Sunday, January 15, 2006


Do-It-Yourself Deity

In an attempt to resolve any disagreement surrounding the meaning of the word "God", we assemble a special team of "metaphysical engineers" who have devised a new computer-modelling virtual environment in which to test the plausibility of different conceptions of God.

321 words

This response to the linked questionnaire
has been curtailed to fit within
the Godlorica 400 word limit.
This is portion (A)
of (A), (B), & (C)
The response in its entirety may be viewed at :


Analytic deconstruction is powerless to evoke the absolute.
More malicious than feckless, it masks issues,
and creates a mock god, which can then be burned.
Burning strawmen is enjoyable, it is true, but does not edify.
Yes or NO can only suffice if the framer of the argument
has embedded all saliencies in the choice.
Where irrelevancy has been included, or relevancy omitted,
the glib yes or no choice must be struck through,
lest sophistry be honored as understanding.

That said, here is my answer:

1) Omnipotent
God, a universal process, does not require temporal intentionality,
( I do not yet have some condition, I wish the condition to exist, I cause it to exist).
Not saying that the god process could NOT limit itself so, the salient view is
that a universal process never would experience anything it desired as being not existent.
So omnipotence in godhood cannot be subjected to paradoxes
arising from non-universal settings of lack, and subsequent filling of lack.
("Can God make an orange Cadillac", etc.) These are anthropomorphisms.

2) Omnibenevolent.
Even trad christian kant has god so loving man, that he kills his own son.
Kali kills, as her main activity. The omnibenevolence of providing all and
every opportunity for living is counterbalanced cosmically by the process
moving on to next eras again & again,
without any guarantee to an individual organism
that a next era will also be an era of that organism.
The organism whose era is over
may mistake the loving growth of the universe into its next era
as not benevolent, but that is a fallacy arising from considering just a time slice,
and not the process.
341 words


3) Omniscient
Knowing, or realization, is a modeling activity, whereby an unfilled mentality,
knowing nothing, organizes sensory input into a best guess as to its source.
The coupling of sensory evidence plus self-authored guess is then cherished
as an explanatory chart of outer reality.
Godhood is never so empty. Godhood requires no sensory input,
godhood does not weigh facts and venture guesses as to meanings,
and so does not ever have to cherish a static construct.
The "mind" of godhood therefore does not exist,
in the same way that human mind exists.
Divine omniscience is an anthropomorphism.
Rather than know everything, God IS everything, in every permutation,
dynamically changing instantly to the smallest division,
and eternally to the furthest horizon,
all at once, a process outside time, never a model.

4) The Creator
Anthropomorphic time slicing, and assumption of lack.
To god, the entire universe is experienced in toto, as his own moving body.
The arisal trajectories of anscestor, being, and progeny,
of entire races or species are seen as a unified filament,
dynamically swimming in the wheel of the possible,
all simultaneously, so nothing ever needs to be created.
What arises, arises, fully spontaneous, unfolding,
bound only by physics, and the grand attractor,
a kind of living self-sculpture.

5) The Sustainer.
re-read 3) and 4).

6) Perfectly Free
Again, timesliced, anthropomorphic, and sophist.
Not being in a dearth of anything, godhood does not experience "freedom"
in the same way that a time-captured being (with lacks) experiences
its own curtailed version of "freedom".
The mere being, not having already had everything, been everything,
done everything, known everything, sees an apparency of choices.
The so called choices are negativities, in that the creature must choose one,
or several, and not choose others.
Godhood, having already been all choices ,forever,
is eternally filled and fulfilled,
and requires no choices. Not experiencing choices,
but instead experiencing self and the universe, in toto,
the godhood experiences bliss.
In experiencing the bliss of its own being,
the godhood is perfectly unbounded, perfectly free.
258 words


7) Eternally existing.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
Not immutable or unchanging,
but arising out of its own evolutionary process,
godhood has seasons of potentiality and seasons of full realization,
allowing all gradations in between,
in the savoring of the endless circular slalom of physical emergence.
Any aspect of godhood not presently identifiable
is simply hidden in process of arising, at this point on the wheel.
Therefore any era in which god seems to have not manifested,
might be termed "God's rump".

8) A personal God.
Beware. God is not required to reach down to us.
We are required, if we wish, to reach up to God.
Invoking the divine to win a lottery bet,
or commit some crime uncaught, is not therefore a success path.
Instead, the universal holographic unity of god
is available to seekers, to those who aspire,
to those who justly pray, if they understand that godhood
is not amenable to trickery, human argumentation,
or negative thought forms.
Those acting in that manner, (such as in Obeah)
can achieve evil advantage over fellow humans,
but never touch godhood in so doing.
However, all human development to date has happened
on the firm skeleton of god's reality, approached in serious
adoration, "growing into" god as we become as
god-filled as is momentarily possible.
There is no limit to this approach.

Please note that this exposition is paradox-free,
and absolutely unassailable logically,
requiring only abandonment of unproductive
static perspectives, to unfold before the reader.

You can't cut a river with a razor blade.
Well done Godlorica.

I wrote privately to TPM
explaining my view that
the questionnaire was doomed
(rigged?)to minimize issues.

Unlike Godlorica,
they've not(yet)deigned to
deal with my argument.

Have you googled
this fellow Joe Colannino?
His brand new blog
has some very strong
exposition going.

Ok that was beyond silly. I didn't check anything because they were all human attributes. I got a 1.0. Secondly they referred to God as "she". Once again a human attribute. Is it a he or a she? Come on people get real. How could anyone believe that a creator of a universe could be anything like us or we like it.
How could anyone believe that a creator of a universe could be anything like us or we like it? I will tell you. If you read the Bible you will see that God created us in His image and that’s why we resemble Him. He created us because he sought a relationship. I believe that if you don’t believe this then you really look down on yourself and believe yourself to be nothing important. Because I have been created in the image of God I know without a shadow of doubt that I have been created for great works because of the God who created and who is living in me. I don’t find this a ridicules statement but an honour to be created in His image. It truly shows the depth of Gods love.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

eXTReMe Tracker