God and Human: Who has created Whom?

[creation]

That would bear zero resemblance to the god(s) of any populous religion, in which case, why should anyone even bother with using that as another name of the universe? That's just going to cause confusion, as it's impossible to avoid the religious connotations.

Excellent example of the fact that non religious philosophers tend to spend more time contemplating the finer points on this topic than the average member of populous religions.

I find looking at, or contemplating, not just the finer points but all points on any topic, from all perspectives and points of views, a much quicker, simpler and easier way to gain a view, which can be answered from every one's inquisitive points of views.

[gad-fly]

To sum up your statement, God is both the visible physical universe and the invisible mind, but who creates both? You would say: God himself, right?

In a sense "yes" but I would NOT say it like that.

If you want to learn and understand what created the Universe, Itself, then just let me know and I will explain it to you.

Sorry to find you annoyed, which is never my intention. Please sum up in your own words. Explain and I shall try my best to appreciate, and that is a promise.

The Chinese are rare among early human civilization to produce the non-creation chaos theory. In the beginning. there was chaos, or harmony called tai-chi. The two are the same, depending on which angle you look. Because nature does not like uniformity, harmony gave birth to two poles: male or female, yin or yang, yes or no, black or white, or whatever. The two poles gave birth to four directions: N S E W, or some four ways. The four directions gave birth to 8 sooths. My suggestion: some of us have become soothsayers. It is a legend, not a theory. Wish we have harmony next time you practice tai-chi boxing.

[creation]

In a sense "yes" but I would NOT say it like that.

If you want to learn and understand what created the Universe, Itself, then just let me know and I will explain it to you.

Sorry to find you annoyed, which is never my intention. Please sum up in your own words. Explain and I shall try my best to appreciate, and that is a promise.

I do not want you to "appreciate" anything I say. If you just find what I say implausible, false, wrong, or incorrect, then just explain why, and if you do not understand what I am saying, then just ask me clarifying questions. If you just believe the opposite of what I say is true, then just say so, and then explain why.

What do you want me to sum up in my own words, and explain 'what' exactly?

If you are talking about the Universe, Itself, and how It was created, then the Universe, Itself, was never created. It is always in creation. The Universe is always in a constant state of change, or always constantly evolving. The Universe is always in a constant state of evolutionary-creation.

The Chinese are rare among early human civilization to produce the non-creation chaos theory. In the beginning. there was chaos, or harmony called tai-chi.

But there has to be "a beginning" for there to be an "in the beginning". Although there may be 'a beginning' for some things there is no beginning for the Universe and Its two fundamental parts.

The Universe is made up of two opposites, sitting in equilibrium. It has been this way forever and always.

The two are the same, depending on which angle you look. Because nature does not like uniformity, harmony gave birth to two poles: male or female, yin or yang, yes or no, black or white, or whatever. The two poles gave birth to four directions: N S E W, or some four ways. The four directions gave birth to 8 sooths. My suggestion: some of us have become soothsayers. It is a legend, not a theory. Wish we have harmony next time you practice tai-chi boxing.

I am not sure what you are saying and getting at here and where this is heading, but to back this up what gave birth to 'nature' and 'harmony' or they like the Universe? Having always existed?

[Terrapin Station]

If you do not provide any examples of why, to you, "that would bear zero resemblance to the god(s) of any populous religion"

You shouldn't need any examples. You should be familiar with the characteristics of gods from populous religions. For example, all gods of populous religions provide moral edicts.

[creation]

If you do not provide any examples of why, to you, "that would bear zero resemblance to the god(s) of any populous religion"

You shouldn't need any examples. You should be familiar with the characteristics of gods from populous religions. For example, all gods of populous religions provide moral edicts.

You obviously did not read all of what I wrote. If you had, then you would see how my definition works in perfectly with all those gods of populous religions that provide moral edicts.

[Terrapin Station]

You shouldn't need any examples. You should be familiar with the characteristics of gods from populous religions. For example, all gods of populous religions provide moral edicts.

You obviously did not read all of what I wrote. If you had, then you would see how my definition works in perfectly with all those gods of populous religions that provide moral edicts.

Yes, I did read it. You obviously don't understand the idea in religions of Gods providing moral edicts. Moral edicts are particular moral rules handed down that need to be followed for "salvation" etc. Religions don't present morality as if there are a bunch of different people with a bunch of different feelings about acceptable/nonacceptable behavior, with no particular feeling being objectively correct. But that's what the world actually provides.

[gad-fly]

But there has to be "a beginning" for there to be an "in the beginning". Although there may be 'a beginning' for some things there is no beginning for the Universe and Its two fundamental parts.

The Universe is made up of two opposites, sitting in equilibrium. It has been this way forever and always.

Question: What are the two fundamental parts or opposites sitting in equilibrium?

My understanding from you is: "God is another name for the universe which has created and will continue to create everything. Being all-embracing, this universe has created itself, or every bit of itself, to be exact. Such creation is a changing/evolutionary process which some may call 'reinvention'. God is eternal such that for him(?) there is no beginning." Correct me if I am wrong.

That God has no beginning but can create is the same as chaos/harmony by the name of Tai-chi in Chinese mythology. Tai-chi is symbolized by that double helix chasing each other inside a circle. Different from God, Tai-chi gave birth rather than create. The bipolar world in tun gave birth to four ways, which in turn gave birth to eight sooths, and in turn sixteen somethings which I cannot translate, and the multiplication continues. Like grandparents, Tai-chi does not have much control over his offspring, whether he likes it or not. Most are left to do his own thing. Who can blame him? You can sense his presence in Tai-chi boxing, that very gentle exercise like shaking hand with fresh air.

Some of us cannot see more validity and relevance in God than in Tai-chi. I suggest it depends on how much you want to depend on yourself or on something secure that you can believe.

[creation]

You obviously did not read all of what I wrote. If you had, then you would see how my definition works in perfectly with all those gods of populous religions that provide moral edicts.

Yes, I did read it. You obviously don't understand the idea in religions of Gods providing moral edicts. Moral edicts are particular moral rules handed down that need to be followed for "salvation" etc. Religions don't present morality as if there are a bunch of different people with a bunch of different feelings about acceptable/nonacceptable behavior, with no particular feeling being objectively correct. But that's what the world actually provides.

Besides writing:

'God', in the visible or physical sense, is just the visible physical Universe, Itself. This Universe is eternal in existence and is the Creator of all things.

I also wrote:

'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is just the invisible Mind, Itself. This Truly OPEN Mind is what has allowed human beings to imagine, invent, devise, and create absolutely every thing that they have created and will create.

Which specifically means:

Moral edicts are particular moral rules handed down that need to be followed for "salvation" etc.

These moral rules are handed down literally through the Mind, God.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, I did read it. You obviously don't understand the idea in religions of Gods providing moral edicts. Moral edicts are particular moral rules handed down that need to be followed for "salvation" etc. Religions don't present morality as if there are a bunch of different people with a bunch of different feelings about acceptable/nonacceptable behavior, with no particular feeling being objectively correct. But that's what the world actually provides.

Besides writing:

'God', in the visible or physical sense, is just the visible physical Universe, Itself. This Universe is eternal in existence and is the Creator of all things.

I also wrote:

'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is just the invisible Mind, Itself. This Truly OPEN Mind is what has allowed human beings to imagine, invent, devise, and create absolutely every thing that they have created and will create.

Which specifically means:

Moral edicts are particular moral rules handed down that need to be followed for "salvation" etc.

These moral rules are handed down literally through the Mind, God.

There's no religion that has god(s) as giving a bunch of competing, conjointly inconsistent moral stances.

[creation]

Besides writing:

'God', in the visible or physical sense, is just the visible physical Universe, Itself. This Universe is eternal in existence and is the Creator of all things.

I also wrote:

'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is just the invisible Mind, Itself. This Truly OPEN Mind is what has allowed human beings to imagine, invent, devise, and create absolutely every thing that they have created and will create.

Which specifically means:

Moral edicts are particular moral rules handed down that need to be followed for "salvation" etc.

These moral rules are handed down literally through the Mind, God.

There's no religion that has god(s) as giving a bunch of competing, conjointly inconsistent moral stances.

Considering you do not provide any specific details I am not sure how to reply.

Only human beings give a bunch of competing, conjointly inconsistent moral stances, but within every one there is a Mind, knowing of what is right and what is wrong in Life.

[Terrapin Station]

Considering you do not provide any specific details I am not sure how to reply.

???

What sort of details would you be looking for?

Only human beings give a bunch of competing, conjointly inconsistent moral stances, but within every one there is a Mind, knowing of what is right and what is wrong in Life.

What in the world are you talking about here? You're positing "Mind" as something different than a bunch of individuals' brains working in particular ways, so that we end up with a bunch of competing moral stances?

[creation]

Considering you do not provide any specific details I am not sure how to reply.

???

What sort of details would you be looking for?

Absolutely any examples or details, so then I can specifically point out exactly where and why you are not seeing and understanding what I am saying and meaning here.

Your confusion of what I am actually saying lays in what you are specifically looking at and seeing. When, and If, you provide those details, then I can show where and why you are confused.

Only human beings give a bunch of competing, conjointly inconsistent moral stances, but within every one there is a Mind, knowing of what is right and what is wrong in Life.

What in the world are you talking about here? You're positing "Mind" as something different than a bunch of individuals' brains working in particular ways, so that we end up with a bunch of competing moral stances?

Yes I am.

The Mind is God, the ALL-Knowing. This Mind is inside every human body, and if listened to, then 'salvation' and living in Peace would already be here on earth as it is in Heaven, the imagined place to be eternally.

Human brains, and the belief-system, is why earth is a war-torn, pollution-riddled, stressful and unloving hell, to be living in nowadays when this is being written.

[Terrapin Station]

The Mind is God, the ALL-Knowing. This Mind is inside every human body, and if listened to, then 'salvation' and living in Peace would already be here on earth as it is in Heaven, the imagined place to be eternally.

Human brains, and the belief-system, is why earth is a war-torn, pollution-riddled, stressful and unloving hell, to be living in nowadays when this is being written.

"Mind" in the sense that you're proposing it isn't something that exists. What exists is individual minds, which are identical to subsets of brainstates. Different individuals have very different views about morality. There is nothing like an "overarching mind" of the sort you're proposing.

[creation]

The Mind is God, the ALL-Knowing. This Mind is inside every human body, and if listened to, then 'salvation' and living in Peace would already be here on earth as it is in Heaven, the imagined place to be eternally.

Human brains, and the belief-system, is why earth is a war-torn, pollution-riddled, stressful and unloving hell, to be living in nowadays when this is being written.

"Mind" in the sense that you're proposing it isn't something that exists. What exists is individual minds, which are identical to subsets of brainstates.

If this is what you believe is true, then so be it. I will leave you believing this. By the way, you are not alone.

Obviously, my definition is not worthy of just looking at and considering for one moment to ask anything clarifying. You somehow KNOW that what I am proposing is not something that exists. So, I will leave you to that.

Different individuals have very different views about morality.

Obviously. But this is because of how the Mind and the brain actually work.

When you discover or learn how these work, then you will understand why different individuals have very different views about morality.

If you do discover or learn how the Mind and the brain actually work, then you will also know what is the proper and correct morality. But you are a long way off this now.

There is nothing like an "overarching mind" of the sort you're proposing.

The more you propose you KNOW what the absolute Truth IS, then the better this works for me.

[Terrapin Station]

then you will also know what is the proper and correct morality

There is no such thing. Morality is relative to individuals. Different individuals have different views. None of those views are correct or incorrect in any broader sense.