The Borg Queen schreef:
>
> "Leon Hoeneveld"
wrote in message
> news:gal3g6$bo4$1@aioe.org...
> >> God, being the most simple explanation, would surely be chosen.
>> Also for Kantians.
>>
> It is hard to say "God" is a simple explanation.
It's a steppingstone concept. One can assign anything to it. God being
the simple explanation, but also God being the most complex of beings.
> Can you conceive of a person who can somehow produce matter or the
> illusion thereof and then read the minds of every single human
> simultaneously and govern and direct destiny and the future for every
> individual?
It's hard then to maintain the concept "person" . I once imagined God to
be living in the world of endless possibilities, while we live in the
world of lesser possibilities. This world of lesser possibilities is
sort of an island in the world of endless possibilities, so that you
could see this island as a sort of experiment or study-object. No need
to put any values to it, as good or bad, loveable or hateable. God
trying to give beings the choice to get more possibilities or to get
lesser possibilities. Sometimes lesser possibilities means happiness.
Things are just the way they are, and this is comfortable. In a way this
giving more or less possibilities is the only thing God can do.
> You think accepting this kind of person as possible is "simple" or "easy"?
Well, it's not my opinion. People who use God as a lesser complex being,
and then declare this to be a better solution, than blind forces are not
explaining anything.
> But for matter to spontaneously come into existence would not be possible.
> So there must be another alternative that no one has considered yet.
> And I believe it is very much the old adage "It is all in the mind".
> And that somehow this will ultimately be the true explanation.
> Of some kind of collective mind that encompasses all life with a
> connection between all life - with visuals and audio and these kind of
> things being relative to each individual.
This is along the lines of reasoning that I do in the message with the
header: More on : Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
>
> It is possible that man is on the threshold of discovering that "God" is
> somehow everyone. That all are part of a one in toto of all life. Like
> one mass mind of many molecules all linked by nature of the fact that
> they are life. And that each react with other life - and do not all
> necessarily react with a one boss or solo "God" - but cause and effect -
> suffering and growth - learning and teaching - experience - all somehow
> effect each individual and progress the toto mind toward an overall mass
> collective growth.
Well if God is actually living in the world of endless possibilities He
both lives here and does not. A being is a collection of possibilities,
so in that case we're part of God's world. But the possibilities of a
being are restricted, so we're also part of an island where God is not.
>
> Some are intelligent, some creative, some humorous, but all is somehow
> meant and based on love - and that all you do fits in - not with the
> extraordinary demands or arrangements of one single person called "God"
> but with a huge collective interaction between each individual as we
> feel and know what to do or say for the benefit of the all.
I have a difficulty with the concept "love". Maybe that's why I as a
human being can be hated. In my opinion there is no such thing as
unconditional love. Getting people to give unconditional love to God is
making it possible for the representatives of God to get love for free.
I don't think that is right. Of course people who can show love without
conditions are perfect, but they will get misused.
> The Borg Queen
