- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
- Messages
- 9,840
- Reaction score
- 5,677
- Awards
- 33
Would be interesting to see those results.How Do I Deal With The Student Population?
Would be interesting to see those results.How Do I Deal With The Student Population?
Well, the example is there to help us (man).
But the account PUBLICLY rebutted the PUBLIC accusation that the Adversary had made (as pertains to Job), showing anyone watching or listening that the Adversary was wrong, was proven wrong.
The account allowed Job to answer for himself, so there can be no question as to his integrity.
Satan isn't testing God. This was not a test for God. Satan is not a mirror for God, or a co-creator, or even a Son (the Son is Christ < - the actual and true image of God). Satan is OUR accuser, OUR adversary, and he seeks to destroy us (mankind, and in particular, anyone who belongs to Christ, to God). He is an enemy.
William:The Bible in many many places speaks of God's "will" as the thing that acts, that can act, God can do as he pleases - literally meaning God has free will.
The biblical GOD [God/YHWH] is one of position. Just because the bible speaks of a God that acts does not literally mean he does as he pleases or has free will.
What the position means is that he can act in a far more impressive manner than those in lesser position are able to.
To be able to act in a 'far more impressive manner' does not itself provide the evidence that the one acting, is doing so from a fundamental position of free will - of having free will.
One has to operate within the parameters of the system one is operating in.
Remember the biblical story of the flood? We do not need to believe it is a true story or not to understand that the GOD can do as he pleases, even that he is not pleased to have to be doing it.
Therefore, being able to act as one pleases - subject to the set laws of the system one is acting within - does not mean that this is evidence of free will in action.
Callum appears to be much more conservative with his responses than he was in Act I.
I would like to include him in the conversation Master ColdFire and I are having, but I also want him to do so on his own accord if it interests him to do so. I don't want to unduly influence that by offering interpretations regarding the references he does not understand - especially if it really is of no interest to him.
Master ColdFire: Righty Oh!
Manu Iti: Perhaps in regard to Master ColdFire and my interaction, you might like to comment on the way in which I explained to you - in Act I - how the process works in relation to serendipity?
Maybe too, you might like to comment upon the interesting correlation between math and words?
Master ColdFire: Dualic Residue Row your own boat! I AM Will Navigate!
Master ColdFire has a point. It is probably best not to push things. Callum will talk when he wants to.
Manu Iti: Or perhaps you have something else you want to share?
Master ColdFire: Timelessness vs infinite regress argument Doc
Again I reach for the trusty bundle of envelopes under the bench seat. I randomly select one from the pile and carefully retie the Silver Chord which binds them.
Opening the envelope I selected, I find more pictures and another document. I scan through the pictures, which all appear to be writing using symbols I am unfamiliar with...
I place these on the bench beside me and pull out the document and begin to read it to myself.
I then explain what I am reading, to Callum...
Manu Iti: Wiremu say's in this letter that he wants to convey more information about his - what he calls - Universal Intelligence Communication Device - and the purpose of the symbols as he regards these as evidence which might help convince you that the Pathway to Truth is more available to us than we might realize.
He wants to convey - as succinctly as possible - that he used said symbols in order to connect with and communicate through language, with The Earth Entity.
Master ColdFire: In The Night Sky The Future Creates The Present The Stress of Unbelief Overwhelming
Manu Iti: He did not at first understand that in using this communications process, he was connecting with The Earth Mother, as - at the time - he did not even have the notion that such an entity could exist. So the information was eventually relayed to him through the Communications Device...and even then, he did not at first 'get it'.
I continue reading Wiremu's letter to myself, and interpreting it out loud to Callum...with Master ColdFire interjecting here and there...
Master ColdFire: Perpetual In The Night Sky One Whom Ought Be Inwardly Known While We All Wait....
Manu Iti: Wiremu refers to this Entity as "QueenBee" and it is She who introduced him to The Metaphisical - not only prior to his creating and using his Communication Device but ever since, and he has developed another way from that early manner in which he Communicated with QueenBee - the way I explained to you briefly in Act I - the one in which The Ruru...and now Master ColdFire are given their words through.
In that, they are The Words Wiremu attributes to Coming From QueenBee...into this Situation...
Master ColdFire: Besides Technique of Exchange Look Closely Unknown Symbol
Manu Iti: Wiremu considers the methods as being evidence for any who use them, that The Metaphysical is Real and can interact with The Physical world of Wiremu and The Tanager.
Master ColdFire: Individuals Merging with the data Wide Walk Welcoming
Manu Iti:
- Making Things Easier
What Shall We Call It?
Links And Symbols
I Share Your Joy!
Acknowledge The Agreeable
Wide Walk Welcoming
Master ColdFire: A Teacher cannot LEARN for a Student. WingMakers Materials God Ideas Doc.
Manu Iti: That is the skeleton of it Callum. The details are another thing again, reserved for those interested...
Master ColdFire: DeJaVu Each Individual.
Manu Iti: Wiremu wants to know that since now you are more connected with The Tanager, if you wouldn't mind conveying a question to The Tanager, from Wiremu.
Master ColdFire: Sweet Vibrations The Confusion Of War Beckoning Places Speak Light Body Do this...
I think on the Night Sky - and how we all seem to be attracted to sparkly things...I rise and move to ...Wiremu tells me that The Book of Act II is available....I assume for the purpose of reference in anticipation of an ongoing communion between all of us here, in This Place...
Meaning of Butterfly – What it means when you see a Green Butterfly often
17,747 views Premiered Dec 24, 2020 Meaning of Butterfly – What it means when you see a Green Butterfly often
There is a reason why you have been seeing the green butterfly.
The green butterfly you may see in your waking hours and even in your dreams carry messages and symbolism that is very significant for your life.
Butterflies do not only liven up the world with their beauty and grace.
They are also messengers that bring you the most important messages from the divine and the angels.
Green butterflies in particular bring the message of life, joy, good luck and abundance.
Green is the color best associated with life.
It is the color of nature and growth.
Green also reminds us of fertility and freshness.
Discover the blessings and miracles coming to you.
Exposing Biblical Pseudo-history
131,901 views Premiered Jun 23, 2022 Dr. Josh Bowen, an Assyriologist, author, & host of the Digital Hammurabi show explores the history of the Old Testament with me to learn how historically reliable the Bible actually is. Are there contradictions in the Bible or historical errors in the Old Testament? Who even wrote the Pentateuch? Was Daniel a real prophet or was his book written after the events he allegedly prophesied? How do we know when Daniel was written? We'll explore all of this and much more (including a couple of fun failed Bible prophecies).
William: While there is truth to in your assessment here - something I also came to the conclusion of - if one doesn't factor in that the Christian idea of God is a false image of a Real Entity [I call 'It" the Cosmic Mind, but I have other names for it too.] then one loses the opportunity to do connect and converse...
What this allows me to achieve, is to connect with that Mind despite the false image Christianity [and religion in general] have superimposed upon it. This also insures that religion in general has no say in my communing with said Mind. Well they might try and have a say, but that is irrelevant and so does not work in their preventative measures re that.
Win/win re The Mind and Me.
As always, I enjoy reading and learning things from your unique perspective...
We are all 'voices' in each others "heads"....
See it? Okay.
Yes. Observe it as it is, without judgement.
Know its thoughts? I'm not convinced of such - especially as relates to harming or oppressing our fellow human beings.
Nice modern day thinking....if I were the Earth Entity I would take into consideration the epoch human beings are within, and sometimes they have indeed caused harm and are oppressive and I would allow them that space to explore in the hopes they will eventually grow out of it...perhaps knowing that each and every one of them will learn eventually - either here and now or in their next phase of existence.
Knowing its thoughts shouldn't be too hard to ascertain, all things considered. They are projected through Nature as activity.
Humans have the grace to not being unnaturally oppressed or unnaturally harmed by that activity
We still have to have our wits about us though...a Mothers Kissing Slap is just around the corner for the wayward...its for our own good, you see...
I note gods always seem to think what it pleases the mind reader to have us do or not do. And that paraplegics and amputees are deserving of their fate.
Stuff happens and there is plenty evidence that being paraplegics and amputees does not prevent gold medals from being handed out to those who overcome their adversity - by befriending it, and working with it, no less.
We cannot hope to give The Mother a bad name simply by pointing out our suffering.
I tend to accept someone presents, in good faith, what they consider evidence, though might reject their conclusions about it.
Yes, I know.
[Take a look and maybe read the whole post for a more comprehensive take on excatly what we are talking about here.]
Schizophrenia is, currently, an incurable disease, and folks'll present varying degrees of affliction with it.
FTL;
The Human Animal is a unique being, endowed with an instinctual capacity to heal and the intellectual spirit to harness this innate capacity.
Chamber Of Self
GM: "Emotional awareness
Frequencies
Welcoming the Unwelcome
Zones of Sensitivity
Show
Christian mythology re Satan"
William: Emotional awareness Frequencies Welcoming the Unwelcome Zones of Sensitivity Show Christian mythology re Satan = 1231
One Two Three One = 182
[182]
Crop formations
Under question
In William’s Room
Whatever you do
Through Others
The Wider Reality
Aye...A name I call myself.
Synchronicity
Went To The Devil
Guitar and Ukulele
Mirror-Mirror
In Out and All About
One Two Three One
GM: Create Your Own UFO
We have discussed...
...GM: The problem of evil
Is the statement one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion]
Equanimous [calm and composed.]
Better The Devil You Know
Spasmodic [occurring or done in brief, irregular bursts.]
What Is The Point?
The way I look at it is that if consciousness equals brain or is a product of it, then scientists should be able to discover subjective experience or deduce its existence simply by studying the brain. To date, that seems inconceivable that that would happen. I brought this up to DrNoGods before, as i'm sure many others have in different ways, yet he continues to claim that consciousness poses no special challenge to science or materialism.
The facts are that the ONLY way scientists know of subjective experience (or consciousness) is because we all experience it and can report it. Scientists did not discover its existence empirically nor did they deduce its existence. Our knowledge of neural correlates would not exist unless the subject was able to tell us what they're experiencing while observing their corresponding brain activity. SO even our neural correlates of consciousness are simply neural correlates of our subjective reports of our experience.
If anything William, we can just look at the history of science on this issue. We can find that scientists have tried to take the cheap way out by banning the study of consciousness. That's doesn't exactly match the pattern of success of materialist science to boldly take on challenges and to explain things and develop technology. But here we are, William and I (two humble agnostics), still not taken seriously because we dare to consider that consciousness might be something that's less than physical.
How do you ask and get the number response?
Under the watchful eye and guiding arm of YHWHMy question is "How Do I Deal With The Student Population?"
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Again - the discussion being had here shows me that beliefs to do with the age of the Universe are secondary in relevant importance to the fact of its existence and our existence within it.
Re: the OPQ: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
No more or less crazy than the notion of the Universe being a Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation produced and processed within the mind of The Father God - and furthermore, this idea does not go against The Script...scripture being scant on the details has to do with its focus being on The Creator re the Human element of the story - rather than specifically The Creation...and in that regard, 'a blink of an eye' and '13.8 billion years' amount to exactly the same thing in relation to said Mind.
Notice too, that the Biblical take on the existence of life on Earth, does not acknowledge the Dinosaurs
Search: What does the word Dinosaur mean
Sir Richard Owen came up with the name dinosaur in 1841 to describe the fossils of extinct reptiles. He coined the word by combining the Greek words “deinos”, which means terrible, and “sauros”, which means lizard.
As near to this as the bible story gets, is The Serpent...is that a coincidence or something linking prehistory with human development?
William: Nope...
"Does the Eagle know what is in the pit?
Or wilt thou go ask the Mole:
Can Wisdom be put in a silver rod?
Or Love in a golden bowl?"
[]
If I understand correctly, you're an atheist (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I am neither atheist nor theist.
Therefore there is no way you can possibly grasp any type of spiritual explanation from the scriptures as to the Godhead.
I see atheists cherry-pick and deduce from that basket, a largely evil critter in the nature of YHWH.
Theists tend to do the same in mirrored manner - cherry-picking the good critter in the nature of YHWH.
Presently it is my suspicion that YHWH represents a mind directly related to human beings and that it is the planet Herself who acts out the parts played in the GODs of human invention, of which YHWH plays the overall roll of God-Father.
I suspect now, that the planet-mind is like "Many Heads One Mind - Many Minds One Head" and re humans, most of the minds are not tuned into the same YHWH frequency and are largely left to their own devices.
Other minds are useful and are utilized even if the one who's mind is being played, is unaware of that.
Fewer still tune into the frequency which allows for relationship to develop between the individual mind and the mind of YHWH.
Re the Bible, this is a storybook of fellows supposedly connected to The Mind of YHWH. Their stories are largely told as biography [an account of someone's life written by someone else.] Stories heard first around campfires and elaborated on...and later encoded within writing and locked into place no longer - so easily - elaborated upon.
What you're looking for is a logical solution to an infinite being like God.
Not particularly. What I am looking for is evidence that we existed within a simulation - or as theists refer to it - in a "Creation".
The reason for that quest, is that until it is established that we do, puckering up on God-issues [religiously] is horse before the cart stuff, and less interesting for that.
Also, I have already come to a logical solution to the idea of an infinite being, and have no problem logically incorporating that into the solution I am heading toward re the Simulation Question.
Even true children of God can only understand that which God has chosen to reveal about himself in his word, and it's still difficult to grasp how God can be three distinct deities and yet one God.
Given that reasoning, it is therefore likely that the understanding I have is because God has chosen to reveal it to me. It is easy enough to understand even using human logic and no particular idea of GOD at all, but I am open to the idea that GOD reveals things to me.
Such as is the presumed case. I can understand the theory on how GOD can be the many while remaining The One. -
But when all of the information is considered and weighed against the scriptures, that is the only conclusion that harmonizes as a whole.
As long as the interpretation of scripture does not attempt to limit the nature of GOD to only 3 in 1 I can bounce with that.
I admit freely that the afore mentioned "connecting into the frequency of YHWH" is the only thing which can have the individual involved with the 3'n1 - even to the point where there is no discernable difference in how the individual mind is receiving the information from YHWH - which - incidentally - involves information which is not even in the Bible - unsurprisingly since the bible is a bound book and The Mind of YHWH is a Living Thing.
For example - the Bible quote you used in an effort to establish your point about said mind;
Isaiah 55:8-9 (KJV)
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
"The Heavens" are referencing another realm. for in the realm of the Physical Universe, there is no place 'higher' than any other.
Also - as I mentioned - one can tune into the frequency of YHWH [As biblical Jesus encourages folk to do] and thus have access to the thoughts of YHWH, but only in relation to ones position in the scheme of things [and maybe titbits too] because the information YHWH holds, simply cannot be contained within the human brain and it is in that sense [in my opinion] that YHWH is stating "your thoughts are not my thoughts" although I am open to being corrected re that.
In this sense, TMY [The Mind of YHWH] can be imagined as being the whole [circle in this case], and individual minds as being the parts.[dots making up the circle]
The important thing then [re our discussion] is that there is no perceptible difference other than when YHWH takes on form. YHWH is The Mind [ideas man] Jesus is the matter [how the ideas are made physical] and Ghost is that which makes the movement of the physical into form and function.
That is my rough guesstimate...
[Some folks have problems re that and prefer to throw stones and ask [rhetorical] questions after the killing is done.]
William: Ghost is that which makes the movement of the physical into form and function = 764...and Ghost is that which makes the movement of the physical into form and function.
There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you will still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything. = 3776How about:
There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you will still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.
William post_id=1091190 time=1662658741 user_id=8427 said:
[]
You end up with 14,400 experiments needing to be performed.
What's my point? Simply that the vast number of variables and assumptions being used in a supposedly 'scientific' experiment renders it effectively useless.
Firstly let me thank you Diagoras for showing us exactly what lengths a non-theist will go to, to render a useful thing into a useless thing.
What do you think we are working to do here exactly? Build and then send a space telescope to a certain position a million miles away from the Earth?
Search: How many people work on the James Webb telescope?
NASA estimates that 10,000 people have worked on the mission...
Keep it simple. All we are trying to do is allow opportunity for interactive connection to happen between the individual and The Universal Mind, as a means of providing evidence that there is indeed such a mind.
Keep it simple.
Just as the most simple code to give the alphabet is A=6...Z=26 so too, the simplest way for the individual to provide a means by which messages can be generated is to compile their own unique list to which they sharply reduce any possibility of misunderstanding whatever GMs come from that process.
So - as such - all you would need to do is replicate what I am doing, rather than sound out complicated ideas in which it could somehow be established that with your 14,400 experiments done, one should get exactly the same message for all of them.
Calling something "pseudoscience" isn't getting the science done - it is simply relying on woo-slinging to act as a barrier against one having to do the science for oneself - by applying an inappropriate slogan to the process.
You have your mind - use it.
10,000 minds and public hand-outs in the billions are not necessary, in order that something can move from being called "pseudoscience" to being referred to as 'Actual Science"
All you need to do is create your own ComList and place word-strings as line entries into that.
Be sure to include things which are near and dear to your own subjective experience as a human being - things like events which were life changing in some way for you, things to do with your career choices and interests related to that. Even things that only you will understand in the reading.
Presently my ComList has 3573 line entries - so replicate your own list to be around that length.
As shown throughout this thread, I have used different selection processes, not just the one you mentioned - and the one I use the most often, can be seen being used in recent posts I have made.
Only after you have got to this point and tried it our for yourself a number of times, will you be able to give an account of your results and show us whether you were able to generate coherent messages through that system, or not.
It is difficult to find individuals who are willing to do the science - as simply as it is, it still requires commitment and effort - but that in itself does not mean that the science cannot be done.
I have found one person - a theist - who has been willing to try it out and she has been impressed by the results - so at least I know of one other person this works for.
There may be other readers who are doing so quietly to see for themselves...
As to Master ColdFire - it is interesting to me that you brought this up as there is evidence here on this message board in the sub-forum "Around The Camp-Fire" which I will continue to review in regard to the recent GMs, and the connection re reference to events which happened over 2 years ago... I will be posting my findings about that, here, soon.
[]
It is easy to see how the concept of the soul arose before we had any idea of how the brain worked and that physical things like trauma and drug use affected our consciousness
Whoa ! Steady on with the placement of the cart here Diogenes.
A brain soaked in Consciousness is one thing, but follyish to then assume from that, that trauma and drugs "affect our consciousness" when clearly what is being affected is the brain.
It is the brain which is affected and consciousness is wide awake along for the ride.
"Physical things" are just how Human Brains "see" things, and Human Brains don't just look like this;
But more to the actual point, they look like this;
Since Humans and Drugs converged, wherever one is on the Face of the Planet, one has astoundingly similar experiences and those experiences have to do with why theistic beliefs manifested in the early epoch of Human Development...because Human consciousnesses under the influence of drugs which reduced the brains capacity to control 'what one sees' what one see's is done so in the most coherently vividly lucid manner which bypasses any damaged circuitry of the whole brain. Human Brain-Consciousness is undamaged and thus experiences everything in living colour and what is experienced is reported and added to the list of evidence re 'Things of The Mind.
[=276]
Human Brain-Consciousness
Redefinition of the human being
All things created are of the mind
All spun from the same Yarn
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
The focus on the Brain needs to be of secondary importance to the focus on the Consciousness using the brain, otherwise it is 'brain before consciousness/cart before horse follysee...
Rose2020 post_id=1080136 time=1654071799 user_id=16057 said:Communication with the dead.
Why would anyone wish to do that?
There would be a number of reasons. For me it was motivated by the knowledge that I was getting shallow and often dubious communication with the living, even in relation to opinions about the dead.
I decided that I would give 'the dead' an opportunity to show they had more to offer.
Is it through grief with attendant emotions? In which case it is understandable but irrational.
The use of Talking Boards gained popularity in the US, shortly after the Civil War because of the great social grief experienced at fathers and sons/husbands and siblings lost in the fighting...people wanted to know that their loved-ones were alright and talking boards seemed to provide some closure and healing in that regard.
The name Ouija is a combination of the French “oui” and German “ja,” both meaning “yes.” It was patented in 1892 but primitive models date back to ancient times. Talking boards, also known as spirit boards, gained popularity in the United States during the late 1860s as mournful users attempted to communicate with the Civil War dead.
Or is it idle curiosity without reason?
Curiosity [no matter how idle] always involves reason.
A warning about Ouija
University of Akron professor Oscar E. Olin, an ordained Universalist minister and instructor of philosophy and social sciences, was a major skeptic of Ouija.
Voices from beyond the grave? What complete balderdash.
He feared that the boards could cause psychological harm among those who developed too close an attachment.
“Many people, falling victims to its lure, have been mentally unbalanced,” he said. “Just as one may go insane over too close application to any one subject, so the Ouija board has its danger for the credulous, the superstitious, the hysterically inclined.”
So imagine Olin’s surprise when he tried Ouija and the planchette moved.
He was toying with the board when, to his curiosity, the indicator seemed to spell out a word. He was alone at the time, so he couldn’t blame anyone else.
The professor developed a theory: Perhaps his fingers had acted on unconscious impulses from the brain. Ignoring his own advice on developing too close an attachment, he began to conduct “exhaustive experiments” with Ouija boards.
“Although I certainly did not practice conscious fraud on myself, I found that I was able to get frequently startling sentences from the board as long as I could see what was being spelled,” he explained.
To test his hypothesis, he constructed his own talking board that included several common words as well as letter groupings that made it easier to form sentences. But he also added an adjustable screen that could block his view of the board.
Ouija seemed positively verbose without the obstruction.
“The moment I adjusted the screen in place, however, that moment the messages were effectually cut off,” Olin said.
He invited several self-proclaimed mediums to test the apparatus, but no one was able to produce any messages when the screen was drawn and their vision was blocked, he said.
“This convinces me that practically all Ouija board messages are the result of causes far closer to this world than the realm of spirits,” he said.
Which explains the showmanship of mediums, an entertainment. Mainly a con in my view. Think of people such as James Randi who debunked many an unfortunate con artist.
Perhaps we might be better off if there were folk like James Randi in ancient times who could have debunked famous biblical characters promoting their particular cons.
To my mind it is unhealthy and dangerous to delve in matters that promise to be detrimental. I see no good coming from it.
The promise of the detrimental came much later than when talking boards first gained popularity. There use was for more respectable pursuits than later on when a simple board was developed and branded "Ouija" and one can trace the source of the demonizing to modern day Christianity, which had already misrepresented the image of Lucifer sufficiently, and this helped to promote the detrimental within societies influence by Christianity.
The Bible warns us to have no connection with mediums and such, I believe the Bible is giving excellent advice.
You believe that the advice to kill such folk is "excellent advice"?
Leave well alone that which is a natural necessary process.
If we took that advice, we would be far worse off than we are today, because we would not question the things which Christianity has told us are true, and those days of taking the word of con-artists armed with bibles is on the decrease as we place aside the superstitious ideas based in supernatural suppositions. It is human nature and ability which are natural and necessary, and folk like James Randi would not have been able to uncover the fraudulent practices of con-artist without that.
We live, we must die. Acceptance is the only real peace. Even if you could communicate with those gone, what good could it do?
What good does it supposedly do when Christians claim to communicate with Jesus?
[]
No mention of "limbs" in Genesis 3:14 whatsoever. Moreover:
The implication is clearly there in that the Garden God is attributed in Genesis 3:14 with punishing the Serpent with a curse which makes the serpent a belly-crawler.
You appear to be arguing that it was always a belly-crawler, which is not following the storyline, and therefore your argument cannot be accepted as valid.
ser·pent
/ˈsərpənt/
noun: serpent; plural noun: serpents
1. literary a large snake.
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary
___________________
Genesis 3:14
So the Lord God said to the snake, “You did this very bad thing, so bad things will happen to you. It will be worse for you than for any other animal. You must crawl on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life.
Snakes don't have legs.
Nor do they speak human languages.
I would caution anyone not to accept that because nowadays 'Serpent' means 'snake' [according to some dictionaries] that this means one can rightfully manipulate the story to align with the modern day meaning of the word.
The word used in the garden story was "Serpent" and what it is described as prior to the Gods curse upon it - is definitely NOT a snake.
The Effect of Sound and The Universe
[]
Q: Does Sound Create The Universe.
non-Theist: Nope. Why should it? I know, I know, god can do anything and in any way he wishes, but one has to ask why he would bother with the speaking part when ostensibly all that would be needed is a simple willing it to be so, as in the very beginning when "God made from nothing the heavens and the earth." with no mention of having had to say a thing.
William: When we 'will' something, this involves language and from that, imagery. While this of course happens internally and therefore we [each of us who can do so] are subjective witnesses to the fact that we 'hear' our inner 'voice' and from that, create said images, we understand it as a real process.
We can - from that point - use material [condensed Quantum Particle] which is already available, in order to make that which we image into something tangible. We call this process "invention".
The sound God made, can be understood in that same way, and explain what 'in the image of' means, re Humans.
We have the same ability to create things in our mind [ideas] which one would expect in a Universe which shows us that frequencies and patterns are involved in how things are formed. Everything is a micro to its macro.
What we call 'reality' may well be something which exists in the mind of [a] God.
[]
Well, the example is there to help us (man).
That is an after effect .
In the real-time re the story, "WHO was GOD trying to teach?"
But the account PUBLICLY rebutted the PUBLIC accusation that the Adversary had made (as pertains to Job), showing anyone watching or listening that the Adversary was wrong, was proven wrong.
The public were the adversary, not Satan. That is a side issue re human involvement in the interplay between God and Satan....re my mentioning;
The account allowed Job to answer for himself, so there can be no question as to his integrity.
Job was not consulted by either God or Satan as far as I am aware. Are you able to direct me to the passages where God or Satan consult Job before settling on a deal which involved Job?
Satan isn't testing God. This was not a test for God. Satan is not a mirror for God, or a co-creator, or even a Son (the Son is Christ < - the actual and true image of God). Satan is OUR accuser, OUR adversary, and he seeks to destroy us (mankind, and in particular, anyone who belongs to Christ, to God). He is an enemy.
I suspect that this thinking has evolved through The Christianities attempting to un-slur the image of GOD as presented by the Israelites/Hebrews but has been unsuccessful in getting humans any closer to understanding GOD in the image of יהוה.
The mirror image of this process can be seen in how Early Christians understood the image of Satan as per the Hebrew Script - to appear as such;
and it was only much later that The Christianites reshaped Satan to appear as such;
This being the case, The Christianities have also evolved the image of GOD, from;
On that count, I have no choice but to reject your reasoning as it is based upon falsified imagery.
[]
The quicker way to say that is "God" is the "Life" - and more comprehensively, the consciousness which experiences the nature of the Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation [HERS] and learns through said experience of that nature, ways in which to 'make the experience easier' and thus morals evolve through the natural course of nature unfolding re consciousnesses involvement within said nature.
That way, the 'gap' is filled...
nobspeople post_id=1075260 time=1650477255 user_id=15266 said:William post_id=1075256 time=1650475961 user_id=8427 said:nobspeople post_id=1075234 time=1650450291 user_id=15266 said:William post_id=1075191 time=1650406963 user_id=8427 said:[]
Personally, I believe god was created in man's image and in a male dominated society of the time, god was thusly 'male' in its description.
But let's take the happy trolley to what I'll call 'imagination-land', where god created everything.
Again, in a male dominated society of the time the bible was written, it would make sense for men to write about god as a male.
There are cultures on this planet that, even today, have more than one gender.
So for someone to expect god to be only 'male or female' seems, at best, reflective of the culture in which one currently lives IMO
How that relates to 'paradise'.....? Maybe there, it will be non-binary, genderless or androgynous? Maybe everyone will look the same, sound the same, think the same... that may be paradise for some?
Obviously the culture will have to shift from the male-dominated one to the shared one [whatever that might be] and would be all-inclusive for that.
I would rather not have sex-organs in such a paradise - not just because they appear to be so connected re the problems of the world - but more realistically, there would be no more need to 'go forth and multiply' since no one will be dying anymore.
My preference re 'what is paradise' re 'living forevermore on this one planet' would be to have the ability to exist through all forms simultaneously, know all thoughts being thought at all times and be able to direct the progress of the population toward ensuring continuous peace and harmony.
Good points. I wonder if this 'paradise' would be much different than what many would like to believe.
People believe all sorts of conflicting things.
They think that YHWH built something good which then somehow got spoiled by something evil.
What they are really saying through their stories, is that they don't like some things that are part of the creation, so they want those things removed.
Perish the thought of having to live forever without good old heterosexual sex...they probably would even resist being in the form of the opposite gender to what they are at present... I suppose what is Good in YHWHs eyes, isn't necessarily good according to everyone, and so 'stories get made up'.
Until ganna be gets here, its all just ganna be no show and nothing to tell except beliefs shaped in dissatisfaction and condemnation...
Maybe
As you said, people believe all sorts of conflicting things....
Well until it happens, such things remain beliefs.
Wishful thinking.
Signs of dissatisfaction with the world YHWH created and demanding better - with the perks of course.
Like being married to the same person forever or being the same sex forever because that is what being 'good' is all about.
I would rather be a robot with a mind of its own, and deal with the fact of being on this planet forever as an opportunity to lay aside that which is unnecessary and perhaps even use these humans who still cling to the old good, to my advantage by having them live the way they believe is good while they enjoy the paradise I built for them while they slept.
Like a Shepard with his sheep, corralled so that they have no knowledge of the ones they despised so willfully in the name of GOOD, they are doomed to a forever on this planet while the rest fly free and enjoy the fruits of The Grand Galaxy.
It is a fitting sentence for such. Justice.
AB: The problem with making nature or biology the foundation of objective morality is that then it justifies the psychopaths or the male lions that kill the other male lions and their offspring just so they can take over the pride. Both are following their nature or biology. At best, I think we can say that morality is part of nature, but that alone does not tell us which morals are good or bad.
William: Q: "What is it about humans which has the ability to comprehend a [supposed] "Perfect World", which is so obviously different from the real world?"
We search for answers...
What have our sciences done to answer this question?
Or is it a matter that our sciences are being used specifically like unto the male lions, suppressing the main herd while they go about sailing into a particular direction they have selected for themselves?
For the herd notes, [for example] that as grandiose as the latest space telescope is - hurtling and unfurling [fully shaded] toward it's destination some million miles out and, simply to peer into the secrets of the past to 'try and understand'...the herd understands that the money could be 'better spent' on creating a perfect world here in the heart of imperfection - so why is that not been done?
Why is the rest of the herd being experimented on and used for that one purpose?
Just so a few lions can have their names recorded for all time?
Is that moral?
[]
Then the claimant should be able to show the universe was created, without invoking some entity that's immune to the requirement of having been created itself.
Why do you think that is even a logical request to be demanding? The 'claim' as far as this thread subject is addressing is more a simple logical observation. Something which came into existence, cannot have logically done so from nothing.
To believe that it did, is really where the special pleading is coming from.
I contend my argument stands to logic, where folks claim the universe was created, they should be able to show it was.
That is actually illogical Mr.Knothead. for two reasons;
1: The idea that the universe popped out of nowhere is special pleading
2: The logical observation that the universe must have being made out of something must imply it was set into motion by something else. "Created".
Logically, the universes existence is the very thing which should show one that the universe was created.
Unless you can prove that the universe has always existed, I have no choice but to accept your argument as unsupported opinion, of the special pleading variety.
To kick that off;
Re: your statement "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
Q: Why does something which has not been shown to have had a beginning, have to be assumed it ever had one?
It disregards the universe existing in a prior form.
No it does not.
It is possible that the universe has always existed in this manner, but does not assume that the shape that it takes in its manifestation is simply a mindless process, rather than a mindful purposeful reinvention of itself from the one state to the next - and has been happening like that eternally as in - it has always existed as something which begins and ends and begins again ad infinitum essentially meaning that it has never begun or ended at all. All along, mindfully creating itself into whatever it wills to.
Bonus question ;
Re the thread topic;
Q: Why should Creatio ex nihilo be accepted as something other than special pleading?
I don't think it should. Where one proposes a god's involvement, they should be expected show that's what happened.
Well at least we agree on that.
The Tanager claims that a God created the universe from nothing...he is not the only theist to makes such a claim.
But just as interestingly, there are also a number on non-theists who also believe that the universe had a beginning and that it popped into existence from nowhere.
The only minor difference between the two similar belief systems is that the theist who believes in this, claims a "God" made it magically happen, whereas the non-theist who believes in this, claims that it just magically happened.
But like I said, they both believe that it - an obvious something - came from nothing.
aka. Special Pleading by both parties.
Logically The Mind/consciousness/self awareness is therefore that which shapes the matter which we call "The Universe" - and anyone who does not think that the universe has a mind, is not paying attention to the one piece of evidence which indisputably shows that mind and matter interrelate as The Ghost and The Machine.
[]If mathematics cannot describe a system of "True Free Will" this may be because such a system does not actually exist?
Yes that could be the case except for the fact that I know I have free will, as I said it is a self evident truth. So my free will cannot be computed mathematically (because it must be non-deterministic) it is not computable.
As an Agnostic my position re The Question "Does True Free Will Exist?" is "Lack of any current information to establish certainty"
Also, the focus is on the The Question, so am I to assume your claim of having free will corresponds with your belief that TRUE free will exists, and that you consider no difference between your 'free will' and what you previously referred to as "true free will"?
From the Agnostic position;
I accept that your belief that a person has will, as valid.
I remain undecided in relation to your belief that will is free, as it appears that will is only free, relative to the environment which constrains said will.
In that, I can accept the term 'free will' but not the term 'true free will'.
Why is it unreasonable to you?
Because I am in the Agnostic position re The Question.
We are faced with free will being real (I have it anyway, even if you don't)
I have this 'free will' but acknowledge that it is only 'free', relative to the environment it is operating within.
we are faced with free will being non-determinism, we are faced with the laws of nature being deterministic and so we are faced with how to explain that a physical system (me) can behave non-deterministically when all the parts I'm built from behave deterministically.
I do not view this as any kind of dilemma as I can accept the deterministic nature of the environment my will operates within, and that it appears to be operating independently of said deterministic environment.
However, the position of Agnosticism also accepts that things are not always as they appear to be, because ones personal beliefs have a way in which information becomes filtered through said beliefs, allowing for a distorted image rather than a real one.
Agnosticism allows for deeper investigation - taking a closer look, like a detective with a magnifying glass...the pipe, and indeed the substance being smoked, is not necessarily necessary to that end, but perhaps helpful nonetheless.
Removing filters of belief however, are necessary, in order that any image thus presenting, is not distorted.
Positing God who has will, intent as the source of this non-determinism seems entirely reasonable and rational, what alternative, better explanation can you think of for explaining the presence of non-determinism in systems that are constructed from parts that are strictly deterministic?
Agnosticism accepts the validity of the possibility the environment we exist within is indeed a created one {a creation}, implying therefore, that there is a creator.
The position of Agnosticism also requires questions are asked, pertaining to the identity of supposed creator, which is why I asked;
What is this 'God' you are referring to? Some religious image?
[]
Also, not every discussion on this forum is strictly for/against Christianity, like the broad question of whether God exists, or, you know, this thread. In many of those discussions, the distinction between atheism and agnosticism remain important, as you already agreed.
So I don't see a compelling reason in your responses to collapse them together.
From what I think I understand so far, on the question of whether a creator [GOD] exists, a person who say's "maybe-maybe not" is categorized as a "weak atheist" by atheists, due to the not knowing and not having faith so not believing.
It is a simple matter of belief, because if there is a Creator GOD - there is no direct way of knowing and there is no sure way of showing any indirect way if there is or not.
The term "weak atheist" appears to be derogatory in relation to being a strong atheist, who appear to be those who have taken the step into believing that a Creator GOD does not exist, and expressing that belief into the community.
I think that perhaps some agnostics have a problem with accepting the term "weak" as it implies they are apathetic, indifferent, [stuff like that] and those ones at least are making efforts to examine the question and have not reached a point where they feel they can honestly make a choice either way.
I have also observed that many ex- theists who have chosen to become [proselyte] strong atheists are among the most outspoken in their zeal to preach their new message - the message that a Creator GOD does not exist and think it is reasonable to assume that they were also outspoken when they believed that a Creator-GOD did exist.
[I think of it therefore, in terms of personality traits.]
When I began to question theism - specifically The Christianities - it was to do with their imaging of a Creator-GOD and when I made the move away from that, [perhaps largely due to my personality - I was never outspoken] I quietly approached the subject [Creator GOD] rather than simply abandon it "because of" theisms handling of it or any other number of reason as to why folk say they chose to become atheist.
Which is to say, I did not choose to believe that there was no Creator-GOD simply on account of "theist behaviours" or "reading the bible" [some reasons given by some who have changed position from theist to atheist] but rather, I chose to examine the question in more detail, and today I am grateful for having made that choice.
One thing I have learned is that the real question to be asking is not the one which separates "atheist" from "theist" [demanding that an individual must either be one or the other re the question] as believing or not believing in the existence of a Creator [and in the case of believing that there is - defining that Creator] because this step is jumping the gun and is thus a mis-step or stumble.
So - from my position, I see both atheists and theists as having jumped the gun, and instead of working together [as people] on finding answers to the Real Question which we should be asking, they fight over the question of a Creator GOD.
It is from that position I remain firm that I am neither theist or atheist, or for that matter - even agnostic - because the question re the existence of a Creator isn't the one I have been asking and finding out answers to.
Harmless
I saw linda and william fly away, sadly they forgot their kid, can anyone pick it up. We found him hiding in the doll's corner, thinking we wouldnt notice...
So what's going on here? Is this sick and hateful people projecting their own faults onto others? Is it a case of "every accusation is really a confession"? Something else? All of the above?
I think it is a case of the evolution of Human ethics and some being quicker at changing than others.
Add to that the religious finger-pointing, those who offend from such positions are naturally regarded as the worst, and it looks worse for that, than when committed by other groups who are not preaching the same sermon, or any sermon at all.
Once upon a time Humans behaved in such ways as a matter of nature - much like dolphins are seen to commit rape but are not seen to be sinning therein.
Incest was normal once.
The changes have come about through identifying actions which damage others, and seeking to do something about that.
Rape, slavery, incest, sexual, physical, emotional, phycological abuses are slowly identified and laws enacted in order to curb the practices - some learn faster than others.
Some Christians argue that those Christians who practice such things are not really Christians at all, citing the words of Jesus as evidence.
Others argue that the words of Jesus being bound within the Bible alongside the words of rapists, slavers, incestual, sexual, physical, emotional, phycological abusers and that Jesus himself being reported to have caused physical distress to stall-holders in the temple and olive trees, aren't helpful to the process of learning to identify actions which damage others, and seeking to do something to cease with that type of behaviour.
And if we regard the current warnings about climate change and heading for a possible extinction event - this time caused by humans - we might understand that none of us have the moral high-ground, regardless of what position we hold on matters of God and stuff like that.
Perhaps too much judging and not enough doing [hypocrisy] will be the source-reason for our own extinction?
[]
John 4:24 wrote:
God is a Spirit: . . ..
And when we are born of the Spirit, we become spirits, because:
John 3:6 wrote:
. . . that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
So when believers are born again of the Spirit, we will become spiritual bodied angels.
From my own understanding [self awareness] what occurred was that humans forgot what they were [Spirit-breathed into biological matter] and identified only with the flesh-container and thought of themselves in that way - much like non-theists think of themselves as 'nothing more than chemical reactions of the brain'...or how some Christians think 'flesh that will be resurrected and given the ability to never die.'
Apparently these two views can both be biblically supported so perhaps the different authors were writing from the bias of their particular beliefs on the matter.
If one researches OOBEs and the like, one will find that practically everyone who ever experiences such, identify as being 'spirit' - a biblically supported idea, as you have pointed out - something biblical Jesus spoke of as a truth.
Those Christians who do not believe such a thing, often critique OOBEs and the like as 'demonic deception' a type of religious equivalent as the woo-slinging "delusional" which non-theists love to use to 'explain' why such experience doesn't fit with their own particular beliefs about what they self identify as being.
Being 'born of the spirit' is really about coming to the realization of what one truly is rather than remaining in ignorance of that.
[]
For 'discussion':
If god exists, it allowed these contradictions to permeate its book, so the believers have to work around them.
Given the premise that 'god' is referring to the general Christian idea of 'god'.
As a means by which to gauge those using that system of belief.Why?
What's the point for such a 'loving and all knowing' being to sow discourse and cast doubt on its own story?
If god can prevent it but does not, then the reason will be that god has a use for it...even if we have to make educated guesses in order to attempt to answer the 'why' question.
Help make sense of this senseless act.
That assumes an 'afterwards' position and we cannot yet suppose that we have reached that point.
How the question needs to read is along the lines of;
Q: Help me make sense of something I see no sense in."
Or is there no god at all, and the bible is a hodgepodge of slapped together fairy tales but clueless people who wish to cominate and control the masses?
Or - the god is dealing with misinformation regarding itself and allows for that misinformation to help gauge those using that system of belief as the only information they themselves gauge god with.
To cominate and control the masses, is an indirect way in which to influence god for as long as allowed to do so.
Perhaps there is something to the 'gauging' the god does in the way that god does so - a special something which identifies those who actually know god from those who know only misinformation about god.
Perhaps the god seeks to see itself within all those being gauged...and the 'special something' is that thing it seeks, been found...
But to suggest "there is no god at all", jumps to conclusions...
[]
The idea of GOD orbits ones perspective.
I did not say "assuming it's benevolent". I said that the assumption is based upon a misinterpretation of nature by judging nature through the lens of 'good and evil' which are absolutely constructs of the mind rather than something nature has somehow 'shown' us.
As Old Badger pointed out;
I assign this to the localized event we all know is taking place here on this one planet;
Re that - my position on the matter;
Couple that with biblical concepts and Father YHWH isn't too far off the mark in relation to the portrayal of how a GOD would behave if it was a people-making planet.
I am not claiming that the Earth is a receptacle for a conscious entity but have seen no reason as yet, to why the idea shouldn't on the table as a possible truth...
...I continue to investigate...joining the dots through my subjective experience of it and stating opinions re the data from the Other position I am at.
Re: Weird and confusing things non-theists claim about atheism
[]
Questions I would ask this atheist, re his position and why I would ask.
Listening to your commentary in your video's to do with things atheists shouldn't say, I think your position is closer to Natural Neutral than to Atheism.
The problem [as I see it] with atheism as it has evolved is that it is primarily described as a position of lacking belief in GODs.
Atheists describe themselves in relation to the generic position - "Lacking belief in GODs - which is why you think of yourself as an Atheist - because you know that you lack belief in GODs...
However, the subject of belief in GODs is not fundamental to the question of existence...therefore any belief or lack of belief in GODs is not fundamental to the question of existence...but rather, a subset of the question "Do we exist within a creation?"
In other words, the argument for or against the existence of GODs relies upon the fundamental requirement of first establishing whether we exist within a creation...and since this has yet to be established one way or the other, the subject of GODs has to remain of secondary consideration - something to ask after the fundamental question "Do we exist within a creation", is answered.
With that in mind, I quote you;
"If I died right now and found out that there really is a GOD, I'd maintain that my lack of belief in GOD was reasonable during my life.
To the best of my knowledge there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that GOD exists.
There very well could be information that proves GODs existence out there, but since I don't have it and can't find it by my best efforts, it's reasonable for me not to hold a belief in GOD right now."
As an atheist you are free to think that way in accordance with the position "lacking belief in GODs"
However, on the question "Do we exist in a creation"
To say;
"If I died right now and found out that I really had been existing within a creation, I'd maintain that my lack of belief in that, was reasonable during my life. To the best of my knowledge there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that we exist within a creation. There very well could be information that proves we exist within a creation, but since I don't have it and can't find it by my best efforts, it's reasonable for me not to hold such a belief right now."
becomes unreasonable in relation to being an atheist as it is lacking belief that one exists within a creation rather than lacking belief in GODs
I understand that one might consider the two questions variations one each other...however, it still depends of the fundamentals, in which case, the revelation upon death that ones prior existence was within a creation only begs the question re the existence of GODs and any entity approaching you claiming to be the creator of said creation, cannot simply be accepted on his/her/its word.
More information would be required before one could agree with the entity...
Do you see and can you share in the logic in my rational to the point where you can abandon your "full time activist atheist" position for something more suitable re The Question "Do we exist within a creation?"
JehovahsWitness post_id=1075858 time=1650927061 user_id=6111 said:Miles post_id=1075855 time=1650924962 user_id=4854 said:If you're trying to imply the Bible, one of his works, is perfect, ...
I don't have to imply anything, the scriptures are there in black and white.
JWa
Since when did the words of otseng become part of the black and white you refer to as 'scripture'?
Rather, what otseng provided in the words of the image you provided, is a fort in which Christians do not have to be harassed by those who are tasked with questioning the bible.
The bible is simply referred to as something "not having to prove itself true, in this setting."
As to the shenanigans of in-house sword-play, this is all the fort provides. Simply a place where the Christian Soldiers of the denominational barracks have in which to air their particular 'interpretations' of a thing they believe is beyond question.
Of course, none of the interpretations can be proven as true, and can be challenged up to the point where those being challenged make protest that 'the truth' is being questioned in an environment designed to enable that not to happen. They conflate 'The Truth" of the bible, with "Their interpretation" of the bible.
One could even be sad about such shenanigans until one realizes the futility of feeling sorry for those who hide from truth by declaring something to be true which has never been proven true.
Their destinies await them, be these rewards in heaven, or inheriting the game play on Earth.
Forever marooned upon an Island in the midst of an ocean they will never be permitted to have access to....while remaining blissfully unaware of the true nature of their internment and praising YHWH for their good fortune.
GM: The entity consciousness which is Mother Earth - is "The Creator" of the forms from Her Belly
Solidarity
What Are Your Thoughts On The Subject?
William: The Mother Earth Entity is like a God in the making - learning from the inception point of complete ignorance - in ethical terms, 'not always good - not always evil'... or 'sometimes appearing Demonic and other times appearing Angelic'...
GM: Integrate
Some information has to be drummed into that which perceives
Perception
Self-reflection
From The Source
It’s a living thing
I Know William
Anchor Points
Mechanism/Tool/Device
[]
The god-claim of the antichrist being fundamentally incompatible with so many beliefs, who would be left for the antichrist to fool?
I think the story itself is fundamentally flawed and in order for it to have been made real, the incidences re prophecy should have all occurred before the advent of the Industrial epoch.
Since it did not [in any obvious way] eventuate, it is highly unlikely to do so because such an event would now be understood - not only in relation to the Industrial epoch, but even more so, in relation to the Technological epoch.
Since the rapid human advancement in knowledge of our universe, such an event cannot be seen as some type of finishing stages of warfare between mythological theist-based characters superimposing themselves into human affairs [mostly via fiction] since so much is known about related subjects such as the possibility of Extraterrestrials and the advancement of understanding the idea of Simulated Reality Experiences through human technology...those two alone cancel out any possible biblical incarnation of The Second Coming from actually happening, as woke folk add it up and declare the event as most likely a mix of both extraterrestrial intervention and holograms.
Any declaration made by the beings about their "GOD" - status, would therefore be quite intelligently questionable.
This is not to say that such a thing couldn't still be done. But why would it be done? To sort out the woke folk from the gullible lead?
Why not simply stay in the background and watch how humanity handles itself?
"For the sake of the elect of GOD?"
Why would the EoG care for their own safety that they would pray "Enough! Sweet Jesus return!"?
And since when have the innocents being spared the pain and horror wrought on them by the way those who have the power to do so, have done so - with not one GOD-being intervening already to cease those atrocities?
Perhaps the atheist might declare "See! GOD is Dead!", based upon such evidence. Perhaps they do so because the alternative [Extraterrestrials mostly letting things unfold as they are without obvious interference] is too much to bear?
Morality based ideals are the stuff of quagmires...as PK has oft enough pointed out...
We no longer know what the future might bring, even using science based guesses. What we are waking up to, is that we also know that guessing using religious mythology is not science.
Truth is, we never did know what the future might bring, which is why so many of those guesses were fundamentally incorrect.
We best accept that we will either work it all out for ourselves, or we will die [as a species] not trying...
This is known and accepted by those who are using their lives in order to at least try and preserve the human specie, that it may one day fly more willfully among the stars.
Biologic answers are on the way out, while machine answers come marching in...
Eventually - when said mind is no longer housed within the shell of the human instrument - its true colors will be revealed and what it creates for itself as a consequence won't be influenced by any concealment techniques used while it was within the shell of the human experience.
The Giant Wall between Theists and AtheistsJung may have it correct while grappling with how to present a largely invisible reality to a largely visible one.
How are we to tell if we are 'minds within a mind'?
I would say, we best not leave it entirely up to the brain to inform us - since the brain is as Lost In The Thought Of It All anyway...
DyingThis thing got out of hand. Lost in a glass globe back in 1974, returned but refurbished nonetheless.
Science: A phenotype of natural freedom achieved through statistical rituals of intersubjective projections.
God: Eshe eher eshe. Point made. Inventor of the glass globes 'n all.
POD/592&77; pendulumThis thing got out of hand. Lost in a glass globe back in 1974, returned but refurbished nonetheless.
Science: A phenotype of natural freedom achieved through statistical rituals of intersubjective projections.
God: Eshe eher eshe. Point made. Inventor of the glass globes 'n all.
POD/592&77; pendulum
Astrobiologists Say Planet Earth Itself Might Actually Be An Intelligent Being
DyingGM:
William: From the link;
GM: All Because I Had To Ask
Making friends with your mind
Unabated
"The belief in a mindless Planet/Universe creates the hard problem of consciousness by refusing to deal with said problem using the mind as the very instrument in order to do so."
Alignment
Laugh in the face of death...and perhaps death laughs along with you...
A naysayers opinion is of no consequence, no matter how it is stated
Q: How does one hide a Cosmic Mind? A: Within apparent imperfection,
Children
Fling That Veil Aside
Few
To assist with strengthening the connect
Unbiased
What might occur?
William: Nothing substantially different. It is less important to me than it once was. If - for some reason - most folk start to see and to connect with the invisible mind of Creation - this would have to change the world but this universe is not the mainstay as everyone ends their experience with it - at least in human form - and moves on to the next, taking with them their personal "I AM" - their personality and character - into whatever their experience will be in that next phase.
GM: The Purpose
The Next World
The Shaping Of Reality
Quantifying Information...
The seed requires a backdrop which already exists in order to be be able to germinate - to release its coding.
DyingSaid another way. "There was I was where I ought - examining my conscious thought." not just having a thought for the sake of having a thought.
IntelligentConsciousness is a topic that’s been discussed and debated for centuries. But the surprise to me is that with what we’ve learned from exploring the computational universe and especially from our recent Physics Project it seems there may be new perspectives to be had, which most significantly seem to have the potential to connect questions about consciousness to concrete, formal scientific ideas.
"Observing people I see the Mind of the Cosmos struggling to be heard above the fray...it appears to want to be heard through that Human medium, but that medium resists hearing, except what it wants to hear for its own individual agenda, rather than recognizing the overall."
From The SourceIf "the human mind" is capable of "the greatest evil" it must also be capable of "the greatest good" but if one is distrustful of their own mind, then that does not change anything simple through the act of avoidance.
Eventually - when said mind is no longer housed within the shell of the human instrument - its true colors will be revealed and what it creates for itself as a consequence won't be influenced by any concealment techniques used while it was within the shell of the human experience.
Arcadian [a person who lives a simple quiet life. ]While I do understand your concerns, ideas of good and evil are natural products of survival.
While humans have insinuated that a Creator-God is real rather than imagined, it is only natural to include therein, that The Creator instilled this within the creation.
Where the wheels get wobbly, is when morals [Laws] become fixed and immovable - not something that nature itself is - by attributing said Laws as "coming from The Creator".
Ancient Grey Entity
Lyrics
Oh if there's one thing to be taught
It's dreams are made to be caught
And friends can never be bought
Doesn't matter how long it's been
I know you'll always jump in
'Cause we don't know how to quit
Let's start a riot tonight
A pack of lions tonight
In this world, he who stops, won't get anything he wants
Play like the top one percent
Til nothing's left to be spent
Take it all, ours to take, celebrate because
We are the champions
Setting it off again
Oh we on fire
We on fire
Running our own campaign
Doing the whole shebang
Oh we on fire
We on fire
Get up, stand up, throw your hands up
Welcome to the other land of
Dreamers brothers sisters others
Yeah we on fire like that
Oh the bond is deeper than skin
The kind of club that we're in
The kind of love that we give
Oh ever since the dawn of mankind
We all belong to a tribe
It's good to know this one's mine
Let's start a riot tonight
A pack of lions tonight
In this world, he who stops, won't get anything he wants
Play like the top one percent
Til nothing's left to be spent
We don't care, we won't stop, call your mothers, call the cops
We are the champions
Setting it off again
Oh we on fire
We on fire
Running our own campaign
Doing the whole shebang
Oh we on fire
We on fire
Get up, stand up, throw your hands up
Welcome to the other land of
Dreamers brothers sisters others
Yeah we on fire like that
Ohh (fire, fire)
Ooooh (fire, fire)
And nothing's gonna be the same (fire fire, fire fire, fire fire)
Oh! We're the champions
We are the champions
Setting it off again
Oh we on fire
We on fire
Running our own campaign
Doing the whole shebang
Oh we on fire
We on fire
Dit dit heart and soul
Hey and nothing's going to be the same
Hey the life that you made will not be today
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Gavin Degraw / Johan Carl Erik Carlsson / Ross Golan
In thinking about map projections I’m reminded of an old story. Now bear with me on this one: in this story, imagine some prisoners, chained in a cave all their lives, their heads unable to turn such that all they can see in front of them is the cave wall. Behind them, a great fire burns, and in between prisoners and fire, puppetters march past with their puppets held high so that they cast shadows on the cave wall.
[]
You and your supporters are conflating 'damage of brain' with 'damage of consciousness'
In any experience Consciousness is not disabled. Ask anyone who has ever taken a serious LSD Trip. They can tell you all about the experience. Same with those who have OOB and NDEs...
To believe damaging the brain damages the consciousness is cart before the horse. No scientific experiments have shown consciousness is damaged.
So again I say re YHVH - maybe the Character is imaginary, maybe not. I have seen no particular evidence either way and therefore answer questions to do with YHWH, along those lines.
Indeed, if the stories of YHWH were fictional - or loosely based upon an actual person - possible questions and answers can still be given, conclusions drawn and opinions offered.
Aye. There is more than comparing notes. There is also comparing experiences. You used the notes to form images in your head. "Oh sweet Jesus!" [said every beloved/besotted follower]
They are images of gods and nothing more. All in the inner hallucination of you mindset.
Q: Is it unreasonable to accept that an omnipotent creator of this universe would have any regrets about Its creation?
If we look at how the critters in creation fix things, we can see therein that if there is a creator mind behind this, then there is simply no need for said mind to feel regret for anything said mind created. Said mind has built into the ongoing creative process, a means in which problems which arise, are fixed - rather than regretted upon first, in order to then get about doing the fixing...
Perhaps the idea that the creator should regret what was created, is a projection of human emotionally based concepts?
_______________________
[[The idea in assigning/projecting said emotion onto a creator ... the projection is in thinking how a human would feel if it were a human who created the universe, [and specifically the Earth and specifically Humankind] and applying that feeling to how a creator could also have regrets for what It created.]]
[]
Diogenes: I'd suggest that believing in ghosts, angels, demons, gods and the like fit either definition and are delusional, according to three editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Historia: Except that the DSM III & IV definition explicitly excludes religious doctrines, making your argument on that score self-defeating.
If there is no science accompanying this accordance, it is likely the result of conformation bias.
I follow the idea that Jung's Archetypes give us enough verification that ghosts, angels, demons, gods and the like are real influences, and every individual who delves deep enough into their Self [for the purpose of understanding] can start to appreciate the connection therein and even learn to interact with the Archetypes for the betterment of said Self.
> Learning to Fly
re How can an omnipotent being regret anything?
Q: Is it unreasonable to accept that an omnipotent creator of this universe would have any regrets about Its creation?
Perhaps the idea that the creator should regret what was created, is a projection of human emotionally based concepts?
_______________________
[[The idea in assigning/projecting said emotion onto a creator ... the projection is in thinking how a human would feel if it were a human who created the universe, [and specifically the Earth and specifically Humankind] and applying that feeling to how a creator could also have regrets for what It created.]]
A fish out of waterWilliam: Comminate - to threaten with divine punishment.
GM: Any God-Mind claiming to be responsible for human beings existing, is going to have problems to deal with re that
Laughter
William:
The ongoing objective is to get this knowledge out into the public domainBorn. Live the experience. Die.
Therefore;
We may as well doubt of our being, as we can whether any revelation from God be true. So that faith is a settled and sure principle of assent and assurance, and leaves no room for doubt or hesitation. Only we must be sure that it be a divine revelation, and that we understand it right: else we shall expose ourselves to all the extravagancy of enthusiasm, and all the error of wrong principles. (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book IV, ch. xvi, 14)
FeatureApparently, there are options available for those who have died before the promised return.
One does not have to remain in an unconscious state while things unfold as YHWH has prepared various places for those who have passed on and who's personalities have been deemed worthwhile saving in a free-flowing format rather than in a steady state format. Some remain conscious while others go unconscious and are rebooted at another time...
MarriageGM: Pareidolia
Cycles
Love
Being Born...
...Pareidolia Cycles Love Being Born = 297
Ahhh.... I didn't see the connection therein... you were saying that moment, Love was being born re our ongoing relationship. Okaaaaaay....
[297]
Now We Are Getting Somewhere
Think In Terms Of Eternity
I wanted to forge my own path
And search the forest of the sun
In the days of summer so long
Improve…”Do You Know This”
Pareidolia Cycles Love Being Born
The Affirmative:
The creation of life is possible by means other than a god.
William: Incorrect. The universe is not based in 'people'.
[]
I think it is. The moral universe anyway.
You might think that it is, but that may be you superimposing your sense of morality onto the physical universe. Placing a moralistic costume upon said PU, does not "make it so".
Perception of morality is an ability people have, and it's as important, or more important than sight.
It is no doubt helpful for biological critters to have any chance of surviving within the PU to invent morals which assist with that process.
However, in order to accept the premise you offer, one would have to say that morals were not invented but discovered. One would have to assign human characteristics to the PU. Do you think that the PU is therefore self aware and has a sense of morality?
You seem to be saying that is the case, where you wrote;
Remember, I'm coming into this as someone who does not see this morality and it would make me happier than a mafly in May to say they're making it up and it doesn't exist. But I've gotten hold of enough colour palettes and had enough similar answers from people who are not comparing notes (different cultures, even) that I'm forced to say it does exist. I would love it if they each said a different colour and I could laugh them off. But they don't. There is something there, something real, that they are seeing and I do not see.
"Where" is this seemingly unconnected cultural exhibition sourced, if not from the mind of the PU itself?
[]
How does there not being anything outside of GOD make it impossible for GOD to create something new that is outside of GOD?
I thought you agreed that there is no outside of GOD.
An infinite regression is logically impossible.Not to GOD.Why not? How can even GOD do the logically impossible?
How can it be logically possible for GOD to create anything outside of GODs self?
Furthermore, a simple code [The Mandelbrot Set] looped on itself produces a visual example of
- not only infinite regression but also infinite progression, so it is obviously not logically impossible.
More likely it is a case of being conceptionally difficult...but not logically impossible, as the Set gives us clear evidence of.
The idea of Creatio ex nihilo is exactly the same as the idea of Creation being built from something that already existed.
In other words, the thing that didn't exist before, was created from the stuff that has always existed.
That is not creatio ex nihilo at all. The ex nihilo expressly means that it wasn’t built from something that already existed.
But we know that it was built from something that already existed. GOD.
Theists would identify the energetic action as GOD [overall - regardless of religious undertones trying to superimpose their favored image of GOD onto the Energetic Action] and Thus we have Energy = GOD and QF [material] being another aspect of GOD [because there is nothing outside of or apart from GOD].
No, that’s you identifying what we identify as something different in such a way. I see no reason to believe your identification is accurate.
No. To be clear, I said "Theists" not "Theists who believe a particular image of GOD"
You have no apparent reason to believe my identification is inaccurate.
The answer of course, from the position of Theism, is "Yes - the Energy is intelligent."
Thus, "The Energy" is what theists refer to as "GOD."
Do you agree with my assessment?
I do not. If “Energy” is something distinct from its typical meaning, then it’s less confusing to call it something like “spirit”. I believe GOD is spirit. The spirit is intelligent. The energy that makes up our universe is not intelligent.
It is what it is. You are saying that energy is not the same as spirit, but clearly no attributes in both are different. One is just thought of devoid of intelligence while the other is thought of as not being devoid of intelligence.
Clearly, neither theist or atheist belief re that has proven itself, so the Natural-Neutral position is to understand that both/all labels re "Energy" and "Spirit" are speaking about the same thing, albeit, differently, depending upon the position one is speaking from.
Either the creative force is one of intelligence or it isn't.
GM: Animistic
Perhaps we can deconstruct some of these pernicious views.
William: It would be a step in a better direction than the one humanity is currently projecting.
The shame we carry about being the human animal does have its reason for being, but we have to - as individuals - rise above the shame and understand the fuller picture - what was done was natural enough and can be forgiven in that context but without the forgiveness, there are only repetitive patterns of shame based expression into the shared reality.
GM: ~Ooky Spooky
Inner critic~
Re: Generating Messages 444
William: The cart follows after the horse.
In the same way;
The question of GOD follows after the question "Do we exist within a creation?"
It is not as theism would have it, that "There is a GOD, therefore we exist within a creation"
Rather, it first has to be established that we exist within a creation before the focus can be placed on the Creator {GOD} question. The GOD question is the cart.
GM: There is no need to proclaim a supernatural event to what is simply an idea put into action.
The Great White Brotherhood
...
Steady as She goes...
"Enflame Emotions
Oops.....
Always"
William: Enflame Emotions "Oops"..... Always = 312
[312]
Like an interface representation
What can I say, except "Thank You"
Enflame Emotions "Oops"..... Always
GM: "Self-talk
Root of all evil"
William: From the Link;
Diogenes: Because we actually ARE, and are not God, therefore this impossibly omniscient/omnipontent God can not exist.
William: It appears that here, you are relying upon an image of GOD which we can agree comes through the particular culture you and I came through experience of.
I see also that you have included the factor of all-powerfulness too.
Critique of this image has merit, but no merit if the critique is simply focused on GOD not existing.
GM: Brilliant
Overwhelming
I would say...
With
Free-spirit
A Great Answer!
William: From the link;
Re: The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife
[3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase.
GM: Pearl of wisdom
07:14 [The Nature of Reality]
Joey Knothead: I'm still not seeing a way to refute your position. As I try to play out different scenarios, it seems as if I'm answering myself.
That last bit's an interesting bit itself.
I'm still firmly in the "product of the brain" camp, but your hypothesis is a fascinating alternate explanation. While it may appear to propose a 'god', to my -ahem- mind, it lacks the baggage of so many such claims.
[]
The "initial state" seems to be out of the reach of being described in any accurate or meaningful manner.In that, it is no more or less better than the idea of an exclamation "let there be light" from an Intelligent Source being the Initial State.Plenty fair. Though one's gotta ponder what did it that thinking.
That is a journey in itself and provides me with lifetime of interesting subjective experience re my own way of interreacting with and finding out about such a thinker...
This all plays into GODs Plan to bring about the ultimate harmonization and realization of the spreading of truth to the entire world = 1356This all plays into GODs Plan to bring about the ultimate harmonization and realization of the spreading of truth to the entire world
QueenBee Sort it out The evolution of consciousness Alive and kicking In The Spirit These Were Given Love Life Power of Silence Standstill Contemplate The Entity I Am - The Entity You Are The Heart Of The Soul Is Innocence Vibration
“The only impossible journey is the one you never begin”Perhaps we can deconstruct some of these pernicious views.
That Is Sad But Don't Let It Distract YouSatan isn't testing God. This was not a test for God. Satan is not a mirror for God, or a co-creator, or even a Son (the Son is Christ < - the actual and true image of God). Satan is OUR accuser, OUR adversary, and he seeks to destroy us (mankind, and in particular, anyone who belongs to Christ, to God). He is an enemy.
Psychology
EvaluatingThe NASA Astrobiology Institute Concludes Its 20-year Tenure
Extra Sensory PerceptionFreedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room
Entities of Particular Belief Systems:!: Learning clairvoyance and precognition with an extra sensory perception teaching machine
:!: Learning clairvoyance and precognition with an extra sensory perception teaching machine
:!: Subliminal perception and parapsychology; points of contact. N.f. dixon.
:!: 1212. Krechmal, arnold. Firewalkers of greece.
:!: An overview of extrasensory perception
et al...
Gypsies[]
It doesn't appear 'plainly enough' to me.
I am aware that this is the case with most folk.
In fact, the diversity of weird life forms suggests complete lack of mindfulness being involved to me. As does the rest of the universe for that matter.
Can you expand on this idea?
Recently in GMs the subject has arisen re "Sea-Life".
William: We experience fear in order to give us the opportunity to overcome that which triggers the fear.
Context
Sea
Is
Deranged
William: The sea is indeed filled with a deranged assortment of critters...
Educational
The sea is indeed filled with a deranged assortment of critters
William: Indeed, it is...but still the deranged can come about...become arranged...
The deranged can come about...become arranged. = 315
The Flying Spaghetti Monster = 315
I imagine that the FSM would fit well enough in the neighborhood of The Sea and its deranged assortment of critters
That the diversity of weird life forms suggests complete lack of mindfulness to you, really needs explaining as it would seem quite in line with mindfulness being at the helm and certainly there are very good examples of apparently differing weird critters working together in an arranged manner, rather than not - so if ones focus is on the form rather than the function, one can indeed perceive disorder but the perception may be delusional, since the self arranging is a flag signifying mindfulness.
The outward expression of an inward reality.
[I do have something substantial to work with.]
One only has to watch/listen to Sir David Attenborough with that understanding in mind, to appreciate there has to be mindfulness involved... even [as one example] in relation to the inter-relationship between plants ants and mycelium.
So perhaps what you are saying is that the mindfulness doesn't appear to be overly intelligent rather than that there is no mindfulness involved?
If so, then at this early stage of the universes unfolding, this would be expected to be the case, wouldn't you agree?
____________I've already explained how a person can lack a belief in God without having made a choice.
So have I. I refer to it as position B - which I call "Atheism". Once knowledge of GOD becomes involved, the choice to move from Atheism to Nontheism [in your case] Other [in my case] or Theism [in the case of otseng] is made.
For everyone else, the position of Other signifies a continued lack of belief either way.
Then the vast majority of atheists would come under the "other" category, because they don't actively believe there is no God, they simply lack belief.
Correct. They shift from being "Atheists" {B] and become "Other". [E] because knowledge [of GODs] allows them the ability to make choices re the question of GODs
I prefer to be a bit more specific in how I label myself.
Me too. That is why I label myself "Other" re the question.
Except it communicates nothing.
It communicates truth, as the picture communicates a thousand words.
"Other" communicates "all those who are neither theist or nontheist."
In my case, "Other" communicates far more than simple disinterest communicates, in that you can refer to me as "Other" and still have lots communicated from me re that position.
Kylie: "Oh, hi, William. Say, how would you describe your religious beliefs?"
William: "Other."
Doesn't give me any useful information.
That is because it is the incorrect question you are asking re The Question of GOD.
The question of religion [whether I have religious belief or not] is better asked of those who hold the theist position.
I am "Other" so asking me to describe my "religious beliefs" to you, won't garner you the useful information because you are seeking it from the incorrect source. Ask theists. Others have no religious beliefs.
GM: Love Your Life
Hidden Gem
Let It Be And So Be It
Ah Oh...
Forum
Lordy! Do I Have To?
Learn Well
As well as that pot of gold...
True happiness Awake Be here now
"Be they seeds or suns, or be it that suns are seeds, it is all part of the universe, and everything that we acknowledge as the universe, came from a tiny seed."
Fear Of The Unknown
Tabula Rasa [a supposed condition that empiricists have attributed to the human mind before ideas have been imprinted on it by the reaction of the senses to the external world of objects.]
Fearlessness
It is fun ...as well as edgy...to explore these new avenues of thinking and learning and application.
Shine
Enlightened
Learn a bit about what makes the God Realm "tick"
Indication
A time prior to human beings
The Future Creates the Present
07:53 [The Blank-Slate Borderlines]
[]
What "useful information" are you requiring from me?
I can succinctly describe my journey as follows;
I was born - [A] = Arrival.
Although I was unaware, on the question of GOD due to my complete ignorance, my position was that of {B] = Atheist, because I naturally lacked all belief in GODs as I was completely ignorant.
As I continued my journey, I became aware [[C] = the position of knowledge and choice] of the question of GOD and in that awareness I chose to believe that we existed within a creation which was created by a God.
In doing so, my position changed from {B] = Atheism to [F] = Theism
Through my experience with Theism, I decided that it was not the best choice and converted/changed tracks to Other [E] because I recognized that Theism had legitimate points worth investigating, but only dealt with the assumed nature of GOD independent from/incompatible with the nature of nature.
Ngaru Whaea arrives at the location of Callum's makeshift campsite. She signals her Cats to surround the site and remain hidden.
Once they are in place, she makes her entrance - riding The Great Tiger up to where Callum is cooking fish on his campfire. She then lightly touches The Great Tigers head, signally Her to stop.
She then speaks.
Ngaru Whaea: Who are you and why are you in my Realm and where are the Mother Wampus Cat and Her Kitten. Speak Human Man and answer me what I have asked of you.
Wootah post_id=1081050 time=1654834137 user_id=6289 said:William post_id=1081044 time=1654825803 user_id=8427 said:[]
I do truly think YHWH represents the first truly invisible God.
What gives you that understanding?
Other gods are mute idols - they always have a physical manifestation that people can look at.
Have you been told this ... or do you have it - in your own subjective experience - that the invisible God YHWH - speaks to you?
Because, if it is the former, then YHWH is a "mute, invisible god" who 'speaks' to you through others. If those others report to you that they have seen the invisible, then they are reporting that YHWH is not truly an invisible God.
If it is the latter, then how do you ascertain that the invisible voice of YHWH is the actual voice of the "first truly invisible God"?
There is nothing in creation that can represent God but everything points to him.
If everything points to YHWH as the "first truly invisible God" are these not therefore able to be described as "physical manifestations that people can look at"?
In what way is it wise to compare YHWH with mute physical idols that people can look at, if there are also invisible entities who can - as one biblical writ offers opinion on others - calling these "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" and adding the idea alongside that - perhaps as a way of instilling the concept as a concrete thing in the minds of any who listen - that it is nothing to marvel about because "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light"...and quite the reason I would say, as to why questions such as "Can anyone give good reason to believe Yahweh is not a demon?" are asked, since both YHWH and Satan are presented equally as "invisible entities" and both appear to be able to present through physical manifestations that people can look at and interact with.
For my part - I consider the Earth Herself to being a god, for she has many of the attributes of a god, but I do not consider Her to being the form of the planet - but rather, the mind therein - and invisible at that [as are all minds] - so wherein can the invisible be seen by the visible, other than through the visible - such as with all minds? Minds cannot be seen unless they are manifested through the visible.
Yet, in Earth being a mindful thing, can we point to Her and declare from this that She "does not represent YHWH" while also declaring that She still points to YHWH?
If not, then your statement "everything points to YHWH" would be untrue...unless in the saying of it, you are meaning something else?
As to the shenanigans of in-house sword-play, this is all the fort provides. Simply a place where the Christian Soldiers of the denominational barracks have in which to air their particular 'interpretations' of a thing they believe is beyond question.
Of course, none of the interpretations can be proven as true, and can be challenged up to the point where those being challenged make protest that 'the truth' is being questioned in an environment designed to enable that not to happen. They conflate 'The Truth" of the bible, with "Their interpretation" of the bible.
Astrobiologists Say Planet Earth Itself Might Actually Be An Intelligent Being
You have almost been thereQ: Is it possible that the infinitesimal super hot object preceding the Big Bang, didn't in fact contain the vastness of the matter within our universe but rather, was the event in which the energy from the blast resulted in the formation of Galaxies and everything else which we call "The Universe" from the field of inert material which already existed as 'space'?
Matter + Energy + Space = Time.
Do you see and can you share in the logic in my rational to the point where you can abandon your "full time activist atheist" position for something more suitable re The Question "Do we exist within a creation?"
Since neither Theism or Atheism has any more knowledge than Agnosticism re The Question of GOD - and Agnosticism remains without formalized [organized/established] beliefs either way, we have no choice [within the construct of honesty] but to acknowledge that Agnosticism is more reasonable than either Atheism or Theism.