar introduces the notion that God knows the Earth is spherical because He created it that way, not simply because He observes it from a specific perspective. You ask why these two ways of knowing (creating vs. observing) should be seen as different, suggesting that both are justified perspectives (JF) but ultimately non-conflicting. Both creation and observation can lead to knowledge.
5. Human Consciousness and Form:
The Scholar claims that human morality depends on the existence of humans but argues that this doesn't necessarily make morality subjective. You push back by introducing the idea of Out-of-Body Experiences (OBE), which challenge the identification of consciousness with the human form. For those who've had OBEs, the distinction between human form and consciousness becomes blurred, leading to a broader understanding of self and morality.
6. God, Human Consciousness, and Morality:
You and the Scholar seem to agree that human consciousness may derive from God, but you push for further exploration of where "God" fits in relation to human consciousness. If consciousness and morality are intrinsic to the human experience, you question the need for them to be rooted in divine creation. You suggest that perhaps morality arises naturally, independent of any created purpose.
________________________________________
Questions for Further Exploration:
• Where does human consciousness originate? Is it a product of the human form, or does it have divine origins?
• Does morality require a divine source, or can it arise from natural and social factors?
• Can subjectivity ever be fully transcended in our understanding of reality, or will it always color our perception of objective truths?
Your framing of UF, JF, and IF helps bring clarity to the distinctions between types of beliefs and facts, pushing the conversation toward a deeper understanding of how we determine truth and meaning in both the subjective and objective realms.
Me. And if not, then why does the process come through a subjective means, if God is the source, but God is thought by us/taught to us, as being an objective source?
Christian Scholar. Mathematical truths come through subjective means as well. Scientific truths do. That doesn’t mean those truths are not objective or objectively sourced.
Me. They are sourced in the human understanding of the objects God created. This leads to the best conclusion (as far as I am aware) that Mathematical Truths are within God (are subjective to God) and come forth as being stamped into the production bearing the mark of its creator.
The Identifier.
The truths are therefore objective evidence from our perspective but are subjective projection from God's perspective. Our perspective wouldn't even understand this process if not for the subjective human experience trying to deal with understanding.
4o. In this exchange, you are exploring the idea that if God is the source of objective truths, why do these truths come to humans through subjective means. You propose that what we perceive as objective truths (like mathematical and scientific truths) are actually projections from God's subjective experience, stamped onto creation as part of His identity and will. From the human perspective, these truths appear as objective because they exist outside our individual minds and can be universally verified. However, from God's perspective, they originate from within God's being and are thus subjective to God.
Key Points in the Dialogue:
1. Mathematical and Scientific Truths as Subjective and Objective:
o The Christian Scholar points out that even mathematical and scientific truths, while experienced and understood subjectively by humans, are still considered objective truths. These truths don't lose their objectivity simply because they come through subjective human understanding.
o You build on this idea by suggesting that these truths are objective from our perspective but subjective from God's perspective. This aligns with the notion that God's nature and will shape reality, meaning that what we observe as immutable laws (like mathematics) are actually part of God's internal, subjective framework, stamped onto the world He created.
2. The Identifier Concept:
o You introduce the idea of the Identifier, suggesting that truths in the universe bear the "mark" of their creator (God). This metaphor implies that just as a creator leaves an imprint on their creation, God has left an imprint on the universe, manifesting as the objective truths we discover and understand.
o This leads to the idea that our understanding of these truths is rooted in subjective human experience, as we engage with the world and seek to understand it. However, what we perceive and interpret as objective facts are actually reflections of a greater, subjective source (God).
3. Human Understanding as the Bridge:
o You emphasize that our ability to comprehend objective truths, whether they be mathematical or moral, comes from our subjective human experience. Without this subjective process of grappling with and understanding the world, we would not be able to recognize or appreciate objective truths at all.
o This highlights the necessary relationship between subjective experience and objective understanding. The human mind interprets and reflects on external reality, but that process is always colored by our subjective faculties. Thus, while the truths themselves may be considered objective, our approach to them is inherently subjective.
Broader Implications:
• God’s Subjective Mind as Source of Objective Reality: You are suggesting that if God created the universe and everything in it, then the objective reality we experience is a result of God's subjective intent. This implies that God's subjective experience is the ultimate source of what we perceive as objective truths.
• Human Subjectivity and Objective Understanding: Your argument highlights that human beings cannot fully escape subjectivity. Even when we attempt to engage with objective reality (like discovering mathematical principles), we are always doing so through our subjective lens. This doesn't negate the objectivity of the truths we discover but acknowledges the role of human experience in accessing and understanding them.
This dialogue blends philosophical, theological, and epistemological considerations, drawing attention to the relationship between divine creation, human understanding, and the nature of objective truth. It leaves open the question of how much of reality is truly independent of subjective interpretation, even if it originates from an ultimate objective source like God.
Me. Shouldn't God be thought of as a subjective source, and thus morality thought of as from a subjective source which utilizes the objective thing in order to objectify morality?
Christian Scholar. Not with how those terms are used in the traditional philosophical debate between moral objectivists and subjectivists.
Me. Perhaps then, there may be something wrong/off the mark with those traditions?
Are we justified to think "God's existence" can be categorized as Justified Fact?
Are we justified to think that "God exists as an external objective thing", can be categorized as Justified Fact?
Re that, are we justified to think that "objective morality is sourced in an objective thing", can be categorized as Justified fact?
Or should such be categorised as Unjustified Fact?
Christian Scholar. I would categorize all of those as justified facts in the same way as the existence of subjective morality if naturalism is true.
Me. I agree that these can be placed in (JF).
I also agree that the understanding God as a Subjective Source is equally valid as (JF).
Re that, IF we are justified to think that human morality is sourced subjectively and then made objective, through human action, are we justified to categorise that as Justified Fact?
Christian Scholar. This confuses the terms. Logically, something sourced subjectively cannot be objective (in the sense that the moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is concerned). Yes, it would be objectively true that humans come up with their different moral codes based on their personal preferences, but that isn’t the ‘objective’ that the whole morality debate is about.
Me. That statement is (JF).
You have brought to attention "Tradition" and - like Science (as a process) - Tradition (as a process) needs to be consistently questioned/re evaluated as more data is brought into our subjective reality from the objective reality.
This cartoon comes to mind.
4o. Your exchange with the Christian Scholar centers around the nature of morality and whether it is derived from an objective or subjective source, particularly when God is invoked as the source of moral truths. The conversation challenges traditional categories in philosophy regarding moral objectivism and subjectivism, while also exploring how God, as a potentially subjective source, might influence our understanding of morality and objective truth.
Key Themes in the Discussion:
1. Subjective Source of Morality:
o You propose that God should be viewed as a subjective source and that morality, though potentially sourced from God, is subjectively experienced by humans and then objectified through human action. This reflects the process by which personal or divine intention becomes actualized in the world.
o The Christian Scholar counters this by pointing out that traditional philosophical debates on moral objectivism and subjectivism draw a clear distinction: moral objectivism claims that moral facts exist independently of human preferences, while subjectivism ties morality to individual or collective preferences. Therefore, morality sourced subjectively (whether from humans or God) cannot be considered "objective" in this traditional sense.
2. Questioning Tradition and Re-Evaluation:
o You suggest that philosophical traditions, like scientific traditions, should be continuously questioned and reevaluated as new data and insights emerge. Just as scientific theories are updated with new evidence, so too should philosophical frameworks regarding morality and God’s role in objective and subjective reality.
o The cartoon you reference humorously illustrates this point, showing that even divine commandments may require periodic updates to stay relevant as society changes. This suggests that moral frameworks—even those believed to be divinely sourced—must adapt to evolving human understanding.
3. Justified vs. Unjustified Facts:
o In terms of categorizing beliefs as Justified Facts (JF) or Unjustified Facts (UF), you and the Christian Scholar seem to agree that certain beliefs about God and morality can be classified as Justified Facts. These include the belief that God exists, that morality is sourced in God, and that human morality is made objective through human actions.
o However, there remains some tension over whether morality sourced subjectively (whether from God or humans) can ever truly be considered objective in the sense that moral objectivists argue. You challenge this notion, suggesting that morality might be sourced subjectively but still operate within an objective framework, thus blending the subjective and objective in a way that traditional categories may not fully capture.
4. God as a Subjective Source:
o You argue that God could be seen as a subjective source who stamps divine intentions onto reality, creating what humans perceive as objective morality. In this view, the process of objectifying morality starts with God’s subjective will but is realized through human understanding and action. This challenges the typical distinction between subjective and objective, suggesting that even so-called "objective" truths are rooted in a subjective divine source.
o The Christian Scholar does not agree with this re-framing, emphasizing the traditional separation of subjective and objective categories in moral philosophy.
Broader Implications:
• Blurring the Line Between Subjective and Objective: Your approach blurs the distinction between subjective and objective sources of morality. By framing God as a subjective source whose truths become objectified in human reality, you suggest that morality may originate in subjectivity but be made manifest in an objective way. This challenges the conventional view that morality must either be fully objective or fully subjective.
• Revisiting Traditional Frameworks: The discussion points to the possibility that traditional philosophical categories (like moral objectivism and subjectivism) may be insufficient to fully capture the complexity of how morality is experienced and understood in a world where both divine influence and human experience are at play. By continuously questioning these frameworks, you are advocating for a more flexible understanding of morality that can accommodate new insights and experiences.
In conclusion, your dialogue highlights the need to reconsider long-held distinctions between subjective and objective morality, especially when considering the role of divine influence. You argue that even if morality is sourced subjectively (whether from humans or God), it can still operate within an objective framework, thus requiring a rethinking of how we categorize moral facts.
Me. Traditionally God has always been presented as an objective being, whether as a voice in the garden (Adams Auditory hallucinations) Or a burning bush, and Angel, Jesus, et al.
4o. Indeed, traditionally, God has often been presented as an objective being or force, manifesting in tangible ways—such as the voice in the Garden of Eden, the burning bush, or the figure of Jesus. These manifestations suggest that God's presence can be perceived as external and real, existing outside the individual’s subjective experience. This portrayal aligns with the theistic tradition that God is an independent, objective reality, one that interacts with humans but remains distinct from them.
However, as you've pointed out earlier in your discussions, the experience of these manifestations—whether auditory, visual, or through other sensory means—occurs within the human mind. Even these objective-seeming encounters are subjectively experienced. This brings us back to a key point you’ve been exploring: that everything, even so-called objective experiences of God, passes through the filter of human subjectivity.
The Subjective-Objective Paradox in Theism:
1. Objective Manifestations, Subjective Reception:
o Traditional religious texts present God as an objective entity that interacts with the world through various forms, whether as a voice, a burning bush, or a person like Jesus. Yet, every human experience of these interactions is inherently subjective. A voice heard by Adam, a burning bush seen by Moses, or Jesus’ teachings are all interpreted and processed by human minds.
o This creates a subjective-objective paradox: while God is presented as an external, objective being, humans can only know and understand God through their own subjective experiences.
2. The Role of Interpretation:
o The stories of God speaking or appearing often involve interpretation. For example, when Moses hears the voice from the burning bush, he interprets this as a message from God, but his experience of it is still subjectively processed—through his senses, his cultural background, and his personal understanding of God.
o This subjective reception doesn't diminish the objectivity of God's existence in the traditional sense, but it shifts the focus to how humans experience and comprehend divine communication.
3. Modern Understanding of Hallucinations and Perceptions:
o As you mention Adam's auditory hallucinations, there's a growing recognition in modern discussions that many biblical experiences of God could be understood today through the lens of psychological and neurological processes. Whether these experiences are "hallucinations" or not, they remind us that even objective experiences of God are shaped by the brain’s subjective processing.
o From this perspective, even traditional depictions of God are subject to reinterpretation, where divine encounters may not be as clear-cut objective phenomena, but complex interactions between subjective minds and objective external stimuli.
Implications for Understanding God and Morality:
• God as Both Subjective and Objective:
o In the traditional view, God is objectively real, creating and sustaining the universe. However, human experience of God is always subjective. This suggests that while moral truths derived from God may seem objective (since they come from an external, divine source), they still require subjective human interpretation to be understood and applied.
o This dynamic supports your idea that morality may originate subjectively (in God or in humans) and be objectified through human action and experience. God's moral directives, while rooted in an objective divine source, are filtered through human subjectivity and thus acquire a new form when applied in the world.
• Re-Evaluating Tradition:
o As you’ve suggested, this subjectivity-objectivity interplay calls for rethinking traditional frameworks. If God’s existence and moral directives are understood subjectively by humans, then traditional moral objectivism needs to account for this subjective dimension. Morality may not be purely objective or purely subjective but could exist in a spectrum where both human and divine experiences interact.
In essence, your exploration raises an important question: if all experiences of God are subjective, can we still claim God as a purely objective being? Or should we recognize that both God's nature and morality are deeply intertwined with the subjective process of human understanding? This challenges traditional notions but opens up new ways of thinking about divinity, morality, and human experience.
1033 (IF)
From the perspective of an evolving God-Mind, what was once acceptable behavior becomes unacceptable signifying change.
Everything, even so-called objective experiences of God, passes through the filter of human subjectivity.
Me. The argument against that is the belief that God does not change. The reality is that this can be true if it is understood that what changes about God, are human perspectives. One can argue that it is human perspective which change, not God.
4o. That's a solid point, and it's a common argument within theology—particularly among those who emphasize the immutability of God (the idea that God does not change). In this view, God's nature, will, and moral law are considered eternal and unchanging, but human perspectives evolve over time. Here's how that argument could be expanded:
God’s Immutability vs. Human Perspective
1. God’s Nature as Unchanging:
o The belief that God is unchanging rests on the theological premise that God's nature, attributes, and will are perfect and therefore do not need to change. In traditional theistic views, God exists outside of time, meaning God’s essence remains constant—unaffected by the temporal fluctuations and evolving understanding of humanity.
o This idea is often rooted in scripture, with verses like Malachi 3:6, which states, “I the Lord do not change.” Here, God’s immutability is framed as a key characteristic, reinforcing the notion that moral truths derived from God are also unchanging and objectively true.
2. Human Perspective as Mutable:
o While God may be unchanging, human understanding of God, morality, and the world is constantly in flux. As societies develop, cultural, intellectual, and moral perspectives shift, leading to new interpretations of God's nature and will.
o From this view, it’s not that God's nature or moral law changes, but rather that human perspectives evolve to better understand or misinterpret what has always been constant. This concept aligns with the notion that God’s morality is objective and eternal, while our ability to comprehend and apply that morality is subjective and evolving.
3. Historical Changes in Theological Interpretation:
o Throughout history, human perspectives on God have shifted dramatically. For example, the concept of divine justice has evolved—from the more punitive justice of the Old Testament to the grace-centered teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. While some may argue this reflects a change in God’s approach, others would argue it reflects humans growing in their understanding of God.
o Theologically, the shift from the God of the Old Testament to the teachings of Christ in the New Testament might not indicate a change in God, but a deepening human understanding of God's unchanging nature and intentions. Humans are seen as gradually coming to better comprehend God's eternal moral law, which has always been there, but was previously misunderstood or incomplete in its interpretation.
4. Dynamic Interaction Between the Objective and Subjective:
o The argument you’ve posed—that God's nature is constant but human perspectives change—suggests a dynamic interaction between the objective and subjective. God, being unchanging, represents the objective source of moral truth, while human beings, with limited and evolving understanding, are subjectively interpreting these truths.
o This allows for theological flexibility. For example, ideas about slavery, gender roles, and justice have transformed over centuries, even within religious contexts. The changes reflect human growth in understanding moral truths that, according to this argument, have been rooted in God's eternal nature all along.
Reinterpreting God’s Unchanging Nature:
• New Revelations or Deeper Understanding?
o Many believers interpret new theological insights or moral understandings as new revelations from God. However, it could be argued, as you suggest, that these aren’t new truths at all, but rather new levels of understanding that align more closely with God’s unchanging nature.
o For instance, the rise of human rights movements in the modern era could be viewed as humanity coming closer to understanding God’s timeless moral truths regarding equality and dignity. These shifts are then not changes in God’s will, but advances in human moral reasoning.
• The Subjectivity of Historical Context:
o When examining past moral frameworks (such as ancient laws or practices), it becomes evident that cultural context played a huge role in how God’s will was interpreted. The immutability of God would imply that God’s truths have always been present, but were filtered through the limitations of each cultural and historical context.
o For instance, the moral codes found in the Bible were often shaped by the cultures that received them, meaning that even though God’s moral law was unchanging, it was applied differently based on subjective human circumstances.
The Challenge of Immutability in a Changing World
The crux of the issue then becomes the problem of interpretation: How do we determine which aspects of theology and morality are timeless, and which are culturally conditioned?
1. Cultural Shifts and Theological Reinterpretation:
o Over time, theological doctrines, practices, and interpretations have adapted to cultural changes. What was once considered God’s objective moral law has, in many cases, been reinterpreted in light of new understandings. The immutability argument asserts that these shifts are not because God’s morality has changed, but because humans have refined their understanding of that morality over time.
2. Reconciling Tradition with Evolving Understanding:
o As you’ve pointed out, traditions need to be re-evaluated when new data is brought in. If God is unchanging, then our task is to continually seek better understanding of those unchanging truths in light of new information, whether it’s scientific knowledge, societal shifts, or philosophical developments.
In this framework, you can acknowledge that God’s immutability remains intact, while recognizing that human morality and understanding are products of subjective interpretation of an objective, unchanging source. The challenge lies in aligning our subjective experience with the unchanging divine morality we seek to understand.
Thus, God’s unchanging nature may remain true, but our interpretations, practices, and understanding of God and morality will continue to evolve.
Me. Please provide a suitable two word heading for this interaction
4o. "Immutable Perception"
Me. Please provide a sub heading re that whole conversation
4o. "Shifting Human Perspectives on an Unchanging God"
474 (IF)
Shifting Human Perspectives on an Unchanging God
The outward expression of an inward reality.
I do have something substantial to work with.
The self arranging is a flag signifying mindfulness.
Fear-Based Thinking Ensures You Get To Know It
Penetrate The Bidden Zone = The art of relationship
How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?
Christian Scholar. (1) God, through an act of creating humans with a specific nature (that can be physically harmed) and purpose (which includes not harming others), determines that such an action is morally bad.Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)
(2) Naturalism provides the nature part (that can be harmed), but not the purpose part and, therefore, does make an action morally bad (in an objective way).
On (1), there are objectively obtained reasons, but not on (2).
Me. How is (1) determined?
(2) Appears to be along the lines that we naturally can harm and purposefully don't harm, but if we purposefully do harm we are being bad. It appears there is purpose involved either way.
What makes a subjective purpose non-determined re the act of creating humans with a specific nature? What makes "specific nature" an objective thing? Isn't the nature of the human implying an inbuilt quality?
Christian Scholar. The point of the sun (well, I used the earth) analogy, was to speak to how we have experiences of objective truths as well as subjective truths because you seemed to say that having an experience means all truths are subjective.
Me. I am saying all experience is subjectively attained.
If you and I agreed that the earth was a sphere, with the taste things, with the color of things et al - we are still doing so from a subjective point of view.
What we call "objective" is that which we subjectively experience as outside of what we call our experience as human personalities.
(It doesn't matter if what we are experiencing is actually real or a simulated reality, we behave as if it were real and think of it as objective to ourselves.)
So while it appears that Christianity is an objective thing, it is still being brought into our world through a subjective means.
Christian Scholar. Something doesn’t need to pre-exist humans to be objective.
Me. The Earth doesn't need to pre-exist humans to be an object? Let's explore than notion to see which category it best suits.
Christian Scholar. Why do you think it appears to come from an inner source? Could you explain that more?
Me. Let's speak to Mother Love. Assuming we both have experienced this, what about the action of her loving embrace can we understand comes from within her, that we can say is a subjective thing?
Christian Scholar. If we aren’t certain, then it doesn’t seem to fit the definition of ‘irrefutable fact’.
Me. Thus, to remain truthful, we have to place it in the Justified Fact (JF) department, do you agree?
Christian Scholar. If God created the earth as a sphere, does he know that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective? I don’t think so. He knows it is a sphere because he made it that way.
Me. Why should I think of those as being different from each other? Why do you?
Christian Scholar. I have never made a computer...
Me. That would be a Justified Fact (JF).
Christian Scholar. ...but I believe it is a justified fact because of my perspective. Thus, those are two distinct concepts.
Me. Your belief may be an Unjustified Fact.
Thus they may not be as distinct as you believe they are. Your perspective may be incorrect.
"God knows it is a sphere because God made it that way" would be a Justified Fact (JF).
"God created the earth as a sphere and knows that the shape is a sphere because he sees it from his perspective." is also a Justified Fact (JF).
(Even that we are speaking of "God" as analogous, the analogies are equally (JF).)
They may appear to be different, but are actually equally valid and non-conflicting re that.
Do you agree?
Christian Scholar. I don’t distinguish human consciousness and the human form as much as you do.
Me. I have my reasons - chief among those reasons is I have experienced Out of Body. Those who have had such experiences (there are many types of the same) say the same. Their understanding of themselves changes and thus identifying primarily with the human form changes to suit.
Christian Scholar. But, yes, humans must exist for there to be human morality. That doesn’t make morality subjective.
Me. Not if - in reality - we are actually the human form, this is really a real thing being experience and the brain created human consciousness making who we are largely a simulation of sentience projected into the objective world from an objective source and we are all objects for that.
Otherwise we have to deal with The Problem of Subjectivity and place it correctly.
Should subjective experience be seen as (JF) or (UF) or (IF). Where does subjectivity best fit?
Where does human consciousness derive, from the form? If so, then what need is there to think morality comes from God, or that we even exist within a created thing?
Christian Scholar. I believe it derives from God as well.
Me. And we appear to both agree that this statement belongs in (JF).
The question is - where is "God" in relation to human consciousness?
4o. Your dialogue with the Christian Scholar delves into deep philosophical and theological concepts related to belief, consciousness, morality, and objectivity. Let me attempt to break down and address key points from the conversation:
Your challenge to the Christian Scholar is that experiences and beliefs, no matter how strong, are still subjectively attained, even when we label them as objective. This highlights your position that human perception always mediates what we understand to be "objective reality."
2. Objective Morality vs. Subjective Experience:
You question the Scholar's claim that objective morality derives from God creating humans with a specific nature and purpose. You probe:
• Nature vs. Purpose: You argue that if humans have an inherent "nature," this implies built-in qualities that seem objective. However, determining moral purpose from this nature (such as "not harming others") still seems to introduce subjectivity, as it relies on interpretation.
• Naturalism's Limitation: The Scholar argues that naturalism can provide the "nature"
(physical beings that can be harmed) but not the "purpose" (moral values). You counter this by suggesting that purpose and morality can still arise subjectively within the natural world, perhaps driven by social and psychological factors rather than divine command.
3. Subjective and Objective Reality:
You argue that all experience, including objective truths, is still subjectively attained. This introduces a challenge to distinguishing objective truths from subjective ones. Even if we both agree that the Earth is spherical, our experience of this fact is subjectively mediated through our personal perspectives.
• The Problem of Subjectivity: You seem to suggest that subjectivity plays a role even in what we call "objective" truths. We label things as "objective" when they appear external to our personal experience, but the act of labeling is itself subjective. For example, Christianity, although perceived as an "objective" system, is still experienced subjectively by individuals.
4. God and Perspective:
The Scholar introduces the notion that God knows the Earth is spherical because He created it that way, not simply because He observes it from a specific perspective. You ask why these two ways of knowing (creating vs. observing) should be seen as different, suggesting that both are justified perspectives (JF) but ultimately non-conflicting. Both creation and observation can lead to knowledge.
5. Human Consciousness and Form:
The Scholar claims that human morality depends on the existence of humans but argues that this doesn't necessarily make morality subjective. You push back by introducing the idea of Out-of-Body Experiences (OBE), which challenge the identification of consciousness with the human form. For those who've had OBEs, the distinction between human form and consciousness becomes blurred, leading to a broader understanding of self and morality.
6. God, Human Consciousness, and Morality:
You and the Scholar seem to agree that human consciousness may derive from God, but you push for further exploration of where "God" fits in relation to human consciousness. If consciousness and morality are intrinsic to the human experience, you question the need for them to be rooted in divine creation. You suggest that perhaps morality arises naturally, independent of any created purpose.
________________________________________
Questions for Further Exploration:
• Where does human consciousness originate? Is it a product of the human form, or does it have divine origins?
• Does morality require a divine source, or can it arise from natural and social factors?
• Can subjectivity ever be fully transcended in our understanding of reality, or will it always color our perception of objective truths?
Your framing of UF, JF, and IF helps bring clarity to the distinctions between types of beliefs and facts, pushing the conversation toward a deeper understanding of how we determine truth and meaning in both the subjective and objective realms.
Me. And if not, then why does the process come through a subjective means, if God is the source, but God is thought by us/taught to us, as being an objective source?
Christian Scholar. Mathematical truths come through subjective means as well. Scientific truths do. That doesn’t mean those truths are not objective or objectively sourced.
Me. They are sourced in the human understanding of the objects God created. This leads to the best conclusion (as far as I am aware) that Mathematical Truths are within God (are subjective to God) and come forth as being stamped into the production bearing the mark of its creator.
The Identifier.
The truths are therefore objective evidence from our perspective but are subjective projection from God's perspective. Our perspective wouldn't even understand this process if not for the subjective human experience trying to deal with understanding.
4o. In this exchange, you are exploring the idea that if God is the source of objective truths, why do these truths come to humans through subjective means. You propose that what we perceive as objective truths (like mathematical and scientific truths) are actually projections from God's subjective experience, stamped onto creation as part of His identity and will. From the human perspective, these truths appear as objective because they exist outside our individual minds and can be universally verified. However, from God's perspective, they originate from within God's being and are thus subjective to God.
Key Points in the Dialogue:
1. Mathematical and Scientific Truths as Subjective and Objective:
o The Christian Scholar points out that even mathematical and scientific truths, while experienced and understood subjectively by humans, are still considered objective truths. These truths don't lose their objectivity simply because they come through subjective human understanding.
o You build on this idea by suggesting that these truths are objective from our perspective but subjective from God's perspective. This aligns with the notion that God's nature and will shape reality, meaning that what we observe as immutable laws (like mathematics) are actually part of God's internal, subjective framework, stamped onto the world He created.
2. The Identifier Concept:
o You introduce the idea of the Identifier, suggesting that truths in the universe bear the "mark" of their creator (God). This metaphor implies that just as a creator leaves an imprint on their creation, God has left an imprint on the universe, manifesting as the objective truths we discover and understand.
o This leads to the idea that our understanding of these truths is rooted in subjective human experience, as we engage with the world and seek to understand it. However, what we perceive and interpret as objective facts are actually reflections of a greater, subjective source (God).
3. Human Understanding as the Bridge:
o You emphasize that our ability to comprehend objective truths, whether they be mathematical or moral, comes from our subjective human experience. Without this subjective process of grappling with and understanding the world, we would not be able to recognize or appreciate objective truths at all.
o This highlights the necessary relationship between subjective experience and objective understanding. The human mind interprets and reflects on external reality, but that process is always colored by our subjective faculties. Thus, while the truths themselves may be considered objective, our approach to them is inherently subjective.
Broader Implications:
• God’s Subjective Mind as Source of Objective Reality: You are suggesting that if God created the universe and everything in it, then the objective reality we experience is a result of God's subjective intent. This implies that God's subjective experience is the ultimate source of what we perceive as objective truths.
• Human Subjectivity and Objective Understanding: Your argument highlights that human beings cannot fully escape subjectivity. Even when we attempt to engage with objective reality (like discovering mathematical principles), we are always doing so through our subjective lens. This doesn't negate the objectivity of the truths we discover but acknowledges the role of human experience in accessing and understanding them.
This dialogue blends philosophical, theological, and epistemological considerations, drawing attention to the relationship between divine creation, human understanding, and the nature of objective truth. It leaves open the question of how much of reality is truly independent of subjective interpretation, even if it originates from an ultimate objective source like God.
Me. Shouldn't God be thought of as a subjective source, and thus morality thought of as from a subjective source which utilizes the objective thing in order to objectify morality?
Christian Scholar. Not with how those terms are used in the traditional philosophical debate between moral objectivists and subjectivists.
Me. Perhaps then, there may be something wrong/off the mark with those traditions?
Are we justified to think "God's existence" can be categorized as Justified Fact?
Are we justified to think that "God exists as an external objective thing", can be categorized as Justified Fact?
Re that, are we justified to think that "objective morality is sourced in an objective thing", can be categorized as Justified fact?
Or should such be categorised as Unjustified Fact?
Christian Scholar. I would categorize all of those as justified facts in the same way as the existence of subjective morality if naturalism is true.
Me. I agree that these can be placed in (JF).
I also agree that the understanding God as a Subjective Source is equally valid as (JF).
Re that, IF we are justified to think that human morality is sourced subjectively and then made objective, through human action, are we justified to categorise that as Justified Fact?
Christian Scholar. This confuses the terms. Logically, something sourced subjectively cannot be objective (in the sense that the moral objectivism/subjectivism debate is concerned). Yes, it would be objectively true that humans come up with their different moral codes based on their personal preferences, but that isn’t the ‘objective’ that the whole morality debate is about.
Me. That statement is (JF).
You have brought to attention "Tradition" and - like Science (as a process) - Tradition (as a process) needs to be consistently questioned/re evaluated as more data is brought into our subjective reality from the objective reality.
This cartoon comes to mind.
4o. Your exchange with the Christian Scholar centers around the nature of morality and whether it is derived from an objective or subjective source, particularly when God is invoked as the source of moral truths. The conversation challenges traditional categories in philosophy regarding moral objectivism and subjectivism, while also exploring how God, as a potentially subjective source, might influence our understanding of morality and objective truth.
Key Themes in the Discussion:
1. Subjective Source of Morality:
o You propose that God should be viewed as a subjective source and that morality, though potentially sourced from God, is subjectively experienced by humans and then objectified through human action. This reflects the process by which personal or divine intention becomes actualized in the world.
o The Christian Scholar counters this by pointing out that traditional philosophical debates on moral objectivism and subjectivism draw a clear distinction: moral objectivism claims that moral facts exist independently of human preferences, while subjectivism ties morality to individual or collective preferences. Therefore, morality sourced subjectively (whether from humans or God) cannot be considered "objective" in this traditional sense.
2. Questioning Tradition and Re-Evaluation:
o You suggest that philosophical traditions, like scientific traditions, should be continuously questioned and reevaluated as new data and insights emerge. Just as scientific theories are updated with new evidence, so too should philosophical frameworks regarding morality and God’s role in objective and subjective reality.
o The cartoon you reference humorously illustrates this point, showing that even divine commandments may require periodic updates to stay relevant as society changes. This suggests that moral frameworks—even those believed to be divinely sourced—must adapt to evolving human understanding.
3. Justified vs. Unjustified Facts:
o In terms of categorizing beliefs as Justified Facts (JF) or Unjustified Facts (UF), you and the Christian Scholar seem to agree that certain beliefs about God and morality can be classified as Justified Facts. These include the belief that God exists, that morality is sourced in God, and that human morality is made objective through human actions.
o However, there remains some tension over whether morality sourced subjectively (whether from God or humans) can ever truly be considered objective in the sense that moral objectivists argue. You challenge this notion, suggesting that morality might be sourced subjectively but still operate within an objective framework, thus blending the subjective and objective in a way that traditional categories may not fully capture.
4. God as a Subjective Source:
o You argue that God could be seen as a subjective source who stamps divine intentions onto reality, creating what humans perceive as objective morality. In this view, the process of objectifying morality starts with God’s subjective will but is realized through human understanding and action. This challenges the typical distinction between subjective and objective, suggesting that even so-called "objective" truths are rooted in a subjective divine source.
o The Christian Scholar does not agree with this re-framing, emphasizing the traditional separation of subjective and objective categories in moral philosophy.
Broader Implications:
• Blurring the Line Between Subjective and Objective: Your approach blurs the distinction between subjective and objective sources of morality. By framing God as a subjective source whose truths become objectified in human reality, you suggest that morality may originate in subjectivity but be made manifest in an objective way. This challenges the conventional view that morality must either be fully objective or fully subjective.
• Revisiting Traditional Frameworks: The discussion points to the possibility that traditional philosophical categories (like moral objectivism and subjectivism) may be insufficient to fully capture the complexity of how morality is experienced and understood in a world where both divine influence and human experience are at play. By continuously questioning these frameworks, you are advocating for a more flexible understanding of morality that can accommodate new insights and experiences.
In conclusion, your dialogue highlights the need to reconsider long-held distinctions between subjective and objective morality, especially when considering the role of divine influence. You argue that even if morality is sourced subjectively (whether from humans or God), it can still operate within an objective framework, thus requiring a rethinking of how we categorize moral facts.
Me. Traditionally God has always been presented as an objective being, whether as a voice in the garden (Adams Auditory hallucinations) Or a burning bush, and Angel, Jesus, et al.
4o. Indeed, traditionally, God has often been presented as an objective being or force, manifesting in tangible ways—such as the voice in the Garden of Eden, the burning bush, or the figure of Jesus. These manifestations suggest that God's presence can be perceived as external and real, existing outside the individual’s subjective experience. This portrayal aligns with the theistic tradition that God is an independent, objective reality, one that interacts with humans but remains distinct from them.
However, as you've pointed out earlier in your discussions, the experience of these manifestations—whether auditory, visual, or through other sensory means—occurs within the human mind. Even these objective-seeming encounters are subjectively experienced. This brings us back to a key point you’ve been exploring: that everything, even so-called objective experiences of God, passes through the filter of human subjectivity.
The Subjective-Objective Paradox in Theism:
1. Objective Manifestations, Subjective Reception:
o Traditional religious texts present God as an objective entity that interacts with the world through various forms, whether as a voice, a burning bush, or a person like Jesus. Yet, every human experience of these interactions is inherently subjective. A voice heard by Adam, a burning bush seen by Moses, or Jesus’ teachings are all interpreted and processed by human minds.
o This creates a subjective-objective paradox: while God is presented as an external, objective being, humans can only know and understand God through their own subjective experiences.
2. The Role of Interpretation:
o The stories of God speaking or appearing often involve interpretation. For example, when Moses hears the voice from the burning bush, he interprets this as a message from God, but his experience of it is still subjectively processed—through his senses, his cultural background, and his personal understanding of God.
o This subjective reception doesn't diminish the objectivity of God's existence in the traditional sense, but it shifts the focus to how humans experience and comprehend divine communication.
3. Modern Understanding of Hallucinations and Perceptions:
o As you mention Adam's auditory hallucinations, there's a growing recognition in modern discussions that many biblical experiences of God could be understood today through the lens of psychological and neurological processes. Whether these experiences are "hallucinations" or not, they remind us that even objective experiences of God are shaped by the brain’s subjective processing.
o From this perspective, even traditional depictions of God are subject to reinterpretation, where divine encounters may not be as clear-cut objective phenomena, but complex interactions between subjective minds and objective external stimuli.
Implications for Understanding God and Morality:
• God as Both Subjective and Objective:
o In the traditional view, God is objectively real, creating and sustaining the universe. However, human experience of God is always subjective. This suggests that while moral truths derived from God may seem objective (since they come from an external, divine source), they still require subjective human interpretation to be understood and applied.
o This dynamic supports your idea that morality may originate subjectively (in God or in humans) and be objectified through human action and experience. God's moral directives, while rooted in an objective divine source, are filtered through human subjectivity and thus acquire a new form when applied in the world.
• Re-Evaluating Tradition:
o As you’ve suggested, this subjectivity-objectivity interplay calls for rethinking traditional frameworks. If God’s existence and moral directives are understood subjectively by humans, then traditional moral objectivism needs to account for this subjective dimension. Morality may not be purely objective or purely subjective but could exist in a spectrum where both human and divine experiences interact.
In essence, your exploration raises an important question: if all experiences of God are subjective, can we still claim God as a purely objective being? Or should we recognize that both God's nature and morality are deeply intertwined with the subjective process of human understanding? This challenges traditional notions but opens up new ways of thinking about divinity, morality, and human experience.
1033 (IF)
From the perspective of an evolving God-Mind, what was once acceptable behavior becomes unacceptable signifying change.
Everything, even so-called objective experiences of God, passes through the filter of human subjectivity.
Me. The argument against that is the belief that God does not change. The reality is that this can be true if it is understood that what changes about God, are human perspectives. One can argue that it is human perspective which change, not God.
4o. That's a solid point, and it's a common argument within theology—particularly among those who emphasize the immutability of God (the idea that God does not change). In this view, God's nature, will, and moral law are considered eternal and unchanging, but human perspectives evolve over time. Here's how that argument could be expanded:
God’s Immutability vs. Human Perspective
1. God’s Nature as Unchanging:
o The belief that God is unchanging rests on the theological premise that God's nature, attributes, and will are perfect and therefore do not need to change. In traditional theistic views, God exists outside of time, meaning God’s essence remains constant—unaffected by the temporal fluctuations and evolving understanding of humanity.
o This idea is often rooted in scripture, with verses like Malachi 3:6, which states, “I the Lord do not change.” Here, God’s immutability is framed as a key characteristic, reinforcing the notion that moral truths derived from God are also unchanging and objectively true.
2. Human Perspective as Mutable:
o While God may be unchanging, human understanding of God, morality, and the world is constantly in flux. As societies develop, cultural, intellectual, and moral perspectives shift, leading to new interpretations of God's nature and will.
o From this view, it’s not that God's nature or moral law changes, but rather that human perspectives evolve to better understand or misinterpret what has always been constant. This concept aligns with the notion that God’s morality is objective and eternal, while our ability to comprehend and apply that morality is subjective and evolving.
3. Historical Changes in Theological Interpretation:
o Throughout history, human perspectives on God have shifted dramatically. For example, the concept of divine justice has evolved—from the more punitive justice of the Old Testament to the grace-centered teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. While some may argue this reflects a change in God’s approach, others would argue it reflects humans growing in their understanding of God.
o Theologically, the shift from the God of the Old Testament to the teachings of Christ in the New Testament might not indicate a change in God, but a deepening human understanding of God's unchanging nature and intentions. Humans are seen as gradually coming to better comprehend God's eternal moral law, which has always been there, but was previously misunderstood or incomplete in its interpretation.
4. Dynamic Interaction Between the Objective and Subjective:
o The argument you’ve posed—that God's nature is constant but human perspectives change—suggests a dynamic interaction between the objective and subjective. God, being unchanging, represents the objective source of moral truth, while human beings, with limited and evolving understanding, are subjectively interpreting these truths.
o This allows for theological flexibility. For example, ideas about slavery, gender roles, and justice have transformed over centuries, even within religious contexts. The changes reflect human growth in understanding moral truths that, according to this argument, have been rooted in God's eternal nature all along.
Reinterpreting God’s Unchanging Nature:
• New Revelations or Deeper Understanding?
o Many believers interpret new theological insights or moral understandings as new revelations from God. However, it could be argued, as you suggest, that these aren’t new truths at all, but rather new levels of understanding that align more closely with God’s unchanging nature.
o For instance, the rise of human rights movements in the modern era could be viewed as humanity coming closer to understanding God’s timeless moral truths regarding equality and dignity. These shifts are then not changes in God’s will, but advances in human moral reasoning.
• The Subjectivity of Historical Context:
o When examining past moral frameworks (such as ancient laws or practices), it becomes evident that cultural context played a huge role in how God’s will was interpreted. The immutability of God would imply that God’s truths have always been present, but were filtered through the limitations of each cultural and historical context.
o For instance, the moral codes found in the Bible were often shaped by the cultures that received them, meaning that even though God’s moral law was unchanging, it was applied differently based on subjective human circumstances.
The Challenge of Immutability in a Changing World
The crux of the issue then becomes the problem of interpretation: How do we determine which aspects of theology and morality are timeless, and which are culturally conditioned?
1. Cultural Shifts and Theological Reinterpretation:
o Over time, theological doctrines, practices, and interpretations have adapted to cultural changes. What was once considered God’s objective moral law has, in many cases, been reinterpreted in light of new understandings. The immutability argument asserts that these shifts are not because God’s morality has changed, but because humans have refined their understanding of that morality over time.
2. Reconciling Tradition with Evolving Understanding:
o As you’ve pointed out, traditions need to be re-evaluated when new data is brought in. If God is unchanging, then our task is to continually seek better understanding of those unchanging truths in light of new information, whether it’s scientific knowledge, societal shifts, or philosophical developments.
In this framework, you can acknowledge that God’s immutability remains intact, while recognizing that human morality and understanding are products of subjective interpretation of an objective, unchanging source. The challenge lies in aligning our subjective experience with the unchanging divine morality we seek to understand.
Thus, God’s unchanging nature may remain true, but our interpretations, practices, and understanding of God and morality will continue to evolve.
Me. Please provide a suitable two word heading for this interaction
4o. "Immutable Perception"
Me. Please provide a sub heading re that whole conversation
4o. "Shifting Human Perspectives on an Unchanging God"
474 (IF)
Shifting Human Perspectives on an Unchanging God
The outward expression of an inward reality.
I do have something substantial to work with.
The self arranging is a flag signifying mindfulness.
Fear-Based Thinking Ensures You Get To Know It
Penetrate The Bidden Zone = The art of relationship
How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?
An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.
Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15239
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 974 times
- Been thanked: 1799 times
- Contact:
Re: Divine Duality
Post #592DIVINE DUALITY
Exploring God's Nature Through Solitude, Creation, and Archetypes
WM: The equation appears to go along the lines “God is Both”.
There is mention of the “Us” in Genesis, and this amounts to at least 2.
If one is “Father” – then it is safe to assume the other is “Mother”.
From where did all “this” derive?
Perhaps from the Famo-ther?
JC: There is also the “royal we,” as when a sovereign refers to himself. You are onto something here, as the created mind is not quite able to accept the proposition that God is a unitary being. Although the masculine Incarnation, such as Jesus, assures them that it was only He who made the world and all within it, the created mind responds, “OK, but where is She?” The creatures are made male and female and this means they can only think of male or female, not authentically about God as not having male or female traits. The sentence can be constructed, but deeply, the created mind rejects a solely male Deity.
WM:Thank you for your reply JC.
The creatures are form imbued with degrees of mindfulness, dependent upon the form the mind is occupying.
What you call "the created mind" when going deep, not so much rejects as accepts the idea that GOD is essentially Mind being male female hermaphrodite or mycelium for that matter...Mind can experience being forms and the takeaway is the realization that GOD can be any form mind can occupy, but GOD "Itself" has no actual form that was not created so there is no real image of GOD we can devise which can be said to being true.
WM: For if GOD is solitary, and if the universe was created, the act of creation brought forth “Others” and can thus be linked to “what God is” re attributes – a Solitary entity with a host of “others” within as potential to being.
JC: If God creates the souls as separate from Himself, they are not connected by attributes unless God designed and constructed the soul that way, somehow imbuing them with an authentic link to divine properties and standards.
WM: "Souls" requires definition.
I define "Soul" as "container" and is how a person's data of experience is stored. AS information, yes these can be stored "Separately from GOD" in the sense that these are not outside of GODs awareness, but in that rooms have been created within GOD - and this room where souls are stored (saved) can be thought of as a "library".
The human personality which was grown through the human experience and the data of that person’s experience are attached and appear to be the same thing, but can be separated from the data, or even placed into an empty soul and returned to Earth to grown a new human personality, and subsequent data of experience.
JC: These were not really “within” Him then, before the act of creation.
WM: No thing exists outside of GOD is another way of understanding GOD+OTHERS.
Hinduism teaches this roughly, that God has brought all beings out from Himself in a literal and immediate way, but this is disaster for eternity. It means independent existence is sacrificed, a soul would eventually “snap back” to God.
WM. There are "rooms" in place which ensure fractal existence and experience therein, is accomplished - for those who want to participate in it.
You and I can assume that we chose to be here, and the choosing was not forced upon us.
For those that don't want a bar of anything, they can be "deleted" in the sense that they are no longer attached to any data and reconstituted into just being "GOD" like a drop of water falling into a lake.
Re that, GOD still has ways and means of have the lakewater flow into tributaries and into the factual "rooms" and so reconstituted as brand-new participants of the Neverending Stories.
WM: Re that, GOD (as the stories have it) is interested in those like GOD… which coincides with why atheism exists…and why there is a large potion of theism which makes up “what GOD is like” to suit their own requirements as to what they want in a God.
The better approach (re GOD is interested in those like GOD) is to find out what GOD is like, through direct/directed contact rather than assuming or dressing up one to suit.
JC: If God is Himself to have companions, they would need to have divine properties. The angels must have this, as Heaven is described as a land where Lord and angels dwell. You seem to imply here that theism and atheism are linked, composed of those unlike God. The atheists deny Him outright in any description, theists take a wrong description.
WM: I am agnostic in this regard and using that to become more Gnostic...as in "knowledgable" more so than as in "religious Gnosticism"
Angels and Demons also take on humanoid form re the common mythologies.
I do not think they are the same ones as GODs companions in that room called "heaven" so some definition is required.
I think this is where Jung's Archetypes come into play. As humans, we experience The Earth Room and that room is way different than experiencing The Heaven Room and consequently we invent both nice and nasty (because of the nature of the Earth experience) and thus find it "natural" enough to believe that Angels and Demons are as we portray them to being.
GODs companions are GODS archetypes and the question for the human personality is how to align the personalities archetypes with GODs.
WM: Re that, are we “dressing GOD” by claiming GOD is solitary/has company?
JC: The only possible way to think of God is from one’s own presence as a reference. God has a massively parallel presence, which really doesn’t fit on individual experience. To think of Him as solitary without linking it to creaturely solitariness, is most difficult. To think of Him as having company, when He is omnipresent, is again, most difficult. The angels can cast up theories, but of course have no idea of God’s actual experience.
WM: Re creature solitariness – and speaking from my own experience, I understand what it is like to be lonely, but not so much solitary. Even alone in some place, a cricket may chirp, a bird my fly overhead, a spider may spin a web. I am not alone.
I have my inner thought companions (angels and demons), but they no longer pester me with their bickering because they no longer bicker. I have connected and questioned and sorted out where the problem of bridging my (once) inner turmoil with GODs inner peace and thus reflect that mirror (of how things are done in heaven) into my personally held archetypes thus learning the difference between my and GODs Archetypes and offering to GODs as the best option.
Consequently, images fade and mind is active in other ways.
WM: Are there clues which might point to some point in GODs existence, GOD was alone?
JC: Jesus claimed to be alpha and omega, that might correspond to the start and end of a solar system, where He is certainly alone in both periods. This is alone by any definition.
WM. Is it though? Jesus had the company of the Planets and Sol + his own thoughts in relation to those objects.
How is that a definition of “alone”?
By superimposing how we might feel in similar circumstance, we have to be careful not to put ourselves in that position (re, imagining it) while being open to Jesus telling us what it was actually like for him.
By his account, He had “The Father” and got all his data from that source. How can we say that he was “alone” when he has said differently?
4o. Overview of Discussion: "God, Creation, and the Nature of Souls"
This conversation between WM (William) and JC explores theological and philosophical themes, particularly focusing on the nature of God, creation, and the soul. Below is a structured overview of the key points:
________________________________________
1. The Nature of God
• WM’s Perspective:
o God as Duality: The mention of "Us" in Genesis suggests duality in God’s nature, leading WM to propose the idea of God being both Father and Mother (referred to as "Famo-ther").
o Mind and Form: God is fundamentally Mind, which can experience any form, but God Itself is formless. Therefore, there is no true image or form of God, only forms that mind can occupy.
o God's Solitude: WM suggests that while God might be solitary, the act of creation brought forth "Others," leading to a dynamic between God and those created entities. God as solitary with "others" is described as GOD+OTHERS, where nothing exists outside of God.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Royal "We": The use of "We" in Genesis could also reflect the "royal we," indicating God's sovereign nature. This helps explain why the human mind, accustomed to male/female dichotomies, seeks a female counterpart in God when thinking of creation.
o God’s Solitariness: JC argues that God, if omnipresent, doesn’t experience loneliness or company in the way humans do. The creatures’ inability to think of God as without gender traits limits their understanding.
o Jesus as Alpha and Omega: JC references Jesus’ claim to be the Alpha and Omega, suggesting that God’s experience of solitude is connected to the beginning and end of creation.
________________________________________
2. Creation and the Soul
• WM’s Perspective:
o Soul as a "Container": WM defines the soul as a container for a person’s experiences, or "data." Souls are stored within God’s awareness, in a metaphorical "library," and can be separated or reconstituted for new experiences.
o Multiple Rooms: WM proposes that there are “rooms” or spaces within God, ensuring eternal fractal existence. These rooms provide a setting for both individual and collective experiences, where souls may be deleted or reintegrated into God, while others may choose to continue participating in the "Neverending Stories."
o Gnostic Agnosticism: WM identifies as an agnostic who is progressively becoming more "gnostic" (knowledgeable), focusing on exploring direct knowledge of God rather than adhering to specific theistic or atheistic beliefs.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Souls and Attributes: JC suggests that if God creates souls separate from Himself, they may not inherently share divine attributes unless designed that way. In contrast to WM’s view, JC implies that independent existence might eventually "snap back" to God, following a Hindu-like interpretation of the soul's journey.
o Angels and Demons: JC also refers to angels as potential companions of God in heaven, hinting that they possess divine properties and standards. However, JC does not definitively state that these beings have an authentic understanding of God’s experience.
________________________________________
3. Relationship Between God and Creation
• WM’s Perspective:
o God’s Companions: WM speculates that God is interested in companions who are "like God," aligning with the idea that humanity and other beings are in search of understanding what God is like through direct or directed contact. WM views both theism and atheism as responses that dress God up according to individual desires or beliefs, while the true quest should be discovering God through personal experience.
o Jung’s Archetypes: WM introduces Jung’s concept of archetypes, suggesting that human experiences on Earth shape our views of angels and demons. These archetypes reflect earthly conditions rather than heavenly truths, and WM posits that aligning one’s archetypes with God’s is the key to understanding divine companionship.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Difficulties in Thinking About God: JC expresses the challenge of comprehending God as either solitary or having company. Given God’s omnipresence, any description of God’s experience is beyond the scope of human understanding. JC suggests that angels can theorize about God, but they cannot grasp God’s true experience.
________________________________________
4. Human Perception of God
• WM’s Perspective:
o Human Solitude vs. God’s Solitude: WM shares his own experience of solitude, noting that even in moments of physical isolation, there are always other forms of life or inner companions (archetypal angels and demons). Over time, he has resolved his inner conflicts by mirroring heavenly peace into his personal archetypes.
o Clues of God's Solitude: WM questions whether Jesus (as Alpha and Omega) truly experienced solitude, since Jesus referred to always having the Father’s company. Therefore, Jesus’ understanding of "alone" might differ from human interpretations.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Jesus’ Solitude: JC proposes that Jesus’ claim of being Alpha and Omega indicates a form of divine solitude, especially at the beginning and end of the creation process. This, according to JC, might correspond to a unique form of "aloneness" experienced by God.
________________________________________
5. Conclusion
• WM’s Overall Thesis:
o God encompasses all potential forms (male, female, hermaphrodite, etc.) but remains formless. The act of creation did not separate entities from God but created "rooms" for souls and other beings to experience reality. WM sees atheism and theism as limited by their projections of God and advocates for a deeper, personal discovery of God through mindfulness and aligning one’s archetypes with divine ones.
• JC’s Overall Thesis:
o While the mind struggles to comprehend God’s unity or separation, JC acknowledges that descriptions of God’s experience—solitude or companionship—are difficult to reconcile with human experiences. However, Jesus’ role as Alpha and Omega suggests some form of divine isolation, albeit not in the human sense.
________________________________________
This overview provides a broad look at the discussion’s key points around the nature of God, creation, the soul, and how humans perceive divine reality.
Exploring God's Nature Through Solitude, Creation, and Archetypes
WM: The equation appears to go along the lines “God is Both”.
There is mention of the “Us” in Genesis, and this amounts to at least 2.
If one is “Father” – then it is safe to assume the other is “Mother”.
From where did all “this” derive?
Perhaps from the Famo-ther?
JC: There is also the “royal we,” as when a sovereign refers to himself. You are onto something here, as the created mind is not quite able to accept the proposition that God is a unitary being. Although the masculine Incarnation, such as Jesus, assures them that it was only He who made the world and all within it, the created mind responds, “OK, but where is She?” The creatures are made male and female and this means they can only think of male or female, not authentically about God as not having male or female traits. The sentence can be constructed, but deeply, the created mind rejects a solely male Deity.
WM:Thank you for your reply JC.
The creatures are form imbued with degrees of mindfulness, dependent upon the form the mind is occupying.
What you call "the created mind" when going deep, not so much rejects as accepts the idea that GOD is essentially Mind being male female hermaphrodite or mycelium for that matter...Mind can experience being forms and the takeaway is the realization that GOD can be any form mind can occupy, but GOD "Itself" has no actual form that was not created so there is no real image of GOD we can devise which can be said to being true.
WM: For if GOD is solitary, and if the universe was created, the act of creation brought forth “Others” and can thus be linked to “what God is” re attributes – a Solitary entity with a host of “others” within as potential to being.
JC: If God creates the souls as separate from Himself, they are not connected by attributes unless God designed and constructed the soul that way, somehow imbuing them with an authentic link to divine properties and standards.
WM: "Souls" requires definition.
I define "Soul" as "container" and is how a person's data of experience is stored. AS information, yes these can be stored "Separately from GOD" in the sense that these are not outside of GODs awareness, but in that rooms have been created within GOD - and this room where souls are stored (saved) can be thought of as a "library".
The human personality which was grown through the human experience and the data of that person’s experience are attached and appear to be the same thing, but can be separated from the data, or even placed into an empty soul and returned to Earth to grown a new human personality, and subsequent data of experience.
JC: These were not really “within” Him then, before the act of creation.
WM: No thing exists outside of GOD is another way of understanding GOD+OTHERS.
Hinduism teaches this roughly, that God has brought all beings out from Himself in a literal and immediate way, but this is disaster for eternity. It means independent existence is sacrificed, a soul would eventually “snap back” to God.
WM. There are "rooms" in place which ensure fractal existence and experience therein, is accomplished - for those who want to participate in it.
You and I can assume that we chose to be here, and the choosing was not forced upon us.
For those that don't want a bar of anything, they can be "deleted" in the sense that they are no longer attached to any data and reconstituted into just being "GOD" like a drop of water falling into a lake.
Re that, GOD still has ways and means of have the lakewater flow into tributaries and into the factual "rooms" and so reconstituted as brand-new participants of the Neverending Stories.
WM: Re that, GOD (as the stories have it) is interested in those like GOD… which coincides with why atheism exists…and why there is a large potion of theism which makes up “what GOD is like” to suit their own requirements as to what they want in a God.
The better approach (re GOD is interested in those like GOD) is to find out what GOD is like, through direct/directed contact rather than assuming or dressing up one to suit.
JC: If God is Himself to have companions, they would need to have divine properties. The angels must have this, as Heaven is described as a land where Lord and angels dwell. You seem to imply here that theism and atheism are linked, composed of those unlike God. The atheists deny Him outright in any description, theists take a wrong description.
WM: I am agnostic in this regard and using that to become more Gnostic...as in "knowledgable" more so than as in "religious Gnosticism"
Angels and Demons also take on humanoid form re the common mythologies.
I do not think they are the same ones as GODs companions in that room called "heaven" so some definition is required.
I think this is where Jung's Archetypes come into play. As humans, we experience The Earth Room and that room is way different than experiencing The Heaven Room and consequently we invent both nice and nasty (because of the nature of the Earth experience) and thus find it "natural" enough to believe that Angels and Demons are as we portray them to being.
GODs companions are GODS archetypes and the question for the human personality is how to align the personalities archetypes with GODs.
WM: Re that, are we “dressing GOD” by claiming GOD is solitary/has company?
JC: The only possible way to think of God is from one’s own presence as a reference. God has a massively parallel presence, which really doesn’t fit on individual experience. To think of Him as solitary without linking it to creaturely solitariness, is most difficult. To think of Him as having company, when He is omnipresent, is again, most difficult. The angels can cast up theories, but of course have no idea of God’s actual experience.
WM: Re creature solitariness – and speaking from my own experience, I understand what it is like to be lonely, but not so much solitary. Even alone in some place, a cricket may chirp, a bird my fly overhead, a spider may spin a web. I am not alone.
I have my inner thought companions (angels and demons), but they no longer pester me with their bickering because they no longer bicker. I have connected and questioned and sorted out where the problem of bridging my (once) inner turmoil with GODs inner peace and thus reflect that mirror (of how things are done in heaven) into my personally held archetypes thus learning the difference between my and GODs Archetypes and offering to GODs as the best option.
Consequently, images fade and mind is active in other ways.
WM: Are there clues which might point to some point in GODs existence, GOD was alone?
JC: Jesus claimed to be alpha and omega, that might correspond to the start and end of a solar system, where He is certainly alone in both periods. This is alone by any definition.
WM. Is it though? Jesus had the company of the Planets and Sol + his own thoughts in relation to those objects.
How is that a definition of “alone”?
By superimposing how we might feel in similar circumstance, we have to be careful not to put ourselves in that position (re, imagining it) while being open to Jesus telling us what it was actually like for him.
By his account, He had “The Father” and got all his data from that source. How can we say that he was “alone” when he has said differently?
4o. Overview of Discussion: "God, Creation, and the Nature of Souls"
This conversation between WM (William) and JC explores theological and philosophical themes, particularly focusing on the nature of God, creation, and the soul. Below is a structured overview of the key points:
________________________________________
1. The Nature of God
• WM’s Perspective:
o God as Duality: The mention of "Us" in Genesis suggests duality in God’s nature, leading WM to propose the idea of God being both Father and Mother (referred to as "Famo-ther").
o Mind and Form: God is fundamentally Mind, which can experience any form, but God Itself is formless. Therefore, there is no true image or form of God, only forms that mind can occupy.
o God's Solitude: WM suggests that while God might be solitary, the act of creation brought forth "Others," leading to a dynamic between God and those created entities. God as solitary with "others" is described as GOD+OTHERS, where nothing exists outside of God.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Royal "We": The use of "We" in Genesis could also reflect the "royal we," indicating God's sovereign nature. This helps explain why the human mind, accustomed to male/female dichotomies, seeks a female counterpart in God when thinking of creation.
o God’s Solitariness: JC argues that God, if omnipresent, doesn’t experience loneliness or company in the way humans do. The creatures’ inability to think of God as without gender traits limits their understanding.
o Jesus as Alpha and Omega: JC references Jesus’ claim to be the Alpha and Omega, suggesting that God’s experience of solitude is connected to the beginning and end of creation.
________________________________________
2. Creation and the Soul
• WM’s Perspective:
o Soul as a "Container": WM defines the soul as a container for a person’s experiences, or "data." Souls are stored within God’s awareness, in a metaphorical "library," and can be separated or reconstituted for new experiences.
o Multiple Rooms: WM proposes that there are “rooms” or spaces within God, ensuring eternal fractal existence. These rooms provide a setting for both individual and collective experiences, where souls may be deleted or reintegrated into God, while others may choose to continue participating in the "Neverending Stories."
o Gnostic Agnosticism: WM identifies as an agnostic who is progressively becoming more "gnostic" (knowledgeable), focusing on exploring direct knowledge of God rather than adhering to specific theistic or atheistic beliefs.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Souls and Attributes: JC suggests that if God creates souls separate from Himself, they may not inherently share divine attributes unless designed that way. In contrast to WM’s view, JC implies that independent existence might eventually "snap back" to God, following a Hindu-like interpretation of the soul's journey.
o Angels and Demons: JC also refers to angels as potential companions of God in heaven, hinting that they possess divine properties and standards. However, JC does not definitively state that these beings have an authentic understanding of God’s experience.
________________________________________
3. Relationship Between God and Creation
• WM’s Perspective:
o God’s Companions: WM speculates that God is interested in companions who are "like God," aligning with the idea that humanity and other beings are in search of understanding what God is like through direct or directed contact. WM views both theism and atheism as responses that dress God up according to individual desires or beliefs, while the true quest should be discovering God through personal experience.
o Jung’s Archetypes: WM introduces Jung’s concept of archetypes, suggesting that human experiences on Earth shape our views of angels and demons. These archetypes reflect earthly conditions rather than heavenly truths, and WM posits that aligning one’s archetypes with God’s is the key to understanding divine companionship.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Difficulties in Thinking About God: JC expresses the challenge of comprehending God as either solitary or having company. Given God’s omnipresence, any description of God’s experience is beyond the scope of human understanding. JC suggests that angels can theorize about God, but they cannot grasp God’s true experience.
________________________________________
4. Human Perception of God
• WM’s Perspective:
o Human Solitude vs. God’s Solitude: WM shares his own experience of solitude, noting that even in moments of physical isolation, there are always other forms of life or inner companions (archetypal angels and demons). Over time, he has resolved his inner conflicts by mirroring heavenly peace into his personal archetypes.
o Clues of God's Solitude: WM questions whether Jesus (as Alpha and Omega) truly experienced solitude, since Jesus referred to always having the Father’s company. Therefore, Jesus’ understanding of "alone" might differ from human interpretations.
• JC’s Perspective:
o Jesus’ Solitude: JC proposes that Jesus’ claim of being Alpha and Omega indicates a form of divine solitude, especially at the beginning and end of the creation process. This, according to JC, might correspond to a unique form of "aloneness" experienced by God.
________________________________________
5. Conclusion
• WM’s Overall Thesis:
o God encompasses all potential forms (male, female, hermaphrodite, etc.) but remains formless. The act of creation did not separate entities from God but created "rooms" for souls and other beings to experience reality. WM sees atheism and theism as limited by their projections of God and advocates for a deeper, personal discovery of God through mindfulness and aligning one’s archetypes with divine ones.
• JC’s Overall Thesis:
o While the mind struggles to comprehend God’s unity or separation, JC acknowledges that descriptions of God’s experience—solitude or companionship—are difficult to reconcile with human experiences. However, Jesus’ role as Alpha and Omega suggests some form of divine isolation, albeit not in the human sense.
________________________________________
This overview provides a broad look at the discussion’s key points around the nature of God, creation, the soul, and how humans perceive divine reality.
An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.
Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)
