movingalways wrote:
In the spirit of reason, I offer that the verb "have" exposes the god of ignorance of our true nature, for how can have their world of thoughts?   Is man not the cause, the intent of his thinking, making him also in union with the effects, the manifestation of his thinking?  
Reason dictates that one starts to grow to know the world by looking at what are the undeniable facts which are independent of the observer. Reason also dictates that, in order to find the most logical and credible conclusions, that magical ideas of divine implications must be cast aside, as they are unverifiable and as such cannot be articulated coherently, clearly, and with sincere objectivity. Imagination is fine to create art, but to understand the world, one must rely on observation instead, and with as little imagination, especially dealing in abstract concepts, as possible. 

 

Most men wonder about the nature of mankind, and wonder, and wonder, and wonder, skating back and forth on this horizontal, intellectual thought line of wondering.  Very few, however, get up from their horizontal position of intellectual wondering and step into their vertical position of depth contemplation and analysis, the vertical position of transcendence and transformation that takes them beyond their "mankind nature."    

I must admit that the horizontal/vertical analogy is not entirely clear to me. I fail to see why one's experiences would not allow for both of what you speak of - Pondering the nature of humanking by making observations about those who surround us, and all at once, searching deep into ourselves to establish who we are at the individual level. In fact, I think doing only one of the two is misguided. The human experience being a shared experience, it compels us to do both these things.

You say a person's brains creates their thoughts as if the brain created itself, as if matter can create matter.   What caused the visible brain to appear from the invisible brain is the deeper question.  And it is my discovery that there is no question a man can ask that doesn't already have an answer.


What is this "invisible brain" you speak of? The brain develops thoughout our lives and I believe we are the result of the procreation of two people, usually of the opposite sex, neither one of which was ever invisible.

"God of ignorance" as it relates to the subject matter of this thread is that we believe we have a life, or have thoughts, rather than that we are the life of our thoughts and are the thoughts of our life.   It is this belief in having something that are all the gods of things that is the veil that block our vision from seeing that we are the God of ourselves, which is the same thing as saying we are the God of our thoughts.
 

In order to be the 'god' of our thoughts and lives, we must first have thoughts and lives, don't we? Looking at humanking, if we are 'gods' than I would agree many among us as gods of ignorance, though this is not what you meant, of course.

"Our true nature" is just as I said above.  There is no separation between you and what is eternal and infinite, Your thoughts of You. 
Infinity and eternity are abstract concepts which lie beyond what the human mind can factually assimilate. Think of it this way: Imagine time is, indeed, an infinite. Then, an infinity in time lies in the past, and as such, this moment in time where we exist was never reached. Of course, when speaking of terms along an immortal existence, people focus on the infinity which lies in our future, but overlook the paradox of infinity by ignoring how it would relate to the past.

Timewise, infinity equates with the absence of the present. In the spirit of reason, consider this last statement carefully.

I reason that you and I are eternal and infinite and not just products of our brain and all its imaginings because of my insight that the brain returns to the dust from whence it came, therefore, there is a hidden Principle of Movement that is the cause of the return, as well as that of its original emergence.  Also, if it were true that when the brain dies, Life dies also, then Life would have ended with the death of the brains of the early appearance of the water creatures.   Without the return to the principle of "brain" and an expansion of this returning principle, would it not be so that the evolved brain of man would never have happened?


I am not sure if this is a philosophocal challenge which I am not quite sure I grasp, or an incredibly flawed understanding of the Theory of Evolution. "Death of the brains of the early water creatures?" Yes, they did die, as their lives ended, but you do realize that this is no way means the death of the entire species? Because many humans have died, this would be the end of human life and intelligence? Far from it, actually, as the species not only survives, but evolves. The evolved brain of man specifically came about because, thus far, our specific evolutionary line has survived by, in all likelyhood, the more beneficial random mutations of the species being properly promoted, if you will, by natural selection. Recent studies show that Neanderthals (once believed to be an ancestor of humans but now established to have been part of a distinct evolutionary line) were probably just as intelligent as humans and they went exctint. All this shows is that they, at some point in time, were unable to adapt, either because beneficial random mutations that could have saved them did not occur, or occured too seldomly, or that they did occur sufficiently but were not selected enough. Species naturally select what appears to be most beneficial at a certain point in time, but nothing is ever perfect.

In keeping with the subject matter of this thread, the god of "brain" emanated from the God of the Principle of every flesh thing, including "brain."   The god of water, the god of hate, the god of love, the god of rock, the god of mountain, the god of every thing are these flesh things and are the idols man worships [thinks upon] rather than the God who is the invisible Principle of all these visible things.   If you can provide me with an insight that explains the arising and returning of the gods of this sense world that is deeper in reasoning wisdom than this, then, by all means, I'm all ears.
As long as we focus on the invisible, I think we show little reason and instead seek comfort and reassurance. Perhaps we shall become wiser as a species when we begin to focus on who we are, humans, animals, with instincts and primitive urges, instead of attempting to elevate ourselves to the level of Gods. There is no humility in the latter, and in my own opinion, no truth to it.

You can't move forward if you are in denial, and I find god to be the Greatest Of Deceptions. When we stop looking for God, and instead look into who we are as natural beings, then we will have made a giant leap forward.  

Wether or not a God exists, the truth remains that none could define him even if he did.