Veritas Aequitas's illusory God

[Dontaskme]

The one that believes in the mind does not exist.

As long as there is the belief in mind there will be the believer, which energetically mainfests the belief.

No belief, no story.

It's really that simple.

.

As long as there is the energetic belief in a you, there will be your creator.

Then what you create is your own mental creation. It's not realities creation, for reality is uncreated A.I. (Absolute Infinity)

The created is within the dream of separation, its of the mind which is an artificially created dream world believed to be real.

The dream world can be what ever mind dreams it to be, it can be heaven or hell...that's the beauty of the mind ...it always gives itself exactly what it desires.

If you've got a mind full of demons and evil, that's exactly what you are going to get AV..its all yours, it doesn't belong to Reality which is A.I.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Based on this illusion, theists believed the illusion is a real God who had delivered commands in holy texts. What we are concerned is some of the holy texts are commanded to be immutable and contain evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts. This is glaringly evident.

The believer of any conceptual word, language, knowledge.. be it whatever concept the mind will conjure out of nowhere, nothing, is the work of the mentally created narrations made up of pure fictional story that is taken literally, just as the world and all its contents are taken to be literal things in and of themselves, when its all just the illusion of Maya, which then mistakes this believed physicality to be real actual separate things and entities...causing the illusion of division and separation..but its all a lie believed to be real.

This LIE, artificially mind constructed BELIEF.. has nothing whatsoever to do with REAL reality which is formless source energy magically manifesting itself as real live living breathing walking talking avatars...albeit illusory ...Reality is non-physical full-stop. Everything and Nothing is consciousness/Awareness one without a second...Absolute Infinity for Eternity. There is no Who, or You in AI

Science and Nonduality have been saying this for years..but as long as there is the illusory belief that matter is conscious matter, when its not, the illusory misery will continue to manifest as an energetic illusion of mind, which is just a misguided, misidentified belief in ''OTHERNESS'' ..the ONLY cause of all apparent suffering. REAL REALITY does not suffer...how can it, there is NO ONE in reality to suffer.

Matter is not conscious, consciousness is matter, but while the belief that I AM my body and I have consciousness continues to dominate society, this becomes the God of their own deluded mind creation..oh the irony.


God is not what thought or belief says it is...go figure...

As I have argued,

that you claimed God is real is the same as some ignorant person insisting there is a real bent pencil-water in that illusion scenario.

The point here is you are ignorant of the processes that is going in your brain that compelled there is a real God when in reality it is an illusion generated by your brain due to psychological desperation*.
In your case you are not as desperate as the Abrahamic theists quest for salvation but nevertheless it merely a matter of degrees along the same continuum.

One thing you have not done is to understand how your brain and psychology works plus the brain can be very deceptive as its inherent nature.
Note the brain/mind will even force you into a coma when you are under certain threat, so the brain will deceive you will an illusion of God to soothe the inherent UNAVOIDABLE existential Angst.
I believe if you are a progressive human being you should strive to gather the above knowledge to verify what I say is true or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It doesn't matter how you conceptualise it. Your goal is to make less errors. Because errors hurt or errors can get you killed. Or errors end up you being hungry. We don't want bad things to happen to our physical body. And so if you are to follow the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid!) the less taxonomies you have to juggle - the less complexity in your head. The less probability of error. Mistakes - BAD!


From my perspective you are part of reality. Separate from I.
From your perspective I am part of reality. Separate from You.


Wow. No This is far too complex for head. KISS.

Whether there are 1 or 100 other people it doesn't matter. They fall under the category ' reality'. And in a subcategory 'society'.

For the purposes of general awareness - sure. you can conceptualise The Whole Universe as Reality (the whole). And the quantum scale as Reality (the parts).But in practice and your day-to-day living your "territory" is 100 square Km at most and the level of abstraction of your regular perception is just fine.

The important question is Teleology. What do you NEED truth for? Because that drives all my further conceptions.

I need truth so I can decide how to act. Decision theory. But I still need a clear goal/success criterion.

This OP refer to God, i.e. they claim it is the ALL of ALL.
This is why I approach it from the WHOLE.

What is going on is theists are being compelled subliminally in the reification of the WHOLE in terms of God.
I am arguing the resultant of such a reification from merely thoughts is an illusion.

Based on this illusion, theists believed the illusion is a real God who had delivered commands in holy texts. What we are concerned is some of the holy texts are commanded to be immutable and contain evil elements that inspire SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts. This is glaringly evident.

As such we cannot confine our concern to "100 km" when those who are a threat to humanity are taking the WHOLE of the Universe and its creator into account.

The universe is the WHOLE. No more no less.

If you an inch further you are making unsubstantiated claims. If you go an inch closer you are leaving out parts of reality.

The word EVERYTHING implies the WHOLE. Anything testable/falsifiable by science.

On this screen we can’t add a time dimension not for the sake of completeness think Big Bang is time 0 and heat death is time MAX.

Now - in that spacetime picture. People are welcome to pin of where they think God is and it is and what we expect to observe/measure if we found ourselves in the same vicinity.

All models aside nobody has ever produced a testable/falsifiable definition for god.

So how do we know that we haven’t been talking about the warm summer breeze for 2000 years?

Science merely assumes the Whole exists consistently throughout.
So the Whole in science is merely an assumption.

From the philosophical perspective 'the WHOLE' is quite a complex issue.
There is no Whole-in-itself.
To insist there is a Whole-in-itself is a transcendental illusion.

Kant postulated and argued solidly there are only 3 culminating transcendental illusion which are impossibilities in any real sense, i.e.

1. The whole-in-itself - re the universe and cosmology
2. The soul - wholeness of the person
3. God - wholeness of All entities and things.

[Dontaskme]

The point here is you are ignorant of the processes that is going in your brain that compelled there is a real God when in reality it is an illusion generated by your brain due to The point here is you are ignorant of the processes that is going in your brain that compelled there is a real God when in reality it is an illusion generated by your brain due to psychological desperation*.*.

You are ignorant in believing the brain is doing anything.

Nothing is doing anything, everything is being done by no thing.

Your projection of a psychological desperation onto others is your own deluded belief there is a person to have such a condition, and in that detested belief that is your own creation, you cowardly project it onto someone else as if its their psychological desperation . You don't seem to be aware you are doing this. So its You who is the deluded one here, this is not my shit, its yours..please learn to smell and deal with your own undealt shit and stop stuffing it in the face of other people as if its theirs.

It's your shit, now clean it up after you.

This is a dream dream by no one.

Nothing is real.

If the nameless one desires to name itself then thats what it does, there is no one in the nameless one to counteract itself out of having no desire, desire is a free agent.

Reality is the blank canvas on which it paints its dream. It's a happening.

There is a place of perfect peace but no one lives there.

Any no one can enter the kingdom of perfect peace, but please remember to leave your heavy baggage outside.



.

[TimeSeeker]

Science merely assumes the Whole exists consistently throughout.
So the Whole in science is merely an assumption.

From the philosophical perspective 'the WHOLE' is quite a complex issue.
There is no Whole-in-itself.
To insist there is a Whole-in-itself is a transcendental illusion.

Kant postulated and argued solidly there are only 3 culminating transcendental illusion which are impossibilities in any real sense, i.e.

1. The whole-in-itself - re the universe and cosmology
2. The soul - wholeness of the person
3. God - wholeness of All entities and things.

Ok. I think we've fallen off the epistemology train. As far as I can tell the 'in itself' part is the illusion.
What I know about the world is what my mind/perception and the laws of physics allow me to know. That thing which I call information. Everything else is a hallucination.

And so the 'whole' as far as it is assumed is anything that can be measured/tested/observed. That is the boundary of my epistemology. Which bows to the laws of physics. Because observation is bounded by the speed of light, and the time I spend observing. To go beyond and to pretend that I know what a 'thing in itself' is like. Is to pre-suppose some extra-sensory powers.

I have none! I am only human.

And so - yes. Inso far as I can tell there is a thing in front of me. But beyond giving it a label I cannot describe it. I have an incomplete conception of it.

I do not entertain any taxonomy of my mind other than the epistemic. If when I use the terms ontology/metaphysics it is because it is your language and I recognise that using your language to convey a message is beneficial to communication.

I don't have use for those taxonomies.

I USED to entertain phenomenology, but I have managed to reconcile it within my epistemic framework and so I have no use for it any longer.

[Dontaskme]

And so - yes. Inso far as I can tell there is a thing in front of me. But beyond giving it a label I cannot describe it. I have an incomplete conception of it.

We have no idea what we are looking at. There is the perception of looking, but there is no perception of the perceiver. So the focus is always on the object of perception, the unknown looked upon...and then we pretend we know it all.

This realisation does not necessarily lead to an existential crisis, which is what AV seems to believe.

There is simply no one there in the body to whom an existential crisis would be applicable... although that thought is an experience within absolute infinity, its just that it doesn't belong to a ''someone'', thats the illusion...everything is an expression of A.I

There is the perception of a ''someone'', which is the belief, but when it comes to who that perception actually belongs to, there is absolutely NO perception of the perceiver. So the whole sensation of being a ''someone'' is an illusion. That does not negate life all together, it simply means there is only life, and no one is living life. Life is Absolute Infinity...free to be infinitely all experiences and expressions...including the idea of being a human with the belief in a god.. Everything and every idea is all inclusive...its all God...and God is no thing and at the same time all things, no need to feel an existential crisis or the need for salavation, but those feelings are also all inclusive.. basically the sense of beingness is infinite, you are in essence infinite...a.k.a Absolute Infinity expressing and experiencing itself infinitely.




.

[TimeSeeker]

We have no idea what we are looking at. There is the perception of looking, but there is no perception of the perceiver. So the focus is always on the object of perception, the unknown looked upon...and then we pretend we know it all.

Maybe you don't have a conception of self. I do And I proclaim that I have no knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science merely assumes the Whole exists consistently throughout.
So the Whole in science is merely an assumption.

From the philosophical perspective 'the WHOLE' is quite a complex issue.
There is no Whole-in-itself.
To insist there is a Whole-in-itself is a transcendental illusion.

Kant postulated and argued solidly there are only 3 culminating transcendental illusion which are impossibilities in any real sense, i.e.

1. The whole-in-itself - re the universe and cosmology
2. The soul - wholeness of the person
3. God - wholeness of All entities and things.

Ok. I think we've fallen off the epistemology train. As far as I can tell the 'in itself' part is the illusion.
What I know about the world is what my mind/perception and the laws of physics allow me to know. That thing which I call information. Everything else is a hallucination.

And so the 'whole' as far as it is assumed is anything that can be measured/tested/observed. That is the boundary of my epistemology. Which bows to the laws of physics. Because observation is bounded by the speed of light, and the time I spend observing. To go beyond and to pretend that I know what a 'thing in itself' is like. Is to pre-suppose some extra-sensory powers.

I have none! I am only human.

And so - yes. Inso far as I can tell there is a thing in front of me. But beyond giving it a label I cannot describe it. I have an incomplete conception of it.

I do not entertain any taxonomy of my mind other than the epistemic. If when I use the terms ontology/metaphysics it is because it is your language and I recognise that using your language to convey a message is beneficial to communication.

I don't have use for those taxonomies.

I USED to entertain phenomenology, but I have managed to reconcile it within my epistemic framework and so I have no use for it any longer.

I see your point is confining to your own knowledge and beliefs.

But the reality is there are a majority of people in the world who do not share your way of thinking.
These people are acting and commit real evil acts based on their beliefs not justified evidences and proofs.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

If there are people who would want to kill you because their God said so, we need to understand the basis and mechanics of their psyche.
Waiting for theists to provide evidence of their beliefs will be too late, that is moot anyway since God is an impossibility.

This is why we need to understand why the idea of God is illusory and trace that to their psychology in the brain.

I am a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity, thus my obligation to pursue this, at least epistemological with the hope it can be practical in time.

[TimeSeeker]

I see your point is confining to your own knowledge and beliefs.

That is not a problem. We have some overlap in knowledge/beliefs. The goal of communicating is to maximise this overlap. You learn from me - I learn from you.

The point to observe is that if you have more knowledge at the start then you will end up teaching more and I will end up learning more. It's not reciprocal. The one with more knowledge has diminishing returns in learning.

But the reality is there are a majority of people in the world who do not share your way of thinking.

Yes, but that is not the important question. The important question is "Do these people have knowledge that I do not have?". Can I learn anything from them?

Teleology still drives the process. And diminishing returns.

These people are acting and commit real evil acts based on their beliefs not justified evidences and proofs.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

But if ISIS really insists - I will SAY that I believe and that I embrace islam. Do I REALLY believe and embrace islam? How do you test THAT?

If there are people who would want to kill you because their God said so, we need to understand the basis and mechanics of their psyche.
Waiting for theists to provide evidence of their beliefs will be too late, that is moot anyway since God is an impossibility.

This is why we need to understand why the idea of God is illusory and trace that to their psychology in the brain.

I am a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity, thus my obligation to pursue this, at least epistemological with the hope it can be practical in time.

ISIS is a red herring. They are a minority/exception - I don't care much about them. The people who want to kill you "because God said so" are far fewer than the people who want to kill you for your wallet and mobile phone. That's why I carry a gun and I am happy to call the problem "solved". Human-problems are easy to dispatch with.

Can we move away from human-on-human harm please? It is statistically insignificant and it bores me. Mosquitos, cancer, stroke and heart disease kill VASTLY more humans than religion OR criminals.

That is why this whole notion of 'belief' is SO silly. I am a Muslim now and I believe in Allah (PBUH!)!
Really? Yes. Really! Really really! Yes! Really! Really! Prove me wrong.

Focus on behaviorism not belief.

[Duncan Butlin]

The Abrahamic Gods all attempt to enhance man’s power in society. The feminist theologians are right on this point: they all attempt to control women. This is why women are so determinedly taking over positions of power in the Church. Even in Saudi Arabia they are gaining power through divorce law and secular ‘progress’ such as in education and industry.

The only way to halt this seemingly unstoppable march of women is to replace the worship of God with the worship of men. If we spent every Sunday thanking men for their contributions to society then it would not be so bad spending the rest of the week worshipping women (via the fashion market, advertising and pornography). Please consider replacing the presence of God with the presence of Man … for in reality he is far more powerful. See the following brochure for background: Male Presence

[Duncan Butlin]

TimeSeeker --- You have a point -- the Churches really are archaic, dying institutions in the West. But they do have some residual power: I’ve just been in communication with the Bishop of Gloucester, and she has a seat in the House of Lords, here in the UK.

But as for the more general situation, I am afraid it is the other way round: the women have the jump on us by 250 years. Consider the following:

In the mid-1600s women invented the word ‘misogynist’ to be nasty to men in a sexist way.  It’s not a term that men have any use for. They could do this because they are more linguistically agile than men.  They have ensured that the word has flourished ever since.  The only other explanation, that men were more sexist than women in those days (so that women had to invent the term in self-defence), does not hold water. Men’s desperate preoccupation with sex means that they find even average women attractive, whereas women find most men unattractive. Here’s the data from the dating website okcupid:

How men and women rate each other

Eventually, 250 years later, men invented the  word ‘misandrist’ in retaliation.  It was a flop.  Even now, 100 years further on, misogynist is used 50 times more frequently -- many men have not even heard of misandry, and many other men simply dare not use it.

The implication that women are 250 years ahead of men in the sex war, and that they have 50 times the fire-power, is sobering, to say the least.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there are people who would want to kill you because their God said so, we need to understand the basis and mechanics of their psyche.
Waiting for theists to provide evidence of their beliefs will be too late, that is moot anyway since God is an impossibility.

This is why we need to understand why the idea of God is illusory and trace that to their psychology in the brain.

I am a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity, thus my obligation to pursue this, at least epistemological with the hope it can be practical in time.

ISIS is a red herring. They are a minority/exception - I don't care much about them. The people who want to kill you "because God said so" are far fewer than the people who want to kill you for your wallet and mobile phone. That's why I carry a gun and I am happy to call the problem "solved". Human-problems are easy to dispatch with.

Can we move away from human-on-human harm please? It is statistically insignificant and it bores me. Mosquitos, cancer, stroke and heart disease kill VASTLY more humans than religion OR criminals.

I see your focus is in your own security.
But note the possibility of one being bombed to pieces can happen anyway given the actual events that has happened.

Note my point;
I am a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity, thus my obligation to pursue this, at least epistemological with the hope it can be practical in time.

I have adopted the above and thus have to take note of the sufferings of others within the best of my ability.

Btw, those concerns also affect me personally.
If I were to say the slightest critique of Islam I will be banned from Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and other medias. And all these are grounded on the perceived insult of an illusory God.

These days I [& others] would be prevented and stopped by Antifa from speaking and debating on Islam in most University in the West.

I cannot visit certain parts of the world as a tourist, I [of the outgroup] could be killed for merely being present in certain places. The evident for this is so glaring. Note,

U.S. couple killed by ISIS in Tajikistan were on dream cycling vacation
https://globalnews.ca/news/4375584/us-c ... d-by-isis/

[TimeSeeker]

I see your focus is in your own security.
But note the possibility of one being bombed to pieces can happen anyway given the actual events that has happened.

This is a strawman so bad - I am actually going to call you out for small-mindedness on the virge of harmful.
I am not focused on "my own security" (well - I am, but on that later). I am focused on OUR well-being.

The concept of Ensamble averages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_ ... mechanics)

Disease kills 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more humans than humans kill humans.

YOUR risk of dying by an ISIS bomb is statistically irrelevant to YOUR risk of dying of cancer or a heart attack that I don't even comprehend why you spend so much time worrying about it.

Note my point;
I am a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity, thus my obligation to pursue this, at least epistemological with the hope it can be practical in time.

I have adopted the above and thus have to take note of the sufferings of others within the best of my ability.

You don't care about the suffering of malaria, heart attack, stroke or cancer victims?

There is nothing practical about your approach You ignore the elephant in the room.

The purpose of society (the system!) is not to protect any particular individual - that is the particular individual's job. The purpose of society is to protect US. By reducing the collective risk of harm.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see your focus is in your own security.
But note the possibility of one being bombed to pieces can happen anyway given the actual events that has happened.

This is a strawman so bad - I am actually going to call you out for small-mindedness on the virge of harmful.
I am not focused on "my own security" (well - I am, but on that later). I am focused on OUR well-being.

The concept of Ensamble averages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_ ... mechanics)

Disease kills 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more humans than humans kill humans.

YOUR risk of dying by an ISIS bomb is statistically irrelevant to YOUR risk of dying of cancer or a heart attack that I don't even comprehend why you spend so much time worrying about it.

I have been asked many times why I am so concern with Islam.

Here is one recent reply to the question;

My focus in on the whole contexts and the pathos/ethos [mission & vision] of the whole Quran, i.e. the main themes and not on individual and groups of verses. I have a thorough flowchart of the main and sub-themes that show all the intended results of Islam of which is mainly resulting in evil acts to humanity while pleasing the believers' desperation to avoid hell and gaining eternal life in paradise.

You are obsessed with and by islam, quran, and evil.
Why do you think this is so?

I said that many times in other posts. It is burden I have to repeat with new poster I discussed on this topic.

I am not a Buddhist per se, but I have adopted on the Boddhisattva's vow to be a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity.

As such, I am concerned with ALL the evils and violence that is happening which is a potential threat to humanity in the future.

But I don't have the competency to deal with ALL evils and violence in the world.

My interests [& forte] are in philosophy and religions which I have reasonable depth of knowledge, thus my focus on evil that is related to religions.

The religion that is related to most of the religious-related evil is Islam, note Pareto's 80/20, thus my focus is on Islam and the Quran.

Note you cannot deny there are regular news of evils and violence related to Islam from all over the world almost on a daily basis.
Note this site,
https://thereligionofpeace.com/
there is a daily listing of evil related to Islam on the right side of the Home Page.

I am aware there all sorts of problems and evil acts around the world.
I find the best I can do is to critique Islam.
Btw, note my proposals and project of establishing a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics for humanity which I cannot implement but at least can discuss about it.

[TimeSeeker]

Note you cannot deny there are regular news of evils and violence related to Islam from all over the world almost on a daily basis.
Note this site,
https://thereligionofpeace.com/
there is a daily listing of evil related to Islam on the right side of the Home Page.

I am aware there all sorts of problems and evil acts around the world.
I find the best I can do is to critique Islam.
Btw, note my proposals and project of establishing a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics for humanity which I cannot implement but at least can discuss about it.

Ignore the news! Go with science instead: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... s-of-death

The fact that the best you can do is to critique Islam is a symptom not the cause. You are still looking for a worth-while problem to solve
Figure out what your strengths are and focus there. You will not fix religion. There is nothing to fix! "God-belief" is a red herring. Terrorists are just puppets for political agendas.

Mean while - I promise you, a framework like the one you are proposing already exists and is far more developed than what you have in mind. Industrial and systems engineers live and breathe this stuff. It is grounded in systems theory, measurement/management science and continuous improvement. No different to how the airline industry works continuously on reducing airplane crashes (and succeeding!!!! so learn from them). No different to how medicine is trying to continuously improve patient health and care.
That is the No Harm principle in action!

Learn from mistakes. Understand root cause. Devise solution and implement. It's a cycle.

This is how society works. It's a system. Its objective is 'no harm'. This may be of interest to you: https://www.england.nhs.uk/signuptosafe ... e-papr.pdf