Looking for God in all the wrong places.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm cutting you off where the first big problem occurs:

So the first person phenomena must be the reference point of I-ness or I am-ness.

And that is what we and everything are,

The second sentence--"And this is what we and everything are" doesn't at all follow from the first sentence there.

Maybe you don't intend to give the impression that you believe it follows, but then you're not supporting that "'[I-ness] or [I-am-Ness]' is what we are/what everything is," and it's a ridiculous claim in lieu of support.

[Dontaskme]

I'm cutting you off where the first big problem occurs:

So the first person phenomena must be the reference point of I-ness or I am-ness.

And that is what we and everything are,

The second sentence--"And this is what we and everything are" doesn't at all follow from the first sentence there.

Maybe you don't intend to give the impression that you believe it follows, but then you're not supporting that "'[I-ness] or [I-am-Ness]' is what we are/what everything is," and it's a ridiculous claim in lieu of support.

Sorry I don't understand your problem here.

I'm stating the first person phenomena as the I Am-ness,(reference point) although I would prefer to call it the zero -point in which EVERYTHING appears IS /ARE, but use I Am-ness for people who are not familiar with the term zero-point.

Zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) are intrinsically equal, one, only, and the same.

The apparent (or conventionally presumed) "difference" between zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) is a miscalculation of ego-mind, based on the conditionally supposed "reality" of number-and, fundamentally, of the "source"- number one, which is the ego-"rooted" (or "point-of-view"-based) originator of all presumed "difference".

So where is the BIG problem in your point of view?

[bobevenson]

I can tell you that the only place to find God is in the KJV translation of the book of Revelation, written by John on the isle of Patmos in 96AD and interpreted in "The Ouzo Prophecy" by Bob the Baptist in the Queen City of Cincinnati in 1984.

[HexHammer]

OP is pure mad ramblings!

[Terrapin Station]

I'm stating the first person phenomena as the I Am-ness,(reference point)

A sense of self is a first person phenomenon, but it doesn't exhaust first-person phenomena, so it wouldn't make sense to identify first-person phenomena with what you're calling "I-Am-ness."

although I would prefer to call it the zero -point in which EVERYTHING appears IS /ARE,

Well, things appear to individuls from a first-person perspective because of what "appear(ance)" means, but that doesn't imply that there is only appearance.

Zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) are intrinsically equal, one, only, and the same.

That just seems completely arbitrary. But that's you. You mostly say a bunch of arbitrary, completely ridiculous nonsense.

[Dontaskme]

[Well, things appear to individuls from a first-person perspective because of what "appear(ance)" means, but that doesn't imply that there is only appearance.

There is no individual. The individual is an appearance in SUBJECTIVITY..inseparable from it.

No individual is typing these words. Everything or No thing (same ONE) is typing these words. The thought arising 'I am typing these words' is an appearance in Subjectivity...aka Zero Point, Infinity. Nothing in this world has another subject in itself. If they had, we have to give two names for it's 'appearance' and it's 'subject'.

Do you have a separate entity inside you?

If yes, then explain...

Where?
When?
How?

[Dontaskme]

That just seems completely arbitrary. But that's you. You mostly say a bunch of arbitrary, completely ridiculous nonsense.

There's just what's happening to no one or no thing, Everything is happening in constant flux. It's only illusory thought that infers the immediate flow of ''what is'' into ''what isn't''. - For example: We don't usually see a 'subject' in clouds floating in the sky.Clouds are just floating, they are not trying to float.In other words, a cloud doesn't need another subject that controls itself. There's no subject in a thought saying 'I am thinking', that thought is in the subject inseparable from the subject. There's just thinking thoughts. The you in you is the same you in me. The you is the subject, it's known as a direct experience.

[Terrapin Station]

There is no individual. The individual is an appearance in SUBJECTIVITY..inseparable from it.

I don't know what's wrong with you, exactly, but the simplest of logic is beyond you.

Just focusing on the logic of the above, if an individualist an appearance . . . then "there is no individual" is false. You just told us what an individual is in your view.

[Terrapin Station]

That just seems completely arbitrary. But that's you. You mostly say a bunch of arbitrary, completely ridiculous nonsense.

There's just what's happening to no one or no thing, Everything is happening in constant flux. It's only illusory thought that infers the immediate flow of ''what is'' into ''what isn't''. - For example: We don't usually see a 'subject' in clouds floating in the sky.Clouds are just floating, they are not trying to float.In other words, a cloud doesn't need another subject that controls itself. There's no subject in a thought saying 'I am thinking', that thought is in the subject inseparable from the subject. There's just thinking thoughts. The you in you is the same you in me. The you is the subject, it's known as a direct experience.

And you respond with completely nonsensical crap, lol.

[Dontaskme]

There is no individual. The individual is an appearance in SUBJECTIVITY..inseparable from it.

I don't know what's wrong with you, exactly, but the simplest of logic is beyond you.

Just focusing on the logic of the above, if an individualist an appearance . . . then "there is no individual" is false. You just told us what an individual is in your view.

The 'individual' is an illusory separation within the oneness of life appearing as the many.

The oneness of alive life is real enough, only in the sense that the illusion of separation is realised.

[Terrapin Station]

There is no individual. The individual is an appearance in SUBJECTIVITY..inseparable from it.

I don't know what's wrong with you, exactly, but the simplest of logic is beyond you.

Just focusing on the logic of the above, if an individualist an appearance . . . then "there is no individual" is false. You just told us what an individual is in your view.

The 'individual' is an illusory separation within the oneness of life appearing as the many.

The oneness of alive life is real enough, only in the sense that the illusion of separation is realised.

So do you work, Dontaskme?

[TSBU]

So do you work, Dontaskme?

Don't ask him.

[prothero]

Where to find God? An important religious question.
Atheists claim to have looked and found God nowhere.
Religious people differ seeming to find God in various places, some find God in another realm or world (heaven) and God periodically visits us to intervene in supernatural ways to reveal himself or set things right in this world (the transcendent supernatural divine).
Others find God in this world, where everything that happens is part of Gods plan, and part of Gods will.
Personally my religious vision finds God immanent (dwelling within) and working through the processes of nature. My God is not concerned with petty human morality but instead with the continuous creative process that is nature.
It seems God either plays hide and seek, or we find the God we seek where we decide to look.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no individual. The individual is an appearance in SUBJECTIVITY..inseparable from it.

I don't know what's wrong with you, exactly, but the simplest of logic is beyond you.

Just focusing on the logic of the above, if an individualist an appearance . . . then "there is no individual" is false. You just told us what an individual is in your view.

The 'individual' is an illusory separation within the oneness of life appearing as the many.

The oneness of alive life is real enough, only in the sense that the illusion of separation is realised.

Your obsession with the idea that "you" are not an entity is a self defeating illusion.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops--just noticed the typo in my earlier post. "If an individual is an appearance" that should have read.