You Are NOT God (And there is no God)

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
faulkner1
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:51 pm

You Are NOT God (And there is no God)

Post by faulkner1 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:07 pm

This essay is a response to the flawed novel (You are God) of the member called "Construct" wrote. Each one of his false premises will be debunked here. It will be short.

Section One: Introduction

His first premise, is that this is not "new age" or any sort of "spiritual" "hippy" stuff, and that you have to interpret it literally, if you are a christian, and believe that "God" is real, then you in the moment you read the essay, you must believe you are God, and what would happen to you, to your perceptions , if "God" was real and you were "God". His premise is that, you have to believe that you forgot that you are "God", so you actually live under an illusion that limit you, once you break down this illusion, you are free, you can be immortal, you can upgrade your DNA to a "god level" and create everything you want.

Section Two: Your Life Is NOT An Illusion

The second premise is that life is an illusion, you have to believe that your life is an illusion, and distort the concept of what 'life' means, and you have to believe that "all is life". Under that new belief, you have also to believe that things that were created, were co-created by you, you helped them all, even the song playing in the radio, you helped this song being written. Now this is a false premise, since, he forgot that God do NOT help to create any songs. The God of the bible (which is the one God the guy is referring to), do NOT help to create any songs to anyone. Therefore, this premise is wrong. The God of the bible, gives each one of his sons, free-will, to decide and create. What God can do, at most, is HELP to create circumstances that allow the person (with free-will) to write its own songs. So, the premise is wrong. EVEN IF you were God, you would NOT have helped to create any song playing in the radio. The same goes for being your creations.
"Oh you are God, therefore you are also everyone"
That's an absolutely false statement, the son of God is a creation of God, what you are with God, at most, is ONE WITH him. God is not you. You have free-will, you are not pupped of God. God, at most, could be reading your thoughts, if God was real. So his premise is wrong again, just because under this novel, you believe you are God, you CANNOT believe you are others, at most, you have to believe you are ONE WITH them. Just like, Jesus would be one with God, he and his father are ONE, BUT, just like everyone else, (under the premise that God is real, which isn't)
Another good example is, the painter and his painting, Leonardo DaVinci is NOT even one with his painting and the painting in NOT in him. Leonardo draw the Mona Lisa, Mona Lisa is not one with Leonardo DaVinci, Leonardo died, Mona Lisa still his painting, but is not in him or one with him.

So, by all means, EVEN IF YOU WERE GOD, (which you aren't, and there is no God), you would not be anyone of your creations. And your creations would develop their own consciousness, their own awareness, and from that on, other beings would be created, with their own consciousness, and etc.... You would not be one with those beings. Only with your first creations.

The cause is not the effect.

So, EVEN IF YOU WERE GOD, (which you aren't. and there is no God), you would still not be one with everything, because each things you created first, would be then created later, not by you, but by your creations in isolated events.

So, EVEN IF YOU WERE GOD, (which you aren't. and there is no God), since the cause is not the effect. at most, you would be ONE WITH the first things you created, but these things, would not belong to you anymore, they exist independent of you, even if you "as God" was not there observing or knowing their existence, so the phrase "you are god, therefore you are one with everything", is FALSE. You aren't one with anything.

So, EVEN IF YOU WERE GOD, (which you aren't. and there is no God), since the cause is not the effect. at most, you would be ONE WITH the first BEINGS you created, but these being, would, at MOST, be one with you, but they exist independent of you, with their own free-will and the portion of awareness they gained from you, and developed their own. But then, from that on, they would create other beings, that are not even related to you, or one with you, because they developed their own awareness and are isolated and separated from you. There is no oneness.

So, you are not one with the muslim, you are not one with the person you hate, you are not one with anyone, or anybody, you are not even one with your mother, you are not connected with the tree, you are not connected with the sky, etc, etc. You are your own being, with your own free-will, with your own consciousness, and you are finite, and everyone else exist in their own right, independent of you, not even connected to you. you don't share any thoughts with them or emotions with them. therefore you and them are not "one" with each other

Section Three: If you were God and the things in the Universe was Created

"When you close your eyes, what do you see? You see nothing."
False, when you close your eyes, you see darkness, you see lack o light. You are the one who is observing.
Your consciousness need not only you, but your brain to exist. Void is empty space. Whatever you see an object, in comparison to another, in between, you recognize the void. An object, in the void, A person in the void. You exist, the void is simply the distance between You and An object, or You and another Person/Being.

His premise is that only God could be sentient, And as I explained before, even if you were God, the effect is not the cause, the son receives DNA from his mother and dad, therefore, even if you were god, the son you created, would be sentient, because he would receive a portion of awareness, a portion of DNA from you. Therefore, even if you were the God, your sons would have their own sentience, everyone in the planet would still have their own awareness, their own consciousness, their own sentience, their own free-will. So even if you were the God behind Big Bang and forgot about it, your mother would still be sentient, by her own.

And when confronted, construct claimed each one member confronting him was "god", but as I counted, it was 3, so according to construct, in the forum there was 3 "gods" (the definition of "god" he have), he is just as confused as his novel.

Section Four: Free Will

As I explained before, every being would still have their own free-will, their own self-awareness, EVEN IF SOMEONE WAS GOD, (which no one is. and there is no God).

And in this section he talks about how you can compare life to a computer GAME, 'World of Warcraft' #facepalm

I think he is talking about the simulation theory, but EVEN IN THE THEORY, there is nothing comparing reality to a computer game, let alone World of Warcraft.

First of all, the "simulation theory", is not even wrong, and is a hypothesis that do not resemble anything this guy is saying.

Second, the theory has been discarded.
https://futurism.com/sorry-elon-physici ... imulation/

And, even if life was like a stupid video game, objects in the video game still persist outside of the viewing frame. So China would still exist, as information, even if you were mario, and life was like a video game, and your body was like pixels.

And he also we all form a whole that could be called inside some form of "infinity", each one expressing himself through infinity, something like that. Sadly, there is no "infinity"
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/infinity-is-not-real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxZksBpBnvY

Section Five: Emotions

He claims that having emotions is an illusion, that if "god" was real, and the one that was "god" would feel emotions, Which again, is obviously false. Even if "god" was real, and someone was "god", everyone else, would still have emotions. And they are NOT illusory. The question should be, why does people feel emotions. Not if they "have", everyone does, in their own way. If someone has a brain, has its own life, is alive, then it has its own emotions. Doesn't matter if "God" was real or not,
http://www.montrealcbtpsychologist.com/ ... otions.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -emotions/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... e-emotions
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ ... otions.htm

Section Six: Schroedinger's Roommate

Here is his own misunderstanding of the 'double-slit experiment'. I don't need to go any further, this is so easily debunked as pop sci and misuse and abuse of physics. Let's understanding why CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT affect the experiment, and OBSERVER means (measurement machine), not a 'CONSCIOUS observer'. You don't need to observe anything for the results to be there when you're not watching. Therefore the 'moon is there even if you're not looking at it'. China is there, even if you are utterly unaware at sleep, Everything that exists 'out there' or outside your house, or your room, is there, even if you're not knowing about its existence or observing it with your retina. It's there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQfSm6o-KlQ
http://steve-patterson.com/quantum-phys ... se-reason/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycR_oPApNB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WusCyD_eTc

Section Seven: Heaven Or Hell After Death

Religious bullshit. Discarded.

Section Eight: Is sleep an illusion?

Distortion of the term 'sleep'.
You sleep, you know you sleep, when you're utterly unaware, in deep sleep. You just recognize them. Here he is simply distorting the term.

Section Nine: You Have Free Will But There Is One Limitation?

Here he argues by his own convenience, "look in this novel, you have to believe you have free-will, BUT, not free-will about whether you will exist or not" duh. Who decides that? Construct? Who is having free-will to decide about your own free-will? If there was a "god" and you were "god", you would HAVE TO HAVE FREE-WILL even about existing or not. however, you would have to claim that there is another thing besides you, deciding your free-will about you existing, therefore refuting his premise and his fallacious bullshit, it creates an infinity regress, like who created god and who gave god his own free-will and blocked his own free-will about existing or not? DUH! If you were god, there would be no law above you deciding about you having free-will about existing or not, therefore you would have free-will about it too.

Section Ten: Everything ? One? Two? Three?...

Here he claims that you have to everything as if was made of one substance, something like that. Hippy-dippy nonsense. As we know, it's almost absurd to claim such thing. Only subjectively someone can feel this way, because he would have to numb and ignore all the evidences contrary to it. everything is obviously not one, or two, or three. This doesn't even make sense.

The term "everything" already precedes MANY THINGS. can't even be one, or two, but many.

He misuses the term "separated", and wants you to believe that your body is made of pixels, and your body is an illusion, or an "appearance". All bullshit. your body is real. the term "separated" should be used correctly, and you have no pixels in your hand.

He again, misuses the quantum experiment, or simulation theory, to preach that you have to imagine as if your body was "flickering". As we know, both simulation theory does not precludes that, and the quantum theory do not say that your body becomes "information" or flickers between "information" and a "physical body"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU


Section Eleven: You Truly Are One With Everything And One With Everyone

Here , I correct him, by putting 'one with', because as I explained before, the painting is not the painter, the effect is not the cause, the son is not his own mother.

So, his premise is that, if you were the first "god", then everyone else, would be your creation, and everything that happens would have a bit of responsible for you, as if you were co-creating or helping an artist to write his song. Which is bullshit.

The homeless man is not one with, or connected with, or even related to you, The homeless man, was born out of another being, in an isolated event.
That goes for everyone else. The someone who disagrees with you, is not one with you, in fact this one is not even related or slightly connected to you, you are not even the same being this person is, so, it's another completely different being, with their own free-will and self-awareness. Every politician, every person you hate, are their own being with their own free-will..etc. etc. That goes for everyone else, and etc..

As I don't need to repeat. Just ctrl+c ctrl+v

So, EVEN IF SOMEONE WAS GOD, (which no one is. and there is no God), that someone would still not be one with everything, because each things you created first, would be then created later, not by you, but by your creations in isolated events.

So, EVEN IF SOMEONE WAS GOD, (which no one is. and there is no God), since the cause is not the effect. at most, you would be ONE WITH the first things you created, but these things, would not belong to you anymore, they exist independent of you, even if you "as God" was not there observing or knowing their existence, so the phrase "you are god, therefore you are one with everything", is FALSE. You aren't one with anything.

So, EVEN IF SOMEONE WAS GOD, (which no one is. and there is no God), since the cause is not the effect. at most, you would be ONE WITH the first BEINGS you created, but these being, would, at MOST, be one with you, but they exist independent of you, with their own free-will and the portion of awareness they gained from you, and developed their own. But then, from that on, they would create other beings, that are not even related to you, or one with you, because they developed their own awareness and are isolated and separated from you. There is no oneness.

So, you are not one with the muslim, you are not one with the person you hate, you are not one with anyone, or anybody, you are not even one with your mother, you are not connected with the tree, you are not connected with the sky, etc, etc. You are your own being, with your own free-will, with your own consciousness, and you are finite.


Section Thirteen: Where Do Your Thoughts Come From?

From your subconscious mind. And you do control them, if you want.
https://www.wikihow.com/Control-Your-Thoughts

Section Fourteen: Consciousness Altering Drugs

Irrelevant. Each individual has their own experience relation to LSD, MDMA, etc. You mostly get what you expect. Nothing to do with "god"

Section Fifteen: The Key Thing To Realize About Meditation

Irrelevant, Each person has their own method of meditation, and each meditation is unique to the individual experiencing it. Nothing to do with "god"

Section Sixteen: How To Become Immortal

Childish nonsense. If he was able to do it, he wouldn't getting old. That's Chopra nonsense. " Ageless Body, Timeless Mind". Discarded. No one would ever be immortal. Face it.

Section Seventeen: Some Mental Exercises To Aid You In Developing A Concept Of Immortality

I'm glad you know you have to do mental exercises to believe in such stupid and non existent concept.
I think he may be arguing for quantum immortality nonsense:
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic ... &t=1189810

Section Eighteen: How To Live Without Fear

Irrelevant to his novel. That's a personal and individual thing.

Section Nineteen: The Programmer Of Reality

Now he is mixing his own misunderstanding of the simulation theory (already discarded), mixing his own childish fantasies, using analogies of "heath points" of a character from a video then mixing it with some science fiction Hollywood 'matrix' nonsense. No words, You gotta be truly mentally handicapped to take this nonsense seriously.

Section Twenty: Why Do We Grow Old And Die?

I'm glad this is a question with an affirmation. I'm glad he knows, we grow old, we live, and we die.

Section Twenty One: Why Do Empires Rise And Fall?

~ irrelevant to the novel, and not related to "god" ~

Section Twenty Two: Racism

~ irrelevant to the novel, and not related to "god" ~

Section Twenty Three: Duality And Why We Need Animals

Dualism religion is bullshit. No need to go further. There is no chair and anti-chair. Some things have opposites, others don't.

Section Twenty Five: How X Created Separateness

There is no "illusion" of separateness. You're misusing the word "separate", You can only use this word when REALLY referring to things that once was seamless, then it becomes 'separate', like, separating papers from a whole set of papers. The papers were together, now they are separated.
That never happened to you. You born as an individual, not together or separated, you born as an individual who is preaching your theories of separateness to others, that won't remove the fact that I'm not there with you helping you write your novel. We are not separated from each other, we are INDIVIDUALS who are not even connected to each other, we are not even in broken parts, because that would mean we once were connected or as "one" , no, we are not even that, we were not even in parts, we were never in a "whole" where everyone was connected, that never happened, there is no illusion, you are the one preaching this bullshit, forcing a premise that doesn't even exist.

Section Twenty Six: Time Does Exist

You made your novel in 2015. That's the past.
We are in 2018, that's the present.
The future is what is yet to come.
You only call "now" when referring to the present moment, NEVER to the past or the future. There is nothing "timeless".

That's time. That's linear time. You choose to recognize it, or ignore it. It's up to you. Time is independent of you and your perceptions.

Also, you show some examples of the mandela "effect", the famous psyop of 2016,no different from flat earth, as your "proof". :lol:
All mandela memes was discarded and debunked.
https://www.snopes.com/2016/07/24/the-mandela-effect/
http://www.debunkingmandelaeffects.com/ ... lanations/


"Section Twenty Seven: Awareness... And Infinite Consciousnessess"

Here you claim some awareness of god, the "one" consciousness.
No, there is not, this is false

Actually, as I explained before, even if there was a first consciousness, that first, created others, and so on, the first one can cease to exist, and not exist anymore and the other beings would have their own consciousness and awarenessess, independent of each other, and in isolated events. that is not only one, two, three, four, that's MANY, BILLIONS, and etc..

And again, even if there was 54356346736423654316276257854784537848 consciousnessess, you would not know if this reached the number infinity, because it's impossible to figure out what infinity is, and infinity is not real, not even in mathematics, because it doesn't make sense.
And again, the first god, would have NOT created other beings from other beings, the first "god" , if god was real, would have ONLY created the first beings, which once developed their own consciousness and awarenessess, distiguish themselves from the first god, even evolved and gained more knowledge than the first god had, and created other beings. So "one consciousness" giving rising to all others is absolutely FALSE. it is one, to two, from two, to four, and from four to eight, then isolated events, create other beings, with different consciousnessess and so on. "one" consciousness is bullshit.

And, I wanna add, There is no perfection, anywhere, the first "god" would still not be "omnipresent" and "omnipotent", therefore, other beings the first one "god" created, may be wiser and have more knowledge than the first "god"
http://www.skeptic.ca/Impossibility_Arg ... or_God.htm

Section Twenty Eight: The States Of Existence

Here he claims life is a dream. And compares life to a dream.
Which is false. Again. You cannot compare life to a dream.
If you wanna compare it to a dream, you should as yourself, why don't you fly?
dreams analogy cannot be used when talking about life. So, Discarded.

Section Twenty Nine: Should You Pursue Wealth?

He seems to be some frustrated socialist pushing his own agenda.
If you should pursue wealth or not, that's up to YOU, don't let anyone tell you what you should want or do.

We are beings of 21st century. We have made movies like pursue of happiness. Moreover, wealth is synonymous of peace. Equality can be achieved only through wealth. Otherwise, a class system will create in our society. As a preventive measure, all people should be wealthy. This will decrease criminal activities too.


Section Thirty: Consumerism

~ Irrelevant ~


Section Thirty One: Happiness

There is only one way to find happiness. You must find it within yourself.
The first thing he said that makes sense.

Section Thirty Two: The Philosopher's Stone

~ Irrelevant ~

Section Thirty Three: His Religion

He preaches the religions of non dualism, pantheism, the philosophy of hard solipsism, idealism, and is very suspected of being a shill.

Section Thirty Four: Enlightenment For Women

Enlightenment is bullshit. It's mainly psychological results that happens in your brain, such as derealization/depersonalization, fooling someone into believing he is enlightened. No such thing.

Section Thirty Five: Enjoy Your NON-Godhood

Here he contradicts all his previous statements, and claims that your potential could be almost like "infinity" (which isn't, not everyone born with potentials or know how to acquire them). All the rest are his own personal beliefs and POV.

CONCLUSION: There is nothing to conclude here. See for yourself, there is no god, and no one is god. Even if there was a god, no one would be god either, if you were god, you wouldn't be finite, wanting to be infinite. You would simply be already, you would be one with all, and would have super powers, not posting in a forum, about how you want it to be true. or you want to be connected to everyone or connected to everything, and how you wish that everyone would be the same consciousness, and everyone would be just another part of "god".

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: You Are NOT God (And there is no God)

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:47 am

2 Questions regarding you're essay.

1: Is that the final absolute truth?

2: Or is it just a fictional story written by no one about the absolute final truth?

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: You Are NOT God (And there is no God)

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:19 pm

.







.................................................................................Image





To the OP: You use A-LOT of words.


TBF -You Are NOT God (And there is no God)

...would be more philosophically intuitive if you wrote - god is not found in our intellect; intellectual function. If we are lost in our thoughts or attached to our thoughts We Are NOT God (And there is no God - to be found in our intellect.)









.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests