10 Answers

  1. The sequel will be quite personal.

    I prefer not “live countless times”, but “see countless dreams” or watch “countless cartoons” (Netflix theory =^_^=). You can also make an infinite series of gods, such as this god (in other words, our universe) is part of the dream of a higher god, and that one is part of the dream of an even higher one, infinite recursion. If desired, this recursion can be folded into a ring, i.e. the higher god is part of the dream of one of the lower ones, and the whole thing is a giant multidimensional ring of an infinite number of universes.

    In any case, there will be another pantheism-monism. A normal theory does not contradict either science or common sense, but it does not give any new information, so it is not necessary. Suffice it to say, ” There is a universe.” The phrase “Universe = God”, to which pantheism-monism is reduced, adds nothing new.

    But it seems that the human brain itself is so arranged that it feels some kind of need for”God”. And he searches for it, searches for it, until he finds something convincing, like God, and believes in it. Do I have to fight him so hard if he wants to? And is it possible? Maybe this is a deliberately lost cause, with no chance of success, the brain will still believe in something.

    If you can't prevent it, at least take the lead. So why not believe in such a God? It seems to be beautiful, harmonious, perfect, without nonsense and cruelty of any kind. But it doesn't suit me. I'm too much of a fanatical believer. As soon as I start to pray / meditate, I immediately fall into religious ecstasy. And I think either A. this god, and suddenly he is still unhappy, and is doomed to suffer forever, like all the souls that merge with him (nirvana is not emptiness, but the worst suffering without hope of salvation) <traffic jams start here>, or B. this god of emptiness is sitting there watching your life and feeling nothing but infinite indifference… you can try to live a happier, more interesting, more dignified life in order to please him. But he doesn't care. You can engage in self-destruction, self-torture to suffer yourself and dirty things around, so that in this way you can make it unpleasant, take revenge. But he doesn't care about that either. You can try not to do or think anything at all to make him feel bored, to respond to him with the same emptiness and indifference that he feels for you. But he doesn't care about that either. There's nothing you can do about this God, and what's the point of praying/meditating to him? It's better to do what I like, just because I like it. But since I am in ecstasy, it seems to me that there is no turning back, that once I have already seen this god of emptiness, and understood all this, then now I am doomed to stick it into him forever and pretend to be empty, instead of going to pet a kitten, smell a flower, etc. I should never have looked for any gods and any meanings of life, but.. But it won't work that way… Such is the ragged human brain, it will not take off, so it will swim.. And here I am stuck in this purgatory, and most likely all esoteric and Eastern enlightened people who walk around with Buddha smiles are actually also stuck in this purgatory and will never be happy again, are doomed to this eternal painful emptiness, and in general there are either those who are already in purgatory and those who are looking for God/the meaning of life and this search will inevitably lead to purgatory what I see through the contemplation of this God, the universal law of the universe or what I am or the final final truth, makes my consciousness senseless, my psyche fades away, why do I need a typewriter to answer questions, when the last final question is solved…

    In general, such a god would seem to make sense as a mental exercise, but for me personally, such exercises lead to breakdowns and a desperate desire to stay away from such exercises as much as possible in the future. Maybe it's part of the psychology of religion. There are “fanatics”, no matter what god the “fanatic” believes in, sooner or later he will see the “hell” of his faith.

  2. As you understand, I, as a person marked “practicing psychologist”)), can only be interested in such a theory from the point of view of its correlation with the practice of helping a person with a psychological problem.�

    After twenty years of practicing even in the most difficult cases of existential therapy, I did not see the need to offer a person such a sophisticated method of intellectual masturbation ) Usually, everything costs much simpler designs.�

    Well, as for what I said, this is quite suitable – at your leisure, instead of a game of chess, for example. But for me, these experiences remained in my student youth – especially since the last time I smoked grass was also around the same time )

  3. No, it doesn't seem convincing. Moreover, this theory is ignorant for the reason that there is no definite worldview behind it.

    The eternal rake that the vast majority of people step on is the concept of “god”. There is no such vague concept only in the church, which clearly concretized such a concept as a personal God who created the world, and exists outside of this created world.

    Theology is also ignorant of trying to explain the universe, but at least it has a relatively coherent cosmogony, albeit illusory.

    The answer to the author's question cannot be given for the same reason that it is impossible to explain differential calculus to a first-grader. I am not referring to the author's mental qualities, but to the concept of God, without which any question loses its foundation.

    For my part, I can offer the following solution: if you call God the reason why the universe and life exist, then this reason has no attributes. That is, it does not think, nor does it create, nor does it shine, nor does it love. It is precisely the cause of thought, light, and love. It is the cause of creation. As an architect is the reason for the subsequent implementation of his project. But he doesn't run around with a shovel himself. This is what creators are born for.

    Talking about the life of this cause is like talking about the beginning or end of the road that is in front of the squirrel in the wheel. God is in no way connected with the concept of knowledge, much less self-knowledge. But there are really an infinite number of Universes that are being born ( created) and dispersed in infinite time.

  4. what's the difference? this is a theory that offers nothing and explains nothing.

    Well, so this, or not, what changes?
    in fact, this theory does not even contradict all other religions.

    which again, gives us nothing.

  5. If the universe is like a matryoshka doll : a three-dimensional one is a particle of matter in another universe of higher dimension, and that one is in a universe of even higher dimension, then it looks like this. An infinite-dimensional system is suitable for defining the concept of God

  6. It was Alan Watts who wrote that we are all the universe. Которая Which knows itself. Well, like it doesn't change anything. Plus, it turns out that the universe does not know itself, that it is unidentified. It turns out that God does not know himself. Well, you can say that he plays with himself or hide-and-seek with himself.Don't know. Or maybe everything is just empty. And anyway, whatever it is, the question remains. So what? So what if I am God, or so what if there is a God. What's next? What's the point? Or all the emptiness like the Buddhists. From these questions goes the reel.

  7. I rather think that God exists as the totality of everything, in order to be for himself not only hell, but also heaven or vice versa. Well, it turns out an infinite unattainable goal both for the person who realized this and for God, who (all the temporary forms of the verb to be at the same time and therefore himself is this goal).

    Another thing is whether a person will be able to survive after a while, in order to have more control over his own body, therefore, the quality of life, and thus not turn the rest of his life into hell, worsening the relationship? It is a pity, of course, that people do not spend their resources on solving this problem, and if this problem is solved, why go beyond the picture, if you are still likely to come back from where you started, and if not, then you don't even need something to exist, and if it exists, then you have returned to the beginning.

    There is another problem that is related to this question and the reduction of infinity, I think it is obvious that we can be in this chain, reminiscent of the paradox of Achilles and the turtle, it could appear as a likeness of the universe with which it all began and is connected with the divine nature only by the possibility of its appearance, respectively, knowledge is no longer connected then it makes sense.

  8. I don't believe in a God who evolves, who doesn't know himself, doesn't know where he's gone or where he needs to go. I don't believe in the divinity of man – no , originally it was, but not today, not today. Today, people behave like “devils”.

    And then, logic dictates that the supreme being must somehow address humanity, write him a letter, something, a message, explain himself, Discover the meaning, etc. Here in Christianity, which I try to follow, all this exists-there is a Covenant, Commandments, explanations, Revelations, messages, promises.�

    1 God,who has spoken to the fathers of old in many ways and in many ways in the prophets,2 has
    spoken to us in these last days in his Son, whom he has made heir of all things, through whom he also created the ages.
    3 This one, being the radiance of glory and the image of his hypostasis, and holding all things by the word of his power, having made atonement for our sins by himself, sat down at the right hand of the throne of greatness on high.
    (Hebrews 1: 1-3)

  9. A curious theory. I wonder who created these Universes for Him, so that He could be born, live and die there? After all, the phrase “lives countless times” suggests just that. And if God himself created these universes, who or what made Him do it? And why does He need so many Universes to “know himself”? Is God not originally perfect?

  10. No, I don't think this model is convincing. Because I don't find a permanent basis for Self. I can imagine myself as a set of instant Selves. But when the next self that has just emerged tries to find some permanent support, it does not find anything stable. I can't prevent the body from changing, I can't prevent the mind from changing. Finally, I can't prevent death. It's like a boat being carried by the current of a river, and all you can do is try to turn right or left, but the boat can't stop on its own or swim against the current.

    So I don't understand what self-knowledge is. Your real self? Or yourself a minute ago? Doesn't the process of knowing change the Self? Is the Self with new knowledge equal to the old Self?

    The same can be said of a knowing deity. If it knows something, then its present state of unknowingness is imperfect. That is, the deity is always trying to get rid of imperfections. That is, this is such an eternal worker, who can be sympathized with as Sisyphus.

Leave a Reply