The God of Sophion

alchemistofophir

What he wrote...

What is God for me
* The force, the first, the ever existing, the great mystery...


And i tried to think about that...

If God is omnipresent - God should exist in all realms of existence. on earth, in hell, heaven. He is the driving force behind the existence of those realms.

If God is omnipotent - God should be the cause of everything. The first cause and the ultimate cause of the causes. Prayers being vibrations that we transmit to the force which will eventually cause things to happen. The mysterious force that causes things that are beyond our prediction.

If God is omnibenevolent - God should be the sustainer of existence. This force is the driving force of life, growth, change, evolution.

If God is eternal - God should be above and beyond existence. He is the force holding existence, giving it life and death. If God is within existence, then God won't be eternal.

To suffice all of this, God should be void of human attributes. God is the force. The invisible, neutral, unexplainable force that caused things to be. it is neither good nor evil. And existence is one of the infinite possibilities that God instanced to form our existence. This is why we have universal constants. Constants just mean adherence to a single instance. If God is eternal and infinite and is above and beyond his creations, then there are other instances of existence. Multiverses if you may, rooted in One God.


I think this is the God of Sophion. And if this is it, then we have the same God.

sophion

^ even though i'm agnostic i agree with nearly everything you said. it makes sense.

i said for me god is the ever existing. so we are all from god, we are all part of god. that makes him omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolet and eternal. its a combo-package.

now i wont say that god is totally devoid of human attributes. human attributes may not dictate what the "ultimate existence"/"God" is, but its still a part of God.

Ateo

Is there proof that your God is omnibenevolent? What does omnibenevolence mean anyway in light of that boy from La Union featured in TV raising his two younger brothers alone while he tried to come to school regularly. The situation broke my heart, and I raised a fat f*cking **** finger to your omnibenevolent God who is supposed to hear everything.

sophion

Ateo wrote: »

Is there proof that your God is omnibenevolent? What does omnibenevolence mean anyway in light of that boy from La Union featured in TV raising his two younger brothers alone while he tried to come to school regularly. The situation broke my heart, and I raised a fat f*cking **** finger to your omnibenevolent God who is supposed to hear everything.

he defined omnibenevolent as "God should be the sustainer of existence". i figured that since we are all part of god....then being sustained comes in automatically.
well not in a way most people would expect....people suffer and die but mother nature gets to recycle them. matter is made of energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. it just exists. its self sustaining. its the substance of god!

alchemistofophir

omnibenevolence = sustainer of existence. the reason why we exist. it's that benevolence that allow dualities to happen. life and death. good and bad. 0 and 1s. i defined God to be neutral and above and beyond those dualities. his benevolence is the mere fact that we exist, undergo life and death, experience good and bad things.

he is the reason why we exist. and remove dualities inherent in existence and we see that God is omnibenevolent for the fact that he sustains our existence.

Ateo

sophion wrote: »

he defined omnibenevolent as "God should be the sustainer of existence". i figured that since we are all part of god....then being sustained comes in automatically.
well not in a way most people would expect....people suffer and die but mother nature gets to recycle them. matter is made of energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. it just exists. its self sustaining. its the substance of god!

I am dismayed. Christians are able to redefine/distort normal meaning of words. But, I put you at a higher standard. Omnibenevolence requires an infinitely compassionate deity. The concept runs smack into the Problem of Evil, the concept of Hell, and many other logical objections.

sophion

^ hey i was just going along alchemistofophir's thoughts. personally i have never considered god as omnibenevolent, ever since leaving christianity behind.

Ateo

There are many theologians who reject the concept of omnibenevolence because it is the weakest link in the theological logic. It is only an OA version of the Christian theology.

alaskador10

Ang diyos ni Sophion ay siya ang may control kung anong klaseng god ito, si Allah, sa madaling salita, atheist siya.

Ateo

sophion wrote: »

^ hey i was just going along alchemistofophir's thoughts. personally i have never considered god as omnibenevolent, ever since leaving christianity behind.

Forget omnibenevolence. It is an absurd characteristic. Had they claim that their God is generally benevolent or selectively benevolent, that would have been more acceptable. Even other less weird omnis, like omniscience and omnipresence, don't have to be God's characteristics. God, if she exists, can still be God without being omnipresent. An over-acting theologian in the Dark Ages must have invented these omnis. In the Bible, God did not claim or exhibit omnipresence.

Your belief right now, Sophion, seems to be Deism or Pantheism or Panentheism. In all cases, those refer to God who are not personal and don't really care about your sexual habits or whether or you are good or bad. She is not even necessarily here -- must have left right after creating the Earth (as a science project, perhaps). Therefore, your God is definitely not omnibenevolent.

jagaruga

I know this may have been discussed before but, how would one know the standards for benevolence anyway from an atheistic model of the world?

marcus_hunt

You can't possibly understand god because he works in mysterious ways. So anong omni omni yan?!?

jagaruga

Any absolute anyway would have a contradicting effect on its own, logically. That's why there's the "Law of Non-Contradiction" to limit the absolute--- which itself is contradictory.

'Pag sinabi mo na "The only thing constant in this world is change." Biglang may sasagot, "Bakit ang mga mathematical constants gaya ng "pi" at "e" hindi nagbabago?"

'Pag sinabi mong "Lahat ng sobra ay masama." May pilosopong sasagot na "Bakit, masama ba maging sobrang buti?"

'Pag sinabi mong "Ignore all rules." may magsasabing "Rule din yan ah."

Ateo

jagaruga wrote: »

I know this may have been discussed before but, how would one know the standards for benevolence anyway from an atheistic model of the world?

In an atheistic viewpoint, benevolence is determined by a secular standard. By sheer coincidence, our current view of benevolence is actually secular.

Is it benevolent to kill a heretic to save her soul? Currently, with secular laws, it is not. In theistic times (Dark Ages), yes, the killing of heretics at the stakes was a sign of benevolence to the person's soul.

Is it more benevolent to teach a young Jewish child about his culture? The answer is yes! Again, according to our current secular standard. In less secular time, it is more benevolent to baptize the child and force him to learn the teachings of the Christ.

As you can clearly see in my examples, our standards of benevolence are now atheistic. They are determined through the secular concept of humanism (where humans and not gods are supreme) and based on the principles of human rights.

jagaruga

Ateo wrote: »

In an atheistic viewpoint, benevolence is determined by a secular standard. By sheer coincidence, our current view of benevolence is actually secular.

Is it benevolent to kill a heretic to save her soul? Currently, with secular laws, it is not. In theistic times (Dark Ages), yes, the killing of heretics at the stakes was a sign of benevolence to the person's soul.

Is it more benevolent to teach a young Jewish child about his culture? The answer is yes! Again, according to our current secular standard. In less secular time, it is more benevolent to baptize the child and force him to learn the teachings of the Christ.

As you can clearly see in my examples, our standards of benevolence are now atheistic. They are determined through the secular concept of humanism (where humans and not gods are supreme) and based on the principles of human rights.

Thanks Ateo. This is nice to know. Who sets what is right though? Is it a majority vote?

Jagon

the force?

so saan ka banda? sa dark side of sa light side?

ilan ang midi-chlorian count mo?

sophion

^ sa light side po. right now looking for a jedi master to complete my training.

Ateo

Omnibenevolent God...

Factoter

Ateo wrote: »

Omnibenevolent God...

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1625588_598683973520188_1144469533_n.jpg?oh=e86f4710b9003a8fde54c552875abc5f&oe=548F181D

Amen !

toroidalhelix

The Superconscious Mind is not just a Force. Matter is said to be made up of condensed energy or force. But beyond energy or force is Consciousness. All is Mind. Everything is interconnected. The Universe is like a clockwork with its gears meshes perfectly. There is no such thing as coincidence. Everythings happens for a reason and always at the right time. Every karmic fate that befells man serves to strengthen him and give him lessons.

The Divine virtues are human virtues as well. It's man's birthright to be divine. As the Christ and other Divine beings(humans who ascended to the Source) said Ye are Gods and I and the Father is One. But man's smaller ego is keeping away from that birthright. His pride his downfall. Like a Phoenix bird or the Kundalini bird he must transmute and ascend from the base carnal desires of his serpent self. The pattern of Life is Love itself. Going against the pattern of life is creating disharmonies, dis-ease or imbalances. We should love in order to live. We must live in order to love. Love is the Law but love under strong will.

jagaruga

Definitely not a force because force = mass x acceleration.