Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1145 times
Contact:

Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.

Post #1

Post by William »

I was mucking around where I had been told implicitly by my Father - NOT to go mucking about in.

As it was, my Father left the combination on 'Green' and said that he no longer believed in locks, as Trust was more important...

I suppose I thought he had something to hide from me, telling me not to touch his machine...

Anyway, that was then and this is now and it is all because I did not listen - I did not Trust my Father and all this is because of that.

I got far too close to the intake and was instantly gone from my own familiar world and cast into utter darkness...and it was therein that I began to engineer a means of escape - hopefully before my Father noticed my absence...non the wiser for that.

But things have a funny way of working themselves out...and my Father was watching all the time and tells me that I got myself into this mess, so now I am going to have to get myself out...and I only know this because I have come so far into my journey from nothingness to somethingness to have developed ways of connecting with said Father...it's all good in that department as I agree that while I am here I might as well explore and learn things about myself in relation to being here... :joker:

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1145 times
Contact:

Re: Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.

Post #31

Post by William »

William wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 4:39 pm
The Tanager wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:04 pm
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmAs I have said in relation to your questions above, is that the only [thing] which can be said to be real, is that which is having the experience [consciousness] not the experience itself.
Yes, but is that thing having the experience physical or non-physical, in the normal sense of those words?
What "normal sense"? That the wording exists because of the way in which we are led to believe things 'are'?
[One will find no resolve in belief based only upon words and their meanings.]
Consciousness is what it is. It is that which creates things for the purpose of experiencing those things. It is that which makes things appear to be real.
Therefore;
That which makes things appear to be real is that which is real. Not the things which appear to be real.
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pm"Physical" is simple an expression used to acknowledge the nature of the experience being had.
Do you think that alternate realms are somehow "less physical" than this universe, that they perhaps cannot be regarded as 'real'?
I think the physical and non-physical are both real; that they both exist. Not just that people experience them as though they are real but that they correspond to reality. I’m trying to figure out if you think all is truly non-physical, physical, or that both categories exist in the same sense of ‘exist’.
That which is truly real is Consciousness [The Creator]. How is it that you are "trying to figure out" something which I have not been saying?
You believe that things are real and also that things can be categorized as "physical" and "non-physical". I don't, and have not claimed otherwise.
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmWhy should it have to be 'proved' that we exist within the Mind of The Creator?
Because many of your claims rest on this being true.
And why do you think it is untrue?
Because "love" would not make it true?
How is that true?
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmEven given that, we are informed by science that when all is said and done, at quantum levels - 'physical' appears to lose all logical meaning.
Why do you think quantum science tells us this?
I observe what quantum scientists say about the science, because I am interested in what they discover about the foundation material of the Universe. From all accounts it is the 'stuff' of which the entire Universe consists of...only it doesn't appear to be physical itself...
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmIt is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences, that there are 'plains' which are less dense that this Universe [plain] but are still able to be interacted with [experienced as real] and furthermore it is noted [again - from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences] that when an individuate consciousness is free from the human body, it can experiences things [frequencies] which it otherwise cannot experience when within the human form...because the human form operates within a very narrow set parameter of the vast spectrum of frequency which actually exists. Even in this present Universe experience.
Do you mean that some theists (like yourself) claim to have experiences of this being true? If so, then other theists and non-theists have different experiences, so why trust one ‘experience’ of reality over another?
In what way have I claimed in the above [or anywhere else] that one should [or need to] trust one reality experience over another? Indeed, position;
[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.]

...incorporates all reality experiences as valid and necessary...but not [necessarily] permanent.
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmThe above isn't overly clear to me, but seems to be agreeing that my argument [we exist within the Mind of The Creator], has merit because it is logical. Obviously that cannot be what you are attempting to convey, so I am unsure as to what you are trying to point out...where Aristotle apparently disagrees with William.
I agree with you that “nothing can come from nothing” but you seem to think that is only about material cause, rather than the various senses of causation that Aristotle talked about. In creatio ex nihilo, the universe comes from nothing in a material cause sense (the physical universe existed where nothing existed before and is not the changing of a substance already present into a new form) but the universe does not come from nothing in an efficient cause sense because the immaterial Creator is the efficient cause of the material universe. I don’t see anything illogical about an efficient cause creating a new material where that material didn’t exist before. “Nothing can come from nothing” isn’t about a new material coming to exist.
What then? Is Aristotle simply playing with words?

IF:
{a} No thing can come from no thing and
IF
{b} Some thing can only come from some thing and
IF
The Creator is "immaterial"

THEN there is a problem with the logics, which can be identified in the premise that "The Creator is "Immaterial"."

in other words

IF:
{a} No thing can come from no thing and
IF
{b} Some thing can only come from some thing
THEN
The Creator is not "immaterial"

{b} tells us that.

IF
(the physical universe exists where nothing existed before and is not the changing of a substance already present into a new form)
THEN
There is the problem of identifying as nothing, a place which, exists as something, and into which a universe was 'put'.

It is not logical to identify something as "nothing" [creatio ex nihilo] simply because, prior to something being placed there, it contained nothing.
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmWilliam's question is to the great philosophers followers "Did Aristotle [or you his follower] ever consider the possibility that we exist within The Creators Mind?"
I have and am doing that. I see no good reason to think it is true.
Considering the false premise - [ creatio ex nihilo - which makes any other explanation appear to be illogical ] - until you can see your way through that apparent solid thing of logic and accept it is false premise, you will continue to see "no good reason" to think what I am saying is truth.
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmAfter, all we have strong evidence that what we refer to as "imagination" we all have playing upon the screens of our own minds, is a real enough phenomena - why would we think The Creator is any different [but of course can make it to be experienced as real]
We also experience things outside of our imagination. If you want to use this kind of reasoning (I don’t, but if you do) then you should conclude that something exists outside of the Creator and the Creator’s imagination.
Not necessarily, but in this case, probably - for we are dealing with the existence of this particular Universe and our [temporary] place within it.
So yes - I think of Russian Dolls as a handy analogy in relation to this idea.
Furthermore - I attempt to bring it to the table as a possibility in a thread I created for that very purpose - I named the thread "Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It."

But focusing on the Russian Dolls idea ...
Image

... that we also experience things outside of our imagination does not mean that the things we experience are not sourced from the same Consciousness as our imaginations...inside/outside are simply labels we place onto things.
The is why I argue that:
IF
"The brain created Consciousness' and
IF
All alternate experiences had are the product of the brain
THEN
One should conclude that what we experience as 'Our Universe' is also a "product of the brain" BECAUSE
many alternate experiences are positively as real [and in some case even more real] as/than this Universe.

[Russian Dolls as in "Minds Within Mind"] Individuate consciousnesses within the overall Consciousness of The Creator.
William wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:43 pmI question why you don't find my arguments at all compelling...perhaps it has something to do with your Freudian Slip.
I’m not sure what Freudian slip you see in that post. Help me see it so that I can respond.
The thing about having a mind and being consciousness, is that one can learn to think for themselves rather than simply be spoon-fed...[waited upon].
So I direct your mind to find the place where you gave an answer to my question "What evil is spoken of in Genesis?"
As to why I don’t find your arguments compelling, I explain why in every one of my responses to you.
I question your responses with my own - and am still left wondering why you don't find my arguments at all compelling...which is why we are having this ongoing conversation...and why I wondered whether your Freudian Slip was a possible clue to my finding the answer to my question.
I [reasonably] assume you went back through what you wrote, and still didn't see it.

All in all, if we look at it from another perspective [in our imaginations] we can see that we are no longer coming from the premise that the Universe is "natural" because we are viewing it as a product of [so-called] "Supernatural" and thus the Universe is only referred to as 'natural' because we within it - are making that the foundational premise, and then adding 'The Creator" as a reason for why it exists.

However, if we first understand that The Creator is what is "natural" [as the foundational premise] then there is no necessity for distinction. The Universe is natural. because The Creator is Natural. [First Cause. First Source. The reason why everything (including - most importantly - Itself) exists]

Not "magic" - but natural attribute. (I am That I Am]
Yes. This.

Post Reply