the image size is limited to screen width so you will have to download



blame deviantart for it's new trendy version of it's website (not me)





the following notes are updated often as i receive more criticism. last updated 03-August-2020.







---------------------------



A) INTRO



this chart on BELIEF was inspired by a conversation I had in the forums with another person who was confused about the different ways people try and define a God. this chart is basically my attempt to show why it is difficult to define a God. also i decided to show the concept of a God in relation to other beliefs.



confusion about the different ways a God is define comes from two main issues. the first issue is that the concept of a God can be defined as either (a) a philosophical topic not linked to any established religion (such as the Omni-God) or (b) a theological topic linked to an established religion (such as the abrahamic god). the other issue is that the attributes of a God can be defined as either (a) anthropomorphic (such as Zeus) or (b) non-anthropomorphic (such as the tao).



[side note] the way to understand the diagram is to consider the two side represent the metaphor of red pill and blue pill. there are many different ways to interpret the meaning of the red pill and the blue pill but generally speaking (actually roughly speaking) the red pill is whatever brings you down to reality and the blue pill is whatever lifts up your spirit. those who worshipped many gods were distributing blue pills and those who decided to worship one god were distributing red pills. but then life got "too real" thanks to science now distributing red pills and then those who worshipped one god started to take blue pills. taoism teaches the blue pill and the red pill are interrelated, basically one cannot exist without the other also existing and one can turn into the other. buddhism teaches to be careful when discriminating between the red pill and blue pill. however western philosophy took this metaphor to the absolute limit, which some thought was nihilism (red pill) versus existentialism (blue pill), but it is actually absurdism, neither red or blue pill but the limit of our knowledge, the unknowable, the Absurd, but don't let that stop you from asking questions and searching for answers (or meaning) because that too is also an important part of the philosophy of absurdism, basically don't do anything that cuts off critical thinking because that is philosophical suicide.



[side note] [spoilers] the way to understand the diagram on a meta level is that the black/white yin/yang (from my previous image on the God debate) is pulled apart to reveal the red/blue yin/yang and if you try and pull that apart i don't know what you will get but most likely another yin/yang. it's turtles all the way down until either one or all sides of the argument eventually admits "i don't know" (a personal form of red pill called humility) or we all agree to disagree (a social form of red pill called tolerance) ... in good faith (a blue pill). and on a meta-meta level i used shadows (yin) as part of the diagram's matrix as reference to plato's cave and the prisoner within plato's cave is represented by the tarot card the hanged man which has meaning all to its own. and on a meta-meta-meta level, well, i'll let you figure it out for yourselves. have fun. a journey through the mind of an artist.



B) COMPARE AND CONTRAST



in the polytheistic religions the realm of chaos, which Yehezkel Kaufmann called the meta-divine realm, was the well spring from which the first gods willed themselves into existence. this meta-divine realm was non-anthropomorphic and amoral (morally neutral) like a stone or in most cases a watery abyss. it was the source of the gods existence and power. and the ease of access to and control over this meta-divine realm was a measure of and limit to their divine powers. this meta-divine realm was all powerful and all present but at the same time non-anthropomorphic and morally neutral therefore it cannot be held accountable for what in the God debate is called the "problem of evil". however the gods that willed themselves into being from out of the meta-divide realm are a different matter. genesis 1:2 "while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."



in defining its own existence the monotheistic God strives to be the meta-divine realm itself, the source of its own existence and power, but not morally neutral. claiming to be all powerful and all present like the meta-divide realm but moral the monotheistic God can be held accountable for the "problem of evil". basically the buck passing stops with God as God was alone and without "other". most arguments that try and defend the monotheistic God against the problem of evil try and pin blame on the "other". but there is no "other". there is only God and what God created. it saddens me greatly that those that try and defend their version of a monotheistic God from the "problem of evil" only end up making excuses for evil and thus legitimising evil in the world. not something that one can honestly accept if one wants to believe in an all knowing and all loving God. PHILOSOPHY - Baruch Spinoza



in defining its interaction with humans and to justify itself as moral the monotheistic God becomes more anthropomorphic like Zeus with heavenly kingdoms, heavenly attendants and a heavy reliance on intermediaries such as heavenly messengers and prophets. and furthermore like Zeus, intimacy with human females that give birth to His sons; demigods and heroes. and let us not forget realms of punishment, many many different types of punishments, an unGodly amount of punishments as can be conceived within the darkest depths of the human imagination. and what's the deal with the nephilim?



and so in defining their God's interaction with humans the monotheistic religions are more like the polytheistic religions but with only one supreme God (but the source of its own power and existence as noted above) that has gazumped all the other gods. and all the other gods have been subsumed into the roles of angels or fallen angels or devils or demons and so on because, as you know, an all powerful and all present God apparently still needs some help from other lesser beings in maintaining a Universe and also some lesser powers to blame for evil, especially if a God wants to be considered as all loving.



in any case humans are still required to provide offerings and prayer (their sole purpose of being as noted in all the other polytheistic religions) so that a God can feel great about itself and then and only then allow the humans to enter paradise under a God's thanks for the offerings and prayer and in some cases self-sacrifices or the sacrifices of an all powerful God's enemies (still much like the polytheistic religions where the gods could be bribed). PHILOSOPHY - Thomas Aquinas



C) KNOWLEDGE



and so the monotheistic God exists in a quantum superposition state between non-anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic principles collapsing only into one state or the other depending on the believers beliefs and whatever doctrine claims knowledge of a God and a God's will or plans (btw, that last point brings up another issue called the euthyphro dilemma. but that is not my current focus here). so it's no wonder a monotheistic God is difficult to define. even within the monotheistic religions themselves and between different flavours of the monotheistic religions there are debates on the subject of knowledge in regards to what can be know about a God (and a God's will or plans). some arguing that a God (and God's will or plans) cannot be know directly except through heavenly messengers or through prophets, messiahs, priests or clerics. others arguing that a God (and a God's will or plans) can be known directly and/or personally for one self through revelations or through pray or faith.



but then how does one mentally grasp the slippery concepts of a monotheistic religion that promises what is beyond death is knowable but only provides belief? maybe one is not suppose to. saying something is knowable is not the same as saying that something is known or even knowledge, but it is an enticing piece of fruit always just out of reach so one has to just keep believing and support that belief that one would eventually reach that piece of fruit, to know God, and thus become filled with hope in the face of the disappointments of life and also the deep distresses surrounding death. this desire to know God and achieve the greatest heights of hope eventually leads one to commit a leap of faith because the thought of the unknowable by contrast becomes even more terrifying. thus the greatest cognitive dissonance can be created.



the issue of knowledge was also discussed in my previous work on the God debate, here: God is safe (for now). this diagram is part two; the continuation into the discussion of belief (theism) and lack-of-belief (atheism). my other diagram was built up from and around the philosophical concept of the Absurd and against the argument of an anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) that basically claimed absence of evidence is evidence of absence and thus justifying their claim to knowledge of the existence of no God. however any archaeologist would happily quote the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as this is a caution against basing any claims on only one avenue of investigation. any final verdict should be held off until all reasonable avenues of investigation have been reasonably explored. but even then one cannot always be 100% certain however one can still develop a working hypothesis that does provide provisional knowledge until more evidence (or lack of) has been found (or not found) to revise one's working hypothesis. basing one's argument on the absence of evidence alone is considered a fallacy of informal logic called an argument from ignorance. i suppose one compromise between "is" and "is not" is to combine the phrases to "absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence". what a difference just one word makes and hopefully leads one to better critical thinking



it is reasonable to say that one has a lack-of-belief or disbelief because of lack-of-evidence (whatever the subject) as this is just simply everyday ordinary skepticism. there is nothing special about skepticism and we all have it (more or less depending on the subject), but it is a very strong position in an argument because it's way too easy to just be a naysayer. this unfortunately leads to the radical skepticism used by trolls and bullshitters alike who are not truly interested in seeking neither resolution or compromise. a sound logic argument becomes meaningless. their agenda is a type of existential nihilism. rebellion for its own sake. not helpful to anyone nor society in general. and definitely not helpful to those that suffer from any type of cognitive dissonance (not just in religious matters).



one has to be careful when making any claims of knowledge because then one inherits the burden of proof that put's oneself in a very weak position of justifying one's claim to knowledge and hence becoming open to attack. basically it is easier to maintain an agnostic position than try and support a gnostic position. taking the gnostic position is the mistake most religious fundamentalist and evangelist make when they are trying to push their beliefs onto others and only end up getting themselves frustrated and angry. as Jesus wisely counselled in Matthew 10:14 "if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."



faith is not knowledge. belief is not knowledge. and a lack-of-belief is definitely not knowledge. these arguments really stems from our inability as either individuals or as a society to say three little words "i don't know" .... a difficult pill to swallow.



D) THE SELF



God (whatever one defines "God" as) is a contingent being (whatever one defines "being" as) that rules over the gap in one's knowledge of what of self can exist beyond one's own death and what of self existed before one's own birth. God is a contingent being that holds hope to the concept of self. therefore to attack the concept of a God is to attack the concept of a self.



this intimate and somewhat personal relationship between a God and the self was set up in the hebrew bible's second creation story of Genesis 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". therefore to one that follows that abrahamic faith, God (or more specifically, the breath of God) is a necessary being to one's own existence, to one's own concept of the self. and until science can determine what of self can exist beyond one's own death and what of self existed before one's own birth then a theist (believer) has no reason to change their worldview of a God as a necessary being.



in hindu philosophy there is the concept of brahman that has a relationship with atman (self or soul) that is similar to the breath of the abrahamic god with the soul or self in the adam (human). the buddhist response to the concept of atman (self) was to develop the concept of anatta (non-self) derived from the concept on impermanence (anicca) and emptiness (sunyata). but so far western philosophy has not developed an equivalent concept to the buddhist concept on how to handle the concept of the self. but instead western philosophy has given us the two main opposing concepts of existentialism versus nihilism.



to a theist (an existentialist holding a belief system) an atheist (an existentialist doubting a belief system) would always appear to be preaching nihilism ... no self, no hope, no future ... a meaningless existence; the Absurd. "from the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all" Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus. and therefore to a theist (believer) the atheist (disbeliever) appears to be preaching hopelessness; a form of suicide. "there is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy." Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus. and so instead the theist (believer) takes another form of suicide, philosophical suicide (i.e., a leap of faith) into an even stronger conviction into the belief in a God as a necessary being. and honestly i cannot fault the theist (believer) on that when the only option currently presented to them by both the atheist (disbeliever) and science appears to be nihilism. but for myself a more honest and third option is within a better understanding of the Absurd itself as the unknowable and not the meaninglessness that is it's event horizon.



[side note] i was walking through the mall and happened to gaze upon a baby in it's pram. the look on it's face told me it was totally absorbed in it's own world, innocent and naive. it's tiny hands reaching out at apparently nothing. it's tiny digits playing in empty space. it's tiny feet rubbing against each other. and a smile of bliss upon it's face. then it struck me the baby's absolute vulnerability; unaware to the myriad of possible harmful events that could befall it and unaware of it's total inability to protect itself. flung into the unknown. yes unknown from the point of view of it's still developing perceptions. at our mercy and the mercy of the uncaring. sure there are those that care but if a baby cries and it is not yours then would you investigate or leave it to others to attend to - the bystander effect - and simply walk away "in faith" that someone else has attended to it? then at that i had a flash of realisation, that child is me (not to be taken literally), always starting as an infant, where ever and when ever, or even if ever, i will be. and i was overcome, feeling faint and breaking out into a cold sweat. samsara.



-------------------------->The End<--------------------------



E) [SIDE NOTE] MORALITY



always wrong but the psychological insight that lying to one self causes great harm, especially psychological harm that gives rise to cognitive dissonance and we start to believe the lies we tell our self making it easier to discriminating our "self" from "other" thus taking us further away from empathy. unfortunately empathy cannot be taught; it can only be experienced for one self. "you yourselves must strive; the buddhas only point the way." ~ buddha, what kant should of taught is not the ideology that lying to others iswrong but the psychological insight that lying to one self causes great harm, especially psychological harm that gives rise to cognitive dissonance and we start to believe the lies we tell our self making it easier to discriminating our "self" from "other" thus taking us further away from empathy. unfortunately empathy cannot be taught; it can only be experienced for one self. "" ~ buddha, the dhammapada 20:276









I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the Lord do all these things." so YES the abrahamic god did include evil in it's design for this world. furthermore the same god also created the tree of knowledge of good and evil . and let us not forget this same god evicted the humans from paradise and bestowed curses upon the humans for eating fruit from said tree. the problem is that this gives those that want to believe in an all good God an existential crisis (or in religious language, a crisis of faith) and they don't know how to deal with this. compounding this crisis is that genisis's creation and fall narrative uses

the debate on the problem of evil is more than just a philosophical or theological debate, it's the understanding of an existential crisis , specifically for those that want to believe in an all good God. and so i will like to bring your attention to the abrahamic version of a God in Isaiah 45:7 where the abrahamic god said "" so YES the abrahamic god did include evil in it's design for this world. furthermore the same god also created the tree of knowledge of good. and let us not forget this same god evicted the humans from paradise and bestowed curses upon the humans for eating fruit from said tree. the problem is that this gives those that want to believe in an all good God an existential crisis (or in religious language, a crisis of faith) and they don't know how to deal with this. compounding this crisis is that genisis's creation and fall narrative uses bait-and-switch tactic followed through with victim blaming ; a common narrative trope used by prophets.





knowingly created evil and the knowledge of evil? jesus's solution was to surrender all worldly possessions and desires to the point of committing suicide (or in religious language, making a personal sacrifice) in the hope of such a God's forgiveness. muhammad's solution was to pray five times a day for such a God's mercy and compassion and bash the shit (or in religious language, go on a jihad) against anyone that didn't do the same. it's amazing what a little existential crisis will cause some people to do ..... even to the point of killing the innocent Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." so then how can one accept a God thatcreated evil and the knowledge of evil? jesus's solution was to surrender all worldly possessions and desires to the point of committing suicide (or in religious language, making a personal sacrifice) in the hope of such a God's forgiveness. muhammad's solution was to pray five times a day for such a God's mercy and compassion and bash the shit (or in religious language, go on a jihad) against anyone that didn't do the same. it's amazing what a little existential crisis will cause some people to do ..... even to the point of killing the innocent Psalm 137:9





both the bible and the quran where written by people suffering from a serious existential crisis against a world they wanted to believe was created by an all good God. even great philosophers go through an existential crisis now and again. and it is prince siddhartha gautama's existential crisis brought on by the four sightings that gave us a buddha (awakened one).

so there are many ways to react to a crisis and therefore one should always consider the dissonance that crisis creates and treat those that have/are suffering from an crisis (not just in religious matters) with care as one can never predict what they will do next. allow empathy to show you the way. Kintsugi: The Art of Embracing Damage



F) END NOTES









G) PILLS







here is a pill that may provide some food for thought on the words themselves that we use to define such somewhat nebulous concepts such as the word "God" and how we have come to share those words and concepts they embody through writing: NativLang ~ youtube ~ Thoth's Pill - an Animated History of Writing . as the zen buddhists say, words are like the finger pointing to the moon.







the real issue is that we can only use existing words to try and describe new concepts until new words are conceived for those new concepts so that everyone can relate those new concepts to those new words. and in my diagram i had to decide upon the meaning of certain non-english words that have multiple meanings such as the word Mara that can also refer to the demon Mara . so i just applied the best-fit-in-context approach so just keep in mind that the meaning of a word (in any language) can change with context. buddhism is more than i can summarise as evident by this cheatsheet so go easy on me. please! i'm not a buddha (yet). impermanence, the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, that's all the dharma i need to float my boat to the other shore. oh! and mind the gap , be it either ma or mu









i may delete this section because it seems more like a rant, but meh! you decide.ok well i'm just going lightly touch on the debate on the problem of evil, very lightly, as that debate reaches absurd depths and branches off into absurd directions such as the debate on free will (a debate i truly hate with venomous passion). and so during the debate on the problem of evil, at some point the theist (believers) will demand where does atheist (disbelievers) find their moral principles (or even justify their moral principles) if not through holy scriptures based on the word of God? well that way of thinking is pointing the mind in the wrong direction in a debate that is full of wrong directions and the common responses to that question i have encountered also points the mind in the wrong direction.a couple of common philosophical responses based on reason are kant's categorical imperative and utilitarianism ... but of course there are more since every philosopher wants to put in their two cents worth . and then there is also what is known as the problem of moral luck which would explain why judges aren't in a rush to always create new laws every time anarises but would prefer some latitude to pass judgement on a case-by-case basis. and then there is science that also throws its weight into this argument with their concept of the altruistic gene but this basically reduces our humanity to a biological artificial intelligence programmed through evolution. (and yes the exact same can be said about a creature that has been fashioned from earth andwith free will by a God. sigh!). but science hasn't adequately explained self or consciousness (yet).[side note] if an idea arises because of a neuron fired then why did that neuron fire if not because of an idea prompting it? if a neuron fired because of an idea prompted it then where did that idea originate from if not from a neuron firing? which came first - the chicken or the egg? ok well science's viewpoint is only relevant in a minor few individuals that have some genetic or neurological disorder and so for arguments sake let's assume everyone's processor is working fine and everyone's programming has no bugs (and yes minds can be hacked. but i refuse to get baited into the free will argument). anyway as well reasoned (or scientific) as these responses and others are they will not adequately alleviate a theist (believers) concerns for some form of irrevocable and divine moral contract if morality requires one to develop rationalized logic arguments, determine the mathematical probabilities, or find a scientific theorem before one acts then it isn't truly an act of selflessness .﻿ one should not have to be put into a philosophical moral dilemma or told the mathematical probabilities or given a scientific theorem to justify one action over another. but just in the same way one should not have to beto love one's neighbor. therefore morality should be understood instinctively, and so too the reason(s) why one decides to love or not love one's neighbor.therefore the only response to the theist (believers) insistence on forced morality through a religious doctrine is to direct their mind within and discover their own capacity for empathy . just consider the questions: does morality imply empathy or can one be moral based on reason alone or a enforced code of morality, no empathy required? if a God or a God's words are said to be the source of morality then what does the condemnation of souls to hell forsay about the empathy of such a God towards it's own creation? and bonus question, does the human trait of anthropomorphism imply empathy?empathy breaks down the distinctions between the "self" and "other". these distinction only arise from our discriminating mind . philosophies (both actual and ideologies in disguise), religious dogma or laws on morality (and ethics) only arise because empathy has either been put under duress, belittled, ridiculed, suppressed or betrayed. philosophies (ideologies), religious dogma or laws on morality (and ethics) can only compensate for a lack of (or the damage of) empathy in an individual or a society but they may also lead the individual or society further astray away from empathy because of the belief that the moral law, religious dogma or philosophy (ideology) must be upheld above all else, including empathy, and thus allowing an "us" versus "them" (or "self" versus "other") mentality to take a hold of the mind. related to this is the subject of alienation but that's off topic and best handled by the real professionals in sociology, psychology and psychiatry (for the extreme cases)if you wish to learn more about the bible (as cultural literature) and the philosophy of religion then i recommend the following web sites that have extensive video lectures on these subjects. just be aware that if you view them through the lens of your bias/preconceptions then you will miss some important insight that they offer into the God debate, or as the zen buddhist say, before you can learn anything new you have to first empty your cup Yale College open courses: (on their web page click the link "sessions")Matt McCormick's youtube channel:some music from my favourite anime Akira - Kaneda's theme some more thoughts from Alan Watts Life is NOT a Journey from Bali, Island of the Gods: Tari Kelinci (Rabbit Dance) and a scene from the Matrix The Jump Program chill