The Universal Mind 1The Universal Mind200123 [Couldn’t we do something about it...]
AP= [Ask And It Will Be Given Rarefied ]
05:52 [Looking behind the veil]
GM: "Introducing Open AI"
The Father
Galaxy
Fun...Work...But Fun Nonetheless
Steady as She goes...
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1079953#p1079953William: FTL;
ost_id=1078649 time=1653327771 user_id=14646]
Proposition for Debate:
There is no God, because if there were, he would not have bothered to create the universe or us. Therefore, does not our very existence prove there is no God?
From another thread;
Compassionist: I think being omniscient and omnipotent would give one free will. Since I am not omniscient and omnipotent, I can't know that for sure.
William: What process did you use in order to come to the declaration that being omniscient and omnipotent would give one free will/amount to one having free will?
Compassionist: I realize that if I were all-knowing and all-powerful, I would be free from all constraints and my will won't be determined by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.
William: Let us examine this idea together then.
I see immediately that if I were all-knowing. I would be constrained by my omniscience.
Thus I would have no free will in relation to being all knowing.
Yet - being also all-powerful, I would be able to break free from the constraints of being all-knowing.
Would you agree with this assessment, so far?
Unfortunately I got no more interaction from Compassionist re this...and now this thread.
Your Proposition for Debate is something of straw because it failed to add in the aspect of the idea of GOD to do with being all powerful.
An all powerful GOD [omnipotent] who knew everything could indeed have created this universe, and the existence of this universe goes some way toward evidence which gives us - in our existing - an understanding of why we exist in such an environment as we do.
Also, your assumption that the GOD would be lonely and terrified and without purpose is what I refer to as "Mirror-Mirror" as one places what one believes of of oneself, into the GOD-role and "Hey Presto!'
What you see is what you get.
This same thing carries over into the next faze, given the many NDEs people have shared to the world. Whether they know it or not, each individual who meets GOD through NDE meets a being to which they place their own images onto, which in turn effects the way the GOD goes about showing them things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-IGeVpJ-M&t=4704sWhich is to say, if one thinks of GOD as being lonely and terrified and without purpose, there are places which accommodate such individuals and such individuals get to experience such places...according to the stories circulating...
But anyway, it is my purpose to warn folk about how they think about GOD - specifically to try and assist them in way which might help them use their freeish will to avoid such fate.
The grounds for your Proposition for Debate "There is no God" are faulty Diogenes. They are a false image of the self, superimposed upon the structure of GOD.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1079590#p1079590 [Re/thinking Religion]
William: FTL;
In Re/thinking Religion, a new Integral Stage series, John Vervaeke joins Bruce Alderman and Layman Pascal to explore possible points of contact and confluence between their respective approaches to religion and spirituality. For this inaugural episode, we feel into some of the commonalities and differences between Integral Postmetaphysical Spirituality and Integral Transformative Practice, and John's "religion that is not a religion" and his work around developing an ecology of practices suitable for addressing the meaning crisis. We touch on a number of related themes: the creative deployment of mythic or literary figures, from Cthulhu and zombies, to the Centaur, the Minotaur, and the khora; the importance of wrestling with existential and epistemological limit conditions, and the role of ambiguity in higher forms of rationality; the relation of non-theism to classical theism and atheism; the history of integrative practices, and the 'traps' in conventional practice that can thwart balanced development; and much more. ww.youtube.com/watch?v=t48dC_tJJrY&t=3672s
GM: Changing of The Guard
In Out and All About
The Way We Feel Unification - The Feminine Face of God
Joining Astral
Laugh in the face of death...and perhaps death laughs along with you...
Open Hearted
♫Asleep or awake for the give or the take Its a good ship that sails these cosmos♫
Runestone Symbol
William: [Opens Rune Doc and random selects Rune]
Wunjo [size=150]ᚹ[/size]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac5e76ZJfjs&t=4s [ww.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac5e76ZJfjs&t=4s]
Wunjo embodies that sense of joy, belonging and well-being that comes from the people who you count as your kin. It is found in a welcome hug, in the shared memories you laugh over, in the affectionate names only your partner and family call you by. It promotes harmony of body and mind and can support healing work. Sometimes Wunjo is interpreted as gentle, a caress or a smile; other times it is closer to ecstasy, bliss and the fulfilment of personal will. It is also related to wish making, and the realisation of wishes. Its role in both personal ecstasy and communal joy is important, emphasising the need for happiness on the part of both the individual and the clan – Wunjo enables this difficult balance.
{SOURCE} Raphael ~
WingMakers Materials
That Is
Soon
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1097894#p1097894William: FTL;
[
Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]
What have we figured out about the eternal? He is self-existent, unchanging, uncaused, cause of all things, all-knowing, self-aware, something like intelligent, and something like conscious, all-powerful, and omnipresent.
I think that is enough to establish him as God. I have deduced so much more about God in this same way, but if I keep going this will turn into a book, and I doubt you want to read a book right now.
Who is this God?
What you describe re the God, cannot - in all honesty, be the God of the Bible.
So who is the God of the Bible in relation to this God you have described?
Feeling State
The Way We Feel Unification
Recover what was lost
Those who need to complain
Sweet Talk Be grateful to everyone
Thoughts Are Products Of...
Put That Fire Out
The Universal Mind
Arms Crossed
Fecund [producing or capable of producing an abundance of offspring of new ideas or new growth; highly fertile]
In The Family Of
Divine grace Deciding on the Best Course of Action
William: In The Family Of Divine grace Deciding on the Best Course of Action = 567
[567]The Visitation Event Heuristic Fearlessness Decisive
The Individual Human Mind Telepathy Sovereignty Trick
Words are sounds and the written word is sound encoded
In The Family Of Divine grace Deciding on the Best Course of Action
Study Fine-structure Crystal Constant Contacts
GM: Concision
Annoy
The practice of Lojong [a contemplative practice in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition which makes use of various lists of aphorisms or slogans which are used for contemplative practice. The practice involves refining and purifying one's motivations and attitudes.]
Incorporate
Breasts
One
Seeing With The Eyes of Innocence
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1083460#p1083460William: FTL;
William: How can time physically exist?
Bust Nak: By being a part of physical reality.
William: Can you show us that it is?
[
Replying to Bust Nak in post #667]
I can show you a clock?
Okay. You show me a clock and declare that time is part of physical reality.
Is time something you can pick up off the floor and place on the table?
Maybe.
What makes you think that?
Because you said we don't know what time is fundamentally.
So you see that as a challenge - that 'maybe' you can show us that we do know what time is, fundamentally?
I said that time is a pointless concept in relation to forever.
What is doing the 'ticking'?
Time.
Then show us this thing you call time which is ticking.
See clock.
So you have seen a clock on the floor, and placed it on the table and thus declare "Clock is ticking, therefore we have evidence that time is known at its fundamental level!"?
What things are you separating from the universe so as not to make the absurd expression that the universe caused itself?
The cause of the universe, for example is separated from the universe.
Is this supposed separation - fundamentally separate - or simply appearing to be separate?
Is the wake separate from the sea? Is the ship separate from the wake?
Is the land separate from the sea?
Why separate parts of the universe from that which is the whole of the universe?
It's not the whole of the universe, that's the point.
Speaking of pointing - are your fingers separate from your hand?
And yet that doesn't stop you making grandiose claims about time itself ending.
I made no such claims. I stated that time is a construct of the mind and does not physically exist.
This is what you said: "Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless."
I said way more than just that. I even went to some lengths to clarify what I meant by "Forever is timeless."
As I pointed out, the Mandelbrot Set has made it conceptionally easier to understand that there is nothing absurd in the idea and nothing at fault in the notion of 'turtles' [or elephants or seahorses] all the way in and out. [ Infinite Regression is Possible]
Beginning points, are not significant of being separate from the one thing which is all things. They are distinct parts of what makes up the whole.
So what?
Therefore, we have visual representation of infinity. Time is simply a set of begin/end points within the infinite set which folk use to count moments by.
That doesn't mean you can say things like time didn't have a beginning or that it won't tick on forever.
Of course I can say those things. I have even pointed out why I can logically say those things.
Since we are informed that the universe had a beginning, the universe is the effect. Something which has a beginning cannot be the cause of its own effect.
Therefore, energy must have to be something other than [but not separate from] the QF.
Why?
Because it is Energy which causes the effect. To say Energy is the same thing as the objects it forms, is to say that Energy was the cause of its own beginning, which you have already identified as an absurd notion,
Why are they equivalent?
[equivalent - a person or thing that is equal to or corresponds with another in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.]
Your question is one of fundamentals. We do not know the fundamentals of the QF or of Energy.
Read what I wrote again. See the bold part is not stating 'there is no matter'.
I was asking you why you believe that when there was no matter near the beginning of the universe works better as an explanation.
To say that there was no matter before the beginning of the universe, means one has to explain where matter came from.
If you can explain that, then we can examine why it works better as an explanation, than the explanation which says that matter has always existed.
Another thing we do not know, is the fundamental nature of the QF. For all we know, it may be a vast sphere, and our universe, simply a tiny blip of light on its overall surface caused by whatever the energy is, passing by and interacting with the QF in that particular area of QF.
We do not know, and yet that didn't stop you from stating that time would not tick on forever.
Nor did it stop you stating that time would "tick on forever". Show us this physical time so that we can evaluate the truth of your statement.
I have something better, see red shift.
How is that better?
Doe redshift tick? Is redshift the fundamental of time?
Time began and continues as a concept of the mind, re what is being observed through the nervous system [brain]. Time did not have a physical beginning, because it is not a physical thing. Time is a mental construct based upon sensory input.
That's only our concept of time, what about time itself?
Show us this physical time so that we can answer your question.
So you don't know whether physical time will tick on forever or not, without seeing it first?
We don't know that your claim that time is physical rather than a concept of the mind, it true. Of course a claim of a physical thing has to be shown first, before we can agree that it is indeed, a physical thing.
That's only our concept of time, what about time itself?
That depends upon what relation consciousness/mind has with it.
Lets try none, no relation what so ever.
Okay. What do you propose re that?
Just the standard scientific consensus, as it stands right now: time had a beginning, and will tick on forever.
How does the "standard scientific consensus" have "no relation what so ever" with consciousness/mind?
Time is not a physically real thing. Time is a conceptionally real thing. No conflation there.
I am arguing that time is a conceptual thing, because I have been shown no evidence to the contrary. If you can show me evidence that time is a physical thing, I will be more than happy to drop the notion that time is a conceptual thing.
Again, see clock.
You are the one stating that time is physical. If it is, you should be able to point to it and say "that's what I'm talking about!"
I point to a clock, that's what I am talking about.
A clock is a physical mechanism which is designed to physically
represent time as
conceptualized by human consciousness/understanding.
A physical representation of a conceptual idea, is in no way an example of time as a
fundamental reality.It is like someone claiming that the written word "Unicorn" is the
same thing as an actual physical Unicorn, when in truth, it is simply a
symbolic representation of something which is not able to be shown to exist as anything other than a concept of the mind.
If consciousness is not there to conceptionally observe time 'tick on forever' how would anyone know?
Presumably no one would know. Why do you think that has any relevance as to whether it is still ticking or not?
Because if time cannot be determined through conscious observation, to be ticking or not ticking, how are we to know either way?
And since time is obviously a conscious construct of the mind, if the mind no longer exists, neither does the construct. It becomes meaningless, because consciousness is what gives things meaning.
Mindless processes do not require time, even if they go on forever.
Mindless processes do not require measurements. Time is a mental construct dealing with measurements.
Red shift doesn't make time a fundamental reality, any more than a mechanical clock does.
GM: Like eons of sedimentary build-up - for the most part it appears that those codes are largely deactivated - 'fossilized' in a sense. Forgotten in relation to the grand scheme. A Child without any known Parent.
Bounce off
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1100650#p1100650William: FTL;
[
Replying to The Tanager in post #177]
Adams knowledge of what death was.As I pointed out, having knowledge does not equate to having understanding of that knowledge.
Where in the storyline, did they get the understanding of what death was?
So, YHVH told them to not do something because it leads to death, knowing that they didn’t understand what the concept meant?
Yes. The point was not whether Adam knew, but that Adam followed YHVH's instructions.
And then punish them for not following YHVH’s directions.
Yes. That is the story.
And this follows the storyline? What specific verse(s) point to these things?
The story specific is vague on details. If there is anything in the story that you can point to which would verify that Adam knew what death was, we can look into that.
If not, then I see no reason to think Adam understood what death was.
___________________________
___________________________
The Breath of YHVH.If we accept YHVH's breath as an interface device between the newly forming conscious awareness of the personality "Adam" and YHVH's own consciousness, we could agree that the interface is itself conscious of being "Of YHVH's consciousness".
And the LORD YHVH formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Why should we accept that?
And the LORD YHVH took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
That is the purpose of examining what little is revealed, in the storyline.
My first question re that, would be;
Q: How did Adam understand language?
Clearly the story tells us that Adam understood language
And the LORD YHVH commanded Adam, saying,
So we can agree that Adam understood what YHVH spoke to Adam.
We also know that Adam was the only sentient being in The Garden, and that - even with the voice of YHVH teaching him stuff - Adam was lonely and so YHVH created animals to help alleviate Adams loneliness.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
We know also, that Adam had the ability to name the animals of the garden that YHVH had provided to help Adam with his loneliness.
And out of the ground the LORD YHVH formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; ...
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
As the story indicates, even with the other animals created to alleviate Adam's loneliness.
Even the Serpent - another sentient being YHVH made from the dust and placed in The Garden, and one which understood language and Adam could converse with - was not able to fill this void which was obviously still missing in Adam's world.
Herein, we can pause and examine the man Adam, and understand that with the greatest teacher-voice in the universe gifting Adam with the ability to understand and use language and have basic critical thinking skills, Adam got lonely.
YHVH creates tasks for Adam with the idea that the tasks should occupy Adams intellect sufficiently for the loneliness to subside.
Adam didn't even need to search the Garden and find the animals, in order to name them.
...and [YHVH] brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof
The storyline tells us that Adam was intelligent and
able to learn from YHVH.
It is apparent in the storyline, that without The Breath of YHVH, this would not have been possible for Adam to achieve. He would not have been able to
learn things.
Therefore, I can accept that The Breath of YHVH acts as an interface device between the newly forming conscious awareness of the personality "Adam" and YHVH's
own consciousness.
I see no practical reason why we cannot agree that the interface is itself conscious of being "Of YHVH's consciousness" and that it was the primary source of instruction - where Adam formed his intellectual abilities and mindful concepts before expressing these into the outside environment of The Garden.
What is noticeable about the style of The Garden Story is that it is presented in a bullet-point manner.
As such, if it were told verbatim around a campfire, it would be over in a matter of minutes, and leave the listener with more questions than it gives answers to.
That is what we have to work with.
Potential agreement List;1: Adam understood language.
2: The Garden Story is written in a bullet-point Style
Agreed?
Keen
Self-Awareness The two million year old mind that's in all of us. Stuff Happens
Communication With The Deeper Levels of Self
I Am... also the Dreamer, Dreaming the Dream
Fitting In Creative Conscious Intelligence
Core emotion
“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail”
We tend to bend our heads in worship the words of those who have come before us...
Shuffle-spiel
William: Sort out the data we inherited...
GM: Wide Walk Welcoming
06:20
238[Beings posted to planet
Few Attention to Detail
Ones core expression
New Shifts In Thinking
A completely new paradigm
I am not here to pick sides
Secret Organizations
Infinite Quantum Zen
Tickling The Dragon's Tail]
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM