God is an Impossibility

[Veritas Aequitas]

But note that 'philosophical view' of yours is based on thinking and you as the thinker as a matter of fact.
I am insisting your philosophical view [Absolute, God, Oneness, exists] is an emerging illusion just like how a Schizo 'experienced' and think he was God or spoken to God. Difference is your illusion is more refined than the experience of the Schizo.

When it is seen there is no ''thinker'' only ''thinking'' . . . this is auspicious seeing.

The ''thinker'' is the mind .. the mind can be without thought, but thought cannot be without mind.


Mind simply has to come out from behind whatever mental, emotional, intellectual, psychological barrier its hiding behind and accept it exists as ''mind activity'' not as a separate independent entity. Mind rarely does the simple thing, preferring complicated avoidance to simple acceptance.

The I AM is not a philosopher, a philosopher is I AM seeking for itself within the dream of separation, the unknown knowing.

If there is no God then there is no philosophical view to view.

Your argument above is very messy.
What I can deduce is thinker is mind is not an independent entity and is God.
Therefore God is an not an independent entity.

If God is not an independent entity, then God is an dependent entity.
An dependent God is not God as it should be, i.e. such a dependent God is an inferior God.
Thus your God is an inferior God which can be kicked by another superior God like Allah.

Such a mess arose because the idea of God you have in mind is a mere illusion which is similar [albeit more refined] to the type of illusions by schizos.

[Dontaskme]

But note that 'philosophical view' of yours is based on thinking and you as the thinker as a matter of fact.
I am insisting your philosophical view [Absolute, God, Oneness, exists] is an emerging illusion just like how a Schizo 'experienced' and think he was God or spoken to God. Difference is your illusion is more refined than the experience of the Schizo.

When it is seen there is no ''thinker'' only ''thinking'' . . . this is auspicious seeing.

The ''thinker'' is the mind .. the mind can be without thought, but thought cannot be without mind.


Mind simply has to come out from behind whatever mental, emotional, intellectual, psychological barrier its hiding behind and accept it exists as ''mind activity'' not as a separate independent entity. Mind rarely does the simple thing, preferring complicated avoidance to simple acceptance.

The I AM is not a philosopher, a philosopher is I AM seeking for itself within the dream of separation, the unknown knowing.

If there is no God then there is no philosophical view to view.

Your argument above is very messy.
What I can deduce is thinker is mind is not an independent entity and is God.
Therefore God is an not an independent entity.

If God is not an independent entity, then God is an dependent entity.
An dependent God is not God as it should be, i.e. such a dependent God is an inferior God.
Thus your God is an inferior God which can be kicked by another superior God like Allah.

Such a mess arose because the idea of God you have in mind is a mere illusion which is similar [albeit more refined] to the type of illusions by schizos.

Personal interpretations are always a bit messy. Because they are imagined entities.

Same with personal Gods, imagined entities.

However, if you the imagined entity ..you believe yourself to be has convinced yourself that (Everything-Nothing) a.k.a REALITY a.k.a. GOD is an impossibility then so be it in your imagined world view.

But in Reality ...Reality is not what ''thought'' thinks it is.But it is that in which ''thoughts'' arise.

.

The mess arose in the false belief in ''other'' where there is none.

.

One simply IS...and one cannot make one impossible without the knowledge...which is illusory. IS-ness cannot experience its own absence. Nor can it experience its own presence.

REALITY is kind of weird like that.



I don't think you understand...but no worries, really, there nothing to understand.
.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think you understand...but no worries, really, there nothing to understand.
.

That is your passport to state all sorts of nonsense.

Philosophically there is no certainty to any thing.
However one can nail a thing to as close as possible to its truth by presenting as much evidences and sound justified arguments as humanly possible.

As Sean Carroll had stated,
it is unlikely for humanity to know and understand complete reality down the finest particle [no final particle] but Physics has provided such an extensive framework to nail what is physical reality to the extend we can work on it for the benefit of mankind.

In your case you are just blabbering all sorts of nonsense [without evidence and rational argument] to gain psychological comfort.
Not you, but some of your theist contemporaries believe in a God that command them to kill non-believers and commit all sort of terrible evil acts in the name of God based on the same psychological impulse [albeit of different degrees].

Your support of theism in general is indirect complicity to the evils committed by other theists.

[Dontaskme]

I don't think you understand...but no worries, really, there nothing to understand.
.

That is your passport to state all sorts of nonsense.

Non-sense.

Philosophically there is no certainty to any thing.
However one can nail a thing to as close as possible to its truth by presenting as much evidences and sound justified arguments as humanly possible.

Philosophically, the idea there is no certainty to any thing is still a certainty. The only certainty is uncertainty is still a certainty.
You have to exist to make such a claim. The one you are claiming to be doesn't exist separate from the one that is not making a claim to be. To claim or not to claim is the same ONE not/ claiming.

So,WHO is the claimer? CAN THAT ONE BE CLAIMED? .... where is the claimer in deep dreamless sleep? who is going to claim it is sleeping, except the one that is awake?

You are presently self-evident, for you wouldn't be typing these replies if you were not already evidently present..so who is the 'other one' who is is going to present this evidence that you claim needs to be presented?

As Sean Carroll had stated,
it is unlikely for humanity to know and understand complete reality down the finest particle [no final particle] but Physics has provided such an extensive framework to nail what is physical reality to the extend we can work on it for the benefit of mankind.

But Sean Carroll has not included the idea that there is no human to know anything, he never mentions that the human is a concept known by the mind that has never been seen, so all Sean Carroll is doing is blabbering on and on about nothing other than to bolster up his own imaginary ego.

In your case you are just blabbering all sorts of nonsense [without evidence and rational argument] to gain psychological comfort.

There is no comfort in knowing you 'the you' that you 'thought' and 'believed' to exist, in reality does not exist, while reality does with or without your participation.
But then again, this knowledge comes as a blessed relief in others.

Not you, but some of your theist contemporaries believe in a God that command them to kill non-believers and commit all sort of terrible evil acts in the name of God based on the same psychological impulse [albeit of different degrees].

Those people that commit terrible acts of evil know no better for their belief is in a personal identity ..and so where there is other, obviously the 'other' is going to become a threat to their beliefs of a personal identity...this of course is the delusion of the separate self that only exists as a concept in the mind. And while there is the belief in one being a separate self, that self is going to do nothing but defend itself to the death. Every self wants to be RIGHT...but in reality, its not that anyone is wrong, its that they are NOT RIGHT...no one is right because no one is wrong, and no one is wrong because not one is right.

So as long as the sense of a separate 'me' appears to exist as believed, the war of opposites will rage on within the mind of the believer. The mind is only at war with itself. When mind realises there is only 'self' and that all 'other selves' are same 'self' a.k.a. (concepts) - will peace be upon you. Each imagined self has to realise its own imagined egoic self is a known concept of the mind, and in doing so will dissolve into the infinite mind in which it is only a temporal appearance ..but no one wants to die do they, and yet its okay to kill others...this is the sickness of the belief in a ''conceptually identified human mind'' that believes it is the doer, the thinker, and the knower.

So then the conclusion is ...If every one stopped thinking and believing, they are the thinkers and believers of evil, if every one stopped thinking and believing they the doers of evil, if every one stopped thinking and believing they are the knowers of evil...

Then what the heck is evil?

And when that is contemplated, reality carries on regardless, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

.

[Ramu]

I don't think you understand...but no worries, really, there nothing to understand.
.

That is your passport to state all sorts of nonsense.

Philosophically there is no certainty to any thing.
However one can nail a thing to as close as possible to its truth by presenting as much evidences and sound justified arguments as humanly possible.

As Sean Carroll had stated,
it is unlikely for humanity to know and understand complete reality down the finest particle [no final particle] but Physics has provided such an extensive framework to nail what is physical reality to the extend we can work on it for the benefit of mankind.

In your case you are just blabbering all sorts of nonsense [without evidence and rational argument] to gain psychological comfort.
Not you, but some of your theist contemporaries believe in a God that command them to kill non-believers and commit all sort of terrible evil acts in the name of God based on the same psychological impulse [albeit of different degrees].

Your support of theism in general is indirect complicity to the evils committed by other theists.

There you go conflating religion with spirituality again. Evils committed by religious sects are based on collective ego. Everyone in each religious group thinks they're right and the "other" is wrong. Notice right away this brings about an artificial distinction of us and them. True spirituality..non duality is about unity..not about idol worship or identity with an illusory collective.

[Reflex]

I don't think you understand...but no worries, really, there nothing to understand.
.

That is your passport to state all sorts of nonsense.

Philosophically there is no certainty to any thing.
However one can nail a thing to as close as possible to its truth by presenting as much evidences and sound justified arguments as humanly possible.

As Sean Carroll had stated,
it is unlikely for humanity to know and understand complete reality down the finest particle [no final particle] but Physics has provided such an extensive framework to nail what is physical reality to the extend we can work on it for the benefit of mankind.

In your case you are just blabbering all sorts of nonsense [without evidence and rational argument] to gain psychological comfort.
Not you, but some of your theist contemporaries believe in a God that command them to kill non-believers and commit all sort of terrible evil acts in the name of God based on the same psychological impulse [albeit of different degrees].

Your support of theism in general is indirect complicity to the evils committed by other theists.

There you go conflating religion with spirituality again. Evils committed by religious sects are based on collective ego. Everyone in each religious group thinks they're right and the "other" is wrong. Notice right away this brings about an artificial distinction of us and them. True spirituality..non duality is about unity..not about idol worship or identity with an illusory collective.

IMO, you are conflating religion and cults. Religion is nothing more or less than a faith-trust in the goodness of God whatever the surrounding concepts might be. “Spirituality” without the guidance of religion is mindless sentiment. Sure, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, but it always does something; it acts. It does not merely react. Religion is dynamic!

(VA is irrational so I generally just ignore him.)

[-1-]

IMO, you are conflating religion and cults. Religion is nothing more or less than a faith-trust in the goodness of God whatever the surrounding concepts might be. “Spirituality” without the guidance of religion is mindless sentiment. Sure, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, but it always does something; it acts. It does not merely react. Religion is dynamic!

(VA is irrational so I generally just ignore him.)

No true Scotsman fallacy.

I have encountered dozens of Christians who deny the Christianity of others who also claim to be Christians.

Their argument is that only they follow Christian teachings.

If they all follow Christian teaching, and only one way of following is the right one, then the others are cults.

And since cults are not religion, forms of Christianity is not religion.

This is the basic reason why your argument fails.

Thats A. B. is that religion is not dynamic; human interpretation of the scriptures and human reaction to the teachings in it change. Religion is based on scriptures, and per definition the scriptures dont change. Human interpretations of it change. But the words in the bible or in the Koran dont change. Something that dont change cant by definition be dynamic.

What makes religions seem dynamic are the stupid people who do stupid things differently each time, due to what they see written in the scriptures.

[Reflex]

IMO, you are conflating religion and cults. Religion is nothing more or less than a faith-trust in the goodness of God whatever the surrounding concepts might be. “Spirituality” without the guidance of religion is mindless sentiment. Sure, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, but it always does something; it acts. It does not merely react. Religion is dynamic!

(VA is irrational so I generally just ignore him.)

No true Scotsman fallacy.

I have encountered dozens of Christians who deny the Christianity of others who also claim to be Christians.

Their argument is that only they follow Christian teachings.

If they all follow Christian teaching, and only one way of following is the right one, then the others are cults.

And since cults are not religion, forms of Christianity is not religion.

This is the basic reason why your argument fails.

Thats A. B. is that religion is not dynamic; human interpretation of the scriptures and human reaction to the teachings in it change. Religion is based on scriptures, and per definition the scriptures dont change. Human interpretations of it change. But the words in the bible or in the Koran dont change. Something that dont change cant by definition be dynamic.

What makes religions seem dynamic are the stupid people who do stupid things differently each time, due to what they see written in the scriptures.

What makes atheism seem stupid is arguments like yours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophically there is no certainty to any thing.
However one can nail a thing to as close as possible to its truth by presenting as much evidences and sound justified arguments as humanly possible.

Philosophically, the idea there is no certainty to any thing is still a certainty. The only certainty is uncertainty is still a certainty.
You have to exist to make such a claim. The one you are claiming to be doesn't exist separate from the one that is not making a claim to be. To claim or not to claim is the same ONE not/ claiming.

There is no absolute uncertainty independent of the self, i.e. a living person.
That "The only certainty is uncertainty is still a certainty" is still uncertain.

So,WHO is the claimer? CAN THAT ONE BE CLAIMED? .... where is the claimer in deep dreamless sleep? who is going to claim it is sleeping, except the one that is awake?

You are presently self-evident, for you wouldn't be typing these replies if you were not already evidently present..so who is the 'other one' who is is going to present this evidence that you claim needs to be presented?

As I have stated there is a hierarchy of selves [waking, dreaming, drunk, etc.] within a living person.
There is a basic self that is present in waking, dreaming, coma as long as the person is still living.
However this basic self is extinguished on the death of a person.

As Sean Carroll had stated,
it is unlikely for humanity to know and understand complete reality down the finest particle [no final particle] but Physics has provided such an extensive framework to nail what is physical reality to the extend we can work on it for the benefit of mankind.

But Sean Carroll has not included the idea that there is no human to know anything, he never mentions that the human is a concept known by the mind that has never been seen, so all Sean Carroll is doing is blabbering on and on about nothing other than to bolster up his own imaginary ego.

"the mind that has never been seen" is an illusion.
As a Physicist, there is no basis for Sean Carroll to deliberate on this at all.

If you insist there is a mind that has never been seen, the onus is you to prove it.
So far you have not produced any proofs at all.

Not you, but some of your theist contemporaries believe in a God that command them to kill non-believers and commit all sort of terrible evil acts in the name of God based on the same psychological impulse [albeit of different degrees].

Those people that commit terrible acts of evil know no better for their belief is in a personal identity ..and so where there is other, obviously the 'other' is going to become a threat to their beliefs of a personal identity...this of course is the delusion of the separate self that only exists as a concept in the mind. And while there is the belief in one being a separate self, that self is going to do nothing but defend itself to the death. Every self wants to be RIGHT...but in reality, its not that anyone is wrong, its that they are NOT RIGHT...no one is right because no one is wrong, and no one is wrong because not one is right.

So as long as the sense of a separate 'me' appears to exist as believed, the war of opposites will rage on within the mind of the believer. The mind is only at war with itself. When mind realises there is only 'self' and that all 'other selves' are same 'self' a.k.a. (concepts) - will peace be upon you. Each imagined self has to realise its own imagined egoic self is a known concept of the mind, and in doing so will dissolve into the infinite mind in which it is only a temporal appearance ..but no one wants to die do they, and yet its okay to kill others...this is the sickness of the belief in a ''conceptually identified human mind'' that believes it is the doer, the thinker, and the knower.

So then the conclusion is ...If every one stopped thinking and believing, they are the thinkers and believers of evil, if every one stopped thinking and believing they the doers of evil, if every one stopped thinking and believing they are the knowers of evil...

Then what the heck is evil?

And when that is contemplated, reality carries on regardless, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
[/quote]You missed my point.

I stated your belief of theism-in-general is indirectly complicit to the evil acts of other theists.
Let say you do not agree with theism and no one is a theist, then there will be no more theistic related evils.

You may have had some 'experience' that convince you of non-duality.
But in reality and psychologically your views of non-duality are actually dualistic.

The dualism stems from the following;

The fact is every human has a basic self, X.
But this basic self of X of yours has an illusion there is non-duality of X+Y.
Thus there is a dualism of a real X [yours] and an illusory (X+Y).

[Dontaskme]

"The only certainty is uncertainty is still a certainty" is still uncertain.

Certainty cannot not be 'not certain' as in uncertain...otherwise nothing could be certain.
Uncertainty is certainty, both and yet neither. Both certainty and uncertainty exist simultaneously as Absolute Infinity a.k.a God.

Your just not really understanding the bigger picture VA. Your ideas are just full of loopholes and clichés, nothing but one conceptual cliché after the other add infinitum going nowhere.

.

[Dontaskme]

However this basic self is extinguished on the death of a person.

No, you are wrong.

There is no 'self' in a person to be extinguished. A person is in the self which is this immutable unchanging reality, a person is known concept,a change within the unchanging, the conception (thought) within the inconceivable. The illusion within the real. There is no self in the self, there is only SELF dreaming difference where there is none.

The belief in death is a lie.

No person is living life, therefore no person ever died.

This is a dream dreamt by no one.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"The only certainty is uncertainty is still a certainty" is still uncertain.

Certainty cannot not be 'not certain' as in uncertain...otherwise nothing could be certain.
Uncertainty is certainty, both and yet neither. Both certainty and uncertainty exist simultaneously as Absolute Infinity a.k.a God.

Your just not really understanding the bigger picture VA. Your ideas are just full of loopholes and clichés, nothing but one conceptual cliché after the other add infinitum going nowhere.

Don't condemn too soon when your views are not solid.
You failed to understand the following;

Yes both certainty and uncertainty exists but they always exists within a Framework that somehow involved human conditions. In this case certainty and uncertainty are always conditional and interdependent.

There is no way certainty and uncertainty can exists absolutely and unconditionally by itself.

If both certainty and uncertainty exist simultaneously, then that cannot be Absolute.
Note Absolute meant totally unconditional.

Absolute:
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect:

the absolute,
something that is free from any restriction or condition.
something that is independent of some or all relations.
something that is perfect or complete.
(in Hegelianism) the world process operating in accordance with the absolute idea
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute

Note the various perspective of 'Uncertainty';

Physics
Uncertainty principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Mathematics
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

Philosophy:
On Certainty - Wittgenstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty
Wittgenstein denounced absolute certainty

Kant and the Absolute [which he denounced as an illusion]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43155090?s ... b_contents

[Veritas Aequitas]

However this basic self is extinguished on the death of a person.

No, you are wrong.

Isn't this empirically obvious?
Have you heard from any dead person, claiming I am so and so?

How can you dispute the fact the upon death of a person the whole range of the living person's selves are extinguished?

There is no 'self' in a person to be extinguished. A person is in the self which is this immutable unchanging reality, a person is known concept,a change within the unchanging, the conception (thought) within the inconceivable. The illusion within the real. There is no self in the self, there is only SELF dreaming difference where there is none.

The belief in death is a lie.

No person is living life, therefore no person ever died.

This is a dream dreamt by no one.

You got to be joking that death is a lie.
Note the empirical facts of this.

What you are proposing is mere speculation and believing in an illusion.
What you have been doing is all talk but no proofs at all.

[Dontaskme]

VA..you are totally clueless as to what's being disccused here ..which is the metaphysics of REality.

So be it..continue on with your con-quest ..but your con-quest will never be mine.

Circular reasoning ...has no beginning nor end point. The circle is both the beginning and the end simultaneously Absolutely Infinitely.



Relativity is within the circle, not outside of it. It's an illusion within the real.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA..you are totally clueless as to what's being discussed here ..which is the metaphysics of Reality.

What do you mean clueless?

I am very familiar with Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Reality and the topic of Ontology.
Metaphysics is an essential topic within Philosophy, but we must understand its limitations.
There are many who critiqued Metaphysics as not representative of reality.

One of them is Kant who denounced Metaphysics and ontology;
Note one point here [= mine];

This forlorn outcome of Kant’s critical philosophy was, though originally unintended, a slap in the face for those metaphysicians who immediately preceded Kant, such as Wolff, Locke, and Leibniz, but it also would have met with serious criticism in the ancient and medieval days of Aquinas, Averroës, Aristotle, and Plato.

In fact, throughout the middle ages, metaphysics was considered the “Queen of all the sciences,”[1] and to hurl against it, as Kant did, the charge that it [Metaphysics] yields only paradoxical conclusions and therefore mere nonsense—at least as far as true knowledge is concerned—would have been the height of impudence for the great scholastics, most notably St. Thomas Aquinas.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/cat ... y/kant.htm

There are those who counter critique Kant, but their counters are baseless and are purely driven by the desperate psychology I wrote of.