Destroy My Belief System, Please!

Okay. God is neither the biggest set nor void set, but undefinable; identified only as that which cannot be identified; named only as that which may not be named, and so fourth; transcendent of all things.

All ideas about God are irrational by nature. It's the first impulse to say GOd should never be named, or attempted to describe, to avoid misinterpretation and deification. But humans have a psychological requirement to communicate about this topic.

The moment one attempts to describe God, however, one has potentially deified God.

If the transcendent meaning originally being communicated by the dogma is recognized, the dogma is interpreted as secondary and not quite relevant. Religious symbols and traditions here can be interpreted correctly, and are a benign influence in that they may induce states of mutually transcendental awareness. And this probably facilitates social cooperation.

When transcendent awareness is not applied to religious concepts, dogma becomes empowered.
I think this happens willfully. People refuse to see transcendental meaning due to personal bias of every sort.

As religion globalizes, which seems inevitable, the dogmas will dissolve and some mixture of transcendentalism, atheism, and agnosticism will probably become the dominant viewpoints.

If God has to be undefinable then referring to God is useless, and the concept should be thrown out. That's just like pointing at a word without meaning.

Second on my view there is no such thing as void. Space is not a void, its full of energy "virtual" particles and what not.

Finally I address God in the realm of the tangible as that is the only God worth addressing. I have no clue on what you are speaking about when you refer to any form of transcendence in strict sense. Its a fancy word for describing relations at a distance n distinguishing things to which we can be more closely related from less closely related. Beyond that the word is silly.

While it remains to be seen what "Physics" exactly is, there is no such thing as Metaphysics...(although Ontology and what you guys normally call Metaphysics is the area on which I have more "instinct" n feel comfortable debating. In fact all else in Philosophy is accessory to me.)

For your first sentence... by the same reasoning referring to anything is useless, since language never quite defines anything. ANd in a way language is useless. But I think it facilitates social cooperation. There is meaning beyond words. The word GOd may be useful in acknowledging exactly that undefinability.

We have already talked at length about nothing and everything, so I don't feel a need to repeat all that.

I find transcendence can unify concepts like void and full, and give them real meaning where there is none in the ideal sense.

For example, someone may argue God is consciousness. But even this definition I have a problem with, because it neglects the unconscious.

So I consider them transcendentally unified and undefinable. Yes I use the word a lot in discussions about God. I don't know many other words that fill the same role. Irrational works, but not quite. Abstract works, but not quite. Undefinable works, but not quite. Supernatural works, but people don't really like that word. Etc. The word transcendental unifies contradictory concepts more clearly than all of these because it relates the opposing parts, where otherwise their relation isn't clearly specified and I have to write out a sentence explaining how unifying a paradox is possible.

Here is the dictionary definition of the word:
Definition of TRANSCENDENTAL
1
a : transcendent 1b

b : supernatural

c : abstruse, abstract

d : of or relating to transcendentalism

2
a : incapable of being the root of an algebraic equation with rational coefficients <π is a transcendental number>

b : being, involving, or representing a function (as sin x, log x, ex) that cannot be expressed by a finite number of algebraic operations <transcendental curves>

in Kantian philosophy

a : of or relating to experience as determined by the mind's makeup

b : transcending experience but not human knowledge

Examples of TRANSCENDENTAL

<the concept of the soul as a transcendental entity that exists entirely apart from the body>
<in his speeches he manifests a transcendental ability to inspire people from all points on the political spectrum>

Ok it seems you lost all desire of having a rational conversation its pointless to continue sir have a nice day !

The Journal of Forth Horseman by Zach
Taking claim and giving acclaim. The soul will need universal claim to kingship to receive due honor and reputation that is relative of sense implications and intuited contemplations at some point even if it’s just a simple thought in terms the regard that is noted as acclaim to position because of the intellect and the implications of the regard. Mentioning something of value and inferring in the spirituality of the person. Knowing someone that is sensed from close quarters or from afar. Everyone has been regarded in the unified intuition of reality so we can read the populace with spirituality sensed supernaturally by the multitudes. Acclaim is giving claim and it is characteristic of honesty that attributes claim to the person. It is a valued respondent act to accomplished reputation.
Defense mechanisms can precede a stronger contemplation that puts forth the soul. I think this came from my intrinsic consciousness, whilst thinking overtly proceeds. Defense mechanisms occur when there is too many recipient thoughts, and it can be controlled. Defense mechanisms are the systems guard against thought or action that pervades. Ones reactions can bound or bind a person, and this is defense.
People decide politics when their situation becomes exigent. Calmed souls don’t tend toward exigency. It is also decent to not to get exigent, but when the goal is encompassing, it is great exigency at some point. That is necessity. Like when the spirit is expressing itself continuously.
The essence is the intrinsically outgoing notion of the soul. It is the objective appearance. Essence Is the essential qualities of the soul shown to an environment or kept like in solitude. Essence is the primary reflect of a being like in terms egotism sometimes. It is the attractive beings soul just emanating off the being. It is changed when determined as new due to reasoning of the spiritual feel. The essence is the allure of the beings substance and the sense of him/her spiritually. When not alluring the beings essence is taking on a component property like in relation; a particular notion of the soul is innate in the beings intuition. Bad depletes the essence, for it is contrary to the soul will, and just chosen action that weakens. When the rationality is not opted for the person doesn’t give out due portion, if it arises superseding a principle that is known morally or after a principle. The essence is what someone exudes, or what gives when embracing. Properties are revealed at determination of the essence. At the start of the determination, the essence is revealed and the properties are known. The essence is the true appearance and aura; the definitive characteristics that exemplify the elementary portrayal. Or collegiate of mid-grade portrayal
When someone is affected by someone, they respond to their emotions. Primeval times are when we are affected by people in a primitive way and when our affect is upon people. Evil which contradicts good in a certain way that is less powerful in the empirical regard and is affected by good in this way, and it is pure soul core that does this. Evil can be completely good, which harmonizes well with certain people, and can give rise to immorality if received in relation, and the comment necessary is immoral. Primeval is not associated with evil though. These are exorbitant times. Prime is when there is no drive sometimes, like naturality is in effect and drive is too advanced and complex; prime is new. Originality comes from the prime will. It affects people powerfully like in primeval times. It is considered rare there because of the knowledge of the regard being sensed and because of slow thinking processes. We do things, as the result of being affected sometimes and it aids to relationships.
I felt aggressive when talking about the apocalypse and it was effective at making people believe in the goal as knowledgably attained. Aggressive diplomacy is having passion that moves toward the person harshly or quickly in a way and when good progresses the soul at a higher rate. It can have the reaction of compliance. Aggressive diplomacy that is unsettled is good when of the type to want to foster warfare.

Wow. Consider paragraphs.

Uncharacteristically, I agree with you, Finn.

It's not just the paragraphs, either. The whole post reads as if it came out of some nonsense-text generator on the internet.

I don't know if this really destroys your belief system but what about when or if you are faced with a desperate situation? ie, terminal illness, trapped on a deserted island, kidnapped, or faced with any dilemma that you can't see a solution for? The evidence might point directly to your demise but would you accept that fact? Would you hold out hope that there is a solution? But why would you do that if you base your situation on the facts at hand? Why hold out hope if there is nothing that even supports that there is any potential hope of escape from the problem?

You know let's take the first example, a terminal illness. The doctors tell you that you have ten months to live, and the disease you have is non-operative. They might have a few treatments but they say there is only a small chance it will work at your current stage in the disease. Do you take these bits of information and try your luck? Or do you decide you don't want to suffer the fate of pain and misery as you slowly waste away, so you take your own life?

Is avoiding suffering necessarily a good thing? If you never have any happiness what so ever in your life does that mean it was a terrible life? I'm not sure if any of this made any sense or hit on exactly what you were wanting as a challenge to your philosophy, but there you go..

If I don't see a solution and fool myself into thinking I do, I still don't have a solution. Sure, every human has a psychological breaking point, and I will no doubt reach mine under severe-enough stress. But breaking down under stress, I think, doesn't count as a genuine belief.


"Accept" in the sense that I make my peace with it? Probably not. "Accept" in the sense that I see the truth of the matter? I'm pretty sure I would.


These are not the only choices. Palliative care is fairly good these days. My eventual decision would turn on my quality and quantity of life if the operation succeeds, the probability of the treatments succeeding, the pain and suffering if the treatments fail, compared to the pain and suffering if I choose palliative care over treatment. I'm not afraid of being dead, but I am afraid of the pain I will suffer along the way, and I'm just as afraid of losing my faculties. Since palliative care doesn't help against the latter, taking my own life is definitely on the table when this time comes.

I'm not sure why someone would want their belief system destroyed.

Do you think at all? Do you analyze anything? Do you turn anything around in your mind? He isn't asking for his belief system to be destroyed, he is attempting to find a weakness or a fault in the philosophy that he might have missed. This would allow for a solution if there needs to be one. The point is to find fault in the logic. But you clearly have abandoned the ability to think or analyze a concept.

For some reason I think you're in love. Why would you feel you're in love.

Love is a fickle and an inferior emotion. So I highly doubt it.

*edit* I realized how pretentious that sounds. I like to think that I have transcended the need for it. I think there is something greater than it. Love is too chaotic and unpredictable for me so I don't seek it.

I understand the hurt.

There is no hurt about it. Every emotion is conditional despite what some might try to claim. Every feeling has a cause which makes it arise. If the cause is removed then the emotion or feeling doesn't happen. That might sound cold and static but it actually results in a better more stable feeling that is got from a release of wanting things to be a certain way. I don't look or want love because I understand it's shortcomings. I abandon it and let things be naturally which gives rise to a freedom that is not there if you are wanting or needing love.

I know you don't want to go to hell. You don't want to suffer. You want love. You're tired of suffering. I know. You could have had it if you believed in the Holy Spirit. And Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ died for our sins. How could you not love him for loving you that much. Angels do exist. Heavenly Angels. Guardian Angels.

Not just Hell's Angels. I'm not sure hell's angels exist because they are tortured along with the rest.

You are delusional. I have zero interest in your theology. You might as well be quoting the ingredients list on a box of cereal.

You will not like being miserable.