By not knowing the media you missed the joke. BG crew in the new series typically call the Cylons "toasters" as an extreme form of deprecation - referring to machines with neither heart nor higher intellect (which is a questionable assumption in the case of the ones that look and act like humans).. What you found was a joke-novelty item based upon that running epithet.
Wow, I don't think I can begin to reconcile all of the different strands which came out of your post. If I understand you correctly everything is of one substance. This seems to permeate your writing. But when you say other human being have perceived the same thing I put limits on this. If God reveals certain aspects of himself directly to the Jewish people, then it is unfair to equate that revelation as identical to whatever perceptions of other cultures in the world. After a point, It is not so much an issue of interpreting it differently in their own unique way as not having any equivalent revelation.
Aha. Here we have a point of divergence. I do not believe that God has revealed anything to anyone, nor do I actually believe the concept of God actively revealing anything has any meaning. I believe all "revelation" is the result of a looking inward by humans and human communities beyond individuality to the fundamental unity that underlies all things. Our minds, built up by the dialectic of self and other cannot properly express this unity in words, and so we devise symbols and metaphors to express our connection with it, metaphors that necessary differ across cultures. I do not believe that God has given the Jewish people any special knowledge or wisdom or revelation. Rather, the Jewish people has perceived the same unity that is available to the perception of others and has crafted their own unique understanding and response to that experience.
What is the limit of the human mind? One ontological proof of God is begins by defining God as, "that which no greater can be thought". A friend of mine pointed out that God is at least "that which no greater than could be thought". He implied God is more than my definition. But my friend missed the point. I was not attempting an exhaustive definition of God, but something much more modest.The validity of the definition is not invalidated based upon the limits of the human mind. Rather, it is an argument within the limitations of it. I may not have been able satisfy his desire for a more complete definition of God, but neither was my definition invalidated by the limits of the mind.
Just because something can be "proven" in the mind does not mean it exists in reality. Imaginary numbers, for example, do not exist but yet they work and are necessary in math.
As for your second point it seems to be a psychological explanation of God. So what? Even if your argument is true (and I am not sure that is the only way we apprehend God although it may be one of many) so what? The idea of God, even if derived in a manner which you appear to disprove of does not negate God's existence. There is a distinction between justification and warrant.
My point was not to negate the existence of God. I believe in God, but most likely not the kind of God in which you believe. My point was to show that things can be expressed and created in the mind that do not necessarily exist outside the mind.
My problem with this approach is that there are many things in the universe my senses perceive as I approach this analysis. There is light and there is darkness. I perceive a duality.
There is no duality but rather a unity on a continuum. Darkness is nothing more than the absence light. Darkness has no meaning without light its opposite. They are part of the same unity.
Physics more and more supports the idea of the Big Bang. I suppose you can still have Big Bang and say that the force behind the Bang is not different than the effect of the Big Bang. But what has changed is that you had nothing and then you had something. That is a phenomenal change.
It is not that physics "more and more supports the idea of the Big Bang." The Big Bang is essentially as proven and factual as can be without actually being able to go back and witness the event. However, the Big Bang is not creation ex nihilo: nothing new came into being that did not exist before (as far as we can tell). Instead, all of the matter that comprises the universe originated in a singularity. Something did not come out of nothing; rather, something rearranged itself into something else according to its own internal dialectic.
Ultimately, I guess the question is, what does the belief in a personal transcendent God distinct from the universe do for you? Because I have never encountered any evidence for this kind of God, and the existence of such a God raised far more troubling questions than it answers. A non-theistic naturalistic God such as I believe in is much more in harmony with what we know about existence and what we have perceived in life and history.
In our faith there is really no room for anything except-TECHNICALLY-1 Supreme Being and that means no other "gods"-good or bad-so there is supposidly no evil spirits.
That being said our people are human and have all sort of fears carried down from our forefathers. To fight these fears people will do anything from knocking on wood and throwing salt over their shoulder to believing in Golems, having the evil eye chased from their premisis-including old shuls-by having an eye prominently displayed, often in the glass windows facing inward!
It is only those that believe other then G-d that they truly can get protection from evil-if they belive in such things-in doing things that would be like prayer that they are going against our religous belief that we should only believe in 1 Suprem Being.
Out of habit from learning things from my mom as a child-it took many years before I would automatically say KNOCK WOOD altho I rarely did. I replaced that with things like-saying nothing extra then how somebody is to they are ok thank G-d!
Actual myctisym practices are really against our religon.
I had written something about mysticism a few minutes ago, but it was lost. Makes me think of mysticism which is impossible to think about, talk about, or find. Mysticism is the loss of mundane/profane worldly realities and the finding of faith with only a glimpse "through a glass darkly."
When we talk or think about mysticism, we are philosophers or theologians. When we sit in silence and become silence incarnate, mystical experience takes us and we fall--with Grace. A mystic may speak to me, and I can only listen to his harmonic wisdom and weep--for he or she has said nothing except perhaps, "Be still." Hmm. Reminds me of a poem by Rod McKuen that I would never have thought before to relate to mysticism, only to romance. Well, what is romance if it is not mysticism--only fools and sages know And perhaps it is because they "lie down in the darkest and listen to the warm." There is nothing in mundane reality that can invite us, let alone, let us do that--"listen to the warm."
When I sit alone and think, sometimes, Anne Frank comes to mind and I repeat what she once said, "I must uphold my idweals, for perhaps the time will come when I shall be able to carry them out." If she could sing in the horror of the dark dank sick deathly camp, then I can weep freely and without fear--and call it mysticism--if I can call it nothing else--or--if I must call it anything at all. Sad--to stop listening to the quiet--the silent night--of the soul--alone--with Grace--and the Faith that the Center will hold. . . . The Center will hold!
"I am moved by fancies that are curled around these images and cling.
The notion of some infinitely gentle, infinitely suffering thing.
Wipe your hand across your mouth and laugh.
The world revolves like ancient women
gathering fuel from vacant lots."*
Allusion: William Butler Yeats from Second Coming; *excerpt from "Preludes" by T.S. Eliot