NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't have a very traditional view of spirituality. Everything I do tends to be rooted very closely in the realm of logic, so I examine the simple truths about our universe and interpret them accordingly. First some core principles need to be addressed.

First, we must be quite sure that Something created this. Something created us; whether you believe in God or not some manner of energy had to spawn what we call the universe. This cannot be denied.

Second, if we are to accept that such a creator figure exists we have to be aware of some basic absolutes of how he interacts with us. If He interferes too heavily, and makes himself manifest directly to us on a number of occasions then the people become unable to live their own lives. Civilization wouldn't serve much purpose in existing solely as his appendage. Everything suddenly becomes an issue of how often you can worship or how much you can give God. If on the other hand, if he does nothing at all, then people will come to doubt his existence and they'll start fighting over it. Civilization serves even less of a purpose by not existing.

So what gives? Where's the middle ground? I'll tell you where it is padre. God is creation energy. God set the wheels of the universe in motion, but ultimately he's not responsible for everything that goes on within it. The best analogy to this that I can think of is an architect. Think about what happens when an architect sits down and puts pen to paper. He's transforming electric impluses from his brain into reality. Is this not creation?

The idea that we as a race are supposed to act to a certain standard to please him is ridiculous. Its obvious that we hold our own keys, and its obvious that God isn't looming enormous right outside my window right now.

Or is he? That brings me around to my thesis: I believe God is creation. He simultaneously is and isn't. He is everything and he is nothing. He is present when we think, when we sleep, when we pay our taxes.

This is a theory I've devised more or less on my own, with a little help from the creators of Futurama. Any thoughts?

You have succinctly put what I have long considered to be the most probable, and I assume you have as well. Aside from one or two pedantic points that I can't see but doubtless exist, I agree with you entirely.

edit: and yes, this post is weak. But then, creation springs most easily from conflict, and I'm not conflicting with you. Damn.

I can see where you are coming from. To me, if there is some supreme power, it would not be so much of an entity, but more of some sort of energy flow that we are all kind of swept up in. It isn't cognizant of what is doing or where it is going, but due to something that I couldn't begin to explain it is constantly moving and blindly orchestrating all of this. Life may be an obstruction to the flow or it may be an acceleration of the flow.

It is one of those thoughts that are pretty jumbled and one can never quite organize them into a sensible thought.

Right. I'm not entirely certain that there's any one identifiable entity that we can point to and call "God" but it doesn't strike me as particularly rational to believe that he's essentially a giant human living [presumably] somewhere in or above deep space.

im not trying to be an ass i just want to throw some ideas out into the open.

Everything I do tends to be rooted very closely in the realm of logic


logic for the most part is rooted in making sense of chaos. hence, logic is birthed of chaos and thus being a product of chaos can never truly be eastablished as fact. just as the fact there is never just one truth. all truths are subject to misinterpretation (interpretation) by the individual who reviews the facts.

First, we must be quite sure that Something created this. Something created us; whether you believe in God or not some manner of energy had to spawn what we call the universe. This cannot be denied.

why must we be sure something created us? in order for things to exist the opposite must also be true; they also do not exist. by merely just having a belief denotes an underlying disbelief, for to imagine life with something is also to imagine life without.

Civilization serves even less of a purpose by not existing.

why does civilization need to serve a purpose? and who are we to say which purpose it fills? and i guess who are we not to say what purpose it fills?

The idea that we as a race are supposed to act to a certain standard to please him is ridiculous. Its obvious that we hold our own keys, and its obvious that God isn't looming enormous right outside my window right now.

i gree with you here. i find it sad and a little funny when events in our lives unfold how some people decree it as possibly being the will of God or act of God. and i ask this; what makes people feel so important that they warrant the attention of God? i believe this is just a testament to how lonely and desperate people can feel sometimes. how they being unable to help themselves turn to something which they believe can help them.

I don't have a very traditional view of spirituality. Everything I do tends to be rooted very closely in the realm of logic, so I examine the simple truths about our universe and interpret them accordingly. First some core principles need to be addressed.

First, we must be quite sure that Something created this. Something created us; whether you believe in God or not some manner of energy had to spawn what we call the universe. This cannot be denied.

Second, if we are to accept that such a creator figure exists we have to be aware of some basic absolutes of how he interacts with us. If He interferes too heavily, and makes himself manifest directly to us on a number of occasions then the people become unable to live their own lives. Civilization wouldn't serve much purpose in existing solely as his appendage. Everything suddenly becomes an issue of how often you can worship or how much you can give God. If on the other hand, if he does nothing at all, then people will come to doubt his existence and they'll start fighting over it. Civilization serves even less of a purpose by not existing.

So what gives? Where's the middle ground? I'll tell you where it is padre. God is creation energy. God set the wheels of the universe in motion, but ultimately he's not responsible for everything that goes on within it. The best analogy to this that I can think of is an architect. Think about what happens when an architect sits down and puts pen to paper. He's transforming electric impluses from his brain into reality. Is this not creation?

The idea that we as a race are supposed to act to a certain standard to please him is ridiculous. Its obvious that we hold our own keys, and its obvious that God isn't looming enormous right outside my window right now.

Or is he? That brings me around to my thesis: I believe God is creation. He simultaneously is and isn't. He is everything and he is nothing. He is present when we think, when we sleep, when we pay our taxes.

This is a theory I've devised more or less on my own, with a little help from the creators of Futurama. Any thoughts?
Excellent post, it sounds like the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, which I was forced to read for history class a few weeks ago. Your post is admirably concise and far more useful than the Age of Reason, which was a horribly boring book.

"Haven't you heard the who in the bright morning lit a lantern and ran around the marketplace crying incessantly, 'I'm looking for God! I'm looking for God!' Thus they shouted and laughed, one interrupting the other. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. 'Where is God?' he cried; 'I'll tell you! We have killed him-you and I! We are all his murderers.' "

Friedrich Nietzsche

Thats all God is, a dead idea which people still cling to. A corpse which is thought to be alive. Well if God exists where is he? Why are we imperfect when he is supposedly all powerful and all knowing and we were created in his image? Why where we supposedly created by God?

There can't possibly be a sentient God creature, 'cos that just starts the question up again. What created God? Where did it come from? Etc. So the idea of a God does not answer anything, it just shuffles the question down before this 'God' did what it did.

If there is no all encompasing all powerful god that watches what we do, but just some creature that happened to start it all off, what kind of god is this? It need not be anything intelligent at all, so why call it a god?

If you think this god thing is a type of energy or something, then it's just part of the Universe, and so the entire Universe should be your 'god'.

One of the things I hate about religions is the way they take the glory out of the natural universe and order of things. By saying this is all some creation of a god belittles how amazing the universe and the laws of nature really are.

God is a drunken vision

I don't have a very traditional view of spirituality. Everything I do tends to be rooted very closely in the realm of logic, so I examine the simple truths about our universe and interpret them accordingly. First some core principles need to be addressed.

First, we must be quite sure that Something created this. Something created us; whether you believe in God or not some manner of energy had to spawn what we call the universe. This cannot be denied.

Second, if we are to accept that such a creator figure exists we have to be aware of some basic absolutes of how he interacts with us. If He interferes too heavily, and makes himself manifest directly to us on a number of occasions then the people become unable to live their own lives. Civilization wouldn't serve much purpose in existing solely as his appendage. Everything suddenly becomes an issue of how often you can worship or how much you can give God. If on the other hand, if he does nothing at all, then people will come to doubt his existence and they'll start fighting over it. Civilization serves even less of a purpose by not existing.

So what gives? Where's the middle ground? I'll tell you where it is padre. God is creation energy. God set the wheels of the universe in motion, but ultimately he's not responsible for everything that goes on within it. The best analogy to this that I can think of is an architect. Think about what happens when an architect sits down and puts pen to paper. He's transforming electric impluses from his brain into reality. Is this not creation?

The idea that we as a race are supposed to act to a certain standard to please him is ridiculous. Its obvious that we hold our own keys, and its obvious that God isn't looming enormous right outside my window right now.

Or is he? That brings me around to my thesis: I believe God is creation. He simultaneously is and isn't. He is everything and he is nothing. He is present when we think, when we sleep, when we pay our taxes.

This is a theory I've devised more or less on my own, with a little help from the creators of Futurama. Any thoughts?I Believe that every thing u said is completly true god is the way!!! :sniper: :rolleyes: :) :gundge: :eek:

How can you say something simultaneously exists and does not. This makes as much sense as saying God created himself, he must exist to create himself, but must not exist because he was created by himself. So therefore he must have always existed. If you follow Einstein's theory of time and space it sorta makes sense. he exists outside time and space as a spiritual being.

What does spiritual mean?
The spirit or soul is just chemistry, can't exist outside the universe. The universe is everything.

How can you say something simultaneously exists and does not. This makes as much sense as saying God created himself, he must exist to create himself, but must not exist because he was created by himself. So therefore he must have always existed. If you follow Einstein's theory of time and space it sorta makes sense. he exists outside time and space as a spiritual being.

I'll tell you how: he's everything in that the sum of all matter in the universe is, essentially, his being. He's nothing in that he's also present in the vacuum of space. Does that make sense?

excellent post, it sounds like the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, which I was forced to read for history class a few weeks ago. Your post is admirably concise and far more useful than the Age of Reason, which was a horribly boring book.

Funny you should bring this up; I'm related to Thomas Paine.

logic for the most part is rooted in making sense of chaos. hence, logic is birthed of chaos and thus being a product of chaos can never truly be eastablished as fact. just as the fact there is never just one truth. all truths are subject to misinterpretation (interpretation) by the individual who reviews the facts.

Perhaps one thing I failed to mention in my post was the fallability of man. It's obviously always a very distinct possibility that we're all wrong about pretty much everything. This jsut seems to make the most sense to me.

why must we be sure something created us? in order for things to exist the opposite must also be true; they also do not exist. by merely just having a belief denotes an underlying disbelief, for to imagine life with something is also to imagine life without.

Ummm... a building doesn't get built without a construction crew, that's why. It's one of those simple truths about the universe: shit doesn't spring up out of nowhere. There must be a catalyst.

why does civilization need to serve a purpose? and who are we to say which purpose it fills? and i guess who are we not to say what purpose it fills?

I never said it did. That paragraph assumed that God existed in the traditional sense; like how it's written in the Bible or whatnot. If that's the case, then civilization is obviously meant to serve some sort of purpose. From where I sit there's an inherent flaw with assuming God operates like this, but I've already explained it.

This is a theory I've devised more or less on my own, with a little help from the creators of Futurama. Any thoughts?
Congratulations on your invention of a 300 year-old religion... one, probably not coincidentally, followed by Thomas Paine.

Um... thanks?

Did that really serve any purpose?