God is just a Hallucination ( Delirium)

[saeed_karimi]

HI STEF and GUYS



I know some people believe in god it Grieve me .
i just waana say to STEF and another friends , something that i know about this
Delirium ( god ) . DONT Beguile your self. be free and feel symphony of life.
Life is better without god .

DONT Beguile your self there is not a god in the world


IN THE NAME OF HUMAN & HUMANISM

Evolution

A great deal of rubbish is talked about evolution, partly because it is, in the repercussions of its implications, a rather slippery concept. The name itself is not satisfactory. But, at its simplest, it is easy to understand; its core can be expressed in a single sentence. I’ll try. The genetic pattern of a population changes with time. That should be simple enough to satisfy the sternest purist. The obvious question comes: what causes the genetic pattern to change? Well, transcription error in the copying of genetic information as it is passed down from generation to generation. Most of the ‘gene-stuff’ is redundant, so it is rare for transcription errors to result in meaningful change. But sometimes they do. And, as generations pass, the environment changes also. Evolution implies, in large, a kind of subtle suiting of a life-form to the environment which surrounds it.

You’ll notice, in the blandness of the above paragraph, a lack of any kind of anthropic or emotional view (with the possible exception of ‘error’. Perhaps ‘wandering’ or ‘vagary’ would have been a better choice (1).) The history of evolution theory has been littered with unwise slogans from its earliest years up until the present day. The phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’ implies a heartless discard of the weak. The phrase ‘the selfish gene’ implies a kind of malevolent intelligence. Neither is true. Loaded words like ‘blind’ and ‘chance’ fill the historical vocabulary. It is no wonder that laymen, confronted with this kind of language, have preferred to stick with the idea of a Creator God who has made a universe, furnished a panoply of species, and who moulded, with his own two hands, the First Man, watching over him, giving him rules by which he may live his life and render due recognition to his Maker.

In fact evolution works at many levels simultaneously, both of time and space: the genetic transcription ‘vagary’ can take seconds; the results may occupy millions of years. A change that takes place in the compass of a micron can change the landscape of a continent. Evolution is a place of possibilities. I began to see that the theory, so often painted (even by its proponents) as mindless and materialistic (2), is actually quite beautiful. It goes some way to explain the changing diversity of all plant and animal species, including man. How can this be shown? Quite simply because (to take our own case) a human’s genetic code is not that much different from a chimpanzee’s, or, for that matter, a mouse’s. Most of our active genetic material has to do with the basis on which we have life itself; much of what remains has to do with what it means to be a mammal; some — a little — decides membership of the human species; some — a very little — gives the basis for what I am, ready to be shaped by the environment for which I have been prepared. That’s one piece of evidence. Another can be found by looking at the cells which make up our bodies. Each one of them contains tiny organelles called mitochondria; these are the cells’ powerhouses. Sometime in untold prehistory the ancestors of these organelles were free-living organisms with their own genetic storage mechanisms. How they were incorporated into other organisms is unknown. But we know that these cells-within-cells were once foreign: but without them it would not have been possible for us to come to existence. So each one of us is actually a mixture of what, ancestrally, were once two species. Possibly we are a medley of many once distinct free-living species. I find this astounding to think of.

Evolution has not done this: one tends to think in a slipshod fashion of evolution as being a shaping process, but it isn’t — it’s a kind of collection of processes, some of which are ill-understood, and some of which are probably still unknown. And the most astonishing thing of all is that this collection of unconscious processes gave rise to consciousness. And this quality of man’s — consciousness — allowed, for the first time, a witness of the Universe.

One can draw an analogy (but not a good one) between the birth of consciousness and the swirling of cosmic dust which will break out into light and become a star. But perhaps the analogy is better than I at first thought — it is our star, and our planet, both once dust, which have together made conditions right for life, and for the birth of consciousness. We are indeed made from dust.

The God of Judgement

An understanding of the processes implied in Evolution displaces a Creator God. The break is clean. Darwin apparently saw this. He kept his work hidden for years, lost his faith and became ill. His wife was a committed Christian, and he worried for her.

When I lost my belief in a God who physically created the world I, too, was filled with anguish. Something seemed to be missing: a little like holding on to a telephone with no-one at the other end, or, closer to home, the death of a father. Some part of a childhood’s completeness had gone.

When you lose something — if you can stand to do so — you begin to examine why you were so attached to what was lost; indeed, you begin to wonder what it was, that it was so dear to you. Others have done this; poets, and thinkers of the past. With great circumspection Omar Khayyam (a poet of great emotional depth and wit) looks at the world which surrounds him. To me, his quatrains are a study of a loss of faith in a Creator. The Qur’an teaches that Allah created man, of clay, with his two hands. (Allah transcends anthropomorphism — as evolution ironically fails to evade it — and the reference to ‘hands’ is certainly figurative.) Pots figure highly in Omar’s quatrains (3). He watches the Potter making one:



XXXVII

For I remember stopping by the way

To watch a potter thumping his wet Clay:

And with its all-obliterated tongue

It murmured — ‘Gently, brother, gently, pray!’

Later, he imagines a colloquy of pots in the Potter’s shop, at the end of Ramadan, waiting for the rising of the Moon. The vessels are considering their Maker, and asking the reasons why they were made:

LXXXII

Said one amongst them — ‘Surely not in vain

My substance of the common Earth was ta’en

And to this figure moulded, to be broke,

Or trampled back to shapeless Earth again.’

Each vessel seems to have a flaw in it: why did the Maker make these flawed vessels?

LXXXVII

‘Why,’ said another, ‘Some there are who tell

Of One who threatens he will toss to Hell

The luckless Pots he marred in making — Pish!

He’s a Good Fellow, and ’twill all be well.’

It is the most flawed vessel which asks the most searching question. This is the question which, above all others, tells of Omar’s loss of faith.



LXXXVI

After a momentary silence spake

A Vessel of a more ungainly make;

‘They sneer at me for leaning all awry—

What! Did the Hand then of the Potter shake?’

Omar was one of the most accomplished mathematicians, not just of his own age, but of all time. He was not going to fudge the question. Neither was he going to be open about his parable: that would have cost him his life.

Considering Omar’s verses makes us think of the question: ‘If there is no evidence for, and no (creational) need of a Creator-God, why do so many people wish to believe in Him above all else? Indeed the wish seems to be a part of us.’ This is a difficult question to answer, but perhaps not so difficult to consider. Let’s take the tail of the question: the wish seems to be a part of us. If you look round the world, in different times and places, the wish for a Creator-God (or at least a Ruler-God) is more or less universal. This figure, this object of worship, takes many forms: God, Emperor, Nature. Physical objects: the sun, a mountain; water. The object seems to vary with the sophistication of the society. We have said above that there is no creational need for a Creator-God. But perhaps the need is within us, and for an evolutionary reason. That is to say, worship gave, by Worship, an evolutionary advantage to those far-distant communities in whom a communal faith emerged. It need have had no necessity beyond that. It was an illusion: yes, but, during times of dearth, hardship and war, it seems to have been a necessary illusion.

It was also a very dangerous one. Throughout the entire period of recorded history the idea of an extrenal God has been used for social control by one group over another. Sometimes this has been relatively harmonious. More frequently it has been bloody, war-like and wasteful of talent. It has rarely encouraged new thinking (4).

In epochs where it has been safe to do so — and until recently these have been very rare — freethinkers have somehow perceived that this need was an illusion. Perhaps the most telling word for a God of Judgement was coined by William Blake. Blake called him Nobodaddy. (5)

The God of Immanence

Does this mean that God does not exist? Of course not. In fact a study of evolution shows us a divinity much more real than a Creator or a Judge. A few paragraphs ago we drew an analogy between the swirling cloud of dust which became a star, and a lifeless and unwitnessed planet, under that sun, giving rise to witnessing consciousness.

Consciousness is a word that should be used sparingly. Some artificial-intelligence scientists say that if you think you can explain the nature of consciousness, then you are perforce wrong. Words can point to it, but, in the end, it eludes them.

That is because thinking has to do with the intellect. Perhaps, in the beginning as well as the end, consciousness is not so much to be thought about as known, and being known, realized. Consciousness is, at its core, the realization of an all-witnessing divinity, independent of time and place. It bears no weight of an ego and its desires.

Where there is love, divinity comes to be. Where there is compassion, divinity comes to be. Where there is mercy, divinity comes to be. Where there is kindness to a stranger, divinity comes to be.

Divinity does not need the straining of belief: it is.



Notes

The virus which causes Aids, the HIVirus, replicates its coat with numerous errors because it ‘misreads’ its genetic code. This confers an advantage on it in its eluding of the host’s immune mechanism. It’s almost as if a combination lock were randomly twirled. The virus tells ‘lies’ to further its ‘cause’. All this happens, and the host dies (and the virus, too, unless promulgated to a new host): but the anthropic reading—where I have put the words in quotation marks—implies intelligence where there is none.

Materialism. Many Christian and Muslim commentators say that evolution is a godless and materialistic doctrine. I hope I have shown in this brief essay that it is not. Materialism, on the contrary, is the shallow belief in the reality only of what can be seen and touched: in the end it is the very shallow belief in the reality of what can be seen and touched and owned.

From the Quatrains of Omar Khayyam, translated by Edward Fitzgerald. I’ve read a number of English translations of the Quatrains; Fitzgerald’s is subtly simple: I’m told it allows an insight into the underlying ambiguities of the wit of the original.

In fact it implies idolatry. Let’s be clear about this. The Greek root of the word ‘idolatry’ is the worship of images. Text or scripture — that which is written — can convey an image of an image even more clearly than can representations of stone, or wood, or even clay. How often mankind does the thing it says it hates.

William Blake, foursquare in his opinions at a time when it was becoming safe to voice them, averred that only an immanent God could allow new creation. A God of Judgement was, in his opinion, an illusion conjured up from the ego, a ‘Nobodaddy’: a figure which can be the father to no originality of thought.
_________________
What is my existence's sense?

[Don]

This topic has been moved to Off Topic, as it is not directly Spi-Ritual or Shiva In Exile related.

[saeed_karimi]

ok ,thanks don
_________________
What is my existence's sense?

[Stefan Hertrich]

Interesting discussion

"DONT Beguile your self. be free and feel symphony of life. Life is better without god."

You are more free with God than without. Because believing in God (esoteric way of thinking) means believing in cosmic laws and esoteric interpretations of human psychology. And they say "follow your intuition, follow your enthusiasm and don´t let yourself limit by fear and doubts".
Most humans who live agnostic are very bitter and panic a lot, they are often afraid of risking things, even if they would so much like to do them. But they never try
Also important in this overall-concept is reincarnation etc. Most religions do not cover reincarnation, and they don´t cover guardian angels, spiritual leaders and other non-3rd-dimension-creatures who defenitely exist because I know so many people who can see them as well as communicate with them (no matter where this persons I know come from or how old they are -> they are all over the world and in every age).
That´s why I am neither muslem nor christian nor anything else. However, all of these religions have some interesting components that just need to be put in the correct context.

"A great deal of rubbish is talked about evolution"

Evolution doesn´t matter for me, and also doesn´t matter for any esoteric people I think. It just matters for RELIGIOUS people. You put "believing in god" and religion together, but believing God is NOT automatically "being religious"

Both interpretations of evolution in my opinion are wrong: the christian adam/eva thing and the monkey -> human thing, but they are also right. Yes, sounds confusing. It´s just a matter of interpretation. In the universe, time doesn´t matter, it just matters for us in the 3rd dimension. So 5.000.000.000 years of evolution are - in the eyes of God etc. - NOTHING. It´s just a "moment". So you can indeed say "everything was created in just a moment". But if you regard time in the eyes of a human, of course it was a looooooong process. (however, even if this long process in our eyes happened and happens, the theory that we are the successors of monkeys in my opinion is wrong -> only human females have a clitoris while no female monkey has it, as far as I know).

About God creating humans with clay etc. This are just symbols, and people interpretating such symbols form religions, and the problem of religions is that they get stuck in this 2000 years old interpretations. That´s why religions in my opinion will sooner or later stop to exist. The understanding of god and the universe should in my opinion be based on self-experience (you could call it "mysticism"). It means that there need to be 6.000.000.000 religions, because every human sees and interpretates things different. This will happen once all religions stop to exist. As long as they exist, people follow rules, instead of reading books and perform self-experience.

It´s absolutely useless if people who do not try to "experience" God start writing books, poems etc. about it, cause all they do is discussing something they do not know and didn´t experience. It´s easy to say "god doesn´t exist, let´s write a philosophy book about" it. But it´s more difficult to REALLY try working on yourself, maybe spending MUCH time alone, maybe meditating for weeks or trying other things to finally get a "connection" to what is beyond our rational understanding.
150 years ago we didn´t have planes, we are now just at the beginning of science, and not at the zenith. It´s much too early to comprehend what God really is, it´s 10000000000000000000000000000 years too early I guess
That´s why I am a friend of self-experience, and not much of "god science" by either agnostics or religions. I know about some cosmic laws and other things, I live my life according to that, my friends do so too etc. and it feels REALLY good to live like that. And that´s all I need (for now LOL).

Too many people define "god" = religion, and that´s the main problem. God has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a human made thing, not a God made thing.

However, I understand your point of view and understand why you think like that, I did so too. It´s a matter of meeting the right people and getting your hands on the right books etc. and such things in my opinion only happen if you are open minded for this topic and not stuck in a pattern (here we have a cosmic law again -> you attract what you think/feel, and if you think "ii believe 100% in material and scientific things" you will most likely not get the chance to experience different point of views, or at least it might be very difficult).

[saeed_karimi]

ok stef . now me

god is Bouncer with or without religion...
religions are just ways to bring to god ( in theire mind )
some people like you think it`s religion that Ruinates god , but they dont know , gods make religions . if there was no god then there was not any god.

my friend ( Stef ) , change your mind about this Fable ( god ) and think about it with your Nous & Intellect and no with your Sentiment , sentiment cant answer to scholarism Questions .


Agument about evolution become Inapposite .

There is not a day that a new calamity does not hit a group of people, destroying their lives and bringing much pain and misery. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, plagues and incurable diseases every day claim their own share of devastations and deaths. "Where is God?" is the unheard cry of the victims of these “acts of God”

God as described in the Semitic religions, is a compassionate, omnipotent, all hearing all seeing god. If that were true, then a god, who witnesses the suffering of his creatures and does not respond to their cry for help, is an unjust, callous, and cruel god. Thousands of children are dying every day around the world by draughts, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters or as we call them the "acts of God". The victims of these natural “holocausts” cry in desperation, pray with anguish, weep in silence, yet God does not care or is unaware that they need help. What god is this God? Where is his justice? What happened to his claim of being the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful?

This very fact proves:
a) God is not hearing the cry of his creatures,
b) he is incapable of helping them or
c) he is a sadistic merciless, ruthless, tyrant that enjoys watching the suffering of his creatures just as Roman Emperors enjoyed watching people being devoured by lions or killed in coliseums.


If this is the god of this universe, I want no part of it. I abhor a god who is less compassionate than me and therefore inferior to me; who does not feel the pain of his children the way I feel; who cares less of their suffering than I do. If this is the God, then perhaps it is time that we, the mortal humans, send a messenger to him teaching him some of our humanistic values. We could teach him a lesson of Justice, a word of compassion, tell him about helping those that are in need, rescuing those who are in danger, soothing the pain of those who are suffering, saving the world from disease, pain and unnecessary calamities. We probably could even help him to redesign the world. If I was chosen to be a messenger to God, I will tell him that it is unfair to make some of the creatures, meals for others. I will tell him that his justice sucks and his apathy is nauseating.

Yet it seems that none of that bothers the supporters of this god. They say that God can do “whatever he wishes” and no one is to question him and his authority.

Why not? If God made us with the capacity to distinguish between good and evil , to the extent that we, the humans, universally agree that killing and inflicting pain is evil and helping someone in need is good, why should he not live and act by the same standards? If what he wants us to believe as good, is diametrically different to what he does, how are we supposed to know he is good? Isn't it absurd that he makes us feel sympathy; compassion and love for our fellow human beings, telling us that these are good then he would do exactly the opposite? As Galileo said, "why did he gave us reason, if he wanted us to forgo its use?"

So this god of the Semitic religions is actually an evolution and amalgamation of many gods. Although now most of us have come to believe that monotheism is an indisputable, self-evident fact, its god is nothing but one (or amalgamation of several) of the ancient gods. He is still an anthropoid. He gets angry, becomes happy, rewards, answers the prayers and does pretty much the same things, we humans do. This god as described by Muhammad, is a petty, paranoid, petulant god who is vengeful, unforgiving, irrational and ruthless. Forget about what he CLAIMS to be. Read between the lines and pay attention to what he DOES and commands. His actions speak louder than his words. And his actions are far from those behooving a wise and merciful god.



Is it more reasonable to believe that God is a merciless tyrant as described in the Quran or that the Quran is a false book?

I opt to believe in the second case. I refuse to accept a lunatic god as described in the Quran. I do not believe that Muhammad received any revelation or that he had any knowledge of divine reality.

It is surprising that while so many people admit that there is something unjust in the structure of this world they accept all that injustice under the pretext that God must know what he is doing and we are not to even think of questioning him. Instead of assuming that a merciful God has an esoteric reason for committing horrific acts, the traditional definition of God needs to be replaced.

All the evidence shows that the God as described in the Quran and the Bible is not wise, compassionate and loving, although this is what these books claim. Even if that was true, I cannot believe in a god that is wise, loving and compassionate. And I cannot believe in a god that sends messengers, answers prayers, rewards or punishes. Because in the first case a god that possesses attributes, is being separated from his attributes. A being cannot be infinite unless you and I are part of it. And in the second case, a god that acts is limited in time and in space. What if we did not think of God as wise, but as wisdom? What if we did not view him as loving, but love? What if God was not compassionate but compassion? What if God was not a "being"? What if It was not a "thing", things have attributes. What if we thought of God as the Principle underlying the creation? What if God was the Reality? Reality is formless, eternal and unchanging. As the Reality, God would not have attributes. It would be the Principle behind the process of creation. It would be the Principle and the creation the process. The Principle does not act. It does not create, it does not send messengers nor is it aware of you, me, and the entire creation. Being aware is an attribute. God has no attributes. Instead God is awareness itself. It is not knowing, but knowledge itself. It is not loving, but love itself.

Note that I did not use the pronoun "he" or "she" to speak of God, but "It"; because God is not a person. "It", is a Reality. "It", is the Ultimate Reality.

As the principle God is neither cruel nor kind. It does not answer your prayers and does not need your worshipping. Everything depends on this Principle but the Principle is indifferent towards all things. Just like the Sun, all life on Earth depends on it, yet it has no concerns for those things that it illumines and benefits.

You may ask: how could love exist without a person who could love? If love is seen as a feeling, it cannot exist per se. It needs a feeler. Therefore one cannot speak of cosmic Love without acknowledging the existence of a cosmic being or a personal god. But a personal god, as I explained in my articles on God, is a logical impossibility. The love that I speak of is not the love as a feeling but as a principle. Feelings cannot exist without feelers, but principles exist independent of everything.

Let me explain this with a simpler principle. Take the example of the law of gravity. Gravity as a force cannot exist without the existence of masses. Where there are no masses, there is no gravity and there is no weight. But gravity as a principle or as a law exists independent of masses. The law of gravity existed before the creation of this universe and will exist when this universe ceases. If there are other universes (which I see no reason why not) this principle must apply there too.

The principle is independent; it is eternal and immutable. Objects, however, manifest those principles in different degrees and forms.

Love as a principle exists independently. Objects reflect that principle and the more complex and evolved objects manifest it with more strength. Many animals and especially humans are capable of manifesting love in its most advanced form. What we experience as love is feeling. This feeling cannot manifest itself without us and it will disappear when we no longer exist. But Love as the principle exists forever.

Another example is True knowledge. One can ask how can knowledge exist without a knower? But we humans do not invent knowledge we discover it. False knowledge is not knowledge but is based on false assumptions. Knowledge as a principle exists even before we learn it and it would exist even when no one can discover it. 3 x 2 = 6. This is a fact. Whether we know it or we don’t; whether we agree with it or we don’t, this fact won’t change. Because mathematics is a principle! It does not have physical existence but it is not subjective either. It is a reality. Realities or principles exist independently without having any “form” of existence. The entire creation depends on them. They are the laws of the creation. They are HOW the creation came to be and HOW it evolves and HOW it is going to come to an end. They are HOW and everything else is WHAT! The love that you and I experience and feel, is a manifestation of the cosmic Love that exists as a Principle of this universe. Just as our bodies feel the gravity, our hearts feel the love. But just as gravity is a principle that exists independent of our bodies, love too exists independent of our hearts and any being. These are all my opinions. You don’t have to believe or accept them. I do not wish to promote a philosophy but rather ask questions and make you think. It is up to you to question the validity of your own beliefs, "doubt everything and find your own light".

Some Questions
You claim that math is a principle and that it is somewhat comparable to God
Yes math is a good example to understand God. But math is a manifestation of the Single Principle, it is not the Single Principle. In traditional religions it is believed that God created man in his own likeness. That does not mean that man is God or comparable to him.

is there an infinite reward for learning math?
Yes there is infinite reward in learning math. The reward is learning HOW. The reward of knowing is in itself and in its application. Likewise the reward of understanding the Single Principle and living by it is in itself. We are not talking of an external reward like a paradise as is promised in Semitic religions

Does God, Math or the Principle care or even know whether I study math.
No the math does not care whether you study nor the Single Principle care whether you apply it in your life. We cannot live without the Principle but the Principle is independent from us. The Principle is not only HOW but also the interactive force of the all the elements of existence. It is the force behind the evolution. By breaking the universal laws of the Single Principle we deprive ourselves of our own growth.

Aside from the practical consequences, is there anything wrong with a [color=orange]person choosing not to study math on a regular basis?
Many people do not know math. Animals are not even aware of it. But we all abide by it. Mathematical principles dominate everything. Likewise, the Single Principle is a non-being that is the mother of all beings. You can live without knowing about it but you cannot live without it.[/color]

Aside from practical consequences, if I think that the log(1) = 10 instead of 0, will it matter?
What we think of the Principle is inconsequential. But we cannot break itIf we do not learn the Principle, we make mistakes and we hurt ourselves. This absolute Reality that permeate every atom of the Universe is not to be worshiped but must be understood and abided.

Math is very different from my perception of God. I think what you are saying is that God is an abstract concept, math is an abstract concept therefore math is God.
I am not saying that God is an abstract concept nor I say math is. This universe, you and I, are abstract concepts. We are the product of the motion of electrons around the protons. We are functions of speed and energy. None of these exist. But math exist independent of the matter. Whether we are aware of it or not is not going to affect the mathematical principles. Math is not God, but it is a good example to understand the reality of God. There is a distinction between pure math and math as used in practice, between pure history (what really happened) vs. practical history (what’s written in the history books), between pure science, and practical science. I maintain that practical math is never 100% true, that practical history is never 100% true, and that practical science (our human understanding of gravity, nature, and evolution) is never 100% true. Pure math has all kinds of not so obvious assumptions that are always violated in practice. So even though in practice our history, math and science are not perfectly true, we could still accept that pure math, science and history are infallible.

Which is equivalent to saying that Men and Women are intelligent therefore Men are Women
No this is not what I say.

But Love is as much an abstract concept as Hate is, and therefore they both should have equal claims to being the single principle or God.

Love and hate as feelings pertain to human realm. They are manifestations of attraction and repulsion of the Single Principle. These are laws of the universe. They do not abide by our moral evaluations. Morality is relative. Principles are absolute. But moral principles are absolute.Hate per se is not bad. I hate deceitfulness, I hate cruelty, I hate injustice. Equally love per se is not necessarily good. The egotistic love, love of crime, pedophilia are examples of that. What is bad, is loving what should be hated and hating what should be loved. This happens when we do not understand the Principle underlying the creation. The evil that you see in the world is due to breaking the laws of the Single Principle. As Socrates said, “ignorance is the mother of all sins”.

I think what you might be trying to say is as follows: A religious person has a meaning/purpose in life and because of that he feels fulfilled. Then an Ibn Ezra, Spinoza, or an Ali Sina comes along, and this purpose is gone. Now life is meaningless. So you want to show that we have love, math and other attributes such that life can be meaningful.
Life is not meaningless. The purpose of learning (philosophy, theology, science, etc) is to understand the meaning of life. That is through observation of the world without. Also we can understand the meaning of life through meditation. That is through the introspection of the world within. If we discover that the meaning explained by religions is false, it does not mean that life has no meaning. When Galileo suggested that geocentricity is a false concept he was not rejecting the existence of the Earth. He was proposing a shift of paradigm to understand the Earth. By the same token I am not rejecting God. I am rejecting what has been said and believed about God. I am suggesting a shift of paradigm to understand God.
_________________
What is my existence's sense?