Does God Exist?

[Dontaskme]

I do not think matter and energy and time and space are concepts as they are not mind dependent and have actually existed
long before minds ever did.

Matter, energy, time and space are concepts, they are conceived knowledge, you could not speak or write about such knowledge without a knower...aka conceiving them into existence.

So what do you think conceives such knowledge ? ...does the word energy conceive itself? does the word matter conceive itself? does the word time conceive itself? ....that's basically what you are insinuating here isn't it?

Can words conceive themselves? can the word energy know it is energy?

And time and space do not need a background to support them because they are the background

Again, what is it that knows there is a background there at all?

.

[surreptitious57]

Words obviously require a mind to conceive them but the actual things that they describe are independent of minds
And those things do not have to possess knowledge or understanding of their function either as that is not necessary

[Dontaskme]

Words obviously require a mind to conceive them but the actual things that they describe are independent of minds
And those things do not have to possess knowledge or understanding of their function either as that is not necessary

This makes no sense to me surreptitious. I'm not saying you are wrong or anything, in fact I would dearly love to know how you are seeing this from your perspective, I would like to understand how you can say things are independent of the mind. You have consistently posited this position in every conversation we have had on the subject. But I still don't get what you are saying.

Now, from my knowledge, how I see it, that which is conceived cannot have any independent existence apart from the conceiver in that both the conceiver, the conceived, and the conceiving, are only ever ONE in the same instant, and that any separation requires a mental input..aka the mind) therefore, the mind can't be negated, separated out. I'm not familar with this word ''independant'' surreptitious...could you elaborate what you mean by it when you use it in the context of words once conceived are then independent of the conceiver...I really don't know what you mean by that?

I agree that that which is conceived does not possess any knowledge, and the reason being for that is because it's already the knowledge.

In my logic, the conceiver is not dependant on an object to be, in that it's not dependant on any thing.

...but A THING aka that which is conceived is wholly dependant of the conceiver, because no thing can exist independent of it's counter-part which is not-a-thing.....the former has to be an absolute certainty, for any ''thing'' to be, and must precede the latter, and not the other way around.

It is impossible for any thing conceived to have an independent reality. Just as the waves cannot exist independent of the ocean, it is always and only the ocean knowing and doing the waves, the waves don't do or know anything...metaphorically speaking.

The conceiver is in the world of the unseen, it does not reside in the world of the seen, because the world of the seen is inseparable from the seer, so in truth the conceiver is in the world but not of the world...which is consistent with the following quote John 8:23
''Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.''

Reality is mental fullstop ..there's no thing that is not mental...so every physical thing owes it's existence to the mental, the unseen, and cannot exist outside independent of this.




I'd like to understand what you are saying, but I continue to be at a loss as to what you are showing me.

.

[surreptitious57]

I think that things [ physical objects ] exist independent of human minds. I think that the perceiver / conceiver that you constantly refer to does
not actually exist in reality and is simply a mental construct within your own mind. My mind does not accept that it exists in any objective sense

Your distinction between ocean and wave can be used as an example to demonstrate our different views on this
So while you think the ocean knows and the the waves do not know I think neither the ocean or the waves know

Now I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong and I am right here just that I cannot accept your position over mine. I do not accept that the physical cannot exist without the mental. Like I said I think that your definition of mental is just a mental construct within your own mind. I have no problem with it philosophically only empirically. But if something cannot be supported empirically then either I cannot accept it at all or have to treat it with some degree of skepticism. Which is what I am doing and indeed have been doing so for some time

[surreptitious57]

I have already said this before but we have to accept that we shall never agree on this. You have obviously contemplated it very seriously whereas I have not and am simply reacting to everything you are saying here. And yet despite this I still cannot accept any notion of the Universe as a Mind
As I see it as only physical whereas you think it is more than this and as such our respective positions are completely incompatible with each other

[Dontaskme]

I think that things [ physical objects ] exist independent of human minds. I think that the perceiver / conceiver that you constantly refer to does
not actually exist in reality and is simply a mental construct within your own mind. My mind does not accept that it exists in any objective sense

Your distinction between ocean and wave can be used as an example to demonstrate our different views on this
So while you think the ocean knows and the the waves do not know I think neither the ocean or the waves know

Now I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong and I am right here just that I cannot accept your position over mine. I do not accept that the physical cannot exist without the mental. Like I said I think that your definition of mental is just a mental construct within your own mind. I have no problem with it philosophically only empirically. But if something cannot be supported empirically then either I cannot accept it at all or have to treat it with some degree of skepticism. Which is what I am doing and indeed have been doing so for some time

Thanks for your honest and mature view, I respect your view and your capacity to be mature and not spit venom at my own personal views like some other posters here have done, so thank you for your patience and understanding.

I understand what you are saying now, thanks for explaining it more clearly. On reflection I do recall you saying the exact same thing to me once before in a previous conversation we were having regarding this same topic. I do understand that it is very diificult for one to change their views once grooved in to the point of not knowing anything other than the view you are currently holding. I get that.

So what I garner from your view is that you cannot accept the mind exists in an objective sense, and this to me is understandably a normal human thought. We can identify with the physical as tangible actual solid substance but we have no empirical evidence of a mind..is that what you mean to be correct?

If yes, then I totally get what you are saying now.

.

[surreptitious57]

I can accept the existence of mind in an objective sense but only if it is specifically the human mind. What I cannot accept is the existence
of a cosmic mind that perceives everything and so has zero limitation to what it can perceive. Which is the total opposite of a human mind

You think consciousness is a feature of the Universe whereas I think it is limited to beings who are self aware. What you therefore
believe in is panentheism which is essentially a Universe that is self aware [ even if you do not identify as a panentheist as such ]

I accept that there is a limitation to knowledge and understanding and always will be. And that is why I always seek evidence for what I either think or know is true. So even if something is true but there is zero evidence for it [ or there is but it is either partial or ambiguous ] then I can
not accept it. As evidence is what stops me from believing something merely because it sounds reasonable. As there are many things which are reasonable but are false. And equally there are many things which are unreasonable but are true. So reasonableness is a very unreliable metric
for deciding whether or not something is true or false. The Universe does not function according to the conscious and unconscious biases of the human mind and there is no reason either as to why it should

The bar for me therefore has to be much higher than that. And in fact it has to be as high as possible. Because that then makes it less likely for
me to believe something which is not true. In fact I do not do belief of any kind. This is why I cannot accept what you think is true even though
as I have said before I have no problem with it philosophically

[Dontaskme]

I can accept the existence of mind in an objective sense but only if it is specifically the human mind. What I cannot accept is the existence
of a cosmic mind that perceives everything and so has zero limitation to what it can perceive. Which is the total opposite of a human mind

Okay fair enough, it is your prerogative to hold to this view as you see it. But I don't see it like that. You speak of no evidence for a cosmic mind but then you are sure about accepting the idea of a human mind. I don't see the mind as being human, I see the mind as the illuminous transparent light of awareness that is aware of an object...
... and this awareness, the animating energy is not the object it is aware of, because objects do not have awareness, objects are the ''looked upon'' inseparable from the awareness itself which is all there is infinitlely and forever. This to me is so obvious, it doesn't require any evidence for it's here right now, this is it.

So in essence there is no mind because there is only the mind which cannot be finite, only what it is aware of is finite.It has to be infinite else it wouldn't be possible to know an object exist as a finite experience, which clearly is self evident.

Peronally I have never subscribed to any names or labels such as panentheist, I know labels are not real, I prefer to come from the expanded place of this ever constant present nameless silent awareness which is the only real reality in my world. Everything else is a temporal appearance that comes and goes in that.

The fact that life is here now, that is exists at all ..is it's own self evident proof that it is indeed infinite since non-existence is not an alternative, non-existence has never existed. An so perhaps non-existence and existence are two sides of the same one. Just as nonduality and duality are one and the same nothing. aka (No thing) And that's why I cannot believe in death. My logic tells me there is no death, there is only life because only life is known. And that death is just life being asleep until it wakes up. We know this instinctively. The thing is, if we are here now, then we must have always been here now, not as a human, I mean as awareness.


.

[surreptitious57]

I accept that non existence is not real and never was or never will be but that only pertains to the non existence of physical matter
It does not pertain to the non existence of minds which are a far more complex form of matter and whose existence is not absolute

I accept that the Universe exists and that it is eternal as there always has to be something rather than nothing. However I do
not accept that it must be self aware. Our own self awareness is not a microcosm of that of the Universe since existence and
self awareness are not the same. Most of the Universe is empty of life so cannot be self aware. Nor can it be itself self aware

[Dontaskme]

I accept that non existence is not real and never was or never will be but that only pertains to the non existence of physical matter
It does not pertain to the non existence of minds which are a far more complex form of matter and whose existence is not absolute

So then what is it that knows there is no such thing as non-existence of physically matter? Can matter know knowledge?

Can physical matter know that it can never not exist?

.

[surreptitious57]

Everything is on a spectrum and somewhere on that spectrum is self awareness
It is one point of many and is no more or less important than any other point is

One can have a Universe with minds or a Mind or a Universe without minds or a Mind
Existence can take many forms but the only certainty is that it must take some form

[Dontaskme]

Everything is on a spectrum and somewhere on that spectrum is self awareness
It is one point of many and is no more or less important than any other point is

One can have a Universe with minds or a Mind or a Universe without minds or a Mind
Existence can take many forms but the only certainty is that it must take some form

Who or what knows this knowledge that has presented itself above in the form of symbols, aka images upon a blank screen ?

Who is reading this knowledge?

.

[surreptitious57]

The human mind is reading this knowledge. The human mind is a part of the Universe
The Universe that created the human mind along with everything else that also exists

[Dontaskme]

The human mind is reading this knowledge. The human mind is a part of the Universe
The Universe that created the human mind along with everything else that also exists

Now you are saying the universe created the human mind that is reading and knowing these words as knowledge.

And below in your previous comments you state that the human mind created the human mind...which I've underlined for you.

I think that things [ physical objects ] exist independent of human minds. I think that the perceiver / conceiver that you constantly refer to does
not actually exist in reality and is simply a mental construct within your own mind. My mind does not accept that it exists in any objective sense

So the question is...can that which is known (an object) be separated out from the knower of that object? because that's basically what you are saying...can a perceiver / conceiver exist without some thing to perceive? ...can the perceived object exist separate from that which is conceiving it? .... wouldn't that require the perceiver conceiver to split itself in two?


The mental construct you are refering to is a ''thought'' ..can you see that it is ''thought'' that is responsible for the divide between knower and known..it is ''thought'' alone that has caused an illusory split between knower and known?

Can ''thought'' really do that? ..or it the split an illusion of oneness appearing as the multitudes? Can that which is all that is, aka everything aka ONE really be divided up into parts that live independantly of a mind? when it is the mind that created those parts in the first place.....to me, this idea is absolutely false in every way. The way I see it is that the mind is uncreated, and is the source of all created things, aka illusions.

The mind cannot know anything, the mind is the KNOWN. . . WHAT KNOWS MIND IS UNKNOWABLE....because there is only mind and the contents of that mind are inseparable from mind.

A concept is an idea, which is a thought, which is invisible, same goes for the belief in a concept which in turn manifests the concept into actuality even though a belief or a thought is invisible...do you not see how the mind is a trickster of illusion? creating things that are not really here, they only appear to here as images upon this all pervading awareness that knows each image as it appears, like in a night-time dream? which is a dream within waking another dream inseparable from the awareness, which is uncreated.

___________

You previously stated that objects can exist prior to those objects being known, and the only time any object can be known is when a human mind...aka a knower popped aware...a human mind that suddenly appeared as the knower of what was previously not known...was not self aware.
I'm not implying you mean this, it's just how this one here is reading it..

Is this actually true?

My take on this is that there is no human mind that can pop aware, there is only awareness popping aware as and through a human being, pretending to be that human being because awareness cannot pop aware, so the human being aka the mind mistakes itself to be the knower...it artificially makes the claim of being the author of itself..when in truth, awareness never pops aware, it never appears, because it's uncreated...IT IS WITHOUT BEGINING NOR END...it's only the mind that is born/only the knowledge is born which is an illusory appearance..aka the dream appearance of no thing...the dream of separation.

.

I understand I may have gone a bit too deep here for some readers to comprehend what I've said, apologies in advance, but my passion is to live the living truth and only the truth , the truth that Jesus taught.

.

[surreptitious57]

If the perceived object is separate from the mind that is perceiving it then the object in question is mind independent
But if the perceived object is not separate from the mind that is perceiving it then the object is not mind independent

So although everything is experienced by the mind that does not mean that everything has to originate within the mind