Chapter29 Value named the God Part2

Namely for escaping the cool and unkind real which can only be explained so, but at least we can help each self only with logical escape, then we can see that the god as concept exists as value. Then it’s almost like a realistic existent concept but really value concept, namely only knowing that anybody else in the world cannot be myself, essentially anybody else can help me is real solitude, and for breaking through its solitude, we pursuing logically and despite of it but with that we’re apt to imagine that anybody else can understand self distress or make myself tide over its trouble, the concept the God has raison d’etre, after all it’s merely value concept not realistic, existent concept.
At he matter of fact except Hitoshi Nagai, Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger also said in My world vision (chapter 5).
But this question by Schrödinger or Hitoshi Nagai produces anther it.It’s cognitive closure theory by Colin McGinn. Namely the God created space itself, time itself, anything in the world. But He ( or she) cannot be each minds space and time hold. It shows in that I draw pictures but I cannot be mind of each master pieces as logical neccesaty. But its logic has a jump. It’s a quest of the possibility to exist of soul separating the body and possibility to exist of soul of material.
Buddhism or any religions have quested the state of soul after death, of course we coudn’t prove it even with any religions. But its impossibility to spin a clear answer shows that we cannot conclude the world after death mustn’t exist,
as David Chalmers said, question whether thermstat also has a mind or not also cannot be proved, its question can be spun. It makes us revise McGinn’s question that science couldn’t have proved anything about character of space or nothing.
Surely if the God created any created matters or things as Picasso created any masterpieces as several thousands numbers in the state of radiation from one point, even the God cannot be each minds of any created. Then numberless deities in Japan would have a persuasion. Namely it’s with Chalmers’ question that any materials exist in the world may have a mind. Then its idea produces the possibility that even after disappearing of body, soul may have been eternal.
But it’s so interesting that the God has a double meaning for us in difference of our emotions for example the state difference of what the God should be in time we’re disappointed in losing of self confidence as object to cling to and in the time we have steady self confidence but not forgetting self control not to be arrogant as object to intentionally prevent or reasonable adoring symbol. Namely the God to cling to is thankful and respectful even if it holds tiny power. But at the time of being self confident thanks to the divine gift is inversely the matter to evoke that even the God is weak and not omniscient, not absolute as detachment, it’s a kindness to the God, and awareness to the crevasse exists in completeness, it is equal to the sympathy to the God self. At this moment we hold in out minds arrogance in respect or kindness to other persons which we’re not apt to be aware as type of unconsciousness
Namely if its thankful emotion is in mentality children have, it’s okay, but if it is in a respectful emotion which adult persons usually have, rather the Aporia we’re apt to make it being hidden deep in mind
Namely the God isn’t realistic existent concept, but really value concept, namely it’s a barometer toward our humility in mind to self, we can say so.