God is an Impossibility

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:56 am
Are you willing to slow down with all the explaining, the words which are just thoughts are obscuring what we are trying to understand. Understanding of what we are trying to understand can be done within the silence of just pure thoughtless being. You might aswell just flush all those words down the toilet for the good they are going to do.

So lets keep it simple.

Lets start with this..

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:44 am
In addition, there has never been any proofs - since the idea of God emerged within human consciousness - to justify God is real.
Where is the proof that conciousness is human?

Try and give an answer that can be written on a postage stamp, and understood by a child.
You are trying to pull a fast one with the above question which is unnecessary and deceptive. Why should we be bothered at all to prove consciousness is human?

You should ask;
What is human consciousness?

Human consciousness can be inferred empirically.

Consciousness: the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

If we refer all livings and animals we can easily infer what is human consciousness from human behaviors and thoughts in relation to other animals.

If a person is in coma or put under anesthetic, he will lose his consciousness.
There are also expression of consciousness between being awake, asleep, dreaming, drunk, etc.

Human consciousness is primarily supported by the brain and secondary the body..
Thus it would be beneficial for humans to understand what are the neurons that support human consciousness, i.e. which neurons are deactivated and switched off when one is injected with anesthetic.

The hard problem of consciousness is one major issue, i.e. how is consciousness derived from physical matter. But this is of less utility than understanding the neural circuits that generate human consciousness.

Once we understand the neural make-up of human consciousness or clues to the hard problem of consciousness, there is a possibility of generating artificial human consciousness in robots which can be of use [fool proof] to humanity.

Your question;
"Where is the proof that consciousness is human?"
is unnecessary which will lead to ending with an illusion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am

If a person is in coma or put under anesthetic, he will lose his consciousness.
There are also expression of consciousness between being awake, asleep, dreaming, drunk, etc.
No person has ever lost consciousness. The person is a phantom idea generated by brain activity which can be altered by chemicals where the consciousness is suppressed ..is asleep, and at the same time the pain receptors have also been suppressed so as not to be registered by the brain...or somehting like that... the point is, Consciousness is never lost, if it could be lost, the brain activity would never come back online to become conscious again, and it clearly does.

Consciousness is not an expression, the expression is a concept known, an experience in consciousness known by consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
Human consciousness is primarily supported by the brain and secondary the body..
Thus it would be beneficial for humans to understand what are the neurons that support human consciousness, i.e. which neurons are deactivated and switched off when one is injected with anesthetic.
Consciousness is not human. No conceptual thing is conscious. Consciousness is either on or off depending on certain conditions, in this case when it is chemically altered by the pineal gland producing melatonin according to the circadian rhythm of the body. Or altered by the effects of being injected with anesthetic. No human is performing these actions, just as no human has ever given birth to itself, life does it all. And life is consciousness, the only knowing knowledge there is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
The hard problem of consciousness is one major issue, i.e. how is consciousness derived from physical matter. But this is of less utility than understanding the neural circuits that generate human consciousness.
It's not a hard problem, it only becomes a problem when it is believed to belong to a thing. When that belief is dissolved ..consciousness reveals the transparancy of itself, to not be a self at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
Once we understand the neural make-up of human consciousness or clues to the hard problem of consciousness, there is a possibility of generating artificial human consciousness in robots which can be of use [fool proof] to humanity.
There is no 'we' conscious of anything, there is only consciousness conscious of itself as an object known. The ''we'' is the known object, a programme within it, which can be downloaded into a robot, but the robot will not be conscious of itself as a conscious entity, it will simply be acting out the known human programme designed by consciousness alone...it'll be an artificial representation of consciousness, and not the actual realtime presentation that is this immediate consciousness one without a second.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
Your question;
"Where is the proof that consciousness is human?"
is unnecessary which will lead to ending with an illusion.
Consciousness is not an illusion. The illusion is thinking consciousness is human.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:58 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am

If a person is in coma or put under anesthetic, he will lose his consciousness.
There are also expression of consciousness between being awake, asleep, dreaming, drunk, etc.
No person has ever lost consciousness. The person is a phantom idea generated by brain activity which can be altered by chemicals where the consciousness is suppressed ..is asleep, and at the same time the pain receptors have also been suppressed so as not to be registered by the brain...or somehting like that... the point is, Consciousness is never lost, if it could be lost, the brain activity would never come back online to become conscious again, and it clearly does.

Consciousness is not an expression, the expression is a concept known, an experience in consciousness known by consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
Human consciousness is primarily supported by the brain and secondary the body..
Thus it would be beneficial for humans to understand what are the neurons that support human consciousness, i.e. which neurons are deactivated and switched off when one is injected with anesthetic.
Consciousness is not human. No conceptual thing is conscious. Consciousness is either on or off depending on certain conditions, in this case when it is chemically altered by the pineal gland producing melatonin according to the circadian rhythm of the body. Or altered by the effects of being injected with anesthetic. No human is performing these actions, just as no human has ever given birth to itself, life does it all. And life is consciousness, the only knowing knowledge there is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
The hard problem of consciousness is one major issue, i.e. how is consciousness derived from physical matter. But this is of less utility than understanding the neural circuits that generate human consciousness.
It's not a hard problem, it only becomes a problem when it is believed to belong to a thing. When that belief is dissolved ..consciousness reveals the transparancy of itself, to not be a self at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
Once we understand the neural make-up of human consciousness or clues to the hard problem of consciousness, there is a possibility of generating artificial human consciousness in robots which can be of use [fool proof] to humanity.
There is no 'we' conscious of anything, there is only consciousness conscious of itself as an object known. The ''we'' is the known object, a programme within it, which can be downloaded into a robot, but the robot will not be conscious of itself as a conscious entity, it will simply be acting out the known human programme designed by consciousness alone...it'll be an artificial representation of consciousness, and not the actual realtime presentation that is this immediate consciousness one without a second.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:39 am
Your question;
"Where is the proof that consciousness is human?"
is unnecessary which will lead to ending with an illusion.
Consciousness is not an illusion. The illusion is thinking consciousness is human.
You are getting dualistic here by separating the 'human being' and 'consciousness' as independent elements.
First you have to prove there is a consciousness that is within humans and yet independent of humans.
Generally this is claimed by theists who insist there is a soul [with consciousness] that survives physical death in another realm. This is illusory resulting in an illusion.

I did not say 'consciousness is an illusion'.
I stated to assume and insist consciousness is independent of the human being will result in an illusion, e.g. arriving at the idea of God or permanent soul as real when such are resulting transcendental illusions.

Consciousness is real but only confined to a living human being.
One can discuss human consciousness in many perspectives but generally consciousness is related to waking consciousness which is has very obvious difference from animal consciousness.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:58 am
You are getting dualistic here by separating the 'human being' and 'consciousness' as independent elements.
First you have to prove there is a consciousness that is within humans and yet independent of humans.
Generally this is claimed by theists who insist there is a soul [with consciousness] that survives physical death in another realm. This is illusory resulting in an illusion.

I did not say 'consciousness is an illusion'.
I stated to assume and insist consciousness is independent of the human being will result in an illusion, e.g. arriving at the idea of God or permanent soul as real when such are resulting transcendental illusions.

Consciousness is real but only confined to a living human being.
One can discuss human consciousness in many perspectives but generally consciousness is related to waking consciousness which is has very obvious difference from animal consciousness.
All the one love action dreaming difference where there is none...In dreams and in love there are no impossibilities.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:19 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:41 am
All the one love action dreaming difference where there is none...In dreams and in love there are no impossibilities.
Even in dreams and love, contradictions are impossibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Can humans imagine or idealize a square-circle in their dreams or in love?
Nah .. it is not possible.

The topic assert God is an impossibility to be real [via scientifically, objectively, philosophically justification], but
God can be a possibility as a resulting illusion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:19 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:41 am
All the one love action dreaming difference where there is none...In dreams and in love there are no impossibilities.
Even in dreams and love, contradictions are impossibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Can humans imagine or idealize a square-circle in their dreams or in love?
Nah .. it is not possible.

The topic assert God is an impossibility to be real [via scientifically, objectively, philosophically justification], but
God can be a possibility as a resulting illusion.
I do get what you are saying, but do you not see that the illusion is real. It's not humans imagining this reality. It's ??? ...what ever it is, it can't be touched by any other THING

It's no good just saying God can only be possible as an illusion ...because all you are doing here is asserting with authority that the word ''illusion'' is REAL...so in that context, so must the word GOD be real also.

And that's what we are doing all the time, we are superimposing words to be real things in and of themselves, by giving ideas, thoughts, a living identity in the form of images, when images are just reflections of formless invisible LIGHT...it's the light that is REAL...and that LIGHT is the only reality.

A square or a circle is a fixed concept only because it's agreed upon, and once fixed, a square can never be a circle nor can a circle ever be a square.Once fixed, concepts do not change...so a square circle would be irrelevant to use as an example of the law of non-contradiction.

Fixed unchanging concepts is knowledge by association, rendering knowledge illusory because in reality, a circle or square or any concept does not exist except in this conception, they're ideas, projected images of the imagless LIGHT, aka AWARENESS... appearing real by association.

No human eye has ever seen a concept, because a human eye is also a concept, concepts are superimposed ideas upon the transparency of awareness...Awareness is real, but the conceptual overlay upon it in the form of concepts, is not.
But from an objective point of view, the overlay is real, but it's only real because that which is aware of the overlay is real.

Awareness is the seer ..it's THE invisible SEEN...so of course the focus of attention is always going to be on the object seen, the conceptual overlay...aka the illusion appearing real.

So in a sense the whole illusion is real...as seen holographically. The holgram is only a representation of the one light energy appearing as form, it's an illusion of the real..The REAL being the projector LIGHT revealing itself as this presentaion.

Some people call all this God, but God is just another label for this ineffable isness that no knowledge can touch.

Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not real. Light is real. Awareness is real. Love is real.

We use the word Love all the time...we say we love you, or we love this or that. We use the word LOVE as if it actually existed for real.
It's the same with the word GOD, we use in the same context as we use the word LOVE
Who is going to deny LOVES existence...we talk about it all the time as if it existed?

So why deny God? ..it's the same principle.

We cannot see LOVE ..but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist... LOVE is still real to us.

And that is why God is real..But God in this case is not a fixed concept that we all agree on, it cannot be SEEN just as LOVE cannot be seen. Or the word GRAVITY cannot be seen...doesn't mean gravity is not there.

GOD OR LOVE or whatever we want to call this ever shining immediate presence....is known as the WHOLE aka ONENESS that is everything at once, seamless without beginning nor end, infinite and boundless. This ONENESS akaLove/God never started, and so cannot end...this illusion is real no matter how much we want to deny it is.



.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by seeds » Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:18 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am
As far as I have known, I have countered all arguments against my premises and I have not conceded to any.
Imagine that! .....an argument taking place on a philosophy forum wherein one of the combatants does not concede to the other. :shock: :D
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am
Tell me where if I have missed your counter to my P2. I will be very eager to counter your views.
Not only did I counter your P2 via the following suggestions...
seeds wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:09 pm
God does not have to meet some ideal form of “perfection.”

He (or she, or it, or whatever term you wish to use) simply needs to be in possession of the attributes necessary for creating a universe.
...but I topped it off with...
seeds wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm
...if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.
The bottom line is that theists and atheists are completely clueless when it comes to the ultimate truth of reality, and therefore your reliance on human guesswork (e.g., “God must be perfect”) as being some sort of proof of your assertions, is a non-starter.

With that being said, the following summation pretty much highlights the shallowness of your reasoning:
  • P1. Veritas Aequitas (a hardcore atheist) believes that under no circumstances (neither empirical nor transcendent) could there exist a “real” God.

    P2. As proof of the veracity of P1, Veritas Aequitas uses the example of theists being prone to ridiculing gods that appear to be lesser than the one they believe in.

    C. Ergo, there can be no “real” God.
Now that may not be a proper syllogism as far as syllogisms go, but the non sequitur should be glaringly obvious.

So by all means, Veritas Aequitas, if you can counter my argument against your argument without having to rely on the speculative assumptions (or foibles) of clueless humans to support your theory, then have at it.
_______

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:42 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:19 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:41 am
All the one love action dreaming difference where there is none...In dreams and in love there are no impossibilities.
Even in dreams and love, contradictions are impossibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Can humans imagine or idealize a square-circle in their dreams or in love?
Nah .. it is not possible.

The topic assert God is an impossibility to be real [via scientifically, objectively, philosophically justification], but
God can be a possibility as a resulting illusion.
I do get what you are saying, but do you not see that the illusion is real. It's not humans imagining this reality. It's ??? ...what ever it is, it can't be touched by any other THING

It's no good just saying God can only be possible as an illusion ...because all you are doing here is asserting with authority that the word ''illusion'' is REAL...so in that context, so must the word GOD be real also.
You don't seem to get it.
A mirage of an oasis in the desert is an empirical related i.e. optical illusion.
For a person who had not encountered nor understand the concepts of illusions, he will insists that mirage seen is as the real physical oasis in his village.

Now what is most real is the neural processes in the brain that produce and enable the person to see the mirage and his insistence the mirage is a real physical oasis like any.

The idea of God is a special type of illusion, i.e. transcendental illusion generated in the mind.
Like the person who insist the mirage is as real as the physical oasis, theists insist God is as real as it can be.
That is because they do not understand the underlying psychological and neural processes that generated the idea of God and insisting God is real.

And that's what we are doing all the time, we are superimposing words to be real things in and of themselves, by giving ideas, thoughts, a living identity in the form of images, when images are just reflections of formless invisible LIGHT...it's the light that is REAL...and that LIGHT is the only reality.
Light is real subject to the scientific framework and system. Other than that whatever conclusion you form is not credible.

"formless invisible LIGHT" ?? what is that?
Light is visible [in contrast to darkness which is also visible] and made of various color waves.

I am not addressing the other points which are not sufficient to be relevant to the OP.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:47 am

seeds wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am
As far as I have known, I have countered all arguments against my premises and I have not conceded to any.
Imagine that! .....an argument taking place on a philosophy forum wherein one of the combatants does not concede to the other. :shock: :D
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:15 am
Tell me where if I have missed your counter to my P2. I will be very eager to counter your views.
Not only did I counter your P2 via the following suggestions...
seeds wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:09 pm
God does not have to meet some ideal form of “perfection.”

He (or she, or it, or whatever term you wish to use) simply needs to be in possession of the attributes necessary for creating a universe.
...but I topped it off with...
seeds wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:42 pm
...if the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence.
The bottom line is that theists and atheists are completely clueless when it comes to the ultimate truth of reality, and therefore your reliance on human guesswork (e.g., “God must be perfect”) as being some sort of proof of your assertions, is a non-starter.
Making statements do not mean you are right.
I have countered your points.
With that being said, the following summation pretty much highlights the shallowness of your reasoning:
  • P1. Veritas Aequitas (a hardcore atheist) believes that under no circumstances (neither empirical nor transcendent) could there exist a “real” God.

    P2. As proof of the veracity of P1, Veritas Aequitas uses the example of theists being prone to ridiculing gods that appear to be lesser than the one they believe in.

    C. Ergo, there can be no “real” God.
Now that may not be a proper syllogism as far as syllogisms go, but the non sequitur should be glaringly obvious.
That is ad hominen and below the belt.
If you don't agree you should counter my views with your arguments.

The point is the basis of theists is psychological and based on faith. Thus it is not like theist will be able to present any convincing arguments nor proofs.
I have nothing personal against theists as human beings but the ideology that some theists support notably Islam which entangles theism as a whole.
So by all means, Veritas Aequitas, if you can counter my argument against your argument without having to rely on the speculative assumptions (or foibles) of clueless humans to support your theory, then have at it.
So far whatever your arguments I have provided counter arguments.
If you do not agree with my counters, then present your 'better' argument.

I believe this Philosophical Forum is about Philosophical Arguments.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by seeds » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:44 am

seeds wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:18 pm
With that being said, the following summation pretty much highlights the shallowness of your reasoning:
  • P1. Veritas Aequitas (a hardcore atheist) believes that under no circumstances (neither empirical nor transcendent) could there exist a “real” God.

    P2. As proof of the veracity of P1, Veritas Aequitas uses the example of theists being prone to ridiculing gods that appear to be lesser than the one they believe in.

    C. Ergo, there can be no “real” God.
Now that may not be a proper syllogism as far as syllogisms go, but the non sequitur should be glaringly obvious.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:47 am
That is ad hominen and below the belt.
I apologize if I am coming across as mean-spirited in any way. However, pointing out the shallowness of someone’s assertions is not an attack on the person themself – it’s an attack on their assertions.

And if you are referring to the “hardcore atheist” bit, are you denying it?

So how, exactly, does ad hominem apply in this situation?
_______

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:42 am

The idea of God is a special type of illusion, i.e. transcendental illusion generated in the mind.
Like the person who insist the mirage is as real as the physical oasis, theists insist God is as real as it can be.
That is because they do not understand the underlying psychological and neural processes that generated the idea of God and insisting God is real.
So here there is talk about an 'idea' ?

An 'idea' that is generated by the mind.

The mind is oviously in operation here else there wouldn't be any talking about it.

The problem with this scenario, is that the 'mind' is also an idea..so we now have to work out if the mind is an idea also, what the heck is an idea? and can that be answered and by whom? ..would the answer just be another idea? ...
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:42 am
"formless invisible LIGHT" ?? what is that?
Light is known in contrast to dark being known...this is knowledge known.
The known defines and nothing but the known is experienced, felt, and thought.
The known can only come from the unknown. Everything known depends on the unknown. The unknown is unknowable.

What I am asking you VA..is ...words like God, Light, Dark or any conceivable word.. are concepts known ..but who sees, who knows the known concepts? can that one be known?

The one who is stating that God is an Impossibility is the same one that states God is not an Impossibility.

Knower, knowing and known is one. And this one cannot be refuted. As there cannot be two ones in opposition to each other. It's all the same one dreaming difference where there is none.





.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:42 am

The idea of God is a special type of illusion, i.e. transcendental illusion generated in the mind.
Like the person who insist the mirage is as real as the physical oasis, theists insist God is as real as it can be.
That is because they do not understand the underlying psychological and neural processes that generated the idea of God and insisting God is real.
So here there is talk about an 'idea' ?

An 'idea' that is generated by the mind.

The mind is oviously in operation here else there wouldn't be any talking about it.

The problem with this scenario, is that the 'mind' is also an idea..so we now have to work out if the mind is an idea also, what the heck is an idea? and can that be answered and by whom? ..would the answer just be another idea? ...
You are conflating and confusing things above.

The mind is a concept not an idea [philosophical].
The concept of the human mind can be easily verified, i.e. humans has a mind.
It is common the hear, we can read what is in the mind of another person.

God is not a concept at all. God is merely an idea [philosophical].
There is no way one can prove nor verified the existence of God.
The idea of God arise from a transcendental illusion which most theists insist is real to the extent of delivering commands via a messenger or prophet that believes must comply. This obviously is a falsehood.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:42 am
"formless invisible LIGHT" ?? what is that?
Light is known in contrast to dark being known...this is knowledge known.
The known defines and nothing but the known is experienced, felt, and thought.
The known can only come from the unknown. Everything known depends on the unknown. The unknown is unknowable.

What I am asking you VA..is ...words like God, Light, Dark or any conceivable word.. are concepts known ..but who sees, who knows the known concepts? can that one be known?

The one who is stating that God is an Impossibility is the same one that states God is not an Impossibility.

Knower, knowing and known is one. And this one cannot be refuted. As there cannot be two ones in opposition to each other. It's all the same one dreaming difference where there is none.
Light is a concept which can be verified empirically as done by scientists.

God is not a concept but an idea [philosophical] which no one has ever proof and verified as real.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am

The mind is a concept not an idea [philosophical].
The mind is concept, but what knows the mind is a concept, it can't be the concept that knows, the concept is known.

So what knows the mind is a concept?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am
God is not a concept at all. God is merely an idea [philosophical].
So where is the idea coming from? ..if god is not a known concept..where is the idea of god coming from? ..it can't be coming from the mind because you have said the mind is a concept...can a concept know an idea?

You're the one who is confusing this.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am
The concept of the human mind can be easily verified, i.e. humans has a mind.
But what is conceiveing the concept of the human mind? ...can the knower of the conceived concept be the conceived concept ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am
Light is a concept which can be verified empirically as done by scientists.
Light is a concept known...a scientist is a concept known. A scientist which is a concept known cannot verify to be the knower of the concept.. the concept is already known and that which is known cannot know anything.

So what is it that is knowing?

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:05 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am

The mind is a concept not an idea [philosophical].
The mind is concept, but what knows the mind is a concept, it can't be the concept that knows, the concept is known.

So what knows the mind is a concept?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am
God is not a concept at all. God is merely an idea [philosophical].
So where is the idea coming from? ..if god is not a known concept..where is the idea of god coming from? ..it can't be coming from the mind because you have said the mind is a concept...can a concept know an idea?

You're the one who is confusing this.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am
The concept of the human mind can be easily verified, i.e. humans has a mind.
But what is conceiveing the concept of the human mind? ...can the knower of the conceived concept be the conceived concept ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:00 am
Light is a concept which can be verified empirically as done by scientists.
Light is a concept known...a scientist is a concept known. A scientist which is a concept known cannot verify to be the knower of the concept.. the concept is already known and that which is known cannot know anything.

So what is it that is knowing?
You don't seem to be up to date and understood [not necessary agree] there is a big body of philosophical views that assert there is no 'that' 'what' or 'it' to a knower or underlies phenomena.

Note substance theory;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
It postulate there an ultimate substance or being to any thing, e.g. knower, creations, thinker, objects, etc.

Not sure if it was you or another who stated there is no 'knower', there is only 'knowing'.

True in the conventional perspective there is the knower and the known.
At the ultimate level, there is no knower at all, there is only 'knowing'. Knowing is like that of an emergent that has no ultimate cause.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7062
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:05 am
You don't seem to be up to date and understood [not necessary agree] there is a big body of philosophical views that assert there is no 'that' 'what' or 'it' to a knower or underlies phenomena.

Note substance theory;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
It postulate there an ultimate substance or being to any thing, e.g. knower, creations, thinker, objects, etc.

Not sure if it was you or another who stated there is no 'knower', there is only 'knowing'.

True in the conventional perspective there is the knower and the known.
At the ultimate level, there is no knower at all, there is only 'knowing'. Knowing is like that of an emergent that has no ultimate cause.

No, I am up to date, I was just checking to see if you were...by asking you the question of who or what is the knower?

And finally, you have said what I've been saying all along albeit in a different way to you. Which is there is no knower because there is no other than the knower, and that knower is you.

However, the identified you cannot know absolutely everything, because it's only a portion of the absolute knowing via the particular experience being experienced...the identified character is just one of an infinite of experiences the absolute knower is experiencing.

The identified knower is the known...the known is known by the unknown absolute knower.

There is here the absolute relative to itself only.

And just as it cannot know itself except in this conception, the conception of itself, as and through the image of itself...this is how God becomes known.

God is just another word for what is here right now ever present...this absolute undeniable immediate shining presence...that cannot be named, except in this conception.


If you don't like the word God..then you can just substitute it for what ever you believe is this self shining reality..it'll make no difference to reality, for reality is this here and now nowhere without doubt or error with or without you..

It doesn't leave or enter here, there is only here. NOW HERE

It's never not here.

.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Veritas Aequitas and 5 guests