Are you asking me? Or are you making assertions? Or are you committing a begging the question fallacy? Or are you perhaps JAQing off? I don’t know which, you have to be more explicit.
In any case, for your questions/assertions/whatever above, there are a couple of crucial steps missing. First, you have to properly definine the terms you used. Then, you need some evidence; you need to prove/show that omnipresence is actually a thing in the real world. Same with omniscience. If you don’t, all you have is a word salad mixed together with some logic wankery. No matter how clever your logic is, if you don’t have a way to connect it to the real world, it will remain in the realm of fantasy, faerytales, and fiction.
I think it is also a Gish Gallop designed to baffle with bullshit. People like this are trying out their arguments and looking for ways to make them more effective (notice I did not say improve them).
No? Does not all life seek its own self-actualization? Isn’t that the entire premise of the concept of the self perceived?
Concept. What a conscious being perceives as good to the self is what they will follow after.
I don’t know yet how to quote yet as I’ve just joined the form.
How is it not? Isn’t to dwell in and with all being omnipresence? Isn’t the highest perceived form of good for the self to achieve divinity? Isn’t to perceive all to have perfect consciousness?
Funny how you posted god = non-existent… We’ll get to that later. However, in philosophy, an axiom cannot be about a non-existent property. An axiom is a foundational statement assumed to be true. If a property does not exist, any statement about it cannot be assumed to be true without proof, and therefore would not function as an axiom.
A metaphysical construct is an idea or concept that helps explain reality and existence through philosophical reasoning. We are discussing “if God existed, what would it be like”? I’m offering a very basis definition of God, Divinity, and Consciousness and tying these definitions to the natural world.
I am claiming that objective reality is deity full stop. I’m not claiming a partial definition or part of reality.
The concept of the perfect mermaid is the objective (the perfect good) of the subjective inference (mermaids). We don’t, however, think reality to be one giant mermaid.
Ok. If we add up all real properties in reality, we get omnipresence (the sum of all being).
If all reality achieved perfect cooperation, integration, and harmony, it would be a state of perfect goodness.
If you could perceive all things, you would have perfect consciousness. If we assume are things are conscious to the most base degree, and that higher consciousness is simply the cooperation, integration, and harmony of consciousness, being of perfect consciousness would be to know and experience all things.
Not necessarily. Yes, there is typically a payoff to actions. Those payoffs may enhance or diminish. Many folks engage in behaviors that are detrimental because they have been taught (and believe) that it is what they deserve.
The key word here is if. But is it actually realisable in the real world? Is it at all possible? You have to show that the above is in fact possible to connect your suggestions to the real world. If it turns out it is not possible, all of the above is irrelevant, it will have no practical consequence. But I can see how it might be used at the basis for a piece of fiction.
I don’t understand the question, as you offered no quote for context.
Highlight the text, and hit the quote icon that appears.
No, we will get to it now, you can’t simply ignore objections to your spiel, that’s not how debate works, go back, quote your assertions and my response and offer something beyond your bare assertions that address my objection.
You’re offering bare unevidenced assertions, false equivalences, evasion and repetition.
With bare assertions that involve false equivalences, at what point will you stop ignoring that objection?
Exactly, you’re making an unevidenced claim, that is a false equivalence.
You’ve missed the point.
Whoooooosh, the point escapes you again. Not even the usual apologetics cliché of an argumentum ad populum response, nothing in fact, nada, niente. Try again…
I would agree that self-actualization may be a concept which may be difficult to understand, but that doesn’t negate the fact that life seeks to preserve its integrity of being (harmony), seeks to expand its being (cooperation), and seeks to achieve intergration with other beings.
There’s also a principle that the brain prefers the familiar to the unknown even when it is unpleasant or harmful. That is why people keep returning to bad relationships, abusive organizations, etc. – because they resist change even when the status quo is manifestly bad.
Life itself, in its most general definition, has no will, does not “seek” anything. However, living organisms, through evolution, have evolved traits that manifests themselves in behaviour that tries to maximise its survival. You are barking up the wrong tree.
How then do you explain people and ideologies (e.g. fascism) that seek to maximally otherize, to destroy everything that opposes them without awareness or concern that ultimately they will destroy themselves?
Not everyone is functional. Way too many are dysfunctional. Life does not invariably bend toward harmony and cooperation; else we would not have wars, or would have indication that they are becoming less frequent. We would not have human trafficking, rape, etc. Some people seek only domination and even death and destruction for its own sake.
IMO at this point in history it is dicey whether “harmony and cooperation” will win out even in some ultimate sense. Of course that doesn’t mean it isn’t something to strive for, but I disagree that it is somehow baked into humanity to transcend its own weaknesses.
Agree? With whom? Since this response was to a post I wrote, I think I can safely assume you meant me. Well, you need to hone your comprehension skills and then re-read my post. I never said it was a concept that was difficult to understand. Therefore, your agreement is senseless.
People only engage in detrimental behavior because (1) they believe that the means justify the ends (2) they seek to escape a condition within themselves that they find incompatible with their perception of the actualized self. No being desires suicide as an ends unto itself. Suicide serves as a medium to which (1) the means justifies the ends (sacrifice) or (2) a being escapes a condition that they find incompatible with their perception of the actualized self.
I would argue against that. Let’s say that I could offer a boost in any area of your life with no strings attached. Would you take me up on that offer?