I have thought about these things Alan. Night is not a creation, it is a physical cause of matter blocking the Sun's rays. As for the other instances you mentioned,  War and Peace and such are not creations of anything but the physical mind reacting to fear which is the choice to overcome ego or be ruled by it. Our existence in this plane is dual, that I would certainly grant you, but ultimately there is only what is and that is consciousness. As for your above post Super Consciousness suits me fine as a definition as long it does not imply a separation relative to us of that consciousness. Again, I would have to substitute Consciousness for a god in this theory we are discussing. Unknown Laws of physics, well yeah, there you go. Our C1 Consciousness is a subset of our greater consciousness as the Actor self is the greater portion of the character we portray here. The need for a separate god at the center does not seem necessary to me, but to assuage our own ego. This a fairly new line of thought for me so I'm working it out. I think there is a hierarchy of something within consciousness that gives us the incentive to pull our selves up by our boot straps, but that is creation of consciousness and that it may only be relevant here in C1 as we attempt to grow the whole of consciousness or what you call God. Based on this I would have to resolve that Super Consciousness or God is evolving always and not stagnant though relative to us this great thing can appear already perfect.

Beau wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 5:11am:


Beau,

Are you really an atheist that would be a strange person in this forum of whom mostly are all believers in god each in our own unique way?

My near death experience made me move away from atheism, I believe the entity that accompanied in that event was an angel of some sort or a representative of the infinite one. In my opinion we are all separate molecules with the great infinite eternal ocean which we call god

The problem that many people have with God is caused by their natural tendency to humanize Him.

They think of God as a benevolent father figure and then get upset when bad things happen to good people and get angry and blame God for not protecting us.

Someone said God isn't Love, but Love is God.  That sounds about right at least to me.

If that's the case, I don't know how anyone can worship Love.  Yes, we can try as best we can to act loving toward others, as difficult that is most of the time.

In fact, maybe loving others IS the way we worship God.

R

The good and evil one is easy. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. One cannot exist without the other. There is no positive without negative. No yin without yang. You can only IMAGINE one without the other. You can imagine a world with nothing but good and a complete absence of evil. But how could that good have come to be? It would not even be good. It would just be the nature of that world, and nothing there would even be able to conceive that its nature was actually "good" because there is absolutely nothing else to compare it to and no one would have pure free will.

But by introducing evil, you expand the choices of free will to man. The consciousness can decipher on its own to choose one or choose both and decide the extremes of each. Evil has to exist to develop the consciousness towards its very own full understanding of both and how they contribute and affect us. It makes perfect sense to me. A world without evil is an imaginary world. Without evil our entire nature would change and free will would be more limited. Evil does not exist because "God" created it. Nothing ever told anyone "be evil!" The human makes that decision. It's all part of free will. Period.

And I agree about humanizing God. I have difficulty doing this. Unless Jesus really is the humanized version of God. Which I don't think so. My interpretation is that we won't even know its nature after death, but will know it exists and that it is truly the most miraculous thing which is possible to conceive. Our evolution in the Afterlife will be to merge with it. This won't happen immediately. It's another free will choice that must be developed.

"Maybe loving others IS the way we worship God."

I don't think there is a maybe to that. I think it's certain. What do we know to be the most powerful emotion, and most significant power in our lives? Love. Absolutely. If love is our greatest power, and "God" is the greatest power, then love is God. But love is not forced to us. We can acknowledge or ignore it. More of the wonderful thing that is free will.

Now if you want to argue that "knowledge," "thought," or "consciousness" are our most significant power, I would ask you to re think that. There are many creatures on this planet that do not display any of those things the same that we do. But one thing we can see of significance for most creatures is love. 

Is it just instinct that an animal protects its young? Or that herds, packs and prides protect, clean, and feed each other? Then you could argue that love is only an instinct. Fine. Then it's an instinct. You know love when you see it, and you know what comes from it.

But i'll do you one better than "God is love." God is love. God is knowledge. God is thought. God is imagination.

God is all that is good in the universe and everything we need to advance our planet, our species, and ourselves. That is God, and you would do really well to recognize it.

Good posts Stone,

I would just say that believing the world to be a virtual reality is only a metaphor. It is real relative to our existence in it. There are no flaws in the program that one would easily pick up on. It's not the same as a video game but the use of a physical body to get around in is the only thing that makes it real to the consciousness. It is a reality frame, just like dreaming or OOB. We give more attachment to it because we are hardwired to feel that way just like we are in a non lucid dream. When we are lucid in the physical reality dream then and only then do we see things for what they are. Consciousness is the only true experience is really what I'm saying. How consciousness interprets data brings this or any other reality to life. I'm not talking about the separation edge of consciousness that is really an ego thing. I mean the part of our consciousness that is fundamental.

Do you think being a philosopher implies operating from a belief? And one that you want to share kind of out of ego? I thought you might be hitting on that a bit. I like to think of myself as trying to make a scientific sense out of my subjective experiences but without the need to reach out to others for approval of it. Well, maybe Descartes didn't care for approval either. Not sure, of course.

But naturally there is an element of philosophy connected with anything in the realm we discuss, huh.

And yes, we certainly do require the ego to function here, no doubt. I guess it comes down to who is doing the driving, the chauffeur ego or the Self passenger. I want to tell my driver where I'm going.

Starcraft,

Ignore the Old Testament God. You and I both know that is not a god worth worshipping. If its possible to think of God in any aspect that you think is more flawed than yourself, then obviously it isn't so great and therefore is no more worth worshipping than any Pagan god. Just think of ole Yahweh as the most recent Zeus. He was created specifically as a means for order and control, especially for that time period.

If there just HAS to be religion, then I would at least hope that one day we get a god who people can no longer have conflictions with and truly signifies the perfection of all that is.

Beau,

I think a philosopher implies reasoning and deep thought to create a belief, theory, or general understanding of anything. A good philosopher relies on both the ego and the conscious to operate with. The best philosophers in my opinion, were agnostics. I think even agnostics deny being agnostic just because it contains a label. I've been like that before. I usually just tell people I'm not religious and I keep an open mind, but by the definition I would be considered an agnostic. Agnostics are much more complex than most people realize.

Atheistic philosophers constantly argue and create their thoughts from the opposition of religions. They don't focus enough on conscious thoughts mixed with finding what best suits the ego. It's all about trying to disprove religion. Because their belief is formed around not believing in a god, so is all of their thoughts, theories, and opinions.

But I don't think a philosopher has to operate on or from belief at all. I create theories that I deduce from knowledge, observation, and reasoning. I never turn these theories into beliefs because that would require closing my mind to the concept. I instead only share them to provoke thought and consciousness in others, and allow them to assist with the development. Not sharing the idea is much more egotistical. Never give but always offer.

As for the car ride, the ego is constantly wanting to drive. This is the problem with most people, in that they cannot control the ego like a parent unable to control a child. But if they would allow the conscious to drive a little they would see that it tames the ego. Everything I've read of the Afterlife, the focus levels, and all that stuff seems to imply the ego does not die with our bodies, but depending on how much control it was given will be the deciding factor in what happens next.