I'd like to point out a few bits of theosophic wisdom that should be obvious

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
So this is my attempt to explain to you what has been said time and again in Gnosticism and Theosophy.. God.. is.. EVIL.

Well, that didn't need all that fluff. May I suggest starting with that slanderous hateful claim first next time. Or does that show one's true colors too much too soon in the comment?

Song 1 Jehovah's Attributes (vocals)

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Read right through. I had to look up the meanings of "deism" and "ontology", but I can follow your thinking when I restructure to multiple overlapping creators polydeism(?).

You know, I'm not schooled nor skilled in philosophy and try to keep within the bounds of "pragmatic".

Having said that; for me; your words are navigatable. That is to say; I can use the concepts to navigate through what is within the context.

So


You write from the point of an ultimate creator, deism(?).

I wonder if "deism" can be understood if it is within polydeism? I can follow that creators exist within and beside creators.

An ultimate creator? Hmmm, my head hurts

a reply to: whereislogic

How exactly am I being hateful? By not assuming that your 'God' is benevolent and nice?

No amount of wishful thinking will make it so that your Jehova be anything more than a perverted fantasy. No amount of faith will change reality.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I'll quote some more from the book:

"
Deism is the belief that God created the Universe, but has since left it to run its natural course and does not interfere with it directly. In Deism there is no requirement of worship, yet it could make sense to do so, if that is what one truly wants to do with his own free will. It would seem that the Deist God does not particularly desire to be worshiped, but might be happy if you sincerely wanted to. This fits with the idea of God's perfect moral character.

In some interpretations of Deism, God is completely impersonal and that might imply that he/she has no personal character. I, however, believe that while God may be impersonal, he/she does have a character and his/her character is divinely perfect. It has been written on the topic of moral saints, that those of such character are necessarily lacking in charisma or personal character. While I find this idea interesting, I cannot completely agree with it. If God's perfect moral character serves to uplift everything in Creation, including ourselves, then there can be no greater reason for our sincere love and appreciation.

Let us get to the most important distinction between Deism and Theism. While in Theism, God is supposed to rule over the Universe, in Deism God has created the perfect Universe and has since decided to abide by its laws. In a way, the Deist God chooses to limit his/her omnipotence for the Greater Good and that is an extension of his/her perfect moral character. On these grounds I find the Deist case infinitely more appealing, as in Theism it is as if we were all God's playthings and there is an infinite chasm between us, while in Deism we are existentially free. Free to live our life in any way we want, free to choose and to explore, to love and to grow. In Deism God has set us free.

Moving forward. The reason that the Deist God does not interfere in Creation is that his/her Greater Good involved creating the best of all possible worlds. Here, we should clarify that the best of all possible worlds is likely a perfect synthesis of all possible worlds. Thus, God has poured all of his/her being into the creation of the One Supernatural Universe (or perhaps a Multiverse), which is the ultimate expression of God's perfect moral character. Having poured his/her whole being into the perfect Universe (or Multiverse), there is simply nothing more left to do. God does still interact with it, but only in accordance with his perfect mode of conduit. On the other hand, there is a striking problem with Theism in that the Theist God just can't seem to get the Universe quite right and has to interfere and change certain aspects of it. While the idea that God intervenes on our behalf might seem comforting to people (and there is nothing wrong with that, as nothing is too good to be true), it is also a bit suspect as we should assume that God got it right the first time. "

I've moved on since writing this chapter and I consider it to be quite light-polarity. But I think there is some truth to it. If we really need God, I guess he might turn up eventually, but he's nothing like the God of the Abrahamic religions.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Okay, I follow the reasoning. And I spose it does not really matter if we have one god or multiple gods.

Hmmm, I dunno if I can do this as a purely interlectual exercise.

In practical human centric terms, my own view in this case, as soon as I try to give a character to a god, the exercise starts to take me to places. Angry places that don't like me and are hostile. There is a reason for the hostility; they see an enemy at the gate, so to speak. We don't get on, and there are grudges on both sides still. As soon as I move into Bhuddist, Christian or any other religeon(?)'s "territory" I get spotted.

This is probably my own bias working here. But this is normal for me. Sorry, I can't get out of the personal-centric-orientation view and into a collective(?) view of philosophy.

I'm thinking aloud here and doing at the same time.

For what it is worth, if I start to enter into an "-ism" I come across what could be called "guardians".

For example, as soon as I try to enter Catholicism, then hostility arises from Catholicism closed space. Not a good place to be in terms of relative positioning, that is to enter into catholic closed space. On the other hand, if I position myself outside of Catholic closed space, I can perceive Catholicism.

An american girl from the afterlife world tried to take me to a Christian heaven once. Guardians blocked my path. I thought it would happen, she was devistated. The guardians hold halberds(?) or some such longer ranged weapons by the way.

I'm not sure I can appreciate a purely interlectual pursuit of the supreme creator god, it always takes me into human territory. If I try to go towards creator Beings of non human space, they are little guys who are like factory workers who build(?), assemble (?) natural worlds with what could be called the Elemental forces, Waters of Time, etc..

I wonder if "god" in a Christian sense is to be found inside Christian closed spaces. Same with other thinking.

This takes me back to what you were saying about how our being grows as we discover more of what is.

This paradox can often be glimpsed from our ordinary reality. Every time we comprehend something that lies beyond our current framework of reality, we actually get a glimpse of the primordial paradox that is in the center of all things. When we expand our point of view, the paradox is seemingly resolved. This leads people to erroneously conclude that the paradox, was in fact, an illusion and that perhaps all paradox is simply an illusion. There is, however, an alternative explanation.

One very intriguing possibility is that our everyday form of reality is simply the result of the proper alignment of different parts of the underlying infinite paradox. From this perspective, every consecutive unfolding of the fabric of reality, aligns more and more parts of this paradox together to form our common everyday sense of what is real. In this sense, it's not paradox that is explained away by higher logic. It's logic that is explained away by higher paradox.

For example, it is a common human perception to think of time as simple and one dimensional, always going forward. The idea of time flowing backwards or in any non-linear fashion would seem rather nonsensical at first. However, there has been ample progress in theoretical physics that has lead to the invention of a framework which allows for the existence of three-dimensional time. (This theory is simply an extention of Einstein's theory of relativity, which is based on the B-theory of time.) With some effort anyone can succeed in transitioning from the old framework to the new one. What once seemed inconceivable is now suddenly real. The impossible has become fact. A person who had previously thought that nothing exists outside of the present moment, is now ready to believe in time travel. Is it a paradox?

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I think it's valuable to consider things both from a Deist and a Theist perspective.

The Deist God is more of an avatar of the Source/Absolute and is generally impersonal, but will show some kind of personality if you wanted to communicate with it. He's totally non-interfering, so he's pretty much the opposite of Theistic Gods, who are better perceived of as 'Deities'.

www.youtube.com...

Here the 'God' says that how we perceive of him/her depends mostly on ourselves. It's a cool short shory btw, I believe it to be very true.

In our dimension the Deist God signifies the border between us and the higher realities. He's not ultimate reality but rather its avatar, he's more like a key to the Supernatural Universe that is beyond this dimension.

The Deist God is generally impersonal and quite natural and logical, while the Theist conception of divinity is supernatural and mysterious. Since the Source is infinitely paradoxical, it would appear that the paradoxical nature of Theism might have its place. Perhaps it connects with personal Gods that exists way, way beyond the borders of this dimension. But that's hardly an argument for their validity. Many theosophists believe that actual supernatural Deities exist, so I guess there is place for both the Deist God and the Theist Deities. But the Deist God and the Deities are very different. The Deist God is impersonal, and he/she is not exactly 'benevolent', because he/she does not really need to exercise free will. It's more like - he's necessarily perfect as he signifies ultimate reality. He's an avatar of ultimate reality itself, but as such is non-interfering. And Deities can be both benevolent and malevolent, being personal and active. The Deist God limits itself to create the Best of All Possible Worlds and has no need of free will, while the Deities wield omnipotence and do whatever they please.

The Deist God is like an avatar that serves as a key to unlock the locks placed upon Earthly existence and lead us to the Supernatural Universe that is ultimate reality. In this Supernatural Universe exist all sorts of Deities - both benevolent and malevolent. The Deist God is not a deity, he's 'necessary good'. He/she is a good representation of what God should be, if we wanted to go beyond good and evil and see the Universe as perfect, logical and good. The Deist God is logical, a perfect moral agent, non-interfering. He's more of a guardian angel to the Universe and definitely NOT its ruler. He's also not the One Infinite Creator, because the One Infinite Creator is a transcendent,supernatural, paradoxical entity whose existence implements the whole Source. I suspect that the OIC might actually be the Goddess.

The Deist God is a divine avatar of logic, truth and natural good. The OIC is transcendent, supernatural, paradoxical entity of astonishing proportions.

Another way to put it is that the OIC creates everything, while the Deist God takes care to make it the best of all possible worlds.

Those two are so basic to the workings of the Universe, that it's inevitable we gain some understanding of them. Deities on the other hand are mysterious and it's difficult to say anything about them with certainty.

P.S. I just noticed that the Deist God is like the Yang, while the OIC is like the Yin.

P.P.S. It could be supposed that the OIC leaves a myriad of Deities in its path, as by nature it is never satisfied with what it has created. A supernatural Universe is fine, but a supernatural Multiverse is better! Why stop here?! Omniverse! Infinitely many dimensions with infinitely many Deities!

What rather makes the Deities distinct, is that the Deist God chooses a finite structure in which the infinities are normalized in finite numbers. So you can have a huge number of distinct Deities, but exactly the right number - 'nothing happens by chance'. The infinite rows of deities normalize so that they're actually different facets of the same Deity.

In the same way the souls, which we would assume to be an infinite number, are actually normalized into a finite number, which encodes infinity in a paradoxical way.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Rhaegar7


For what it is worth, if I start to enter into an "-ism" I come across what could be called "guardians".

For example, as soon as I try to enter Catholicism, then hostility arises from Catholicism closed space. Not a good place to be in terms of relative positioning, that is to enter into catholic closed space. On the other hand, if I position myself outside of Catholic closed space, I can perceive Catholicism.

An american girl from the afterlife world tried to take me to a Christian heaven once. Guardians blocked my path. I thought it would happen, she was devistated. The guardians hold halberds(?) or some such longer ranged weapons by the way.

I'm not sure I can appreciate a purely interlectual pursuit of the supreme creator god, it always takes me into human territory. If I try to go towards creator Beings of non human space, they are little guys who are like factory workers who build(?), assemble (?) natural worlds with what could be called the Elemental forces, Waters of Time, etc..

I wonder if "god" in a Christian sense is to be found inside Christian closed spaces. Same with other thinking.

This takes me back to what you were saying about how our being grows as we discover more of what is.

The human idea of a singular supreme Deity is very strange to me. I mean - I could understand people worshiping the One Infinite Creator, but he/she is not a Deity. The Deist God is also not a Deity, he/she is more of an Avatar for Intelligent Infinity. And Deities are mysterious and supernatural.. One could take Lucifer/Satan to be 'the Lord' of Creation, and thus consider him as being 'the one true God' as Blavatsky and many others have. But in my understanding the different Deities personify different facets of the Absolute. You could have a Deity of Justice, and one could easily consider it 'the one true God'. Similarly, you could have a Goddess of Truth or Beauty, or Magic or Nature.. and consider her as the 'one true God'.. Lucifer/Satan as a Supreme Principle of Evil, might be considered 'God' from the perspective of being lord and ruler of Creation. Is there a Deity that is a Supreme Principle of Good? Would that be the 'one true God'? I don't know the answer to either of these questions.

As I pointed out in my OP, monotheism is looking to find a Deity that is 'the only true God', active and interfering in Creation, and ascribe to it absolute omnipotence and omniscience. Such a Deity can only be Lucifer/Satan, which is why I insisted that 'God', as usually defined in our society, is evil and I still believe that.

By the way - try to imagine what it's like for Satan to operate in the Universe - he is not only omnipotent, but also omniscient, which means that he knows perfectly well the outcome of every possible choice that he can make, while still having free will. This does fit into the idea of 'only God'. Infinite demonic power.. It's pretty awesome to imagine. It's as if he's playing a computer game, and the only way for him to play multi-player is to give us a little free-will. Actually, the idea that God is playing a computer-game and that he'll eventually give us a little free will, has been expounded by others before me. Isn't it funny? The Universe is simply the computer game of God. ;D Monotheism is funny!

If you're interested in the Christian Heaven, you should read up on Monroe who described different parts of the Astral as home to the various believers - a Christian Heaven, a Muslim Heaven and all the rest..

As far as the hierarchy goes, I think there is a dimension where we are the Deities, but to reach it we have to take many incarnations as physical beings until we work out our karmas and merge with the supernatural.

I'm starting to think that perhaps Satan is the active facet of the passive Deistic God. Then the Deist God would be Lucifer, while the active God would be Satan. Then Lucifer/Satan would be both good and evil, and can easily be considered as the 'one true God'. Not sure if it's true, but it fits very well.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Your going places I can't go Rhaegar7, but then again, maybe not.

The Deist God is more of an avatar of the Source/Absolute and is generally impersonal, but will show some kind of personality if you wanted to communicate with it. He's totally non-interfering, so he's pretty much the opposite of Theistic Gods, who are better perceived of as 'Deities'.

The deist god sounds a lot like what could be termed an interface.

A simple example is a cell phone touchscreen. The cellphone operating system (OS) "thinks" in ones and zeros (binary). Humans think in words and pictures. Basically, the touchscreen is an interactive interpreter between two intelligences that think in very different ways.

There are Beings out there that do this because they can't, or don't want to communicate directly. Both parties learn in this way and the interface becomes interactive and animated in time. Humans live a short time, Beings live, well who knows how long they "live". So over time access to the interface can be shared with other humans. The interface will continue to learn to interact/interpret with humans as long as it wants to, or as long as there is a human that wants to interface with what is beyond the interface.

Deities and Theistic gods sound like what humans used to interact with in the past in polytheism.

While Pallas Athene of ancient Greece could have been an interface or a deity. Homer says she had her favourites in the Trojan war, and took part in battles personally. As a goddess of war, Pallas Athene is still not far away. That suggests deity over an interface.

The Deist God is generally impersonal and quite natural and logical, while the Theist conception of divinity is supernatural and mysterious.

Yep, interface and Beings respectively, is my suggestion here.

If so; What is behind the interface?

Interfaces are a technique of two way interaction, or at least communication. Impersonal.

Deities are Beings in their own right. Interaction between human and deity is generally personal. Face to face. Though deities will use an interface on occasion.

This is different and a whole different level to "thoughtforms" which occultists and other humans create.

There are other techniques, dreams are interfaces. Mostly interfacing with the subconscious as is normal for humans. Other life has taken dream interfaces to the level of actual networking of multiple consciousness in interactive shared worlds. You would probably call that sub-deity as it is the level or type of consciousness that the human body uses to communicate between internal systems and organs and so forth.


Interesting . . .

I wonder, The All Seeing Eye certainly fits the description of interface.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

And Deities are mysterious and supernatural.. One could take Lucifer/Satan to be 'the Lord' of Creation, and thus consider him as being 'the one true God' as Blavatsky and many others have.

Still, Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner had a certain perception of Luciferic Beings. Steiner seemed to use the word principal a lot. Both Blavatsky and Steiner are beyond my understanding in many things.

I suggest not using Satan and Lucifer interchangeably

I can speak of Satan though. For what it is worth is all. I'm not a language expert nor scholarly in biblical history so take what I say in that context.

A dowser once publicly challenged me to "dowse" Satan. Years ago this was.

So I did.

Basically, what I found was that Satan was a lie, a fabrication.

Find Satan, and one will find a lie.

What the lie occults (obscures) is a Templar Seal. Behind the Templar Seal is a mystery best left unspoken except to say it is not a god nor something one would want to encounter.

So Satan is a lie that hides something else.

Yet believers can get influenced by the lie itself. That would be the only power I would attribute to Satan.

The Luciferic Beings/principals/whatevers are something else.

I don't know if Blavatsky knew, I think Steiner did from reading between the lines.

All I would suggest is that the concept of Satan was likely to have been put into place for a purpose. Probably to starve off something far worse.

But I am no theologist. . . .

and "yes": Templar as in Knights Templar. . . .

If you're interested in the Christian Heaven, you should read up on Monroe who described different parts of the Astral as home to the various believers - a Christian Heaven, a Muslim Heaven and all the rest..

(Smile) yeah, I can see that for myself. Remember the yellow DND map?

The "city states" don't interest me at all. Too stuffy and pompous for my liking . . .

I have heard of Monroe, but prefer to remain ignorent of his ideas and techniques. Rather grow my own, much more fun to explore then follow.

As far as the hierarchy goes, I think there is a dimension where we are the Deities, but to reach it we have to take many incarnations as physical beings until we work out our karmas and merge with the supernatural.

Hierarchies . . .

If your interested I can write a paragraph or two on that . . . .

. . . a bit different to the "approved" versions though.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Well, sure, go ahead.

From where I'm standing the satanic energy seems to pervade the whole world. I can easily imagine a being of demonic power that presides over the physical Universe. The idea of Satan as an active agent of evil is quite prevalent in theosophic circles, even if they do not publicly admit it.

However, I do not know the whole story, that's for sure.

I've also skipped on Monroe, precisely because I want to draw my own conclusions and he comes off as a bit too scientific-minded for me.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

First of all , I am not a Theosophist; even though I used to visit the London HQ in Gloucester Place for lectures on various topics (not necessarily theosophical) some 20 years ago. I find theosophists nice people to get on with but I am not interested in Theosophy per se.

Having read the OP and a few of the posts and responses, one phrase was notable. It is where you state that Satan hides the truth. For me, that is probably the most noteworthy thing mentioned in the whole discussion so far. IMHO, you could not be closer to the truth


[

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Observations on hierarchy.

Basically Beings reproduce through two types of reproduction from what I have seen. Sexual and asexual.

Mitosis (asexual) seems to be the norm.

Mitosis is a type of cell division that results in two daughter cells each having the same number and kind of chromosomes as the parent nucleus, typical of ordinary tissue growth.

That is to say; a Being will divide her awareness into a number of daughter Beings each with the mother's memories intact. Eight daughters seems to be the usual number. The daughters are all identical.

I have seen this happen in a Being, a dear friend. She grew weary of the weight of her experience and divided herself and in her own words "stepped back".

The daughters are all identical child versions of the mother with all mom's memories and her ancestors before her going back in time before the earth even existed.

From the moment of birth, the children began to experience life as individuals. Been a few years now and I still can't tell them apart. Beautiful little girls.

One day, the daughters will do the same and "step back". If they all survive they will divide into eight daughters themselves.

So, one --> eight --> sixty four --> five hundred and twelve and so on.

Another example:

Nimue, the Lady of the Lake, with whom Merlin fell in love, also reproduces in the same way. Nimue has seven identical sisters, identical octuplets. "Impetuous" is how their mother describes them, "cheeky" is how I would describe those wood-nymph girls. You'll find them above the surface of water bodies, the surface of which is a mystery in itself. Nimue's mom is older and wiser. Very rare to see them nowadays., I only know of five.

That is how hierarchies are formed, a thing of reproduction. However, because it is division, the process of change is very slow. Nimue's ancestor that originally came to earth is not so different from her great, great, great granddaughter except she is very ancient, big and wise. In a way, the original lives and experiences through the her children still.

So asexual reproduction. No fathers.

Now, sexual reproduction is a thing of the "material" world. The children are always different.

This speeds up the rate of change very very quickly. We don't look anything like our ancestors of ten thousand years ago. If one thinks in terms of evolution with intellegence directing it towards a goal, then sexual reproduction is the way to go in order to create a new spiecies. Asexual reproduction would take too long.

I would suggest strongly that human society is hierarchial by nature. We think in hierarchy because of an underlaying reality to life.

Now I have seen the asexual reproduction in what could be termed the "soul world of humans". "Souls" are said to incarnate into bodies, live and then return to a new life over and over.

I don't think so.

I think humans reproduce in the same way as do everyone else out there. The difference is humans are born into a body, live a condensed life and "die" (step back).

The question of ancestry is a difficult thing to comprehend for me, the waters are muddy with the various beliefs in reincarnation.

The indwelling self has it's memories, the body inherits another set of memories. Confusing for the living human . . . .

I spose one could create an origin of "race" theory, and this opens a whole can of worms . . .

Is it any wonder the higher worlds of humanity keep their secrets? No one up there is allowed to talk, their hands are literally tied.

Take the above as you will; finding that out has been, and still is, a very expensive exercise for me.

On Satan and evil, I suggest not giving it too much attention, you'll find that secret in the workings of man, not outside. Outside of humanity's world is a world of life that does not carry human baggage. Satan is of human making and applies to man's evolution exclusively, if at all.


Groan . . need coffee and a cigarette.

a reply to: crowdedskies

crowdedskies.

I find it amusing how utterly religious all this language is - "satan" "evil" "God" "Demiurge". Do you get that this is speculative philosophy you are engaging in, or have you forgotten, or simply decided not to notice, that human beings mutually influence one anothers sense of what is real?

This is why secret societies corrode peoples capacity to reason. On what grounds do you speak of an ontologically existing 'demiurge'? Or an ontologically existing 'satan'? Its philosophy - its speculation - and the fact is, the fact beyond all other facts, is that we are a dynamical system that functions in terms of a perception-action functional cycle, as Jakob Von Uexkull noted.

If we are existing in terms of our own self-structuring, if we begin to believe the $hit we posit, and find ourselves becoming "profoundly affected" - than DUH - no wonder, then, that the world will take on exactly the property, color and character that you ascribe to it. A demiurge will exist; a counter-demiurge will exist. And so on.

In my mind, all of this religious certainty is obnoxious myth-making, and completely a function of people who've grown alienated from being a human being with other human beings. The ancient near east cultures created both Abraham and the Nebuchadnezzar. In other words, the cults of the "left hand path", and "right hand path", are both dissociative examples of complete and utter self-absorption in mysticism, magic and a sense of manifest destiny.

I agree, btw, that the absolute cannot be represented within the finite without the finite losing its particularly quality and character of finitude. In other words, the facts that order and structure human beings is above and beyond in importance - ontologically - over any theological musing - whether it be Vedanta (which is theology), Kabbalah, Neoplatonic, Gnostic, or Christian mysticism - making speculative claims about the teleos of reality, on the ground of having some special 'revelation', is, as many modern day people understand, irritatingly unjustified.

Buddhism, inasmuch as it seems willing to suspend knowledge of the metaphysics of reality - especially given we only have 'top-down' stories from the past, and are still working on a bottom-up empirical construction - is much more palatable, and frankly, if human beings are ever going to be happy, the price to pay is to #-off with this metaphysical bull# - because it is speculative, and therefore, probably nothing more than a wishfulness than an expression of what-is.

a reply to: Astrocyte

G'day Astrocyte

Thought you might be not far away. I do like your threads, it helped me understand why a new Being would incarnate into a physical body and live here.

As you point out in your threads, life imprints a pattern that is indelible.

(snip) . . . .that human beings mutually influence one anothers sense of what is real?

So true . . .

As is:

This is why secret societies corrode peoples capacity to reason.

But that is joining collective thinking is it not? With arbitrary "laws" and "patterns" and the rest of it. Be it catholicism, theosophy Bhuddism anthroposophy or science.

Sorta like training for the afterlife . . . .

Oh, and be nice Astrocyte

a reply to: crowdedskies

'Father of lies.'

a reply to: Astrocyte

Every human conversation is 'speculative philosophy'. We have reasons to believe the things we do. We don't have the time or space to write our whole life experiences. For one, many people are gravitating towards the gnostic belief that this world is not real, that is is an illusion created by an evil entity, and that we have to find a way out. I feel it to be true.

You won't find the truth about it by 'conjectures and refutations'. You basically feel it to be true. Conventional means of acquiring knowledge about the world fail, because you've already made one assumption too many - that the world is real. When you perceive it as real, it adapts and deceives. That is my belief, and it comes from experience.

All we have is 'speculative philosophy'. There is no other way to advance.

This is why secret societies corrode peoples capacity to reason.

You've grasped a part of the pattern, but not the whole pattern. The secret societies are only one small element of the whole thing. You may or may not have an idea of just how depraved and evil this world really is. Most people don't. Gnostics have been telling us that for thousands of years.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convince the world he does not exist."

For you it might be 'speculative philosophy'. For some of us it is inescapable everyday reality.

Related to that, I just experienced a very powerful OBE tonight, which dismissed all of my doubts about what is going on.

The point I am trying to make is that the 'good God' of religion is illogical. It does not fit either with our experience or with our reasoning capabilities - 'a good God' seems like an oxymoron. The only logically possible monotheistic 'God' is a supremely evil entity - the one of gnostic traditions.

About 'Demiurge' and others - these are common knowledge and have been written about by many others before me. Take montalk.com - it provides a good explanation of what it is. Many of this site's members have expressed various ideas and observations upon this entity and the others I mention.

So we can't speculate now? I need to provide you with 50kg of 'physical evidence' to satisfy your scientific mind? Not going to happen. Take the red pill or the blue. 'The truth is right in front of you.' is what I consider the red pill. 'I'll look for it somewhere else.' - the blue one.

originally posted by: [post=22607812]Astrocyte

if human beings are ever going to be happy, the price to pay is to #-off with this metaphysical bull# - because it is speculative, and therefore, probably nothing more than a wishfulness than an expression of what-is.

It has not escaped my notice that you have been pushing your "scientific" agenda upon us for a few years now. It is really a wonder to me that you visit and post to the Phylosophical/Metaphysics forum , given your evident dislike for anything that steers away from the "scientifically proven".

The key to all mysteries is outside your scientific box.

a reply to: Astrocyte

if human beings are ever going to be happy, the price to pay is to #-off with this metaphysical bull# - because it is speculative, and therefore, probably nothing more than a wishfulness than an expression of what-is.

Are you happy?