God is not intelligent

This entire thread is not intelligent.

Good luck berating God

 

It has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with belonging.

If I go to this denominational church, people will accept me.
If I have this kind of car, people will like me.
If I wear this designer's clothing, people will envy me.
If....<whatever>

So, there doesn't have to be a true *belief* in there. It just has to look like there is.

I would argue that most people that claim to be Christian aren't really Christians because that is supposed to entail something more in saying on believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Look at Mike Pence. He was dogged constantly because he refuses to be alone with a female colleague so as to not give the appearance of impropriety. Conversely, Trump married three times, two escorts and two mistresses and an infinite number of extramarital affairs. Why is the guy that is trying to do the honorable thing to respect his faith and his wife laughed at and the other one worshipped?

Why is it that women (and some men) can have sex to move ahead in their careers while the ones that say "no" and won't cross those lines are left behind?

Why do we say that we care about our children but teachers, the people that spend the most time with our children outside of family, are typically skirting the poverty line but pro-athletes that just have to show up for a season earn millions and millions of dollars?

I live by "people may not tell you how they feel, but they will ALWAYS show it" and what our fellow Americans are showing is they don't give a damn about Christian teachings, women or children. Rape is still the only crime in which the victim has to prove that she did not cause it to happen. Nobody asks a man what was he wearing and where was his wallet when he got held up. Nobody asks men to subject themselves to the third degree and ridiculous and shame for being hurt. Law enforcement responses to men aren't designed to retraumatize them but that happens to women and children constantly when reaching out for help.

I don't read it that way. I think it has a more immediate purpose.

Let's say you get into an argument with someone and you both think you're right. You are both steamed up and want revenge. In most cases, the only thing stopping that is somebody's belief system that their actions are being watched and monitored by a Higher being. If that fear of the unknown didn't exist, we would still be living in the Wild, Wild West.

Yes, because it's upsetting to them.

How many times have we read about minorities on television?
How many complaints have we seen about non-heterosexual people in commercials?
How many times does hell break loose if anybody other than a white, heterosexual Christian gets a high profile job?
How many times have we heard that transgender people are "forcing" people to use specific pronouns?
How many people have complained about CRT as teaching hate? Is it not hateful to make ALL kids believe that nobody but white men built this country?
How many times have Trump supporters followed us around the board and mass reported anything they don't want to hear about him?

It's "if I don't have to see it, I can pretend that it doesn't exist and if it doesn't exist, I get to live in my bubble of blinders."

It's easier to say racism doesn't exist. People don't want to own up to how they receive the benefit of that system.
It's easier to shame non-heterosexuals. People don't want to admit that other people's sex lives aren't their business.
It's easier to pretend that all church leaders are "holy" (or whatever else bs they claim) instead of opening one's eyes and watching their kids around EVERYBODY.

Dr. Elders was forced to resign under Clinton because she dared to suggest teaching teenagers about safe sex.

There is it again. If we don't talk about it, it's not real. It doesn't matter that the same people that fight about overturning Roe v. Wade also complain about all the single mothers on Public Aid. Once again, the female is blamed. It doesn't matter that a human female can only have ONE pregnancy a year but a man can impregnate and infinite number of women a year but blame is dumped all on the female.

And, these people don't understand that one can't mandate love and nurturing. The same people they complain about breaking laws and committing petty crimes are some of those "precious little lives" that needed to be born because they want to be in somebody's womb.

So, you see, they don't care if they are consistent and none of the actions and reactions are anywhere on the spectrum of "Christ-like". It's all lip service and they know that which is why they get angry when we say that aloud. It's an exact parallel to what is happening with Trump - How many times have they gone on the attack because someone dare call him a worthless pos loser? He is a worthless pos loser and they hate me for saying that aloud (or writing it - you know what I mean .

I say some people should consider raising their standards and they probably wouldn't be so hypersensitive about the worthless pos loser (who, ironically is an atheist but can hold up a bible in front of a church and crowd goes wild!). I said in an earlier post but why give up a good con when one is raking in millions (or billions relative to the Vatican).

 

Good post MJ !!! thoughtful, and well articulated......and touches on the purpose religious beliefs serve...and don't serve. Thought prong, isn't t?? S

Sometimes I think society would make more progress and be more humanitarian......if if followed just a few basic principles.........starting with "Do no harm".....but then folks could not agree on what "harm" means .......One can understand why many seem to have a Need for a god. Humans has had a need to "worship a God entity of some kind since time bean ( or the when the human began to conceptualize on a higher and more abstract level. The area of spirituality has evolved in recent years to involve a higher level of consciousness. This kind of approach avoids the group think........... and can enhance ones personal essence and being. It goes beyond teachings and moves into a high level of enlightenment. It would be an ongoing process ......that would incorporate humane principles. If everyone just focused on principles of Do no harm..." alone............. we would have no lying, killing , cheating, stealing , greed, manipulation of others for ones own selfish interests Being kind to one another sold be a default human stance.

 

That is basic christian religion 101.

 

We agree. But the scientific community views theories and settled science as different from one another even though settled science can be unsettled.

 

and who designed the course??

 

No, in the OP, I posited my path of reasoning for the following ideas:

1. There is no personal God, as in a 'intelligence' or 'intelligent designer' or 'Supreme Being' and the reason is that it makes no sense.
2. That my concept of 'God' is much closer to Pantheistic thinking, which is to say, God is a spiritual force, as opposed to a singular entity, that permeates all of the universe and living things. In short, it's a collective source which is a force of sorts, the sum total of everything adding the concept that the life has a spiritual basis, that God is not a spirit, but God is a collective spiritual force permeating all of that which exists in the universe, or universes,

In short, God is not an intelligence, it is a spiritual force that underlies and is the source of all things, and to be precise

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

In short, infinity is God simply because, given enough time, anything that is possible will be inevitable.

Thus life happens in randomity, resulting in chaos with sprinklings of ad hoc order in the chaos, such as spiraling galaxies, planets circuling stars, life on planets, etc.

Think of having a handful of seeds, tossing them to the wilderness. Some of the seeds will take root, most will die due to the torrential nature of the environment, but a few will continue to grow and achieve fruition.

In that metaphor, 'you' are 'god' but you did not design the process, you are merely the initiator, and infinity, which is 'enough time' which allowed that which is possible to be inevitable. God is infinity plus the abstract concept that life is possible. ANd if it is possible, given enough time to allow for it, it is inevitable.

Why we can conclude there is no 'designer' is because it does occur after an astronomical amount of time passing. This tells us it occurs in randomity, which suggests by chance.

But it isn't by chance because, given infinity, if life is possible, and we know it is possible, it is 100% certain will will eventually occur. So why it will occur is not chance, only when.

remember, the astronomical things that have to be in place for life to occur, may seem like a large number, but, compared to infinity, all numbers are infinitesimal. Therefore, that logic that life could not occur at random because of the 'astronomical number of things which must be place' is specious, given the fact that all numbers are small compared to infinity. It only seems large because of our humanness is small compared to it.

 

In the subject line, I declared in that God is not intelligent.

given that that could be interpreted as 'God is stupid', which is not what I meant, so I clarified the concept immediately, in the opening line:

Or rather, God is not an intelligence.

Which is to say, God is not a personal God, nor an entity, nor an 'intelligent deisgner' or 'supreme being', and to which I will add that God is a spiritual force, source, that permeates the entire universe.

This is the Pantheist view.

 

Ah, you mean who specifically came up with that definition. That is all derived from the christian bible.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/omnipotence-omniscience-omnipresence-god/

I imagine the original interpretations came from the apostles themselves. But this could be much older and go back to the times of Abraham and Issac, etc. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a cited original source.

It is the definition I've always seen used in philosophy as well.

 

If we are just saying what we imagine a god to be...

Well I know for animals, they come to a rainbow bridge crossing a river...

Honestly, I love this interpretation of what it means to be us and the meaning of death. We are just a part of the whole.

 

No, I do not take your point, & it is clear that you will not take mine, in what has become an overly semantically- oriented discussion. On the one hand, you try to claim that I cannot use the self- explanatory description of the universe possessing an, "intelligent design," w/out associating myself, in the reader's mind, with Creationism, though I've explained that this is not my belief. Unless you can suggest some alternate description, like "intentional design," the prevention of our having any discussion, falls upon you. Because, no matter what objections you voice to anything I've said, I have not used any of my criticisms to steer clear of all discussion of the subject.

Just because something inhabits all the universe, to my mind, would not preclude its being thought of as an "entity"-- to which you object, even though I never actually used this word (but which your assumptions have associated with my use of the word, "God"). This is a specious objection, of yours. There are no rules about a Pantheist's use of that word. In fact, I do not think it unique to consider the Universe as an analog to a Body (giving some truth, to the line from Genesis, that man was made in God's image; personally, I view these words more as a reference to Extraterrestrial Visitors, but Truth can exist on numerous levels, simultaneously). In fact, someone, earlier in this thread, made reference to the concept of a "conscious universe." I don't know how you can deny the label "entity," to something that is conscious.

The term, "God," just seems, to me, the clearest way to refer to "the divine source" of all things, as you described (God?). And yet, when I try to conform to your rules, I get the complaint from you, that my syntax is overly complex. In simple terms, if the Universe was "inspired," by (whatever you are calling It), that makes the laws of the universe, non- random. You seemed to be pushing back against that, by contending that these qualities of our universe, sourced from the Divine-- another word to which you've objected to my use of, though you used it profusely, yourself-- were just natural, randomly- occurring, in the Divine. So, I was pointing out, if you were not going to attribute responsibility for the Divine's essence to Itself, this would only push off the responsibility onto whatever Force you were crediting, for the Divine's creation. Unavoidably, once you force me to start talking about a separate source for (God), it is going to get confusing, unless you are really following the thought.

I would actually contend that your own sentiments--

-- are less representative of the Pantheistic mindset than my own. To me, your philosophy seems essentially Atheistic, but which you have made prettier, with some "poetic" makeup. But I understand that every pantheist has his own, unique relationship with Creation, and the "divinity," within it.

 

Here are more of your views, which are not particularly pantheistic and, in some cases, are contradictory to it.

Pantheists, by definition, view the universe as synonymous with "God." While I am aware that a scientific approach to pantheism is popular in the modern day, the long history of pantheism, has always been as "religious," as any other theism. The difference was in perceiving the Divine, in all things. But even amongst today's science- based pantheists, there exists a REVERENCE for the universe; hence, it is in direct contradiction to that philosophy, to say that the universe, "is not special."

And this is less logical than the "scientific" version, of the origin of the universe's original matter, how?
IOW, there is NO logical explanation, for the "Beginning," coming from any precinct. It is therefore hypocritical of you to use this as a faulting for any philosophy; your decision to just not deal with this concept of "source," does not make your philosophy more, "logically," based.

Since you are not qualifying that the Divine exists, tangibly, in some non- spacial dimension, you are, in truth, saying that "God," and spiritual essence, just do not exist, except as ideas. Again, this is much more in alignment with Atheism-- is in fact identical to that philosophy-- than with Pantheism. Most pantheists, throughout time, have considered God's Spirit to be "real." As I have explained, at even its most rudimentary level, Pantheism differs from monotheism, in that pantheists see the Divine as embodying the Creation, not as transcending it. This means that God is intrinsically of both space & time; and it makes, whatever one considers the underlying reality of the universe, more than simply some abstract concept.

How could you differentiate this concept, in the slightest, from a valid Atheist's perspective?

 

If a phrase is used in a particular way, for the sake of communication, it's wise to respect that usage, that is to say, if you want to communicate better without having to qualify or explain your meaning every time you use a conventional term in an unconventional way.

I suppose if 'God' permeates all things, then all things could be thought of as an entity, that's probably consistent with Pantheism. But, in Pantheism, this 'entity', as it were, is not an intelligence. Or at least, not in my philosophy. I suspect that is consistent with my understanding of Pantheism. But, according to Pantheism, or at least as I understand Pantheism, it would not be something separate from it. If that is your belief, then I don't think you are a pantheist.

Well, if my belief conflicts with Pantheism, note that I asserted I'm no card carrying Pantheist, just know that that is my belief, and whether it conforms to pantheism or not is a red herring. I only brought out the term 'Pantheism' to denote that if there is any philosophy that is remotely similar to mine, it would be Pantheism. I'm not going to argue the nuance of Pantheism, that is not my intent. Especially since I'm no expert on that belief system. I've only read about it some, not a lot.

I don't believe the universe, as a whole, has consciousness. I believe the spiritual force that gives rise to all of existence is a flux that does not exist in space and time, though all arises from it. There is no way to falsify that, so it belongs in philosophy/religion. But, I don't think the subject of physics will conflict with it.

I find it abstruse in some places. That's not a complaint, just a characterization. The distinction is important. Recall that I asserted that that I find it abstruse shouldn't be taken personally, given that I would say the same about Spinoza and Bruno, in places. You, like they, could very well be smarter than me, or more intellectually bombastic than me, as either could be true, and I have no way of knowing. Just take it at face value, that's the best I can explain about it.

I don't believe that the universe was inspired. But I believe the spiritual force that permeates all things gives rise to creativity and inspiration, but it is not a 'designer' nor inspirer, in and of itself. Inspiration is one of the experiences that leads me to believe that there is a spiritual basis to life. As a songwriter, though it happens rarely, I have had some truly inspired moments when music filled my soul, as if I didn't create it, as if if welled up like water from a fountain whereupon the water is there, rising from the fountain's mouth.

I'll just reiterate my belief, so there is no confusion. I believe the spiritual force that gives rise to all things, does so with randomity, as random as water flows down a mountain forming a river to the sea. How the river flows, is pure randomity. The terrain which shapes the river, allows the river follow the path of least resistance, that terrain of which was also formed in randomity, the cooling of exploded stars coagulating and forming planets in space, all done in randomity.

It's not quite like that, you're not framing the concept precisely, or rather, as precisely as I believe it should be framed.

It's NOT that I don't attribute that a Divine essence is responsible for all things, I prefer to use the term 'give rise to' all things. Thing is, the word 'responsibility' is a term having human dimensionality, i.e., 'entity' connotations, that is why I don't prefer it. Therefore, to assert "not going to attribute responsibility' is misleading.

Moot point, see above.

I'm not trying to force you to do anything, though I would love it if you can understand how I'm framing the concepts.

That could very well be true. It is not my intent nor purpose to journey off into a discusion of pantheism or strut my pantheist credentials in competition with others, credentials of which I could possibly have very little, as, initially, it was only a fleeting comparison, in which case to do so would be a red herring to my OP.

Depends on who you are speaking to. To a Christian, I could easily be an Atheist as I don't believe in a personal God. But, to an Atheist, I'm definitly not an atheist nor agnostic .because I believe the basis to life is spiritual, and I believe in the eternal soul and reincarnation.

No, because it's more than that, with 1. Eternal soul, 2, reincarnation,3 inspiration is divine creativity 4, there is no beginning or end.

Thank you.

 

And now a brief intermission

 

See my other post, which addresses this point:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/god-is-not-intelligent.600071/page-5#post-1073502224
That could very well be true. It is not my intent nor purpose to journey off into a discusion of pantheism or strut my pantheist credentials in competition with others, credentials of which I could possibly have very little, as, initially, it was only a fleeting comparison, in which case to do so would be a red herring to my OP.

I didn't say it was 'not special' I said it was neither special, nor not special, it just is. The distinction is important.

And one can definitely have reverence for the universe, be awestruck by it, in the context of that statement.

My clarification on your previous point renders the above moot since it is predicated on the previous point.

Can you provide the quote I wrote which gives you this conclusion? For my benefit, since I'm posting to a lot of threads, I don't keep track of through-conversations, so if you are referring to something I wrote, put it in the comment so I can be sure we are discussing the same thing.

There is a difference, and it is subtle, but powerfully significant, between the abstract things that exist in the mind, and imagination that exists in the mind, both are abstract, but one is real, the other is fancy.

For example; mathematics. Mathematics is real, it can be used to predict and manipulate the physical universe, but in and of itself, mathematics exists solely in the abstract, i.e., in the mind. You can't touch the number one, it's a concept projected on a singular thing, but that thing can be divided into millions of molecules, so math exist in the mind as it is projected upon the physical, but since it has very real properties which can manipulate, shape, engineer, the physical, it is real. But, if I told you to imagine a horror creature in your mind, that is pure fancy, not real. (and don't let the fact that you could create a physical model of the creature alter the premise, it doesn't).

So, when I say 'god' exists in the abstract, I do in the same sense of infinity exists in the abstract, you can't touch it, it exists as an idea, yes, but it is not fancy, it is real. In fact, to my way of thinking, 'infinity' and God, are the same or rather two sides of the same coin, as it were.

I would concur with that.

Well, if you're trying to nail 'God', I strongly suggest not to do it. It will take you to a place that can be likened to a dog chasing it's tail.

I address this point in the other post:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/god-is-not-intelligent.600071/page-5#post-1073502224

Note, It is not my purpose to discuss the nuance of Pantheism, Atheism, Deism, or Theism. It would be fair to compare my philosophy to these, that's about all you can do. Whatever degrees my philosophy inhabits these other philosophies, I'm fine with that, but it's not my purpose to do it, to change the focus of the OP into a deep dive into more well established schools of thought. Do I borrow from them, sure. I'm very much into the Tao, and borrow from it I"m influenced by Alan Watts, Ramana Maharshi, Chuang Tzu, Spinoza, Patanjali, Sadhguru, Gurdjieff and others.

 

I took up flute because of Ian Anderson (and Herbie Mann) but after a spell, traded it for a guitar and finally the piano.

 

I studied the piano for eight years. Then, when I was 16, I had a huge cyst at the base of my spine and I had to have surgery the first week of summer. The cyst was between the size of a baseball and a softball. I had 500 stitches and was laid up for 3 months.

Luckily I could sit on pillows. So for three months I sat at my piano and really pulled together all of those years of training and practice. I often played for eight hours a day or more! I mastered pieces that had been far beyond my reach before. I was playing not only classical, but keeping up with the likes of Elton note for note. I was getting really good.

After three months I was healed up enough to return to normal life and I never played again [not beyond just screwing around].

 

Aww, that's so sad to hear.

I kept it up, though it's more like 2 years of practice repeated 20 times.
Though I don't play classical, I like the old standards, Hoagy Carmichael, etc

 

As I believe I noted earlier, you are not using words accurately, or are not making good arguments, based on your words. There is no tangible difference, in this example, between saying that the universe isn't special, or saying that it is neither special nor "not special." Let's try this, with some other religion's God, OK? So, for a Christian to say that Jesus was "not special," might be problematic, but not if he added, "nor not special?" Ditto a Muslim, about Allah, or even about His prophet, Mohammed? Think again.

And I love that quote, from the person who said that I was being abstruse. What the hell does that mouthful mean? This was my quote:
"And this is less logical than the "scientific" version, of the origin of the universe's original matter, how?"

You had criticized my speaking-- only to satisfy your evasions of making any attributions of cause, behind either the universe's laws or "God's," qualities, if they had anything to do with the universe, to which God, gave rise, according to you-- to either God or, if not God, then Its Creator, because of some flaw you saw in my depiction of a beginning to the universe. I pointed out that science is likewise stymied, for any explanation of where "something," came from, initially.

So how does your claiming that saying that the universe is neither special nor not special, is consistent with a reverence for the universe, address this question of whether you had any valid criticism of my argument, with regard to the universe's "beginning?"


In truth, the real misuse of language here, is by you, in the title of your thread, "God is not intelligent." If you, in fact, believe that God is not a real Force, Being, Consciousness-- that It does not truly exist-- then it is very misleading of you to focus your title on Its intelligence. The title which would have been more to your point, would have been, God is Only Imaginary, or something to that effect. For it goes without saying that something that does not truly exist, of course, has no intelligence.

 

I didn't say it was special, nor not special. Now pay close attention:

I wrote:

The universe is neither special, nor it not special, IT JUST IS.

The all important clause in that statement is the last one, which you left out, because the two prior clause are setting up the last one, and when you left the last clause out, you altered 100% the meaning of the sentence.

Why? Because to assert the universe is special is to project upon it. It's a value judgment, it takes a human to do it.

But, it's just there, there is no special or not special. IT just IS

It just is.

Capiche?

Can I hold a reverence for it? sure, can I say it's special? Sure, but looking it without a human lens, it just is.

On some things in life, where I really want to get close to something, know it, know it for what it really is, there's a meditation technique, to strip away the human lens and look at something without thinking what it is. Look at a bed and do not think 'bed'. If you can do it, you'll see the bed closer than you've ever seen it before. In fact, it will transform you in a profound way you've never experienced. It's almost a religious experience.

I know it sounds impossible. But it's not impossible, just takes a lot of meditating (mindfulness techniques) to achieve it.

A lot of my beliefs on this subject were arrived at via meditating on the subject. Other aspects I arrived at via logic and reading books and personal experiences.

Look at Chinese writing. If you can't read Chinese, it looks like scribbling, artistic in a way, but a bunch of artful scribbles.

So, it's easy to look at Chinese writing without being able to read it, so it's easy to see it as it really is.

Try doing it with English. Much harder, but, with meditation, over time, you can do it. But, what's the point of looking at type face without understanding it? There really isn't any point to it. But, looking at the universe as it really is, stripping away the human lens, then it becomes almost mystical, there's where the technique has a real benefit.

Of course. I wouldn't suggest for them to do anything different.

Okay, let's back up.

You wrote:
But even amongst today's science- based pantheists, there exists a REVERENCE for the universe; hence, it is in direct contradiction to that philosophy, to say that the universe, "is not special."

I interjected:
I didn't say it was 'not special' I said it was neither special, nor not special, it just is [the all important clause]. The distinction is important.
And one can definitely have reverence for the universe, be awestruck by it, in the context of that statement.

You wrote (the continuation of the above);
And this is less logical than the "scientific" version, of the origin of the universe's original matter, how?

I just explained, above, there was no contradiction. Therefore, the concept of it being 'less logical....." becomes a moot point.

Once you understand that the universe, sans looking at it with a human lens, just is, once you understand that concept, you still
are allowed to use a human lens, assert it's special, it's awesome, etc. Just be mindful of the distinction, that's all I'm saying.

As mentioned above, this concept arises from meditation, mindfulness techniques, it's a technique that enables the individual to see things without a human lens, which is to say, how things really are, yet maintain mindfulness.

"Life is not a problem to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived' ---Osho Rajneesh, paraphrasing Søren Kierkegaard.

Life is a mystery, and I think if we just accept it, not fight it, not try to solve the riddle of the universe, everyone will be better off, spiritually, emotionally, etc. "in my opinion".

But, that being said, we can toy with the subject, as we're doing here. It's fun!

See above

I think it's unknowable. But, I'm leaning towards believing life has no beginning, no end, and it might be some kind of infinite loop, a circle, or some kind of mobius thingamajig. I once posited that if you shot out into space, in a single direction, maintained and absolute straight line, shot out to infinity, that you'd eventually approach and come back to the spot you left from in the opposite direction, that the universe is a cosmic circle.

Now, I don't know, really, if that is true, it's just a wild-ass guess. Would be amusing if it were, true, though,

No, because I'm not saying that at all.

I titled the thread 'God is not intelligent'.

I meant that literally, but since it could easily be misinterpreted as 'God is stupid', which is not what I meant, I qualified it in the opening line, 'God is not an intelligence'.

You need to pay close attention to what I wrote.

No, I made no such claim, nor did what I actually wrote come close to 'or something of that effect'. Nothing I wrote was to that effect.

You're commenting on a point I didn't make.

 

Now you pay attention: to a Pantheist, the Universe is GOD; in other words, it is, in no uncertain manner, SPECIAL. It is utterly ludicrous, your thinking that any little bit you added after saying that it is not special, makes a difference. Let me ask you, if you were getting married, and began your marriage vows with, "I don't love you, but I don't not love you..." how much longer would you expect the bride to wait around, hoping you might throw her a bone?

 

I believed that I was conversing with one of those-- was I wrong?

Once again, are we not both humans? If I am giving you a ride, and ask if driving over a cliff would be harmful to us, do you respond, "it's not harmful or unharmful; it just is," or do you say, "hell , yeah, it would be harmful-- don't do it!?" Aren't you the one who told me that if I used the words, "intelligent design," no matter how much I explained my different meaning than Creationists, I should expect confusion? But you feel you can answer a question, as if you are not using a human perspective, and don't even need to specify that, at the time, to be correctly understood?

Your quote:
"The universe is neither special, nor (is) it not special, IT JUST IS,"
is not consistent with your holding it in reverence; that is the way one reviews Domino's Pizza.

Now I am not saying that means that you cannot be a Pantheist; but your views would certainly be aberrant. That being the case, it seems odd that-- while all the while professing to not be very knowledgeable about Pantheism-- you felt comfortable with, numerous times, assailing my views, as being not very Pantheist; and all the while, espousing "heretical" views, yourself.

Here, though, to get away from your niggling sophistical semantics, is the real point: even by your own stated belief as to how we now find ourselves here--

-- the fact that we happen to exist in this version of Creation, not lost in one of the countless quadrillions of others which failed to get this far, should make both our circumstance, and our universe, from even a computer's perspective, VERY SPECIAL. (Far more special than, say, rolling six sixes, simultaneously, in a game of Yahtzee-- but even that trivial occurrence, most will acknowledge as special).

 

What you have just done is given your post's response to my comment-- but, of course, I had not read your response, when I made the comment. Can you follow this? Your comment, to which I responded, was this:

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
The concept of an 'intelligent designer' is not logical at all. The mind only constructs it because it's not comfortable with randomity. But, it's a half baked solution, because if we assert that the universe has an intelligent designer, then it begets the question: who intelligently designed the intelligent designer?

And, in your opinion, saying that everything just appeared randomly, is a fully baked solution, which does not beget the question, "How the F*** did that happen?"

Here was my quote which you answered, by saying that you "just explained, above, there was no contradiction," so judged my point, a moot one.

Forgive me, I missed it. So, if you wouldn't mind repeating: How is it half-baked for me to stipulate a designer of the universe, but your believing that everything appeared out of nowhere, and for no purpose other than random chance, is more sensible?

 

I explained the nuance of the statement in great detail, which you truncated and are ignoring..

You're looking at the universe through a human lens. Without it, it just is.

I explained the value of looking at the universe existentially, rather than through a human lens.

That doesn't mean you can't look at it through a human lens.

As for marriage and what not, you're talking about a human experience, not the existential universal experience I spoke of.

Try reading what I wrote, again.

 

You're missing the point. One can experience an 'existential universal experience' (normally via meditation) which is a valuable experience.

That doesn't mean one does not look at the universe through a human lens. Most will.

One does not exclude the other, but you're missing the point of the value of the existential experience. It's a spiritual experience. Many a sage spoke of it, dropping the mind. Osho spoke of it another way, he said 'When you are not, God IS'. He's talking stripping away the human lens for an existential experience, and when you meditate on the universe, it's really something.

In fact, once experienced, you're reverence for the universe will expand by many orders of magnitude. This is all I'm saying.

And that's the point, that journey begins with contemplating that the universe, 'just is'.