You are right. Occam's razor is what I was referring to when I said "logically unnecessary."

And clearly, even though I clear start out stating that I am going to operate from non-conventional definitions and then give them, only a few people have been able, around such an emotion-laiden subject, to put aside the conventional ones as a thought exercise and consider the alternatives I provide.

As I said, my purpose in trying to work with these words had been more of a kind with poetry, in selecting words to use that bring a desired psychological impact, knowing that the use is strictly figurative and metaphorical.

Thanks for the clarification.
I'll re-read your post and see if I can agree.

If you're no longer overly sensitive about religion, I recommend Heinlein's Job - A Comedy of Justice. It's probably his best piece of commentary on religion in general.

That you all for all your comments, thoughts and counter-arguments. I am having a blast, and learning and sharpening with you participation - all of you.

I will reread and continue to consider and ponder many of your responses.

I am definitely getting what I sought in this post.

I LOVE this stuff!! Onward and Upward.....

"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" -Occam's Razor

Everything you are attempting to achieve in your "spiritual practices" can be accomplished without any reference to "God". To add this term is unnecessary and likely to confuse your listeners, most of whom are likely to define "God" conventionally as a supreme being existing outside of (and controlling) normal matter, time and space.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. It does get confusing trying to untangle the threads

Thanks. I have not.

Would you please be willing to share a link to the audio. I have loved listening to Nathaniel speak over the last 40 years

Contempt prior to investigation. From Webster:

Definition of beingness. : the quality, state, or condition of having existence.

Again, I am not trying to reconcile anything with mysticism, which I patently reject. There is nothing in what I have written that is mystical or implies mysticism - unless you hold to their definitions of words related to spirituality.

The effort I am try to make is really to salvage some things from these concepts that are of practical value psychologically in the project of living well - by extracting or defining the mystical elements out.

I agree, "all powerful, all knowing and all present - omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresence are all nonsensical terms,(although omnipresence does apply to Existence/Reality).

They are all based on anthropomophizations of God.

And yes, the word God as a synonym for Reality is not logically necessary; but as with poetry, I find it useful in my spiritual practices to use it figuratively or metaphorically - remaining aware that I am referring to Existence or the Universe as a whole.

Sorry for any confusion - note that I specifically addresses @Wanderer.

The linking here can be confusing as has been noted earlier.

Love that author (not his best work, though). Thanks. I will go back and look at it again.

In the days when I last read it, whenever I saw the word God or related words, I became so irrationally belligerent and close minded, that I ignored them at best and pulled out intellectual WMDs at worst.

That's odd. I actually agrued against the "consciousness governs reality in a couple earlier posts. What specific statement in my discussion leads you to believe I hold consciousness primary over reality?

As a matter of fact, the central purpose of my entire spiritual practice is to strengthen and make denser, the integration and alignment of my consciousness (and actions) with Reality.

Greetings, fellow traveller....

If you have not read or listened to Nathaniel Branden's lecture on God, then I think you are missing the core issue involved.

Every scientific advance reveals that reality is not only complex it is vastly more complex than our ability to model even its behavior much less the underlying mechanisms. What we do see, with increasing clarity, a fundamental process where simple systems combine to form more complex ones. Given the resources available in time, space, raw materials and energy it suggests that non only anything can happen but that everything must happen. In this sense the cosmos appears to be a vast self organizing system. Now whether this can be considered a form of intelligence is more of a metaphysical question than a scientific one. In any case it opens the opportunity to consider that the behavior of reality follows a set of rules and that these rules lead to increasingly complex structures and systems. A.C. Clark observed "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." It may also be the case that "Any phenomena that is indistinguishable from intelligence IS intelligence." It's kind of a variation on the Turing test. It is a big leap to consider that the cosmos its self is intelligence because among other considerations we would need to revisit the definition of intelligence. Regardless, it should be a subject of study and understanding rather than veneration and worship.

Anytime I hear someone use non-words such as "Beingness", I tune out. Whatever he is saying is sure to be sense-free.

Since I posted the God Question, the contributions seemed like they would never end. Because of your post, I can't help but quote Godfather 3; "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in."

I can see you have given this much thought. The only thing I might suggest from an Objectivist standpoint is that you are trying to reconcile reason with mysticism. Can't be done. However, there is still much in the universe that remains unexplained. In an attempt to do so multiple theories have been put forth by various scientists most revolving around ways to express observations in mathematical form. Just like Einstein created a breakthrough which led to an entirely new aspect of physics, so might there be another such happening either among some of the theories already put forth or perhaps a theory yet to be presented. Much of Quantum Physics is so contrary to what is generally accepted by human senses that mystical qualities are often attached to them.

I was a "Doubting Thomas" about spirituality until four young men and I entered a nice looking abandoned house reputed to be haunted one night in Sarasota, Florida, way back in the late 60s.
No, we had not been drinking and none used drugs.
The house had a second floor where we all began to hear voices that came and went (most sounding like it came from downstairs) and I and one other saw the same something looking back at us from a doorway upstairs.
No, it wasn't some prankster in a sheet. I saw the human-looking outline of a head and shoulders that cocked its head as if inspecting us. Then it faded.
There were only the five of us in that house. We left within an hour due to most losing their nerve.
I was more scared going in. When I saw what I saw, a rather pleasant thrill ran through me. Can't explain that or why I had then lost my fear.
But would I have stayed in that house by myself?
No, no, no, no! Not me. I had not lost that much fear.
This is my one and only ghost experience ever.
I must admit to a regret of never having seen a UFO.
I do have a brother who thinks he saw a UFO that was also in the news at the time

cksawyer,
Although I can appreciate your post - still, i doubt that God will. Ask him, not us. The rest of us do not matter in regard to these you are having; only his thoughts will matter. .
Dan

@cksawyer - I appreciate your intention but question your accepting the theist's term GOD.

Rand reclaimed "selfishness" because it captures something we have no other good word for and it exposes the corruption of conventional use of that term - deserving a formal challenge.
Most people can get the idea of selfish meaning respecting yourself and respecting the same responsibility by all others. And that yield trust and freedom with a proper government securing our rights.

I see no such argument for the term GOD unless we use it to describe man. After all, god is a concept formed from human capacity for creation of things, knowledge, power and presence, but invalidated by putting the word "all" in front of those valuable attributes.

I find it easiest to explain to people by asking them what they would think if I answered a question about how tall I am with, "I'm all tall." If they can see the nonsense and contradiction in terms of that, we can then talk about the same flaw in the terms: all powerful, all knowing and all present - omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresence. It's just nonsense dressed up as profound.

Sounds like you're aiming at the concept Robert Heinlein summarized with the phrase "Thou art God." (See Stranger in a Strange Land.)

The question of what is Reason, needs to be answered before some critics deride the OP as not 'objectivist' enough. Reason depends on logic and logic depends on premises. Premises depend on...well that's the problem. They depend on information about what is objective which we form premises about. What is objective is filtered through our senses and the mechanisms and tools we invent to detect what is objective.

Reality is a construct of our minds through which we perceive what is objective reality. Since our minds exist in a universe of time and space we are constrained from perception or even understanding what is "beyond' those dimensions.We can only guess by the manifestations in our dimensions. A 2d person on a piece of paper would perceive the touch of a 3 dimensional hand as five points in their 2d universe and totally not be able to conceive of a hand or a body or much less the totality of 3 dimensions.

There is one premise that ties in spirituality with reason. That intelligence can not arise unless the universe began with intelligence. DNA could not arise unless there was intelligence to program it and give it the purpose of becoming more complex and evolve. The universe has intelligence. Not like ours but intelligent nonetheless. A tree would not grow without a from of intelligence.

In the ancient language roots, the word for Tree is also the word for ideas which arise from intelligence and thought.

In the words of Moses the forces of nature making up the intelligent universe (Called Elohim) - and the existence in which our universe resides (Yahweh meaning timeless being) are a unity. In an analogous manner to our mind being a unity with our bodies, although they are separate intelligences. . The body has it's own intelligence but the mind influences that intelligence. The difference is that the mind is dependent on the body whereas the intelligent universe is dependent on the intelligence of Existence.

That is not the regular concept of God that has been misrepresented across the ages. God is an idol or an image which Moses cautioned us about become enslaved to. All the concepts of a God have been influenced by Pagan,Greek and Roman myths. Those myths and hierarchies of forces of nature corresponding to political hierarchies were the source of legitimacy for all the tyrannical regimes, the churches, Political Islam etc. What we call God is a Political fiction for control of the people rather than allowing self control as the intelligence in all of us warrants. 10 things that order society. That's the message of Moses if you read it in the original Hebrew and not the mis-translations.

Political ideas do not come out of thin air. They are the result of the moral premises which men have accepted. Whatever people believe to be the good, right and proper Human actions – that will determine their Political actions“. – Ayn Rand

If you are interested in a moral governance ordered by those 10 things, in the context of America, as it should have been organized, here is the link

http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...

Based on using the definitions of God I reject, you are absolutely correct, and I agree 100%.

If you actually start with my proposed definition: God is Beingness.

Beingness is that attribute of Reality shared by everthing that exists and all that exists.

I refer to Reality considered in its essential characteristic of Totality (the One broadest abstraction, Unity, Allness), putting aside consideration of particulars as per method of definition in Objectivist Epistemology.