God and reality v abstraction

As an apodictical existential pantheist I offer a view of God which might at least partially satisfy both skeptic and devout if not bring them together in intellectual embrace. What do California, Mother Love, Costco, Naziism, and God have in common and in fact to what degree can we assert that any of them even exists

http://able2know.org/topic/196336-1#post-5081763

It’s clear that according to the general rule that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, there’s no clear dividing line separating reality (say, a rock) from the abstract (say, mother love). Any idea for instance seems pretty abstract though it evidently entails a concrete brain. At least the casual a2k participant might consider mine as concrete

Even though we think of it in corporeal terms Costco constitutes an ill-defined groupings of mumbling humanoids pushing keys and moving objects from one place to another. Ill-defined for instance in what sorts of creatures are involved; whether its membership for instance part of it

In the same vein Naziism was an arbitrary grouping of anthropoids in similar dressage fielding a black symbol on red cloth depriving another organism of its life based on a vaguely supposed difference in its genealogy whilst making loud guttural sounds with one limb outstretched toward a physically atypical specimen in sagging uniform

Thus according to the pantheist—my No. 2 Son and I in particular—if you equate the above entities with substance, then God is indeed very real, considering for instance the physical Universe as Her body and all the activity as the workings of Her mind

She is Christ as well as Hitler

Think of yourself as one of Her brain cells

That’s not to say by any means that we have all the answers; persisting an intuitional notion for instance that without us the entire Megillah seems a random and pointless bouncing of objects off one another; while still shrouded in inscrutability the mechanism by which the physical constants seem to have been adjusted—in some cases within a fraction of one percent--to permit our evolution

So yes my canonical brethren, I’ll readily concede there’s still something mysterious about it all

Many humans live with and without religion, and that's the way it should be.

Many humans live with and without religion, and that's the way it should be. The problem with this conclusion is simply that religion is an accident of birth, and many do not have the choice when born.

Most believe in their god to be the only god, and they live out their lives thinking they have the answer.

Not true.

It's an easy observable fact if you open your brains. What religion do you think most Italians follow? How about South Americans? How about Hindus and Muslims. Do you still have a clue?

If you make it clear to me, I will gladly respond.

You just want it both ways, and FYI it's not logical.

When you can say you believe "x" something exists, and believe that "x" something doesn't exist, that's not logical. Your wording doesn't change the logic.

I said I do not believe there are no gods...and I do not believe there are gods.

It's the same as "I said I do not believe there are no "x's"...and I do not believe there are "x's."

Put another way: "I said I do not believe there are no easter bunnies.....and I do not believe there are easter bunnies."

Now, take out the "not."

"I do believe there are no easter bunnies....and I do believe there are easter bunnies."