Philosophical discussion

[Walker]

And, could those 'things' just what the word 'God' has meant or been related to, EXACTLY?

One of the interesting things about Mitchell, in terms of a philosophical praxis, is what happened to her as a child. She contracted polio and somehow got the notion into her head that if she could keep singing she would be well and wouldn’t die. Who's to say it could have been otherwise?

[Age]

AGE



"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." ~ Simone Weil.

Therefore, EXACTLY as I had envisioned.

So now, what is the name of the 'thing' that causes, creates, or provides 'the mechanics of matter', and, what is the name of the 'thing' that causes, creates, or provides 'the autonomy of creatures'?

And, could those 'things' just what the word 'God' has meant or been related to, EXACTLY?

“Papa's faith is people
Mama she believes in cleaning
Papa's faith is in people
Mama she's always cleaning
Papa brought home the sugar
Mama taught me the deeper meaning”
- Joni Mitchell

Comment:
The deeper meaning is found in the causes, effects and implications of cleaning (order, and ordering.)
Creation of order. Preservation of order. Destruction of order.
This causes all movement in the universe, even the “mechanics of matter,” referenced by Weil.
Each is necessary for the other.

Therefore, EXACTLY, as I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, ALREADY.

[Age]

And, could those 'things' just what the word 'God' has meant or been related to, EXACTLY?

One of the interesting things about Mitchell, in terms of a philosophical praxis, is what happened to her as a child. She contracted polio and somehow got the notion into her head that if she could keep singing she would be well and wouldn’t die. Who's to say it could have been otherwise?

What does a 'love-of-learning praxis' mean, or refer to, to you?

Also, what does the word 'it' here refer to, EXACTLY?

[Walker]

And, could those 'things' just what the word 'God' has meant or been related to, EXACTLY?

One of the interesting things about Mitchell, in terms of a philosophical praxis, is what happened to her as a child. She contracted polio and somehow got the notion into her head that if she could keep singing she would be well and wouldn’t die. Who's to say it could have been otherwise?

What does a 'love-of-learning praxis' mean, or refer to, to you?

Also, what does the word 'it' here refer to, EXACTLY?

In deed, indeed.

[Dontaskme]

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

And, if any one answers with the word God, then what exactly is God, to you?

Thanks for the amazing thread starter.

What could do what God is said to be able to do is NOTHING

The ''WHAT'' question can only be answered in the spirit it was given, which is I do not know, so I am going to try and find out what I do not know, and so in that finding will be my answer. In other words, I will eventually know what I do not know.

[Age]

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

And, if any one answers with the word God, then what exactly is God, to you?

Thanks for the amazing thread starter.

What could do what God is said to be able to do is NOTHING

The ''WHAT'' question can only be answered in the spirit it was given, which is I do not know, so I am going to try and find out what I do not know, and so in that finding will be my answer. In other words, I will eventually know what I do not know.

So, in one line you CLAIM what could do what God is said to be able to do is "NOTHING", BUT, in your very next line you CLAIM "YOU DO NOT KNOW" what could do what God is said to be able to do.

Are you able to CLEAR UP and CLARIFY this, another, OBVIOUSLY BLATANT CONTRADICTION here.

[Age]

One of the interesting things about Mitchell, in terms of a philosophical praxis, is what happened to her as a child. She contracted polio and somehow got the notion into her head that if she could keep singing she would be well and wouldn’t die. Who's to say it could have been otherwise?

What does a 'love-of-learning praxis' mean, or refer to, to you?

Also, what does the word 'it' here refer to, EXACTLY?

In deed, indeed.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of when people MAKE CLAIMS but are completely and utterly INCAPABLE backing up what they CLAIM, nor being able to ELABORATE on what they say, and this, it will be found, is because they are NOT ACTUALLY SURE of what 'it' is that they are SAYING and CLAIMING.

[Dontaskme]

Thanks for the amazing thread starter.

What could do what God is said to be able to do is NOTHING

The ''WHAT'' question can only be answered in the spirit it was given, which is I do not know, so I am going to try and find out what I do not know, and so in that finding will be my answer. In other words, I will eventually know what I do not know.

So, in one line you CLAIM what could do what God is said to be able to do is "NOTHING", BUT, in your very next line you CLAIM "YOU DO NOT KNOW" what could do what God is said to be able to do.

Are you able to CLEAR UP and CLARIFY this, another, OBVIOUSLY BLATANT CONTRADICTION here.

Clearing up...if I have to ask a question about a subject, then that is a demand for an answer to what I do not know, else why bother to ask the question in the first place, except the demand for an answer. The answer to this question is that it's as though I am looking for an answer to what I do not know, so that I will eventually know what I didn't know.

Does that clear up and clarify the blatant contradiction Age?
And may I ask, is there anything untoward with the idea of 'contradiction'.. that you just had to bring to the table in such a blatant manner?

.

[Dontaskme]

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

And, if any one answers with the word God, then what exactly is God, to you?

God to me, is everything that ever is, was, and ever will be infinitely forever. Which logically deduces everything to nothing as being the very first source.

In other words, if we are to attempt to put this into knowledge. God is the dreamer, the dreaming, and the dream simultaneously. In other words, all there is is nothing,not-a-thing, no-thing appearing as it's equal and exact opposite, in the context a mirror can never be anything but what it reflects, and the reflection is nothing other than the mirror itself.


.

To add more...God is every experience known to consciousness, to which there are infinite expressions of experiences, for example: A 'murderer' and the murderers ' victim' are two experiences of what God is capable of experiencing, because in the absolute infinite freedom to be, absolutely anything can happen, and will happen without restriction or resistence, and that is absolute freedom to be, which is this immediate unconditional love that is God.

The one looking out of your eyes is the same one looking out of every other eye.

The one eyed looker is king.

''And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.''

You are the ONE. Only you are responsible for your actions, only you, for there is no one like you because there is no other than you, others are you in a different meat suit that's all..as God desired to experience every combination there possible could be.

There was no sacrifice for you, nor was there a saviour for you. You are absolutely everything already. You are the perfect nothingess appearing as everything.

[Age]

Thanks for the amazing thread starter.

What could do what God is said to be able to do is NOTHING

The ''WHAT'' question can only be answered in the spirit it was given, which is I do not know, so I am going to try and find out what I do not know, and so in that finding will be my answer. In other words, I will eventually know what I do not know.

So, in one line you CLAIM what could do what God is said to be able to do is "NOTHING", BUT, in your very next line you CLAIM "YOU DO NOT KNOW" what could do what God is said to be able to do.

Are you able to CLEAR UP and CLARIFY this, another, OBVIOUSLY BLATANT CONTRADICTION here.

Clearing up...if I have to ask a question about a subject, then that is a demand for an answer to what I do not know, else why bother to ask the question in the first place, except the demand for an answer.

1. There is NEVER a 'have to ask a question about a subject'. However, if there is some CURIOSITY, then one MAY ask a question about a subject.

2. Asking a question about a subject is NOT necessarily a demand for an answer AT ALL. Some just ask questions about a subject to SEE if an answer is provided or not.

3. One can ALREADY KNOW an answer but STILL ask "another" a question, about a subject, just to gauge how much the "other" REALLY does KNOW or just says that they know.

4. One can a question, in the first place, to either learn, to gain CLARITY, to SEE and gauge what "another" really does know or not know.

5. I have NEVER asked a question on this forum 'demanding' an answer AT ALL.

The answer to this question is that it's as though I am looking for an answer to what I do not know, so that I will eventually know what I didn't know.

Okay, thank you for Honesty and CLARIFYING response here.

Oh, and by the way, if you are looking for answer, to what you do not already know, then may I suggest you just ask a question. Some one here might be able to provide you with that answer, which you do NOT YET know and which you are LOOKING FOR.

Does that clear up and clarify the blatant contradiction Age?

Yes it does, and again thank you.

And may I ask, is there anything untoward with the idea of 'contradiction'.. that you just had to bring to the table in such a blatant manner?

.

Yes you may.

What, EXACTLY, was the so-called "blatant manner", which I, supposedly, just 'had to' bring to the table here?

And, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'untoward' with the idea of 'contradiction', well not from my perspective, anyway.

Was there ANY thing unexpected and inappropriate, or inconvenient, to you, with the 'contradiction' of yours that I just pointed out and presented here above?

[Age]

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

And, if any one answers with the word God, then what exactly is God, to you?

God to me, is everything that ever is, was, and ever will be infinitely forever.

Okay, but some would say that the CLEARLY Wrong, bad, and/or evil things that 'you', adult human beings, do would NOT be things that are related directly to God NOR to God's doing. But each to their own, as some say.

Which logically deduces everything to nothing as being the very first source.

But, for some, that does NOT AT ALL deduce EVERY thing to NO thing as being the very first source. For them to do so would be Truly ILLOGICAL. Especially considering the Fact that there NEVER was an outside, beyond, NOR separate ANY thing from EVERY thing that ever is, was, and ever will be infinitely forever. So, to these ones, there NEVER could be a first source of 'nothing'.

In other words, if we are to attempt to put this into knowledge.

What does the 'this' word here mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

God is the dreamer, the dreaming, and the dream simultaneously.

Okay, but this seems like a VERY UNNECESSARY thing to 'dream up', especially considering what 'God' IS, EXACTLY?

What happens if the dreamer is dreaming of abusing animals, including 'you', human animals, in the dream? Would this REALLY be God, or what the word God means or refers to, EXACTLY?

Would 'abusing things' REALLY be what God is said to be able to do?

In other words, all there is is nothing,not-a-thing, no-thing appearing as it's equal and exact opposite,

But there is NOT just 'nothing'. What there OBVIOUSLY IS EXACTLY are physical things (some things) with nothing in between, and BOTH TOGETHER make up thee Universe the way It IS.

in the context a mirror can never be anything but what it reflects, and the reflection is nothing other than the mirror itself.

BUT a 'mirror' can CERTAINLY BE some thing other than what it reflects. A 'mirror' can be and ACTUALLY IS 'a mirror'.

And 'a reflection' is ACTUALLY some thing other than 'a mirror', itself. A 'reflection' can be and ACTUALLY is 'a reflection'.

A 'mirror' AND a 'reflection' are two VERY DIFFERENT things, OBVIOUSLY.

.

To add more...God is every experience known to consciousness, to which there are infinite expressions of experiences, for example: A 'murderer' and the murderers ' victim' are two experiences of what God is capable of experiencing, because in the absolute infinite freedom to be, absolutely anything can happen, and will happen without restriction or resistence, and that is absolute freedom to be, which is this immediate unconditional love that is God.

The CONTRADICTIONS here are just to OBVIOUS to even mention.

Also, and by the way, 'you', human beings, are absolutely FREE to CHOOSE whether to murder, or not, so there does NOT need to be " 'murder' WILL HAPPEN " scenario.

The one looking out of your eyes is the same one looking out of every other eye.

Then how, EXACTLY, are they "my" eyes.

WHY do 'you' talk to 'me' like I am so OTHER one, or thing, but STILL CLAIM this is the SAME one?

What 'you' are REALLY meaning to say and write is; thee One looking out of the eyes of EVERY body is the EXACT SAME One.

The one eyed looker is king.

That is WHY that One Eye is referred to thee Mind's Eye. As there is ONLY One Mind, which SEES ALL with thee One Eye, which is ABLE to SEE EVERY thing and EVERY where.

''And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.''

You are the ONE.

WHY do 'you' agree with 'me' when I say that the word 'you' implies or refers to "an other", so to say 'you' are the One does NOT make sense here, but then you completely IGNORE this agreement you made, and then say you what you do here, again, and again?

Only you are responsible for your actions, only you, for there is no one like you because there is no other than you, others are you in a different meat suit that's all..

OF COURSE this is IRREFUTABLY True. BUT, the way you say this does NOT make ANY sense, which could be agreed with and accepted.

Change the words you use, but keep meaning the EXACT SAME thing, then you will find EVERY one agrees with and accepts what you are saying, and MEANING.

as God desired to experience every combination there possible could be.

There was no sacrifice for you, nor was there a saviour for you. You are absolutely everything already. You are the perfect nothingess appearing as everything.

Does this apply for the countless OTHERS of 'you' as well?

Can you SEE the CONTRADICTION here?

[Dontaskme]

1. There is NEVER a 'have to ask a question about a subject'. However, if there is some CURIOSITY, then one MAY ask a question about a subject.

But then one would have to have a curiosity, which to me, is indistinguishable from the demand to know something, by asking a question about a subject one is curious about. Unless you HAVE a curiosity, then no question is likely to arrive is it.

2. Asking a question about a subject is NOT necessarily a demand for an answer AT ALL. Some just ask questions about a subject to SEE if an answer is provided or not.

To question is a demand for knowledge Age...no matter whether one is questioning it's own curiosity, or is curious another source of knowledge is available, as and through another one's consciousness.

3. One can ALREADY KNOW an answer but STILL ask "another" a question, about a subject, just to gauge how much the "other" REALLY does KNOW or just says that they know.

It is true that one can ask another conscious being a question that the asker alreadys knows the answer to. But to me, it's not necessary to do so, because the other consciousness will only be able to possess it's own self bias opinion on a subject.
And personally, I do not believe for one minute that every single conscious human being will ever be on the same page at exactly the same time. This has been proven over and over again in philosophical discussions. So all that can be said about the sharing of knowledge is take what is true to you and reject what isn't.

Some people choose to live the comfortable lie, while others choose the uncomfortable truth.

4. One can a question, in the first place, to either learn, to gain CLARITY, to SEE and gauge what "another" really does know or not know.

For me personally, all learning is about knowledge which is always a passed down second hand knowledge based on someone elses self biased opinion. And it is through that knowledge that we all conspire to agree or not. Some people choose to think only for themselves, rather than take on board someone elses self bias opinion, when it comes to self-knowledge about their being, especially the knowledge about God.

5. I have NEVER asked a question on this forum 'demanding' an answer AT ALL.

Who asked these two questions?

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

And, if any one answers with the word God, then what exactly is God, to you?

Surely these two questions are demanding an answer?

The answer to this question is that it's as though I am looking for an answer to what I do not know, so that I will eventually know what I didn't know.

Okay, thank you for Honesty and CLARIFYING response here.

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

The answer to the 'what question' is 'whatever' I imagine.

Oh, and by the way, if you are looking for answer, to what you do not already know, then may I suggest you just ask a question. Some one here might be able to provide you with that answer, which you do NOT YET know and which you are LOOKING FOR.

Again, if I want to know some knowledge I do not know, then finding the answer will ensure I become knowledgable of what was once unknown to me. Everyone knows how to do that Age.

And may I ask, is there anything untoward with the idea of 'contradiction'.. that you just had to bring to the table in such a blatant manner?

Yes you may.

What, EXACTLY, was the so-called "blatant manner", which I, supposedly, just 'had to' bring to the table here?

And, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'untoward' with the idea of 'contradiction', well not from my perspective, anyway.

Was there ANY thing unexpected and inappropriate, or inconvenient, to you, with the 'contradiction' of yours that I just pointed out and presented here above?

Okay, so a contradiction occured within this discussion, could that have been avoided, obviously not. So it doesn't matter.

Contradictions are a part of reality within the conceptual language that is knowledge, especially when discussing the subject of God.

[Dontaskme]

God to me, is everything that ever is, was, and ever will be infinitely forever.

Okay, but some would say that the CLEARLY Wrong, bad, and/or evil things that 'you', adult human beings, do would NOT be things that are related directly to God NOR to God's doing. But each to their own, as some say.

Yes each to their own understanding of self-actualisation. Which to me, is all God anyway.
If others want to say God cannot be evil, then to me, that's just denial of their true nature, which to me, is whoever knows tha concept of evil is the only creator of evil. This to me, is not a complicated realisation, it's very basic and simple actually.

Which logically deduces everything to nothing as being the very first source.

But, for some, that does NOT AT ALL deduce EVERY thing to NO thing as being the very first source. For them to do so would be Truly ILLOGICAL. Especially considering the Fact that there NEVER was an outside, beyond, NOR separate ANY thing from EVERY thing that ever is, was, and ever will be infinitely forever. So, to these ones, there NEVER could be a first source of 'nothing'.

I agree.

First source to me, starts with me only, I can know of no other source of me, than my own first person direct self-centred experience.

In other words, if we are to attempt to put this into knowledge.

What does the 'this' word here mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

The ''THIS'' word, to me, is a word I use to point to what is ultimately everything that is was and ever will be...in other words, seamless infinite reality, one without a second.

God is the dreamer, the dreaming, and the dream simultaneously.

Okay, but this seems like a VERY UNNECESSARY thing to 'dream up', especially considering what 'God' IS, EXACTLY?

What happens if the dreamer is dreaming of abusing animals, including 'you', human animals, in the dream? Would this REALLY be God, or what the word God means or refers to, EXACTLY?

Would 'abusing things' REALLY be what God is said to be able to do?

To me personally, God is everything, there is nothing that is not God. So whatever can be known, is what God is.

However, that is only what this one here, aka me imagines is true, I cannot speak for what others choose to imagine is true.

In other words, all there is is nothing,not-a-thing, no-thing appearing as it's equal and exact opposite,

But there is NOT just 'nothing'. What there OBVIOUSLY IS EXACTLY are physical things (some things) with nothing in between, and BOTH TOGETHER make up thee Universe the way It IS.

Everything is indistinguisable from Nothing, in my opinion. What distinguishes a physical thing from a non-physical thing is simply a perception, and to me, any distinction is all the same one conscious action. I use the dream analogy because reality to me is likened to a dream in which no thing actually happens, it only appears to happen. And I have no idea as to HOW OR WHY dreaming happens, all I know is that it does.

in the context a mirror can never be anything but what it reflects, and the reflection is nothing other than the mirror itself.

BUT a 'mirror' can CERTAINLY BE some thing other than what it reflects. A 'mirror' can be and ACTUALLY IS 'a mirror'.

A mirror and it's reflection are indistinguishable, inseparable and always one and the same phenomena, and that was my point, about the mirror analogy.

And 'a reflection' is ACTUALLY some thing other than 'a mirror', itself. A 'reflection' can be and ACTUALLY is 'a reflection'.

A 'mirror' AND a 'reflection' are two VERY DIFFERENT things, OBVIOUSLY.

The difference is conceptual, a mirror is a mirror, a reflection is a reflection. Yes, two different concepts. But the point was, the mirror is a metaphor for consciousness, now that's not too difficult to work out that consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same one phenomena. Different words for the same principle is all that I am saying.

To add more...God is every experience known to consciousness, to which there are infinite expressions of experiences, for example: A 'murderer' and the murderers ' victim' are two experiences of what God is capable of experiencing, because in the absolute infinite freedom to be, absolutely anything can happen, and will happen without restriction or resistence, and that is absolute freedom to be, which is this immediate unconditional love that is God.

The CONTRADICTIONS here are just to OBVIOUS to even mention.

Also, and by the way, 'you', human beings, are absolutely FREE to CHOOSE whether to murder, or not, so there does NOT need to be " 'murder' WILL HAPPEN " scenario.

Yes one is unconditionally free to act in anyway shape or form, simply because it is my understanding that there is nothing to stop anything from happening, as nothing is making anything happen. Something either happens or it doesn't happen. If a human being chooses to kill another, there is absolutely nothing that can undo that choice once it is made. Because actions are totally and utterly free to act in every moment. And to me, that freedom is unconditional love, it's all God's will.

The one looking out of your eyes is the same one looking out of every other eye.

Then how, EXACTLY, are they "my" eyes.

WHY do 'you' talk to 'me' like I am so OTHER one, or thing, but STILL CLAIM this is the SAME one?

Because I am talking to myself, and why I do that, is because I can, because I can entertain myself by imagining their are others.

What 'you' are REALLY meaning to say and write is; thee One looking out of the eyes of EVERY body is the EXACT SAME One.

That's another way of putting it yes.

WHY do 'you' agree with 'me' when I say that the word 'you' implies or refers to "an other", so to say 'you' are the One does NOT make sense here, but then you completely IGNORE this agreement you made, and then say you what you do here, again, and again?

To me, the ''you'' also means other, other than me, and yet is the same one talking to itself.
God desired to experience every combination there possible could be.

There was no sacrifice for you, nor was there a saviour for you. You are absolutely everything already. You are the perfect nothingess appearing as everything.

Does this apply for the countless OTHERS of 'you' as well?

Can you SEE the CONTRADICTION here?

Well, I can only speak for myself, and that any apparent others are of my own creation, and I take on that creation as if it was real and true, because I can know of no other source, other than what I create myself. Knowledge to me is a second order phenomena, the first order being, being this immediate presence of being, prior to knowing it.....so only I can be contradicting myself here, which to me is perfectly normal since I am the only original source of knowledge, which can only ever be my own creation. As I know nothing outside of my own first person knowing consciousness.

[Age]

1. There is NEVER a 'have to ask a question about a subject'. However, if there is some CURIOSITY, then one MAY ask a question about a subject.

But then one would have to have a curiosity, which to me, is indistinguishable from the demand to know something, by asking a question about a subject one is curious about.

Okay, but to me, 'being curious about some thing', and, 'demanding an answer (or demanding to know something), is VERY DISTINGUISHABLE.
In the former one can be curious and NOT ask for ANY thing NOR demand for ANY thing AT ALL, whereas in the latter one is demanding some thing.

But, while we are here, one HAS TO BE 'curious' BEFORE they even want to ask for an answer/clarity. And, one can also just ask for an answer or to know some thing while NEVER expecting NOR EVER demanding an answer nor clarity. They can, instead, just ask politely, and then just wait patiently, like I do, NEVER expecting and NEVER demanding AT ALL.

Unless you HAVE a curiosity, then no question is likely to arrive is it.

If this is a question, posed to me, then I agree that curiosity is needed before questioning arises. However, this is just 'sidetracking' away from your claim that "if you HAD TO ask a question, then that is a demand for an answer".

Now, you may well DEMAND answers for EVERY question you ask, but I CERTAINLY DO NOT.

Also, you may feel, think, or BELIEVE, that you HAVE TO ask questions, but this is obviously NOT thee Truth of things.

2. Asking a question about a subject is NOT necessarily a demand for an answer AT ALL. Some just ask questions about a subject to SEE if an answer is provided or not.

To question is a demand for knowledge Age...

This may well be from YOUR perspective "dontaskme". But, this is CERTAINLY NOT the case for ALL "others".

SEE, when we question things, we are just seeking to learn more, or become wiser. There is NEVER ANY demand for knowledge, but if knowledge comes our way, then so be it. All is well and good.

no matter whether one is questioning it's own curiosity,

LOL How does one question their OWN curiosity, EXACTLY?

Either one is curios, at a particular moment, or they are not.

or is curious another source of knowledge is available, as and through another one's consciousness.

If you say so.

3. One can ALREADY KNOW an answer but STILL ask "another" a question, about a subject, just to gauge how much the "other" REALLY does KNOW or just says that they know.

It is true that one can ask another conscious being a question that the asker alreadys knows the answer to. But to me, it's not necessary to do so,

OF COURSE it is NOT 'necessary' to do so.

WHY do you have this propensity to automatically ASSUME that when some says some thing happens, then they are CLAIMING that 'that thing' HAS TO HAPPEN, or is a NECESSITY?

because the other consciousness will only be able to possess it's own self bias opinion on a subject.

This is NOT true, 'you', human beings, are able to posses, and share, ACTUAL Facts on ANY subject, and NOT just biased opinions AT ALL.

And personally, I do not believe for one minute that every single conscious human being will ever be on the same page at exactly the same time.

'you' are FREE to BELIEVE absolutely ANY thing you like. But do not forget that what you BELIEVE creates 'bias confirmation' at its highest level.

For example, if EVERY other human being were on the 'same page', at exactly the same time, you would, purposely, be, and stay, on 'another page' just so you could and would make your OWN BELIEF true, right, and correct.

You would NOT BELIEVE some thing if it were NOT true and right, correct?

This has been proven over and over again in philosophical discussions.

LOL If you think or believe that what happens in so-called "philosophical discussions" is some sort of example to be guided by of and about human beings, for ALL of human life, then you will be sadly MISTAKEN.

So all that can be said about the sharing of knowledge is take what is true to you and reject what isn't.

But what is just NOT 'true' to you is sometimes what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True.

Some people choose to live the comfortable lie, while others choose the uncomfortable truth.

And, "others" choose other things. But, besides this Fact just being completely OBVIOUS, was there ANY other point that you were trying to convey here?

4. One can a question, in the first place, to either learn, to gain CLARITY, to SEE and gauge what "another" really does know or not know.

For me personally, all learning is about knowledge which is always a passed down second hand knowledge based on someone elses self biased opinion.

And, considering the Fact that ALL self based opinion can be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, then ALL knowledge to you could also be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, correct?

And it is through that knowledge that we all conspire to agree or not.

But it is NOT through so-called "second hand self biased opinions" that we ALL conspire to agree or not.

If what you CLAIMED here was true, then we ALL would be on the same page, at exactly the same time.

SEE, if ANY one CLAIMS that we ALL could NEVER agree on some thing or we could NEVER be on the same page, at exactly the same time, then they could NOT, logically, then also CLAIM that we ALL do the EXACT SAME thing nor things.

Some people choose to think only for themselves, rather than take on board someone elses self bias opinion, when it comes to self-knowledge about their being, especially the knowledge about God.

Okay.

5. I have NEVER asked a question on this forum 'demanding' an answer AT ALL.

Who asked these two questions?

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

And, if any one answers with the word God, then what exactly is God, to you?

Surely these two questions are demanding an answer?[/quote]

NOT AT ALL.

They were just asked politely, while waiting patiently to see if ANY one responds.

If NO one answers, then so be it.

As I said I have NEVER asked a question on this forum demanding an answer AT ALL.

By the way, I did.

The answer to this question is that it's as though I am looking for an answer to what I do not know, so that I will eventually know what I didn't know.

Okay, thank you for Honesty and CLARIFYING response here.

So, what exactly could do what God is said to be able to do?

The answer to the 'what question' is 'whatever' I imagine.

Oh, and by the way, if you are looking for answer, to what you do not already know, then may I suggest you just ask a question. Some one here might be able to provide you with that answer, which you do NOT YET know and which you are LOOKING FOR.

Again, if I want to know some knowledge I do not know, then finding the answer will ensure I become knowledgable of what was once unknown to me. Everyone knows how to do that Age.

Maybe so, but this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I saying, and MEANING.

And may I ask, is there anything untoward with the idea of 'contradiction'.. that you just had to bring to the table in such a blatant manner?

Yes you may.

What, EXACTLY, was the so-called "blatant manner", which I, supposedly, just 'had to' bring to the table here?

And, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'untoward' with the idea of 'contradiction', well not from my perspective, anyway.

Was there ANY thing unexpected and inappropriate, or inconvenient, to you, with the 'contradiction' of yours that I just pointed out and presented here above?

Okay, so a contradiction occured within this discussion, could that have been avoided, obviously not. So it doesn't matter.[/quote]

LOL WHY do you think or BELIEVE that 'contradiction', itself, can NOT be avoided in your discussions?

Contradictions are a part of reality within the conceptual language that is knowledge, especially when discussing the subject of God.

AND what ELSE is also a part of Reality within the conceptual language that is knowledge, especially when discussing ANY subject, including ANY subject of God, are statements that are necessarily True. So, 'contradictions' are NOT necessary AT ALL, and may I suggest are best AVOIDED ALL TOGETHER.

[Age]

God to me, is everything that ever is, was, and ever will be infinitely forever.

Okay, but some would say that the CLEARLY Wrong, bad, and/or evil things that 'you', adult human beings, do would NOT be things that are related directly to God NOR to God's doing. But each to their own, as some say.

Yes each to their own understanding of self-actualisation. Which to me, is all God anyway.
If others want to say God cannot be evil, then to me, that's just denial of their true nature, which to me, is whoever knows tha concept of evil is the only creator of evil. This to me, is not a complicated realisation, it's very basic and simple actually.

What you are essentially saying is God is 'your', human beings, 'true nature', but whoever knows 'evil' is the ONLY creator of evil, correct?

If no, then what IS correct here?

Which logically deduces everything to nothing as being the very first source.

But, for some, that does NOT AT ALL deduce EVERY thing to NO thing as being the very first source. For them to do so would be Truly ILLOGICAL. Especially considering the Fact that there NEVER was an outside, beyond, NOR separate ANY thing from EVERY thing that ever is, was, and ever will be infinitely forever. So, to these ones, there NEVER could be a first source of 'nothing'.

I agree.

First source to me, starts with me only, I can know of no other source of me, than my own first person direct self-centred experience.

Okay, now we are getting much closer to what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS.

In other words, if we are to attempt to put this into knowledge.

What does the 'this' word here mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

The ''THIS'' word, to me, is a word I use to point to what is ultimately everything that is was and ever will be...in other words, seamless infinite reality, one without a second.

WHY would you even 'try' to put EVERY thing into 'knowledge'?

God is the dreamer, the dreaming, and the dream simultaneously.

Okay, but this seems like a VERY UNNECESSARY thing to 'dream up', especially considering what 'God' IS, EXACTLY?

What happens if the dreamer is dreaming of abusing animals, including 'you', human animals, in the dream? Would this REALLY be God, or what the word God means or refers to, EXACTLY?

Would 'abusing things' REALLY be what God is said to be able to do?

To me personally, God is everything, there is nothing that is not God. So whatever can be known, is what God is.

Okay, but in the opening post here I did say; Now, for this discussion to begin and to be successful we just have to work out if there could be absolutely any existing thing that could do what God is said to be able to do, and then see if any of those things could be what the word 'God' was just actually referring to.

And, I clearly expressed in that post also; The quickest, simplest, and easiest way for this answer to come to light is by not expressing what one already thinks or believes is true, but by just remaining always open instead

However, that is only what this one here, aka me imagines is true, I cannot speak for what others choose to imagine is true.

You can NOT if they do NOT share with you those imaginings, BUT, you can speak for what "others" choose to imagine is true if they share those imaginings with you.

In other words, all there is is nothing,not-a-thing, no-thing appearing as it's equal and exact opposite,

But there is NOT just 'nothing'. What there OBVIOUSLY IS EXACTLY are physical things (some things) with nothing in between, and BOTH TOGETHER make up thee Universe the way It IS.

Everything is indistinguisable from Nothing, in my opinion.

How can you NOT distinguish between the physical things and the 'nothingness' of 'empty space'?

What distinguishes a physical thing from a non-physical thing is simply a perception, and to me, any distinction is all the same one conscious action. I use the dream analogy because reality to me is likened to a dream in which no thing actually happens, it only appears to happen.

But that is just that 'one's' chosen imagined dream of 'things'. And, 'you' are absolutely FREE to CHOOSE whatever you want imagine and/or dream.

And I have no idea as to HOW OR WHY dreaming happens, all I know is that it does.

Which is NOT SURPRISING, AT ALL, considering that you can NOT even distinguish between what is a physical thing and the empty space which is NEEDED for physical things to exist.

in the context a mirror can never be anything but what it reflects, and the reflection is nothing other than the mirror itself.

BUT a 'mirror' can CERTAINLY BE some thing other than what it reflects. A 'mirror' can be and ACTUALLY IS 'a mirror'.

A mirror and it's reflection are indistinguishable,

But they ARE, to me.

There is 'the mirror', and then there is 'the reflection'. Two VERY EASILY distinguishable things. Well to me they are anyway.

inseparable and always one and the same phenomena, and that was my point, about the mirror analogy.

Well your point is NOT been SHOWN that well.

Oh, and by the way, the VERY POINT that you are ALLUDING to is ALREADY KNOWN. Well by me anyway.

SEE, the physical things AND the nothing between them are ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY 'inseparable'. As the two things HAVE TO EXIST, ALWAYS, and TOGETHER they make up thee One and ONLY True thing, which is, literally, ACTUALLY INSEPARABLE.

By the way, your mirror analogy can be REFUTED as all one has to do is cover the face of the mirror and then there is NO reflection, but the mirror, OBVIOUSLY, REMAINS. Meaning; A mirror and its reflection ARE distinguishable.

Even your OWN words CLEARLY points this Fact out. Saying, " A mirror and 'its' reflection' " means TWO separate or distinguishable things, and, saying, that those TWO things 'are' indistinguishable means there are TWO, different, things.

And 'a reflection' is ACTUALLY some thing other than 'a mirror', itself. A 'reflection' can be and ACTUALLY is 'a reflection'.

A 'mirror' AND a 'reflection' are two VERY DIFFERENT things, OBVIOUSLY.

The difference is conceptual,

Name one thing that is NOT 'conceptual'.

a mirror is a mirror, a reflection is a reflection. Yes, two different concepts. But the point was, the mirror is a metaphor for consciousness, now that's not too difficult to work out that consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same one phenomena.

But 'consciousness' is just consciousness, while 'the contents of consciousness', if you have not guessed it already is 'the contents of consciousness'.

Different words for the same principle is all that I am saying.

Well if that is ALL that you are saying, then I suggest just say, "Different words for the same principle", and then we can LOOK AT 'that', and then DISCUSS 'that', that is; if we want to.

To add more...God is every experience known to consciousness, to which there are infinite expressions of experiences, for example: A 'murderer' and the murderers ' victim' are two experiences of what God is capable of experiencing, because in the absolute infinite freedom to be, absolutely anything can happen, and will happen without restriction or resistence, and that is absolute freedom to be, which is this immediate unconditional love that is God.

The CONTRADICTIONS here are just to OBVIOUS to even mention.

Also, and by the way, 'you', human beings, are absolutely FREE to CHOOSE whether to murder, or not, so there does NOT need to be " 'murder' WILL HAPPEN " scenario.

Yes one is unconditionally free to act in anyway shape or form,

I would NOT say that one is unconditionally free to act in ANY way, shape, nor form, as one is limited by the thinking within the body, and it is thinking which controls the way, shape, and form one acts, or behaves in.

One is CERTAINLY absolutely FREE to CHOOSE. But EVERY one of 'you', human beings, only has a limited choice to CHOOSE from.

simply because it is my understanding that there is nothing to stop anything from happening, as nothing is making anything happen.

Thee ACTUAL Thing that is making ALL-OF-THIS happen is thee Thing that is just a combination of ALL (the) things (working together).

Something either happens or it doesn't happen. If a human being chooses to kill another, there is absolutely nothing that can undo that choice once it is made.

Nothing besides, incorrectly called, 'time travel' that is.

Because actions are totally and utterly free to act in every moment.

To me, 'actions', themselves, are DIFFERENT from 'behaviors', and it CHOOSING ALL of 'your', adult human 'behaviors', which are totally and utterly FREE of 'conditions'. However, ALL 'actions' are just 're-actions' due to, or because of, previous circumstances.

And to me, that freedom is unconditional love, it's all God's will.

AGAIN, the 'CONTRADICTION' here is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

The FREEDOM to 'murder' maybe God's will but 'to murder' would NOT be God's will.

Unless, OF COURSE, ANY one comes up with some PROOF that 'God's will' is 'to murder' some and NOT "others"

The one looking out of your eyes is the same one looking out of every other eye.

Then how, EXACTLY, are they "my" eyes.

WHY do 'you' talk to 'me' like I am so OTHER one, or thing, but STILL CLAIM this is the SAME one?

Because I am talking to myself, and why I do that, is because I can, because I can entertain myself by imagining their are others.

If you think or BELIEVE that absolutely EVERY thing is an ILLUSION of your OWN making, or imagining, then you are ABLE to do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing.

But what you can, or can NOT do, was NEVER being questioned here. What WAS being QUESTION was; WHY you do some thing?

Now, if you would like to respond to 'that', INSTEAD, then please do.

What 'you' are REALLY meaning to say and write is; thee One looking out of the eyes of EVERY body is the EXACT SAME One.

That's another way of putting it yes.

Okay.

WHY do 'you' agree with 'me' when I say that the word 'you' implies or refers to "an other", so to say 'you' are the One does NOT make sense here, but then you completely IGNORE this agreement you made, and then say you what you do here, again, and again?

To me, the ''you'' also means other, other than me, and yet is the same one talking to itself.

But can you YET SEE the CONTRADICTION in speaking that way?

Also, remember you BELIEVE that 'this' can NOT be explained in words, NOR language, so to fulfill your OWN BELIEFS and 'confirmation biases' here you will, purposely, go out of your way to say things that are NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, or SELF-CONTRADICTORY.

God desired to experience every combination there possible could be.

There is Truth in this. But, to be ABLE to FIND It and SEE It other things are NEEDED.

There was no sacrifice for you, nor was there a saviour for you. You are absolutely everything already. You are the perfect nothingess appearing as everything.

Yes 'I' KNOW 'I am'

SEE, with the word 'I' there is NO reference to ANY 'other'. But with the word 'you' there is DIRECT reference to AN 'other'. Can 'you' SEE 'this', NOW?

Well, I can only speak for myself,

Even the word 'myself' is a CONTRADICTION of itself. The word 'my' in 'myself' refers to 'one', and the word 'self' refers to 'another one'.

So, literally, 'which 'one' is which', as some might now ask?

and that any apparent others are of my own creation, and I take on that creation as if it was real and true,

We KNOW this. We can CLEARLY SEE that 'you' take on your OWN, self-admitted, 'illusion/s' as being ABSOLUTELY 'real' AND 'true'.

because I can know of no other source, other than what I create myself.

You CAN, but you just prefer NOT TO.

You, literally, prefer to exist solely in your OWN made up 'illusion' AND 'creation'

Knowledge to me is a second order phenomena, the first order being, being this immediate presence of being, prior to knowing it.....

As I say, Thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' can be KNOWN, ALMOST instantaneously. Which means more or less what you are 'trying to' convey here, which is; thee ACTUAL 'immediate presence' happens or occurs prior to knowledge of 'It' can EVER become KNOWN.

so only I can be contradicting myself here, which to me is perfectly normal since I am the only original source of knowledge, which can only ever be my own creation. As I know nothing outside of my own first person knowing consciousness.