What if god does not know of you

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The existence of matter is not a metaphysical question by definition.

O.K. matter is actual fact of every day life to you but is it the same with every single atom? What I am saying is that just becouse something isnt apparent at first sight it doesnt mean its a speculation.

 

[JohannaK]

As long as more than one view can be held on the same subject by two people who cannot infallibly refute each other, I'll consider it speculation.

 

[Darkflight]

Here is a man with interesting ideas. I would really enjoy it if you could bother joining the discussion. Although I assure you that you would be just wasting your time.

You guys are so metaphysical and confusing right now that I can't really be bothered spending the time understanding and following all of it. I am simply not in the mood to spend the time as some of the other forums I frequent on a more regular basis take alot of my "internet forum discussion energy".

I think that there really isn't any motivation for me to think much more about religion anyway as I feel that my conclusions that I outlined in my previous post pretty much sums up my personal views on god and I am satisfied with that conclusion. I have also basically stopped discussing it with people. Partly because I mostly don't like to talk to people more then absolutely necessary to not seem like a total asshat and partly because I feel that it's a topic that people are so locked in (myself included) that it always quickly ends with a lot of butthurt from everyone or an agree-too-disagree situation.

 

[Kyriakos]

Here is a man with interesting ideas. I would really enjoy it if you could bother joining the discussion. Although I assure you that you would be just wasting your time.

It's an RD thread, bro, change your attitude accordingly cause it got boring fast

 

[Kyriakos]

Relativity is the order of the day. If your dominat hand is right its proably going to make more work in the span of your life than the left one but where is the injustice?
If you can look at it from little higher point of view the truth appears different - sometimes entirely. The usual human judgment mainly based in egocentric pov with the mass of desires to fulfill is something quite natural but very far from what human being is capable of achieving. Some people have achieved great feats through great sacrifices but we are inclined only to see the whipecream on the cake. Becouse of our limited understanding we appreciate human beings and the world in peculiar superficial way. Somebody may suffer but who says that by handling this suffering isnt performing a great feat?

It is a possibility (namely that all humans are in some manner "one", either concurrently or in the endless time and so on) but personally i do not have any reason to consider it as more likely than the opposite, which would be that every human is pretty much entirely distinct, along with his mental world, from all others, forever.

To argue that suffering (even greatly) is performing a great feat, is (mostly) again not my view, cause while i can see how some people suffering greatly can later on move on to expand their existence, it would seem that:

a) this is not at all the norm

b) even if they do so, it is not at all evident that they would not have been able to expand in the same (or a better way) without the suffering.

In my view suffering is not needed, for anything. It is existent, obviously, but that is negative. And i mean notable suffering (as in great depression or other pain, caused by either 'real' problems or percieved ones).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Question: is an existence of an atom actual fact in your life or methaphysical speculation?

The difference there is that research into atoms produce verifiable reproducible results.

In short: it makes stuff work.

What I am saying is just because something isnt apparent at first sight it doesnt mean its a speculation

You're right. The fact there's no scientific evidence, no verification on the claims, no reproducible results is what makes it mere speculation.

A rule of thumb is: if the counter claim: "no it is not", has the same amount of evidence supporting it as the claim, it's speculation.

For instance:
"there is one Source, we are all part of that Source,etc." Speculation
"God is whole." Speculation
"However from my perspective its closer to Truth then any other such way of thinking I have so far came across." Speculation. But you're honest about it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Translation: truth are actual facts of everyday life, Truth is speculation about metaphysic questions.

Kinda. If it's speculation, then it's not a metaphysical truth. Capital T Truths need to be necessarily true. The problem is that people will take these truths and then spin them with metaphysical speculation.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It is a possibility (namely that all humans are in some manner "one", either concurrently or in the endless time and so on) but personally i do not have any reason to consider it as more likely than the opposite, which would be that every human is pretty much entirely distinct, along with his mental world, from all others, forever.

If there is one centre where it all started the oneness is more likely then the opposite, me thinks

To argue that suffering (even greatly) is performing a great feat, is (mostly) again not my view, cause while i can see how some people suffering greatly can later on move on to expand their existence, it would seem that:

a) this is not at all the norm

b) even if they do so, it is not at all evident that they would not have been able to expand in the same (or a better way) without the suffering.

Thats not what I am trying to say but rather:
a) not inviting but facing suffering and pain when it comes is the great feat

b) I have seen quite a few people who after suffering great deal could totaly change the quality and enjoyment of their life. So in this case suffering can be viewed as sort of blessing....

In my view suffering is not needed, for anything. It is existent, obviously, but that is negative. And i mean notable suffering (as in great depression or other pain, caused by either 'real' problems or percieved ones).

Agreed.

 

[Kyriakos]

If there is one centre where it all started the oneness is more likely then the opposite, me thinks

Maybe. But it is possible that there never was such a centre to begin with. I tend to prefer the view that the mass as a phenomenon is not actually an end-all of something, but a sort of pseudo-manifestation of a mass-less reality. Maybe nothing actually changes in regards of a mass expanding in the beginning, cause there was no beginning anyway.

But i do think that distinction is real, despite being the center of human examination of any phenomenon. In other words i do think that every person is pretty much distinct from anything else, in ways that cannot change.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Maybe. But it is possible that there never was such a centre to begin with. I tend to prefer the view that the mass as a phenomenon is not actually an end-all of something, but a sort of pseudo-manifestation of a mass-less reality. Maybe nothing actually changes in regards of a mass expanding in the beginning, cause there was no beginning anyway.

But i do think that distinction is real, despite being the center of human examination of any phenomenon. In other words i do think that every person is pretty much distinct from anything else, in ways that cannot change.

What you say seems plausible but its seems to me that this mess-less reality would be characterised be some form of unity/oneness as well. Then to get from this state to distinctive multiple units you get through some form of concealing and contradictory force. Which may be viewed at from certain point as the opposite / evil.