Veritas Aequitas's illusory God

[Dontaskme]

If God is an illusion.

Can an illusion exist without it being KNOWN TO EXIST.

That still leaves the problem of the illusion existing.

To think of something is to create the something and know the something in the same instant.

Veritas Aequitas - How do you resolve the problem of knowing an illusory something that is then known as impossible?

.

[Reflex]

Sounds a lot like Anselm's argument. It's a fair point: how can you deny that of which you have no suitable conception?

[TimeSeeker]

In the language of computer science it is called a NULL pointer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer
However NULL itself still needs a representation in memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_character

In the language of semiotics one might be tempted to compare this to a signifier without a signified, but that would be a mistake. That is called an uninitialized pointer.

NULL is different from the number 0, and is more comparable to the concept of nothing.

So the more fundamental question (and far easier to tackle than the complexities of gods) is this: Can you conceptualise/imagine/know/think/synthesize nothing without it becoming something?

Is NULL nothing or something?

This very question is a trap. The moment you ask it you have duped yourself into dualism. NULL is NULL.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If God is an illusion.

Can an illusion exist without it being KNOWN TO EXIST.

That still leaves the problem of the illusion existing.

To think of something is to create the something and know the something in the same instant.

Veritas Aequitas - How do you resolve the problem of knowing an illusory something that is then known as impossible?

I believe you missed the point.

Theists believe in a God which they think is real.
From a rational non-theistic understanding, that God which theists think is real is actually an illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion - not an empirical illusion.

Crudely, that is like a Schizophrenic believing the gnomes he 'really talked' with in his garden are 'real'. But common knowledge inform us, the schizo was hallucinating an illusion [empirical] from his neural process within his brain and mind.

Now, let say a theist understood that the God which he thinks is real is actually an illusion.
As such the theist will have to accept the God he believed is not real but an illusion and illusory. Then most of such theists will give up theism while some will remain theists despite knowing the truth.

The question could be, does this illusion exists at all?
What exists as real is only the neural processes that generate the illusion, but not the content of the illusion.

Example, when a person see a mirage of an oasis in the desert at GPS location xxx.xx.xxx. That is an empirical illusion of an oasis. The neural processes and the images in the brain of the person at that specific location and time are real but there is no real physical oasis [a fake] at location xxx.xx.xxx at that time.

Similarly, when a theist believed in a God, there are real neural processes and thoughts of a God in the brain and mind of the theist. But like the fake oasis in an illusion of mirage, the transcendental illusion of a God generate a fake God which theists insist is 'real'. Note, no theists has ever provided real evidence a God exists as real.

In the case of the illusion of God it is difficult to convince any theist of the neural basis and processes of the illusion because it happens at the transcendental level in the brain and mind. In addition there is no real God at all.

In the case of the illusion of a mirage of an oasis it is very easy to convince any one [even the very dumb] there is no real oasis by taking them to the location xxx.xx.xxx to confirm there is no real oasis. Thus one can easily KNOW the illusion is all in the brain and mind reacting to environmental circumstances.

Can an illusion exist without it being KNOWN TO EXIST.

That still leaves the problem of the illusion existing.

Yes, the illusion exists but only represented by real neural process not a real God.
The point is, if theists know that God is an illusion, they will not believe in a fake illusory God who cannot guarantee their salvation.
Because salvation of the self is so desperate [subliminally] to the theists, they will always resist to accept the idea of God is an illusion.

DAM as usual will shift the goal post, i.e. but there is still a knower of the illusion and its neural processes in the brain and mind.

As I had explained in another post,
there is a hierarchy of selves within the basic human self.
The knower [conscious] of the illusion process in the brain is the conscious waking self, not the dreamer, sleep nor heavily sedated self.
The layers of the subconscious self has the potential to know [based on memory, etc.] but it cannot consciously know of the neural processes.

So there is a fundamental self of a living person.
This fundamental self is extinguished when the person is dead.
There is no other self or absolute SELF beyond the fundamental self of a living person.

DAM claimed there is an absolute SELF that merges with the ABSOLUTE SELF or ONENESS that cannot be known. This is a result of a process of transcendental illusion emerging from an existential desperation.
This is the origin and source of a river of belief that had led SOME evil prone theists to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of God and their religion.

As the critical strategy of solving any problem at its roots, why we MUST nip the manifested problem of theistic evil potential at its source, roots and origins.

[Dontaskme]

Sounds a lot like Anselm's argument. It's a fair point: how can you deny that of which you have no suitable conception?

Here, it is clear that we are only ever dealing with the conception of a ''knower'' a.k.a. the ''conceptualiser''

God is Absolute Infinity and cannot be explained or conceptualised. Any 'knower' can only be relative to itself ONLY within Absolute Infinity.

All conceptualising is limited and finite, and that which is limited and finite is ALL-Inclusive within Absolute Infinity.

No thing finite or limited can ever reach or touch Absolute Infinity, for there is nothing outside of Absolute Infinity. Every finite limited thing is contained within it. IS IT...relative to IT

The finite is Absolute Infinity in-finite...its the SAME ABSOLUTE INFINITY that cannot be refuted, for it IS totality.. TOTALLY.

Every concept is REALATIVE to ITSELF as Absolute Infinity. Therefore, Existence IS and IS NOT simultaneously. It cannot be any other way.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the language of computer science it is called a NULL pointer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer
However NULL itself still needs a representation in memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_character

In the language of semiotics one might be tempted to compare this to a signifier without a signified, but that would be a mistake. That is called an uninitialized pointer.

NULL is different from the number 0, and is more comparable to the concept of nothing.

So the more fundamental question (and far easier to tackle than the complexities of gods) is this: Can you conceptualise/imagine/know/think/synthesize nothing without it becoming something?

Is NULL nothing or something?

This very question is a trap. The moment you ask it you have duped yourself into dualism. NULL is NULL.

This 'null' cannot be an independent absolute but it is conditioned/qualified within the Framework of Computer Science with its principles, assumptions and various defined conditions.

Thus this Null or 'nothing' is still a thing but relative to the Framework of Computer Science, i.e. the concept or idea cannot stand by itself absolutely without that defined and agreed Framework of Computer Science.

[Dontaskme]

Is NULL nothing or something?

This very question is a trap. The moment you ask it you have duped yourself into dualism. NULL is NULL.

Yes, its the trip trap of the dualistic mind.

There is no I in AM

There is no I to be AM

I AM

That's the point, we play hide and seek in the mirror and the moment we catch a glimpse of our essence I am coming out of unconsciousness.

That which ''comes from'' IS what it comes from.That which ''comes from'' is via reflection. Reflection is a trip you take with yourself. If one is 'trippin' they get what they are asking for.

What comes from ''unconciousness'' is not what you think.

.

[TimeSeeker]

This 'null' cannot be an independent absolute but it is conditioned/qualified within the Framework of Computer Science with its principles, assumptions and various defined conditions.

Thus this Null or 'nothing' is still a thing but relative to the Framework of Computer Science, i.e. the concept or idea cannot stand by itself absolutely without that defined and agreed Framework of Computer Science.

It stands. By itself. Absolutely. It stands in theory AND it stands realized in the transistors of computers.

I am merely an English narrator for the theory and its realization.

[Dontaskme]

DAM claimed there is an absolute SELF that merges with the ABSOLUTE SELF or ONENESS that cannot be known.

The Absolute Self is Absolute Infinity that cannot be known by any other SELF other than what is relative to IT SELF Alone.

ABSOLUTE SELF is Acausal. To ''know'' is to conceive - TO CONCEIVE which is always relative to itself Asymmetrically.

Perfect symmetry is achieved when both APPARENT opposing sides are known as two sides of the SAME ONE...that ALWAYS is, was, and ever will be in perfect alignment ABSOLUTELY INFINITELY.



.

The rest of your post is just mindless mental masturbation, a barking dog full of nothing of any significance whatsoever.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

DAM claimed there is an absolute SELF that merges with the ABSOLUTE SELF or ONENESS that cannot be known.

The Absolute Self is Absolute Infinity that cannot be known by any other SELF other than what is relative to IT SELF Alone.

You are trying to beat around the bush with this one.
If you refer to anything that is Absolute, you just cannot bring in anything relative even to itself. That would be a contradiction.

Note there is a big issue within the philosophy community with the issue of a Thing-in-itself, that Absolute thing which is totally unconditional.

Note:
Thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

Noumenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

I suggest you get familiar with the above and counter all its arguments before proposing your limited views of the Absolute.

ABSOLUTE SELF is Acausal. To ''know'' is to conceive - TO CONCEIVE which is always relative to itself Asymmetrically.

This is the first cause argument which is easily debunked.

Note this and elsewhere,
Debunking the First Cause argument
https://www.skeptical-science.com/athei ... -argument/

Perfect symmetry is achieved when both APPARENT opposing sides are known as two sides of the SAME ONE...that ALWAYS is, was, and ever will be in perfect alignment ABSOLUTELY INFINITELY.

Note Tao as in Yin-Yang.
Any reified Tao is an illusion.

The rest of your post is just mindless mental masturbation, a barking dog full of nothing of any significance whatsoever.

This is a sign that you are in a lost state. Can we stick to a genial and amicable discussion?

I have provided loads of arguments, evidence and justifications with all my points.
I have also suggested the perspective of one's own brain and its psychology. You cannot ignore the source that is generating all the above statements.

On the other hand, you have not provided arguments and proofs but merely speculating based on reification and an illusion.

Btw, don't forget besides the theory I had been involved in years of spiritual based meditation

[Dontaskme]

If you refer to anything that is Absolute, you just cannot bring in anything relative even to itself. That would be a contradiction.

But there is no one to refer to the ABSOLUTE, there is only the ABSOLUTE referring to itself. FROM SELF TO self.

The ''apparent'' contradiction is a divine paradox, its unavoidable, just as you cannot experience your own awakening (conception) nor your own absence.

Just accept that things are not what they seem, nor are they otherwise...before you give yourself a migrane.

.

[Dontaskme]

.



Btw, don't forget besides the theory I had been involved in years of spiritual based meditation

Meditation is not what you THINK.

[Dontaskme]

Can we stick to a genial and amicable discussion?

Okay, just as long as you remember you are only ever talking to yourself.

One simply doesn't THINK...how could it, how would it know it is thinking, until it invents another, conceives itself as the perceiver knower of itself as and through its other self, that knows every thought as and when that thought arises in itself alone.


HA HA, as the mirror said to itself, ahh, so we meet again.

If puppet KNOWS it ultimately pulls its own strings does that make it also...NOT a puppet? And if its not a puppet who is pulling the strings?


.

[Dontaskme]

Crudely, that is like a Schizophrenic believing the gnomes he 'really talked' with in his garden are 'real'. But common knowledge inform us, the schizo was hallucinating an illusion [empirical] from his neural process within his brain and mind.

Now, let say a theist understood that the God which he thinks is real is actually an illusion.
As such the theist will have to accept the God he believed is not real but an illusion and illusory. Then most of such theists will give up theism while some will remain theists despite knowing the truth.

But, thoughts are not real, in contrast that which is aware of thought is real. No thing can ever make rational sense without the contrasting opposites.

A theist is a thought.
A schizo is a thought.
An atheist is a thought.

Thoughts cannot and do not think. They do not know anything, they are KNOWN


Beliefs, thoughts, ideas, conceptualising, explaining...is just more paint on the screen of awareness obscuring the screen ever more from view until only the thoughts exist, the stuff.

The screen is whats real, everything else is an appearance upon that. That which appears and disappears never affects or can extinguish the screen of awareness, its the gorundless ground of all appearances, its the unchanging constant that has to be.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality in the sense reality is not what thought (knowledge) thinks it is.

Reality is one huge giant big hallucination from source to source, endlessly, infinitely.

God is not a conceptual object known. That's not what God is. That which is KNOWN, cannot know anything...for all things are known, one with the knowing.

By believing/thinking a Gnome is real is believing an object is real, that's not what is being pointed to here.
Objects are not aware of themselves. They are being awared.





.

[Ramu]

If God is an illusion.

Can an illusion exist without it being KNOWN TO EXIST.

That still leaves the problem of the illusion existing.

To think of something is to create the something and know the something in the same instant.

Veritas Aequitas - How do you resolve the problem of knowing an illusory something that is then known as impossible?

I believe you missed the point.

Theists believe in a God which they think is real.
From a rational non-theistic understanding, that God which theists think is real is actually an illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion - not an empirical illusion.

Crudely, that is like a Schizophrenic believing the gnomes he 'really talked' with in his garden are 'real'. But common knowledge inform us, the schizo was hallucinating an illusion [empirical] from his neural process within his brain and mind.

Now, let say a theist understood that the God which he thinks is real is actually an illusion.
As such the theist will have to accept the God he believed is not real but an illusion and illusory. Then most of such theists will give up theism while some will remain theists despite knowing the truth.

The question could be, does this illusion exists at all?
What exists as real is only the neural processes that generate the illusion, but not the content of the illusion.

Example, when a person see a mirage of an oasis in the desert at GPS location xxx.xx.xxx. That is an empirical illusion of an oasis. The neural processes and the images in the brain of the person at that specific location and time are real but there is no real physical oasis [a fake] at location xxx.xx.xxx at that time.

Similarly, when a theist believed in a God, there are real neural processes and thoughts of a God in the brain and mind of the theist. But like the fake oasis in an illusion of mirage, the transcendental illusion of a God generate a fake God which theists insist is 'real'. Note, no theists has ever provided real evidence a God exists as real.

In the case of the illusion of God it is difficult to convince any theist of the neural basis and processes of the illusion because it happens at the transcendental level in the brain and mind. In addition there is no real God at all.

In the case of the illusion of a mirage of an oasis it is very easy to convince any one [even the very dumb] there is no real oasis by taking them to the location xxx.xx.xxx to confirm there is no real oasis. Thus one can easily KNOW the illusion is all in the brain and mind reacting to environmental circumstances.

Can an illusion exist without it being KNOWN TO EXIST.

That still leaves the problem of the illusion existing.

Yes, the illusion exists but only represented by real neural process not a real God.
The point is, if theists know that God is an illusion, they will not believe in a fake illusory God who cannot guarantee their salvation.
Because salvation of the self is so desperate [subliminally] to the theists, they will always resist to accept the idea of God is an illusion.

DAM as usual will shift the goal post, i.e. but there is still a knower of the illusion and its neural processes in the brain and mind.

As I had explained in another post,
there is a hierarchy of selves within the basic human self.
The knower [conscious] of the illusion process in the brain is the conscious waking self, not the dreamer, sleep nor heavily sedated self.
The layers of the subconscious self has the potential to know [based on memory, etc.] but it cannot consciously know of the neural processes.

So there is a fundamental self of a living person.
This fundamental self is extinguished when the person is dead.
There is no other self or absolute SELF beyond the fundamental self of a living person.

DAM claimed there is an absolute SELF that merges with the ABSOLUTE SELF or ONENESS that cannot be known. This is a result of a process of transcendental illusion emerging from an existential desperation.
This is the origin and source of a river of belief that had led SOME evil prone theists to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of God and their religion.

As the critical strategy of solving any problem at its roots, why we MUST nip the manifested problem of theistic evil potential at its source, roots and origins.

Good morning VA. YOU keep tripping over this BELIEF thing. Non Dual Spiritualists don't believe in God. Rather, they've had DIRECT EXPERIENCE of God. God. God. God. Too bad you're so much in fear of this word. Its what you ARE man.