God and Human: Who has created Whom?

[gad-fly]

Who are you replying to here?
Surely you are joking if this is intended for me.

I have already told enough times; God, in the visible sense, is the Universe, Itself, which obviously created human beings, and, it is obviously human beings who created the word God, which in one sense just means the Universe, Itself. So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN IS; God created human beings, and, human beings created God.

Have you ever provided an answer for; Who has created whom?

The forum being open to all, my reply is meant for any party interested, unless specified otherwise. Your position has been well-known to me.

I have not provided an answer, though I may have some opinion. Furthermore, "create" is a term subject to different interpretation. This thread has a question mark on its title.

[creation]

Who are you replying to here?
Surely you are joking if this is intended for me.

I have already told enough times; God, in the visible sense, is the Universe, Itself, which obviously created human beings, and, it is obviously human beings who created the word God, which in one sense just means the Universe, Itself. So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN IS; God created human beings, and, human beings created God.

Have you ever provided an answer for; Who has created whom?

The forum being open to all, my reply is meant for any party interested, unless specified otherwise. Your position has been well-known to me.

I have not provided an answer, though I may have some opinion. Furthermore, "create" is a term subject to different interpretation. This thread has a question mark on its title.

I have to apologize profusely to you. I mistook you for someone else.

I may have, or must have, just seen the 'g' in your name and without reading it properly nor correctly associated it with "gater" and so I thought I was responding to "gater" and not you "gad-fly".

I was wondering why those things were being said and those questions were being asked.

Again, I apologize and am sorry for being so careless, for not reading more thoroughly, and for mixing you two up.

[gad-fly]

I have to apologize profusely to you. I mistook you for someone else.

Don't mention it. I may have made the same mistake too. We all appreciate you time and effort as can be seen in your detailed replies and patience. This forum would be much poorer without people like you.

[Ensrick]

I oppose any view that a deity or divinity is a proven to be real. I respect the willingness to believe in spite of a lack of evidence such as Soren Kierkegaard's 'Leap of Faith'. To claim the existence of a deity or god is an unfalsifiable claim. I sit firmly as an agnostic because I won't make the claim that divinity doesn't exist in some form but I find it much more probable that divinity is non-existent; like a 100:1 ratio.

[Papus79]

I oppose any view that a deity or divinity is a proven to be real. I respect the willingness to believe in spite of a lack of evidence such as Soren Kierkegaard's 'Leap of Faith'. To claim the existence of a deity or god is an unfalsifiable claim. I sit firmly as an agnostic because I won't make the claim that divinity doesn't exist in some form but I find it much more probable that divinity is non-existent; like a 100:1 ratio.

The language of 'gods' is also quite abrasive for historical reasons. I've often found it strange that you can say the same thing in two different parlances and get vary different reactions from similar kinds of people and you find out that this is because the historical terms tend to throw us into autopilot and those historical social and political contexts close down over the topic.

[creation]

I oppose any view that a deity or divinity is a proven to be real. I respect the willingness to believe in spite of a lack of evidence such as Soren Kierkegaard's 'Leap of Faith'. To claim the existence of a deity or god is an unfalsifiable claim. I sit firmly as an agnostic because I won't make the claim that divinity doesn't exist in some form but I find it much more probable that divinity is non-existent; like a 100:1 ratio.

Why do you want us to know this?

[creation]

I oppose any view that a deity or divinity is a proven to be real. I respect the willingness to believe in spite of a lack of evidence such as Soren Kierkegaard's 'Leap of Faith'. To claim the existence of a deity or god is an unfalsifiable claim. I sit firmly as an agnostic because I won't make the claim that divinity doesn't exist in some form but I find it much more probable that divinity is non-existent; like a 100:1 ratio.

The language of 'gods' is also quite abrasive for historical reasons. I've often found it strange that you can say the same thing in two different parlances and get vary different reactions from similar kinds of people and you find out that this is because the historical terms tend to throw us into autopilot and those historical social and political contexts close down over the topic.

It is not just historical factors that can weigh in on this. For example; I could say to you, in a just any way, "I do not want to argue about this with you".

And, you would have absolutely no idea at all in regards to what I am actually saying and meaning. The reaction I could get from you could be the exact opposite reaction I get from another person. Yet both of you may actually 'believe' that you both KNOW exactly what I am talking about, saying, and meaning. Yet you could be absolutely and utterly WRONG. It was not necessarily historical reasons why you are both now so confused about what I am actually saying and meaning, although you both do not believe that you are confused, it is the way human beings learn that has thrown both of you into "autopilot", which "CLOSES down the topic", as you say. Once a belief is formed by any one and is maintained, then they are CLOSED, and the topic is not for discussion anymore.

The absolutely confusing way words and their definitions are continually forming does not help in this matter at all.

The word 'argue', and its completely opposite definitions, is just but one example of countless other examples of how and why so called "philosophical discussions" appear to be unresolved, and unsolvable.

What created humans? The Universe, obviously.

God, is just another word, for describing the Universe, Itself, (or Nature, Consciousness, Life, Existence, et cetera, in the ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, ALL-over sense and perspective).

Who created the word God? Human beings, obviously.

The question: God and human: Who has created whom?

The answer: Both.

Solved, and resolved, very simply and very easily. But this is only to 'Me'.

If the answer to this question still remains a mystery to anyone else, then so be it. It does not to 'Me'.

As for any other so called "mysteries in and of Life", well they are already also known to and by 'Me'.

Deciphering language, words, definitions, and meanings, is what it takes to know and understand if you are gaining the true, right, and correct answers, thus knowledge.

[Papus79]

Well then - I do not want to argue about this with you.

[Papus79]

My honest opinion - I don't think traditions really get us across the finish line in understanding this and what's tricky is that people can have profound spiritual transformative experiences with any religion and thus think it's evidence that theirs is the one true religion. It's more like, if there is something out there, it's the field. Some people could think of that as the Ancient of Days. When I was studying Hermetic Qabalah I noticed that the 19th century and early 20th century was really big on synchretism, the lower seven of ten sephirah representing the seven Tolemaic planets and the deities those planets represented to different cultures. You can go to places like "Become A Living God" or other modern occult forums and you'll find that Source, or whatever people want to call it, wears many hats including Lilith, Lucifer, and whatever other dieties they'd claim to work with.

I really don't think we're anywhere close to really figuring out what we're dealing with no matter how many NDE'ers get interviewed. Some people think it's a massive conscious agent that subsumes all other conscious agents and that it's forever extending itself outward into something like Godel's Incompleteness Theorum, craving novelty and seeing it anywhere it can be found (and you can have strange electrifying moments in your life when you know that 'that' was one of 'those' moments where it's like you were center stage in a arena).

We're in a mystery, it's likely to remain largely a mystery, and if it becomes less mysterious it's quite likely that the rules will shift to throw us right back off balance.

I think what tends to annoy me, and why I prefer to shift language about things, is it's a bit like Howard Stern's interviewer in Harlem giving Obama all of McCain's policy's and everyone approving of them because they were supposedly Obamah's policies. I have staunch atheist friends who I can talk about certain things with and certain things they can process, certain things they shut down immediately and they go into what's best described (thank you Jordan Hall) as 'simulated thinking', ie. script and reaction - it's religion and religious language that does that. You can say the same exact thing, maybe cautiously or putting distance but it seems like it's the how of what's said rather than the actual content and this happens without you actually changing the content in any significant way other than simply not using historical labels. We're tribal creatures, we have tribal identities, and accordingly our on/off switches revolve around knee-jerk emotional reactions to these whole-package idea baskets. IMHO, pretty much on any topic, we need to find a way to shut that habit down if we want enough critical thinking to go on as a species.

[Ensrick]

And, you would have absolutely no idea at all in regards to what I am actually saying and meaning. The reaction I could get from you could be the exact opposite reaction I get from another person. Yet both of you may actually 'believe' that you both KNOW exactly what I am talking about, saying, and meaning. Yet you could be absolutely and utterly WRONG. It was not necessarily historical reasons why you are both now so confused about what I am actually saying and meaning, although you both do not believe that you are confused, it is the way human beings learn that has thrown both of you into "autopilot", which "CLOSES down the topic", as you say. Once a belief is formed by anyone and is maintained, then they are CLOSED, and the topic is not for discussion anymore.

Well, I wasn't addressing you specifically but If by "closing the topic" you mean, not giving unfalsifiable claims credit, then sure.

God, is just another word, for describing the Universe, Itself, (or Nature, Consciousness, Life, Existence, et cetera, in the ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, ALL-over sense and perspective).

That seems like unsubstantiated claims based on your willingness to believe them: the idea that God is just another word for the universe and has omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence--I'm going to disagree rather than "close the topic". This idea that God is the universe is akin to Russel's Teapot.

[creation]

Well then - I do not want to argue about this with you.

You do not want to argue about 'what' exactly?

What is 'this', which you are referring to here?

This is another prime example of how it is only through clarification how people can gain a true and full understanding of 'each other', us.

[creation]

My honest opinion - I don't think traditions really get us across the finish line in understanding this and what's tricky is that people can have profound spiritual transformative experiences with any religion and thus think it's evidence that theirs is the one true religion. It's more like, if there is something out there, it's the field. Some people could think of that as the Ancient of Days. When I was studying Hermetic Qabalah I noticed that the 19th century and early 20th century was really big on synchretism, the lower seven of ten sephirah representing the seven Tolemaic planets and the deities those planets represented to different cultures. You can go to places like "Become A Living God" or other modern occult forums and you'll find that Source, or whatever people want to call it, wears many hats including Lilith, Lucifer, and whatever other dieties they'd claim to work with.

I really don't think we're anywhere close to really figuring out what we're dealing with no matter how many NDE'ers get interviewed. Some people think it's a massive conscious agent that subsumes all other conscious agents and that it's forever extending itself outward into something like Godel's Incompleteness Theorum, craving novelty and seeing it anywhere it can be found (and you can have strange electrifying moments in your life when you know that 'that' was one of 'those' moments where it's like you were center stage in a arena).

We're in a mystery, it's likely to remain largely a mystery, and if it becomes less mysterious it's quite likely that the rules will shift to throw us right back off balance.

I think what tends to annoy me, and why I prefer to shift language about things, is it's a bit like Howard Stern's interviewer in Harlem giving Obama all of McCain's policy's and everyone approving of them because they were supposedly Obamah's policies. I have staunch atheist friends who I can talk about certain things with and certain things they can process, certain things they shut down immediately and they go into what's best described (thank you Jordan Hall) as 'simulated thinking', ie. script and reaction - it's religion and religious language that does that. You can say the same exact thing, maybe cautiously or putting distance but it seems like it's the how of what's said rather than the actual content and this happens without you actually changing the content in any significant way other than simply not using historical labels. We're tribal creatures, we have tribal identities, and accordingly our on/off switches revolve around knee-jerk emotional reactions to these whole-package idea baskets. IMHO, pretty much on any topic, we need to find a way to shut that habit down if we want enough critical thinking to go on as a species.

If you want 'critical thinking', then just be curious, stop assuming and/or believing that you already know what the truth is, remain truly open, be truly honest, and just be serious about changing, for the better. That way all those so called "mysteries" are revealed and/or come to light. All answers to all meaningful questions, which are currently "mysteries" to some people, become almost instantly known and understood, once you learn how and thus know how to find them.

[Papus79]

If you want 'critical thinking', then just be curious, stop assuming and/or believing that you already know what the truth is, remain truly open, be truly honest, and just be serious about changing, for the better. That way all those so called "mysteries" are revealed and/or come to light. All answers to all meaningful questions, which are currently "mysteries" to some people, become almost instantly known and understood, once you learn how and thus know how to find them.

Yeah, this is why we don't talk often.

[Papus79]

The day anyone here has a truly persuasive and powerful 'theory of everything' that encompasses all of the layers of mathematical physics, resolves the differences between GR and QM, understands exactly what consciousness is within that, understands precisely what space and time are and the primitives those spin up from, and what those primitives spin up from, and can answer from solid testable math whether or not there's anything teleological happening - that's the day when someone here has something to teach us all. My guess is they'll be going to Stockholm for a Nobel prize, maybe several times over, if they ever exist.

If someone is sure they have all the answers - great, start writing extensive research papers, sending them to scholarly journals, and don't bother with a bunch of chattle on a forum when it's getting in the way of your world fame and people properly appraising your talents and abilities!

[Sy Borg]

Papus, there are plenty of potential Nobel Prize laureates on the forum. We are lucky to have so many geniuses who can be certain of all manner of phenomena without needing to bother with evidence.