Why is there SOMETHING rather than nothing? Why "God" is a bad answer.

[First draft] "Omni"-Being really just means "Magic man".

Magic is an easy answer.
We can just use that to explain everything.
But it's not a great answer. It's a shortcut. It's a cheat.
And it doesn't really solve the problem we set out to solve.

Imagine writing that in as your answers for everything on a school science test.

"Magic man did a big magic".

The truth is:
NONE of us have enough knowledge,
nor even intellect,
to be able to justify saying "we know why there is something rather than nothing".

We are like tiny little schools of fish, swimming in a river, looking up at the waterfall that provides everything we need.
We're asking "where does it come from?".

Religious people-fish are saying "It comes from the Omni-fish in the sky. He lives in the omni-House. We live in a very big aquarium. It's perfectly designed for us. Just ignore how horrible that design is. Because that's probably someone else's fault. Since I'm assuming only one Omni-fish exists, I guess we have to assume the first people-fish must have magically changed his designs somehow. I bet it used to be perfect."

These people-fish don't realize how little they know.

They also don't understand that "Omni Fish" doesn't really solve the mystery. The whole POINT of saying "Omni Fish" is to SOLVE the mystery of "why there is something instead of nothing".

Now, an un-careful atheist-fish will ask "Who created the Omni Fish?".
But the correct question is "IF there is an Omni Fish, THEN Why is there Omni Fish instead of nothing"?

If an Omni-ANTYTHING can just "exist; since always", and merely because "it's in the nature of an Omni-anything to always exist", ...

then we can also say it's in the nature of an eternal PUDDLE of fizzing, cracking, and popping energy to always exist, and to keep changing.   
This still doesn't solve the mystery, to say anything "just is" and "just always existed".
But that's my point. 

Saying "God made it" just moves the mystery back a step.
We still haven't solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing, because now "God" is the 'something' we can't explain the existence of. 

So now, instead of saying "the universe just exists, because it's in the nature of a universe to just exist". 
or "the energies of this universe just exist, because it's in the nature of energy to just exist", ..
now we have a theoretical "God" that leaves us saying "it just exists. But because it's in the nature of God to just always exist". 

That means we haven't really resolved the paradox. 
But that's ok. Because we're unqualified to resolve it.

We are all unqualified to solve that mystery.
But religious people-fish like to IMAGINE that they are qualified to solve it.
 And from there, they like to PRETEND they have solved it. 

Why was there a zone of energies (which this universe consists of and formed-from) rather than nothing?".

Nobody knows.

But some people-fish can't be 'at peace' to admit it. So they say "Omni Fish".
They aren't "at peace" with admitting "we don't know".
They over-estimate their knowledge, intelligence, and intuitions.

However, it's much much worse than that.
Because the Dunning-Kruger, religious people-fish who strut around saying "we solved it", ... 

aren't merely saying it was "Omni-Entity". 

Well, ok, to be fair, SOME religious people-fish are satisfied to "leave it at that" and go away peacefully to enjoy their private intuitions. 

Those peaceful people-fish call themselves "deists", and "pantheists", and "agnostic theists", "Stoic-God"-ists, Wiccans, Native American Spiritualists, etc..

However,
the Colonizing-Mind does something very sinister with their Omni-ism. 


EVERYONE is somewhere 
on the "Narcissism"-Spectrum. 

We don't all have the personality disorder.
But we do all struggle (at times) with insecurity regarding our narrative of personal identity, personal value, social identity, and social value. 
    
However, religious-fundamentalists are on the worst end of that spectrum. 
 As such, they REFUSE to peacefully enjoy their private Omni-ism.  
 

The trouble starts with their need to project their need to be validated ... into the imagined-head of an Omni-Being.

They also imagine it as "Omni-Parent", so that "he" can validate them.

These sorts of people have (so far) failed to outgrow the need to be parented and validated. 

However,
the only way they can INDULGE that personal fantasy without it making them feel childish COMPARED to people who do NOT still need to be parented (and validated BY a parent), ... 
is this:

They must, then, imagine that EVERYONE needs that. 

They must imagine a reality where we were all "created" to be eternally unqualified to govern and own our own lives. 
 
They must suppose that a GOOD parent is a parent who (very intentionally) does NOT equip their children to eventually outgrow their child-state dependencies. 

They must imagine a reality where the highest ETHIC is for an individual and society to COWER, SUBMIT, and SING PRAISES to "Father". 
-so that "He" becomes what our life is "all about".

From there,
 naturally follows the idea that:

 Anyone who does NOT "perceive HIM", must be "rebellious" and "making excuses".

So they say we are "suppressing the truth (about HIM); 

making ourselves BLIND and DEAF to "HIM" because we are using our "free will" to knowingly choose to be ... "un-righteous". 

That automatically means the religious fundamentalist is (according to them)
morally righteous enough to SEE and HEAR him,
and then also:
 righteous ENOUGH to surrender to him. 

That automatically means the religious fundamentalist is presuming to be morally superior to everyone who isn't in their "one true religion";

Recently, they've started to call their "one true religion" ..."totally not a religion".
But that's just means they are adding an extra layer of gaslighting to their marketing strategy. 

It IS a religion.
And they DO have rules everyone is obligated to, as a condition for membership, and as a condition for "salvation". 

But they can't even be honest with themselves about the rules.
So they say these are "totally not rules" that you better follow "or else".  
And they'll accuse atheists of wanting to avoid having to abide by "God's" moral rules. 
But then they'll turn right around again and say there are no rules anyone has to follow. 

The fundamentalist mind is in full/total Narcissist Personality Mode.

Some of them actually having that Major Personality Disorder.

Some of them only emulating that disorder because it's what their "totally not a religion" teaches them to emulate. 

 That causes them to ALSO need to DENY claiming to be morally superior to everyone who isn't in their "totally not a religion". 

This is one of the essential forms of gaslighting that all fundamentalist religions include. 

They SAY a thing.
Most of the time, the thing being said is abusive in some way. 
And then they deny saying the thing.
And then they go right back to saying the thing.

Organized, orchestrated, gaslighting; as a core feature of their religious culture.

This is why they contradict themselves so habitually. 

Notice how entire PREMISE of their religious narrative IS that they ARE morally righteous; in a world where everyone else has insufficient moral character. 

Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense to say that non-believers and wrong-believers are "suppressing the truth in un-righteousness". 

 That's what "righteous" vs "unrighteous" means. 
These are "moral character" comparisons. 

So they'll accuse outsiders of bad moral character,
while they pridefully boast of superior and sufficient moral character,
 ...
but then they'll turn right about and deny saying any such thing, 
and even denounce pride itself as "bad" and "un-Christian".

And then they'll go right back to pridefully posturing over outsiders as being morally superior. 
 
They are stuck inside of a clinically narcissistic paradigm,
for how they feel, think, and relate to everyone;
including themselves. 

In that context, all of their DEISTIC arguments about the origins of the Universe, and the origins of life, and the origins of human mental abilities, ... 
are just a way to hijack the ideological foundations of deism ... as something they can god-smuggle their God-ego inside of.

They're trying to sneak their weaponized God-machinery into our heads inside a deistic concept of "God". 

 If they can pull that off, they'll be able to unpack and activate the Narcissist-God they've smuggled inside their victim's head. 

At this point, they'll tear down, rebuild, and then control the mind-castle of the person they smuggled it into. 

Such persons will never be able to 'rest easy' until everyone around them, everywhere they go,
can be relied upon ... to always validate and surrender to the glory of the Narcissist's Mask; 
their own EGO,
 glorified as:
 someone 'larger than life'
and which 'can do no wrong'.

Effectively, this splits the believers mind into three personalities:

1. the unfortunate core of "self" which feels empty and ugly. But only because their real parents (and Christianity) made them feel that way. 

2. the righteous self which is only righteous because their imaginary replacement Daddy says they are.  

and 
3. the Daddy personality (their own ego's mask) which is perfect;
 again, only because "Daddy says he is".

- None of which accept responsibility for the harm they cause in the real world.
  

Their damaged personality bows in awe at their culturally-created personality ... which they mistake as "someone else" ...
 who they imagine as  
The Creator Of The Universe. 

This is why religious fundamentalists are unsatisfied and thus UNWILLING to let their religious beliefs be their own private matter.

This is why a mere mortal man created the idea of "The Great Commission";
-and then claimed it was a "God's" idea.

Why stop there, when predatory people-fish can USE this ILLUSION of "reality", ... to fuck with other people-fishes' lives?

Thus, over thousands of years,
those religions keep developing and refining ways to hijack other people's minds;
and (with that) to hijack entire societies.

When they say "we solved the mystery", 
they are PRETENDING that there even is a SINGLE COHESIVE "we" for them to talk about.

There isn't. 
They just pretend there is, when they are ranting about atheist-fish. 

Black-and-white dichotomies (regardless of how FALSE that dichotomy is)  help intensify culture-war "us verses them" polemics.

That, in turn, intensifies the RUSH of righteousness religious people-fish feel when they are are posturing over "the lost and unwashed". 

The religious people-fish are just randomly making shit up about their Super-Fish in the sky. 

This is why we have a bunch of randomly forming Omni-Fish gangs, who disagree WITH EACH OTHER about the CHARACTER and AGENDA of the "Omni"-Entity. 

This is why it does NOT solve the problem of 
"How can we unify humanity into a common set of moral beliefs?".
Because EVEN IF there is an Omni-Fish, 
and 
EVEN IF "He" has moral opinions,
and 
EVEN IF we want to call those "moral facts", 
and 
EVEN IF we assume/pretend he wrote a BOOK where he SHARED those moral facts with humans, and 
EVEN IF we subjectively lucky-guess (or intuit, via superior moral character) which book that is, 
... 
we still wouldn't have a way to reach consensus about what those words MEAN, or even how they 'aught' to be applied to our modern lives.

Meanwhile,
all those different gangs are competing for CONTROL over entire people-fish societies, 
and CONTROL over the entire world, 
by finding new ways to manipulate the COGNITIONS, EMOTIONS, and Narrative-of-personal-Identity ... of all the people-fish they can FIND who are mentally VULNERABLE enough to manipulate. 

Religions are PSYOP mafias. 

"Missionary work" is just Gang-Recruitment.

EVEN IF there is an omni-Entity, 

and
EVEN IF you are lucky-guessing that there is ONLY ONE Omni-Entity, ... 

you still don't know JACK SHIT about what it thinks or how it feels; about anything at all. 

  The reason they know the mind of "God" is: 


 The believer is "Him". 

 It's a part of themselves which they do not recognize. 

This is why religious fundamentalist's cannot get along with people outside of their "totally not a religion", except very superficially. 

It's why they can feel so alone in a room full of people.

 Because people can only meet others ... as deeply as they've met themselves. And their "totally not a religion" has prevented them from doing so. 

 This is why I'd never date a Christian. 

It's why I'd never (again) even let one into my inner circle. 

Because people who have not met themselves yet 
are inherently dangerous; in ways they don't even realize.  


They can keep calling that "righteousness". 
But they'll never grow past that dysfunction, 
until they accidentally heal past the need for it.