GOD NEVER BECOMES FULLY IGNORANT

[rootseeker]

Why do you say, "If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent." Why do you say that if people are INCLUDED in the category omniscient and omnipotent, then ONLY they can be so? Doesn't it depend logically on what else is "included" in the category? For example, if people (P) and widgebobs (W) are both "included" in the category "omniscient and omnipotent" then wouldn't it be the case that BOTH P and W are "omniscient and omnipotent". If you say people are "included" in that category, then what else do you suggest is included along with people or do you mean to say that only people are included in that category? Or do you wish to say that NO people are included in that category?

Sometimes when someone says the word "thing", they are implying exclusion of people from their reference. If you do a web search for "people are not things" in quotes, you'd find plenty of circumstances in which that is the case. I avoid guessing which people are using that definition in a philosophy discussion.

Omniscience means all-knowing. Knowing requires sentience. Sentience means being a person. Therefore all omniscient "things" as entities are people.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. All powerful includes the ability to pass a sentience test. Being sentient means being a person. Therefore all omnipotent entities as "things" are people.

So you are saying that people are all-powerful and all-knowing? Can you point to any of these all-powerful and all-knowing people? Perhaps name a few?

If there is a God, does that therefore make God a "person"?

My intuition is that God is the one and only one all-powerful, all-knowing person in existence. Some pantheists disagree as they consider God to be a non-person. Atheists disagree in that they believe God doesn't exist. And as I've said previously, if there are indeed totally and completely disconnected realms of existence, even disconnected from God, then I have no way of knowing that, and would furthermore be relatively wrong about my initial statement. So to the OP, I don't consider it to be a human-resolvable question.

[Gary Childress]

Sometimes when someone says the word "thing", they are implying exclusion of people from their reference. If you do a web search for "people are not things" in quotes, you'd find plenty of circumstances in which that is the case. I avoid guessing which people are using that definition in a philosophy discussion.

Omniscience means all-knowing. Knowing requires sentience. Sentience means being a person. Therefore all omniscient "things" as entities are people.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. All powerful includes the ability to pass a sentience test. Being sentient means being a person. Therefore all omnipotent entities as "things" are people.

So you are saying that people are all-powerful and all-knowing? Can you point to any of these all-powerful and all-knowing people? Perhaps name a few?

If there is a God, does that therefore make God a "person"?

My intuition is that God is the one and only one all-powerful, all-knowing person in existence. Some pantheists disagree as they consider God to be a non-person. Atheists disagree in that they believe God doesn't exist. And as I've said previously, if there are indeed totally and completely disconnected realms of existence, even disconnected from God, then I have no way of knowing that, and would furthermore be relatively wrong about my initial statement. So to the OP, I don't consider it to be a human-resolvable question.

OK. So your statement "only people could be omniscient and omnipotent" is incorrect. Is that correct? Or did you say something that you did not have the knowledge to proclaim?

[rootseeker]

So you are saying that people are all-powerful and all-knowing? Can you point to any of these all-powerful and all-knowing people? Perhaps name a few?

If there is a God, does that therefore make God a "person"?

My intuition is that God is the one and only one all-powerful, all-knowing person in existence. Some pantheists disagree as they consider God to be a non-person. Atheists disagree in that they believe God doesn't exist. And as I've said previously, if there are indeed totally and completely disconnected realms of existence, even disconnected from God, then I have no way of knowing that, and would furthermore be relatively wrong about my initial statement. So to the OP, I don't consider it to be a human-resolvable question.

OK. So your statement "only people could be omniscient and omnipotent" is incorrect. Is that correct? Or did you say something that you did not have the knowledge to proclaim?

It was written incorrectly, or at least too vaguely. The default implication is absolute omniscience and omnipotence. However, I didn't specify I was referring to both absolute and relative omniscience and omnipotence for that statement. In a human-created virtual universe, the human creator has a form of omniscience and omnipotence.

[Gary Childress]

My intuition is that God is the one and only one all-powerful, all-knowing person in existence. Some pantheists disagree as they consider God to be a non-person. Atheists disagree in that they believe God doesn't exist. And as I've said previously, if there are indeed totally and completely disconnected realms of existence, even disconnected from God, then I have no way of knowing that, and would furthermore be relatively wrong about my initial statement. So to the OP, I don't consider it to be a human-resolvable question.

OK. So your statement "only people could be omniscient and omnipotent" is incorrect. Is that correct? Or did you say something that you did not have the knowledge to proclaim?

It was written incorrectly, or at least too vaguely. The default implication is absolute omniscience and omnipotence. However, I didn't specify I was referring to both absolute and relative omniscience and omnipotence for that statement. In a human-created virtual universe, the human creator has a form of omniscience and omnipotence.

So is it the case that you believe "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't involve knowing everything or being able do everything and anything? Or what are you calling "omniscience" or "omnipotence"? Are you perhaps suggesting that God is little more than the idolizing or mythologizing of rulers and powerful people? Would you clarify more on your assertions?

[Lacewing]

The concept of God is an extension of man, and all of man's characteristics are imparted on his creations.

[Sculptor]

LOL

But just a liitle... or a lot?

[Age]

The type of thing(s) that could be omniscient and omnipotent depend on the definition of thing.

There is only One 'Thing' that could be, and ACTUALLY IS, 'omniscient' and/or 'omnipotent'.

And, WHY do you say and claim what you do here? What has the definition of the word 'thing' got to do with absolutely ANY 'thing' here?

If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent.

1. The word 'thing' refers to ALL, and EVERY,which obviously includes ANY and ALL 'persons'.

2. WHY did you SAY, and then CLAIM, what you did here?

From my perspective, just because 'you', a 'person', IS 'a thing', then 'this' in NO way means 'people' ARE 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL.

Only a being external to a world as an independent observer could be omniscient and omnipotent.

When you say, 'a world', here are you talking of places like, 'wally world', 'disney world, or the 'earth world' for example, or are you talking about the 'Universe', Itself?

Because there can NOT be an 'independent observer' 'external' to the last one. And,

An 'external' to the other three 'world's' 'independent observer', by itself, would NEVER necessarily mean that 'that one' could be 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL

A virtual world computer programmer would be a metaphor to describe the situation. The virtual world programmer is omniscient and omnipotent over the video game world.

Maybe, or maybe NOT.

The number of universes I imagine there to be is between two and a Googolplex, but my confidence of that interval is very low.

Well considering what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, what you IMAGINE is WAY OFF.

I brought it up this different but related topic because you asked about omniscience. The number of universes is relevant to any being claiming omniscience. If a being claims to be omniscient, but lacks knowledge of fully and completely disconnected universe(s) then they have only relative omniscience rather than absolute omniscience.

LOL,

So, you IMAGINE that there is more than One Universe, and BELIEVE that ANY 'omniscient' 'being/thing' WOULD HAVE TO BE existing OUTSIDE, YET BOTH ARE IMPOSSIBLE, TO EXIST.

When defining a universe as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, there is more than one universe.

Have you NOTICED how often you IMAGINE that because you define a particular 'thing' 'one way', then 'that way' is REALLY 'the ONLY WAY' that 'that thing' should be defined, or could be defined CORRECTLY?

When defining 'the One and ONLY Universe' as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, THEN there STILL REMAINS 'the One (and ONLY) Universe', and NO OTHER ACTUAL 'Universes'.

Specifically if a human creates a virtual world using a computer, they create a virtual universe.

To be even MORE SPECIFIC 'that human' has, REALLY, created a 'virtual world', ONLY. And, 'this' was going OFF 'YOUR ACTUAL WORDS', ALONE.

In the Mario Bros. video game, Mario's "gravity" is part of a different set of laws than human's gravity.

Okay.

Likewise, if God creates a realm operating in a way analogous to a human creating a video game, then there would be at least two realms...

BUT with 'one' existing WITHIN 'the OTHER one', right?

the realm in which God exists and the realm in which the created realm exists.

Are you here 'TRYING TO' propose that there is some 'thing' called God existing in some OTHER place OUTSIDE of the ACTUAL WHOLE Universe, Itself?

In such a creation, God would exist in an external realm relative to the created realm.

But 'this' is existing IN 'your OWN dream world, or dream universe' ALONE, and ONLY.

In such a realm, God would be an independent external observer.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'this' is just 'your' OWN 'dream', as 'this' would be AN ACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY, BOTH physically AND logically, to exist.

Abrahamic perspective of God is that God's root realm of being is in another realm as humans. The idea that God is summarily defined as "the universe" is considered more of a pantheist perspective of God and considers humans and God to share the same home realm.

Okay, but SO WHAT?

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that the former is MORE true and/or MORE right?

Most monotheistic perspectives of God place God in another realm of existence which is not subject to Earth's laws of physics.

Are earth's laws of physics DIFFERENT to the rest of the WHOLE Universe's laws of physics?

ALSO, there is NO 'monotheistic perspective of God', which places God in ANOTHER realm of ACTUAL existence OUTSIDE of the realm of the One and ONLY place that could ACTUALLY exist.

Unless, OF COURSE, there is some PERSONAL view of SOME PEOPLE who do what you SAY and CLAIM here.

The realms are connected

BY 'what', EXACTLY?

but do not have the same operating principles.

AND, 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

ALSO, 'what' ARE the DIFFERENT 'operating principles', EXACTLY?

And so in that way are considered to be different universes.

So, ONCE MORE, we have A GREAT example of HOW and WHEN people WILL SAY and USE words IN WAYS in which they HOPE ALIGN WITH there ALREADY obtained and CURRENT BELIEFS.

Given two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence of Realm A and Realm B, it seems physically impossible to know whether Realm A exists from Realm B or vice versa.

HOW and WHY would you GIVE us, now, 'two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence', ESPECIALLY WHEN you have just SAID and CLAIMED CONTRADICTORY 'things' above here?

Why would such disconnected realms be impossible?

BECAUSE it IS physically AND logically IMPOSSIBLE considering HOW the Universe, Itself, WORKS, EXACTLY.

Once you ALSO COME-TO-LEARN and UNDERSTAND 'this', THEN you WILL SEE and LEARN WHY, AS WELL.

[Age]

The concept of God is an extension of man, and all of man's characteristics are imparted on his creations.

But are ALL of so-called 'man's' characteristics imparted on 'man's concepts'?

Also, WHAT characteristics of 'man' were imparted on 'the wheel'?

[rootseeker]

There is only One 'Thing' that could be, and ACTUALLY IS, 'omniscient' and/or 'omnipotent'.

And, WHY do you say and claim what you do here? What has the definition of the word 'thing' got to do with absolutely ANY 'thing' here?


1. The word 'thing' refers to ALL, and EVERY,which obviously includes ANY and ALL 'persons'.

2. WHY did you SAY, and then CLAIM, what you did here?

From my perspective, just because 'you', a 'person', IS 'a thing', then 'this' in NO way means 'people' ARE 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL.


When you say, 'a world', here are you talking of places like, 'wally world', 'disney world, or the 'earth world' for example, or are you talking about the 'Universe', Itself?

Because there can NOT be an 'independent observer' 'external' to the last one. And,

An 'external' to the other three 'world's' 'independent observer', by itself, would NEVER necessarily mean that 'that one' could be 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL




Maybe, or maybe NOT.



Well considering what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, what you IMAGINE is WAY OFF.


LOL,

So, you IMAGINE that there is more than One Universe, and BELIEVE that ANY 'omniscient' 'being/thing' WOULD HAVE TO BE existing OUTSIDE, YET BOTH ARE IMPOSSIBLE, TO EXIST.

When defining a universe as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, there is more than one universe.

Have you NOTICED how often you IMAGINE that because you define a particular 'thing' 'one way', then 'that way' is REALLY 'the ONLY WAY' that 'that thing' should be defined, or could be defined CORRECTLY?

When defining 'the One and ONLY Universe' as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, THEN there STILL REMAINS 'the One (and ONLY) Universe', and NO OTHER ACTUAL 'Universes'.

Specifically if a human creates a virtual world using a computer, they create a virtual universe.

To be even MORE SPECIFIC 'that human' has, REALLY, created a 'virtual world', ONLY. And, 'this' was going OFF 'YOUR ACTUAL WORDS', ALONE.

In the Mario Bros. video game, Mario's "gravity" is part of a different set of laws than human's gravity.

Okay.

Likewise, if God creates a realm operating in a way analogous to a human creating a video game, then there would be at least two realms...

BUT with 'one' existing WITHIN 'the OTHER one', right?

the realm in which God exists and the realm in which the created realm exists.

Are you here 'TRYING TO' propose that there is some 'thing' called God existing in some OTHER place OUTSIDE of the ACTUAL WHOLE Universe, Itself?

In such a creation, God would exist in an external realm relative to the created realm.

But 'this' is existing IN 'your OWN dream world, or dream universe' ALONE, and ONLY.

In such a realm, God would be an independent external observer.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'this' is just 'your' OWN 'dream', as 'this' would be AN ACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY, BOTH physically AND logically, to exist.

Abrahamic perspective of God is that God's root realm of being is in another realm as humans. The idea that God is summarily defined as "the universe" is considered more of a pantheist perspective of God and considers humans and God to share the same home realm.

Okay, but SO WHAT?

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that the former is MORE true and/or MORE right?

Most monotheistic perspectives of God place God in another realm of existence which is not subject to Earth's laws of physics.

Are earth's laws of physics DIFFERENT to the rest of the WHOLE Universe's laws of physics?

ALSO, there is NO 'monotheistic perspective of God', which places God in ANOTHER realm of ACTUAL existence OUTSIDE of the realm of the One and ONLY place that could ACTUALLY exist.

Unless, OF COURSE, there is some PERSONAL view of SOME PEOPLE who do what you SAY and CLAIM here.

The realms are connected

BY 'what', EXACTLY?

but do not have the same operating principles.

AND, 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

ALSO, 'what' ARE the DIFFERENT 'operating principles', EXACTLY?

And so in that way are considered to be different universes.

So, ONCE MORE, we have A GREAT example of HOW and WHEN people WILL SAY and USE words IN WAYS in which they HOPE ALIGN WITH there ALREADY obtained and CURRENT BELIEFS.

Given two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence of Realm A and Realm B, it seems physically impossible to know whether Realm A exists from Realm B or vice versa.

HOW and WHY would you GIVE us, now, 'two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence', ESPECIALLY WHEN you have just SAID and CLAIMED CONTRADICTORY 'things' above here?

Why would such disconnected realms be impossible?

BECAUSE it IS physically AND logically IMPOSSIBLE considering HOW the Universe, Itself, WORKS, EXACTLY.

Once you ALSO COME-TO-LEARN and UNDERSTAND 'this', THEN you WILL SEE and LEARN WHY, AS WELL.

Most theories of monotheism interpret the universe as having multiple layers or dimensions. So, first God exists as a creation, and most theories of monotheism call this realm heaven. Then, God creates humans and the stars as a creation in a realm other than the realm in which God exists. The way they are connected is that God has access to the realm of humans, and humans only has access to the realm of Heaven as specially enabled by God. The most common belief within monotheism is that God's home realm is the realm of Heaven. Then from Heaven, created all matter including Earth. The way in this is interpreted is comparable to a human creating a video game like Mario World. Heaven does not necessarily have the same laws of physics as Earth and is not considered to be located in outer space but rather another world connected by hidden dimension(s), portal(s), or wormhole(s). Whether or not each of these layers is a "universe" is a matter of definition. According to some definitions, there are multiple universes that collectively are the omniverse, and according to others, "the universe" encompasses all of existence.

Under almost all these multi-layered theories of monotheism, God is both omniscient and omnipotent, while humans are not.

Theories of God in which all of God fully and only exists in the same realm as humans are mostly but not all pantheist theories.

That said, both pantheistic and monotheistic theories typically both consider God omniscient and omnipotent, do have the same issue in considering God's perspective and whether God could want to be intentionally ignorant to more thoroughly understand a perspective or want to focus on a specific perspective more thoroughly. Omniscience and omnipotence do have a boundary layer there for consideration, that if you are all-powerful then a power could be temporary and full immersion into another perspective.

Do you have a reference to a writing that explains your world view?

[Age]

When defining a universe as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, there is more than one universe.

Have you NOTICED how often you IMAGINE that because you define a particular 'thing' 'one way', then 'that way' is REALLY 'the ONLY WAY' that 'that thing' should be defined, or could be defined CORRECTLY?

When defining 'the One and ONLY Universe' as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, THEN there STILL REMAINS 'the One (and ONLY) Universe', and NO OTHER ACTUAL 'Universes'.

Specifically if a human creates a virtual world using a computer, they create a virtual universe.

To be even MORE SPECIFIC 'that human' has, REALLY, created a 'virtual world', ONLY. And, 'this' was going OFF 'YOUR ACTUAL WORDS', ALONE.

In the Mario Bros. video game, Mario's "gravity" is part of a different set of laws than human's gravity.

Okay.

Likewise, if God creates a realm operating in a way analogous to a human creating a video game, then there would be at least two realms...

BUT with 'one' existing WITHIN 'the OTHER one', right?

the realm in which God exists and the realm in which the created realm exists.

Are you here 'TRYING TO' propose that there is some 'thing' called God existing in some OTHER place OUTSIDE of the ACTUAL WHOLE Universe, Itself?

In such a creation, God would exist in an external realm relative to the created realm.

But 'this' is existing IN 'your OWN dream world, or dream universe' ALONE, and ONLY.

In such a realm, God would be an independent external observer.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'this' is just 'your' OWN 'dream', as 'this' would be AN ACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY, BOTH physically AND logically, to exist.

Abrahamic perspective of God is that God's root realm of being is in another realm as humans. The idea that God is summarily defined as "the universe" is considered more of a pantheist perspective of God and considers humans and God to share the same home realm.

Okay, but SO WHAT?

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that the former is MORE true and/or MORE right?

Most monotheistic perspectives of God place God in another realm of existence which is not subject to Earth's laws of physics.

Are earth's laws of physics DIFFERENT to the rest of the WHOLE Universe's laws of physics?

ALSO, there is NO 'monotheistic perspective of God', which places God in ANOTHER realm of ACTUAL existence OUTSIDE of the realm of the One and ONLY place that could ACTUALLY exist.

Unless, OF COURSE, there is some PERSONAL view of SOME PEOPLE who do what you SAY and CLAIM here.

The realms are connected

BY 'what', EXACTLY?

but do not have the same operating principles.

AND, 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

ALSO, 'what' ARE the DIFFERENT 'operating principles', EXACTLY?

And so in that way are considered to be different universes.

So, ONCE MORE, we have A GREAT example of HOW and WHEN people WILL SAY and USE words IN WAYS in which they HOPE ALIGN WITH there ALREADY obtained and CURRENT BELIEFS.

Given two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence of Realm A and Realm B, it seems physically impossible to know whether Realm A exists from Realm B or vice versa.

HOW and WHY would you GIVE us, now, 'two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence', ESPECIALLY WHEN you have just SAID and CLAIMED CONTRADICTORY 'things' above here?

Why would such disconnected realms be impossible?

BECAUSE it IS physically AND logically IMPOSSIBLE considering HOW the Universe, Itself, WORKS, EXACTLY.

Once you ALSO COME-TO-LEARN and UNDERSTAND 'this', THEN you WILL SEE and LEARN WHY, AS WELL.

Most theories of monotheism interpret the universe as having multiple layers or dimensions.

WHO CARES?

1. I found 'theories' to be generally a GREAT WASTE.

2. There IS and can ONLY BE One Truth regarding the Universe, Itself.

So, first God exists as a creation, and most theories of monotheism call this realm heaven. Then, God creates humans and the stars as a creation in a realm other than the realm in which God exists. The way they are connected is that God has access to the realm of humans, and humans only has access to the realm of Heaven as specially enabled by God. The most common belief within monotheism is that God's home realm is the realm of Heaven. Then from Heaven, created all matter including Earth. The way in this is interpreted is comparable to a human creating a video game like Mario World. Heaven does not necessarily have the same laws of physics as Earth and is not considered to be located in outer space but rather another world connected by hidden dimension(s), portal(s), or wormhole(s).

The 'connection' is ONLY 'hidden' to 'those' who ARE DEAF, and BLIND. AND, it is ONLY 'those' who have BELIEFS, and ASSUME, 'who' ARE DEAF, and BLIND.

Whether or not each of these layers is a "universe" is a matter of definition. According to some definitions, there are multiple universes that collectively are the omniverse, and according to others, "the universe" encompasses all of existence.

'you' here are just TELLING 'us' what 'you', people, THINK and/or DO. Which has been COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR MILLENNIA 'now'.

Under almost all these multi-layered theories of monotheism, God is both omniscient and omnipotent, while humans are not.

Theories of God in which all of God fully and only exists in the same realm as humans are mostly but not all pantheist theories.

That said, both pantheistic and monotheistic theories typically both consider God omniscient and omnipotent, do have the same issue in considering God's perspective and whether God could want to be intentionally ignorant to more thoroughly understand a perspective or want to focus on a specific perspective more thoroughly. Omniscience and omnipotence do have a boundary layer there for consideration, that if you are all-powerful then a power could be temporary and full immersion into another perspective.

What the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT to these human MADE UP 'theories' and 'stories', and there MISCONCEPTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and MISINTERPRETATIONS.

Do you have a reference to a writing that explains your world view?

What IS 'my world view', EXACTLY?

And, the 'reference', by the way, is IN 'the writing', as some might say.

[rootseeker]

Have you NOTICED how often you IMAGINE that because you define a particular 'thing' 'one way', then 'that way' is REALLY 'the ONLY WAY' that 'that thing' should be defined, or could be defined CORRECTLY?

When defining 'the One and ONLY Universe' as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, THEN there STILL REMAINS 'the One (and ONLY) Universe', and NO OTHER ACTUAL 'Universes'.


To be even MORE SPECIFIC 'that human' has, REALLY, created a 'virtual world', ONLY. And, 'this' was going OFF 'YOUR ACTUAL WORDS', ALONE.


Okay.


BUT with 'one' existing WITHIN 'the OTHER one', right?



Are you here 'TRYING TO' propose that there is some 'thing' called God existing in some OTHER place OUTSIDE of the ACTUAL WHOLE Universe, Itself?


But 'this' is existing IN 'your OWN dream world, or dream universe' ALONE, and ONLY.


BUT, OBVIOUSLY, 'this' is just 'your' OWN 'dream', as 'this' would be AN ACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY, BOTH physically AND logically, to exist.


Okay, but SO WHAT?

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that the former is MORE true and/or MORE right?



Are earth's laws of physics DIFFERENT to the rest of the WHOLE Universe's laws of physics?

ALSO, there is NO 'monotheistic perspective of God', which places God in ANOTHER realm of ACTUAL existence OUTSIDE of the realm of the One and ONLY place that could ACTUALLY exist.

Unless, OF COURSE, there is some PERSONAL view of SOME PEOPLE who do what you SAY and CLAIM here.



BY 'what', EXACTLY?


AND, 'you' KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

ALSO, 'what' ARE the DIFFERENT 'operating principles', EXACTLY?



So, ONCE MORE, we have A GREAT example of HOW and WHEN people WILL SAY and USE words IN WAYS in which they HOPE ALIGN WITH there ALREADY obtained and CURRENT BELIEFS.


HOW and WHY would you GIVE us, now, 'two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence', ESPECIALLY WHEN you have just SAID and CLAIMED CONTRADICTORY 'things' above here?


BECAUSE it IS physically AND logically IMPOSSIBLE considering HOW the Universe, Itself, WORKS, EXACTLY.

Once you ALSO COME-TO-LEARN and UNDERSTAND 'this', THEN you WILL SEE and LEARN WHY, AS WELL.

Most theories of monotheism interpret the universe as having multiple layers or dimensions.

WHO CARES?

1. I found 'theories' to be generally a GREAT WASTE.

2. There IS and can ONLY BE One Truth regarding the Universe, Itself.

So, first God exists as a creation, and most theories of monotheism call this realm heaven. Then, God creates humans and the stars as a creation in a realm other than the realm in which God exists. The way they are connected is that God has access to the realm of humans, and humans only has access to the realm of Heaven as specially enabled by God. The most common belief within monotheism is that God's home realm is the realm of Heaven. Then from Heaven, created all matter including Earth. The way in this is interpreted is comparable to a human creating a video game like Mario World. Heaven does not necessarily have the same laws of physics as Earth and is not considered to be located in outer space but rather another world connected by hidden dimension(s), portal(s), or wormhole(s).

The 'connection' is ONLY 'hidden' to 'those' who ARE DEAF, and BLIND. AND, it is ONLY 'those' who have BELIEFS, and ASSUME, 'who' ARE DEAF, and BLIND.

Whether or not each of these layers is a "universe" is a matter of definition. According to some definitions, there are multiple universes that collectively are the omniverse, and according to others, "the universe" encompasses all of existence.

'you' here are just TELLING 'us' what 'you', people, THINK and/or DO. Which has been COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR MILLENNIA 'now'.

Under almost all these multi-layered theories of monotheism, God is both omniscient and omnipotent, while humans are not.

Theories of God in which all of God fully and only exists in the same realm as humans are mostly but not all pantheist theories.

That said, both pantheistic and monotheistic theories typically both consider God omniscient and omnipotent, do have the same issue in considering God's perspective and whether God could want to be intentionally ignorant to more thoroughly understand a perspective or want to focus on a specific perspective more thoroughly. Omniscience and omnipotence do have a boundary layer there for consideration, that if you are all-powerful then a power could be temporary and full immersion into another perspective.

What the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT to these human MADE UP 'theories' and 'stories', and there MISCONCEPTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and MISINTERPRETATIONS.

Do you have a reference to a writing that explains your world view?

What IS 'my world view', EXACTLY?

And, the 'reference', by the way, is IN 'the writing', as some might say.

Given that you've written over 10,000 posts, it occurred to me you might have written a book about philosophy topics. Or, that there are books or articles that describe your philosophical beliefs.

[Age]

Most theories of monotheism interpret the universe as having multiple layers or dimensions.

WHO CARES?

1. I found 'theories' to be generally a GREAT WASTE.

2. There IS and can ONLY BE One Truth regarding the Universe, Itself.

So, first God exists as a creation, and most theories of monotheism call this realm heaven. Then, God creates humans and the stars as a creation in a realm other than the realm in which God exists. The way they are connected is that God has access to the realm of humans, and humans only has access to the realm of Heaven as specially enabled by God. The most common belief within monotheism is that God's home realm is the realm of Heaven. Then from Heaven, created all matter including Earth. The way in this is interpreted is comparable to a human creating a video game like Mario World. Heaven does not necessarily have the same laws of physics as Earth and is not considered to be located in outer space but rather another world connected by hidden dimension(s), portal(s), or wormhole(s).

The 'connection' is ONLY 'hidden' to 'those' who ARE DEAF, and BLIND. AND, it is ONLY 'those' who have BELIEFS, and ASSUME, 'who' ARE DEAF, and BLIND.

Whether or not each of these layers is a "universe" is a matter of definition. According to some definitions, there are multiple universes that collectively are the omniverse, and according to others, "the universe" encompasses all of existence.

'you' here are just TELLING 'us' what 'you', people, THINK and/or DO. Which has been COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR MILLENNIA 'now'.

Under almost all these multi-layered theories of monotheism, God is both omniscient and omnipotent, while humans are not.

Theories of God in which all of God fully and only exists in the same realm as humans are mostly but not all pantheist theories.

That said, both pantheistic and monotheistic theories typically both consider God omniscient and omnipotent, do have the same issue in considering God's perspective and whether God could want to be intentionally ignorant to more thoroughly understand a perspective or want to focus on a specific perspective more thoroughly. Omniscience and omnipotence do have a boundary layer there for consideration, that if you are all-powerful then a power could be temporary and full immersion into another perspective.

What the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT to these human MADE UP 'theories' and 'stories', and there MISCONCEPTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and MISINTERPRETATIONS.

Do you have a reference to a writing that explains your world view?

What IS 'my world view', EXACTLY?

And, the 'reference', by the way, is IN 'the writing', as some might say.

Given that you've written over 10,000 posts, it occurred to me you might have written a book about philosophy topics.

I was in the process of writing a book but did not want ANY 'thing' in it to be Inaccurate, I was also finding just how simply and easily relatively 'new messages or ideas' can be all to quickly misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, so so I decided to come to a philosophy forum, first, to have my views gauged, and critiqued. See, I thought 'philosophy' and "philosophers" were about continually looking for, finding, and coming to answers, and solutions, which could NOT be refuted, through logically reasoned Truly OPEN and Honest discussions. Although, to me, 'this' STILL IS what 'philosophy' IS and what True "philosophers" DO, I quickly FOUND that what my view is here IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from "others" views about 'philosophy', and what "philosophers" do.

I very quickly discovered if one can CHANGE 'the views' of a so-called "philosopher", then that one can CHANGE 'the views' of absolutely ANY one "else". So, I WAIT TO SEE if 'the view' of one in this forum CAN be CHANGED, and if so, then I WILL USE 'that process' in the book that I am yet to start writing again.

Or, that there are books or articles that describe your philosophical beliefs.

I have only One belief. The term or phrase 'philosophical belief/s' is an oxymoron to me.

There are, however, countless books and articles, which all contain 'ideas', 'views', and 'conclusions' in them that describe directly 'my views', from what I come, to observe.

But getting people to LOOK and SEE PAST their OWN 'perspectives' of those same 'things', so that 'they' CAN LOOK and SEE WHERE, EXACTLY, I AM, literally, COMING FROM is actually talking longer than I had first expected.

Thus, ANOTHER example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER TO NEVER ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', FIRST.

Now, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED and CURIOS as to coming to learn and understand, EXACTLY, HOW and WHAT IN books and articles FIT IN PERFECTLY with 'my views', and WHY some of 'my views' ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM 'the views' "others" HAVE on the EXACT SAME 'wording' in books and articles, then I am MORE than WILLING TO SHARE.

If one is WAITING FOR me to START 'this' here, then let us look AT the first words in the bible, 'In the beginning'. Now, to a great number of people, these words are IMPLIED to mean or refer to, some beginning or start of the WHOLE Universe, Itself, and this view, or belief, had become so strong among that even so-called "scientists" then "themselves" started 'theorizing' and 'assuming' that the Universe, Itself, ALSO had a start or beginning, and so 'these people', then started MAKING UP 'stories' ABOUT HOW the Universe ACTUALLY BEGUN. To which the 'stories' became SO STRONG that some started BELIEVING that the Universe MUST OF BEGUN, and then following on from these STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS these "scientists" started 'seeing' 'evidence' IN some of the 'observations' they were making.

Just like how some people started ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that the earth is flat, and/or the earth is at the center of the Universe. FROM those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS they then STARTED 'seeing' what they WERE ASSUMING and BELIEVING. They would ALSO CLAIM that they HAD 'evidence' FROM the 'observations' that they were making, and taking.

The words, 'In the beginning', to me anyway, have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with some so-called 'start' NOR 'beginning' of the WHOLE Universe FROM SOME 'thing' OTHER NOR OUTSIDE OF the Universe, Itself.

The words, 'In the beginning', just refers to 'what IS HAPPENING NOW' IS ALWAYS creating or causing what APPEARS to OCCUR 'next', but what IS, ESSENTIALLY, just the CONTINUAL 'NOW'.

And 'now', if ANY one would like to learn, understand, and KNOW what OTHER words MEAN, or REFER TO, to me, which, by the way, APPEARS TO FIT INTO One Truly CRYSTAL CLEAR Picture of ALL-THERE-IS, but which I have YET TO get VERIFIED, then by all means let 'us' PROCEED.

But if ANY one wants to TELL me their views', and wants to EXPRESS 'those views' as being True, Right, or Correct, then I will just ASK, FIRST, 'Can you guarantee that 'those views' are ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct?

And, if NOT, then WHY even HOLD ONTO 'them' and BOTHER WITH 'them'?

[Gary Childress]

WHO CARES?

1. I found 'theories' to be generally a GREAT WASTE.

2. There IS and can ONLY BE One Truth regarding the Universe, Itself.



The 'connection' is ONLY 'hidden' to 'those' who ARE DEAF, and BLIND. AND, it is ONLY 'those' who have BELIEFS, and ASSUME, 'who' ARE DEAF, and BLIND.


'you' here are just TELLING 'us' what 'you', people, THINK and/or DO. Which has been COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR MILLENNIA 'now'.


What the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT to these human MADE UP 'theories' and 'stories', and there MISCONCEPTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, and MISINTERPRETATIONS.


What IS 'my world view', EXACTLY?

And, the 'reference', by the way, is IN 'the writing', as some might say.

Given that you've written over 10,000 posts, it occurred to me you might have written a book about philosophy topics.

I was in the process of writing a book but did not want ANY 'thing' in it to be Inaccurate, I was also finding just how simply and easily relatively 'new messages or ideas' can be all to quickly misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, so so I decided to come to a philosophy forum, first, to have my views gauged, and critiqued. See, I thought 'philosophy' and "philosophers" were about continually looking for, finding, and coming to answers, and solutions, which could NOT be refuted, through logically reasoned Truly OPEN and Honest discussions. Although, to me, 'this' STILL IS what 'philosophy' IS and what True "philosophers" DO, I quickly FOUND that what my view is here IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from "others" views about 'philosophy', and what "philosophers" do.

I very quickly discovered if one can CHANGE 'the views' of a so-called "philosopher", then that one can CHANGE 'the views' of absolutely ANY one "else". So, I WAIT TO SEE if 'the view' of one in this forum CAN be CHANGED, and if so, then I WILL USE 'that process' in the book that I am yet to start writing again.

Or, that there are books or articles that describe your philosophical beliefs.

I have only One belief. The term or phrase 'philosophical belief/s' is an oxymoron to me.

There are, however, countless books and articles, which all contain 'ideas', 'views', and 'conclusions' in them that describe directly 'my views', from what I come, to observe.

But getting people to LOOK and SEE PAST their OWN 'perspectives' of those same 'things', so that 'they' CAN LOOK and SEE WHERE, EXACTLY, I AM, literally, COMING FROM is actually talking longer than I had first expected.

Thus, ANOTHER example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER TO NEVER ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', FIRST.

Now, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED and CURIOS as to coming to learn and understand, EXACTLY, HOW and WHAT IN books and articles FIT IN PERFECTLY with 'my views', and WHY some of 'my views' ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM 'the views' "others" HAVE on the EXACT SAME 'wording' in books and articles, then I am MORE than WILLING TO SHARE.

If one is WAITING FOR me to START 'this' here, then let us look AT the first words in the bible, 'In the beginning'. Now, to a great number of people, these words are IMPLIED to mean or refer to, some beginning or start of the WHOLE Universe, Itself, and this view, or belief, had become so strong among that even so-called "scientists" then "themselves" started 'theorizing' and 'assuming' that the Universe, Itself, ALSO had a start or beginning, and so 'these people', then started MAKING UP 'stories' ABOUT HOW the Universe ACTUALLY BEGUN. To which the 'stories' became SO STRONG that some started BELIEVING that the Universe MUST OF BEGUN, and then following on from these STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS these "scientists" started 'seeing' 'evidence' IN some of the 'observations' they were making.

Just like how some people started ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that the earth is flat, and/or the earth is at the center of the Universe. FROM those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS they then STARTED 'seeing' what they WERE ASSUMING and BELIEVING. They would ALSO CLAIM that they HAD 'evidence' FROM the 'observations' that they were making, and taking.

The words, 'In the beginning', to me anyway, have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with some so-called 'start' NOR 'beginning' of the WHOLE Universe FROM SOME 'thing' OTHER NOR OUTSIDE OF the Universe, Itself.

The words, 'In the beginning', just refers to 'what IS HAPPENING NOW' IS ALWAYS creating or causing what APPEARS to OCCUR 'next', but what IS, ESSENTIALLY, just the CONTINUAL 'NOW'.

And 'now', if ANY one would like to learn, understand, and KNOW what OTHER words MEAN, or REFER TO, to me, which, by the way, APPEARS TO FIT INTO One Truly CRYSTAL CLEAR Picture of ALL-THERE-IS, but which I have YET TO get VERIFIED, then by all means let 'us' PROCEED.

But if ANY one wants to TELL me their views', and wants to EXPRESS 'those views' as being True, Right, or Correct, then I will just ASK, FIRST, 'Can you guarantee that 'those views' are ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct?

And, if NOT, then WHY even HOLD ONTO 'them' and BOTHER WITH 'them'?

1. Why are you using the word, "people", Age?

2. What do you mean by the word, "people"?

[Gary Childress]

@Age:

1. What is the purpose of your book?

2. What would you like your book to accomplish?

3. Or put another way, why are you writing your book?

[Gary Childress]

Oh. And by the way, you do NOT have my permission to include my name or anything I've written on this forum in your book. However, if you wish to violate my copy rights, then I won't bother to do anything about it. Just know that if you do so, you have violated my rights.