Generating Messages

[William]

Hi.

I started this thread to share something which I find fascinating and would like some critique re the system I use to generate messages as I share these in this thread.

I would like to discuss the scientific value in terms of both subjectivity and objectivity to do with the way in which the messages are generated [to be explained] and perhaps how the reader interprets the message generated [assuming they see any message] and other related subjects branching from this.

I will also be using as evidence, the way in which words corelate with math, such as;

Generating Messages = 188
What Is Friendship
Story-Tellers

[William]

Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell ones brain what to think

091122 [The great grey neutral zone]



SCLx11 + select last LE per shuffle
[Preamble]
The Physical Universe - Duty Calls Children Help Each Other REAL Friendship - The Sensation Is Thrilling...And Freeing - “William, as ever, turning ideas on their heads.” - God2 - Merging with the data - The Unknown Knowable - Working With What Is Available - Perhaps we can deconstruct some of these pernicious views. - The data of Nature. - Opening the Heart
AP= The Completion Process Borne Upon Judgments Platform = 584
On the off-chance a pragmatic realization precipitated in one’s mind = 584


RSP= "Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one's brain what to think"+11 P&P

11:39 [Interesting data]


GM: Dig deep
It Is Only Occult If It Is Hidden
Aion [‘life’ (often in the sense of ‘vital force’), ]
Like playing Rush
The only thing the Holy Ghost is unable to forgive, is that which individuals are unable to forgive of themselves
Yes We Can
Okay - facts are great.
Set the board up or put the game aside...
Confusing atheism with science...that is unhelpful to anyone.
viewtopic.php?p=1071422#p1071422

William: FTL; Re: JW's claim of Kingdom of God establish in 1914?

One simply has to love oneself and ones neighbor... where is that written, other than within one's heart.

But Scripture says that we must love Jehovah our God first of all, and then our neighbor.

That's what I was saying, when I wrote;

How can one love others if one does not love oneself? How can one love oneself if one does not love one's God?

However, I do not have one name for my God. I have many names [including YHVH] for The Cosmic Mind of Creation.

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #118]

Those with no knowledge of scripture today cannot obey the first commandment.

Unsupported statements do not, a fact [truth] make.

SUPPORT FOR STATEMENT

That is not support for the bolded statement above.

Indeed, ‘You must love The Creator with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind’ is something folk can do, even if they have no access to any religious script.

The other biblical quotes bear witness to how individuals related to their idea of God - in love...indeed, the bible is mostly a books of stories to do with this inter-personal relationship.

And to add - many of those individuals did not even have access to what you are saying is 'Scripture' - so it would not be errant of me to point out that there is no concrete evidence to support the belief that knowledge of scripture is a commandment, even implicatively.

Certainly one can find inspiration for wanting to connect and commune, but this is simply not limited to the bible - thus quite obviously there is no such commandment that scripture be known, in order for one to connect and commune with The Creator Mind [Ghost] - therefore the knowledge must be sourced elsewhere, and primarily it must be sourced within the relationship itself - not to the stories of others [as inspiring as these might be] but to ones own story in relation with others.

GM: A Game Of Chess
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
"The Alien Disc crop circle Supernatural"
Consensus Realities
Discernment
Healing
The beauty of imperfection
Still
Do A=1
Clear
Shining light

William: Clear shining light = 175
[175]
You feel love again
Love yourself
Always Vigilant
Ethical Progress
The Electroweak Era
Archangel Metatron
Asking Politely
Embracing the shadow
Dancing past The Dark
Clear shining light
Consciousness

GM: Pollution
Blue Pill

We were not conscious of being a human for a time, but this does not mean that consciousness wasn't there.
Integrating Integrity
Intelligent

William: Integrating Integrity Intelligent = 378
The fundamental nature of information
Personal Participation With The One
All The World Are Under the watchful eye
Noticeable within The Realms of Democracy
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Meaningful
Cathedrals crumbled as wars were fought...
Integrating Integrity Intelligent


GM:Sharing Data
The Connection Process
Living their forefather's conflict
viewtopic.php?p=1089190#p1089190

William: FTL; Re: Artificial life: can it be created?

A general theistic position might declare "All life comes from God", but if some 'cellular gene engineer' of the future succeeded in creating a basic cell that ate, grew, replicated and all the other generally agreed things that life does - could it be recognised as life? And wouldn't that falsify that bolded theistic claim?

The Affirmative:

The creation of life is possible by means other than a god.

The problem I see with this reasoning is that it fails to acknowledge a source.

For example, humans may create AI to the extent that the AI becomes self conscious - living and knowing that it lives - but even so, eventually the "artificial" part of the description would have to be dropped...and the 'source' extended beyond human invention and creativity...

It could be said of that, that "humans were able to replicate the act of creating life - something which could not have been achieved if life didn't exist to begin with."

Because we do not know if this experience is a creation or not, we cannot say [as a matter of fact] that life created itself nor could we even say that human beings didn't start off as a type of artificial intelligence - because we do not even know to what extent intelligence permeates the environment we call "reality" nor do we know if it is only limited to biological forms

Intelligence as a planetary scale process

10,000 individual minds may have altogether brough the JWT into existence as a functional device, but we cannot say for sure that those minds were not influence by an overall local mind...much research is needed before any fact-sounding statements can be accepted as actual truth. Such must be regarded as opinion until we have enough evidence to accept one way or the other...

GM: Astral As busy as a bee
That ort doit
Visible
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
viewtopic.php?p=1096076#p1096076

William: FTL; Re: In The Beginning...

Yes, this could be the case for all such stories.

The difficulty then, is in how one could determine the truth.

Even if such a thing happened to you, how would you be able to determine that you were not, hallucinating, dreaming, or honestly mistaken in some other way, etc?

I think there is quite the mix of flourishing and destruction going on.

This is the nature of our environment. What do you thing the percentage of the mix is, and why?

I think heaven is more a state than another realm.

What do you mean by 'a state'? A state of mind, perhaps?

Our minds are affected, but it’s not just a state of mind. I think it’s a physical and emotional thing as well.

In what way can Heaven be physical AND not a universe/'realm in its own right?

What do you mean by "emotional thing as well"? Do you count emotional things as the affect of mind?

When Jesus talks about how to get there (in John 14), he doesn’t give location-type directions. He says that He is the way (v. 6) and then that knowing him is connected to knowing the Father. Jesus seems to be talking about a relational kind of change, not a locational change. It’s more about being with God and knowing God and living out of that relationship.

If you believe this is what Jesus meant, where did Jesus go when he ascended into the clouds? Obviously movement and going somewhere/relocating was involved in that process. Jesus confirmed that an attitude was necessary to that movement of relocation, so that would explain the relational kind of change, but not the physical relocation movement involved and so it is not so easy to deny that when Jesus said where he was to go his followers could not go [at that time] so your thinking where Jesus went was not really a place but a state, appears to leave much out.

The physical universe is not a ‘state’ in this sense.

Or, perhaps every universe/experience is a 'state' and state is one way of saying 'simulation' and Jesus was able to move from one state to the next.

I think it is trivially true that the physical universe covers all that exists physically. That’s just the definition to me. That doesn’t preclude something like a multiverse with distinct physical “universes,” although I don’t think Jesus was talking about other physical locations in speaking of heaven and God’s presence.

In what way [negative/positive] would it impact your belief system to understand that Jesus was indeed speaking of alternate realities as locations which can be experienced physically/as real?
Would such help you to understand that the non-biblical stories mentioned, are more likely NOT lies being told, hallucinations been had, or honest mistakes being made?

The descending in Revelations 21, I think, is metaphorical but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t also involve actual physical changes.

Perhaps it serves as a placeholder to remain undecided and to think biblical events as metaphor, but the OP is asking whether Simulation Theory is valid re those stories, and also shows that it could validate non-biblical stories as well, because we are essentially examining the stories in that light.

Perhaps the difficult one can have with ST is in thinking that somehow things experienced - whether heavenly of earthly are therefore "NOT REAL" but I think that this is an incorrect assumption.

Lets say a heavenly city does descend and therefore shows us that metaphor was an incorrect assumption/belief.

What options as to explanation could we draw from such an event?

I agree that this interpretation is logically possible. I don’t think it is the better interpretation, though, for reasons like I’ve shared.

Is it because of your belief systems that you have this opinion?

This question doesn’t make much sense to me.

Okay...

My belief system is simply the collection of my opinions.

Okay...

I don’t hold my opinions based on authority, if that is what you mean.

Is this because your beliefs are simply a set of opinions and thus hold no authority? Why have beliefs then?

Assuming we are physical beings. We may well actually be non-physical beings who are experiencing a physical simulation. The "glorified environment" may be another way of saying our reality experience has been changed, along with our understanding of who we are.

I think there are good reasons to reject the above interpretation...

What 'good reasons' are these? You have not said. You have been asked. For example, I asked you what the difference is between experiencing something real and experiencing something simulated...

It is not easy for me to determine what your reasons are if you do not state them.

...and, so, it becomes a part of my belief system.

Which is essentially a non-authoritative set of opinions of which you have undisclosed reasons for holding...

How can one evaluate your rejection of ST when you do not disclose the reasons for your beliefs/opinion sets?

GM: “Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant.”
viewtopic.php?p=1085498#p1085498

On your next employee review with the big guy, ask him why he's holding back on the rain and winter snow we need here in the southwest to keep the Colorado river flowing into the reservoirs. That would be doing God's work (if you can get some results ... the Utah governer asking everyone to pray for rain doesn't seem to be doing the trick).

I won't make any promises but will put in a word.

If - after doing so - the rains come, will you join me in celebrating answered requests, or just put it down to mindless coincidence?

...

Most definitely the latter ...

GM: Love Your Life
The sun
The evidence points to the universe as not being an accident of mindless happenstance, but rather, the universe is a purposeful mindful event.
Insanity

William: Well sure - If we name the Universe "Sanity" we are "in" it.

GM: Self-validation
“Spread love everywhere you go. Let no one ever come to you without leaving happier.”
Aligning With WingMakers
Witty

12:03 [That ship is sinking]

[William]

Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell ones brain what to think 2


GM: viewtopic.php?p=1070045#p1070045

Tricking people for profit surely isn't kind though.

Humans are apparently not naturally inclined to kindness.

I disagree. Tho' we have our moments of unkindness, in general all healthy humans value kindness. Our very lives depend on it. We evolved, we survived because we were kind to each other - we cooperated. It is in our self interest to be kind and cooperate. Even the 'lower' mammals are kind to each other and have a sense of reciprocal fairness. We didn't need any particular religion or 'savior' to teach us this. We know it. Even the animals do.

We even have inter species friendships. We love and our kind to our pets. They are loyal and kind to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecies_friendship

If it is natural for humans to be kind and therefore my comment that "humans are apparently not naturally inclined to kindness" is untrue, what unnatural thing compels humans to be unkind?

Or could it be that both states are natural enough, depending upon circumstance and individuals simple adopt the best way they can find as a means of being able to sustain the governing emotions required for either state?

Understanding that the individuate position most humans are born to experience, the underlying motivation is intentionally selfish because recognition of the importance of the self becomes the initial propellent for all subsequent actions employed.

In that, it doesn't matter how one chooses to observe Jesus - as an historical image more human than the biblical Jesus - or how the bible images him - Socrates, Plato, Gandhi, Paul, David, Abraham or Glen - got their motivation for kindness from the same source - as we all do, when unkindness is dropped from our programs.

GM: viewtopic.php?p=1090654#p1090654

Can you show that this experience is real and not simulated?

I don't think anyone can - which aligns with my comment;



I can accept your view only when the facts are presented. Otherwise it is best to remain with the understanding that;

Yes, if what we call “real” was actually “simulated,” we (those in the simulation) wouldn’t necessarily be able to tell the difference. But now we get to the question of burden…if one is wanting to argue ‘real’ versus ‘simulated’. If one is simply wanting to talk about created vs. “accident,” then we seem agreed there.

This of course is correct but I think it neglects the premise of Creator(s) - something which has to be assumed if we are to agree with the premise of US existing within a Creation/Simulation.

The wall between us in that, is we are wrestling with whether to call a created thing [this universe] a "Creation/Simulation" or separate those to signify different things "Creation" or "Simulation".

Your argument is that the one need not be the other. Mine is that either way, the burden is on both of us to show that we exist within a creation.

But if one wants to discuss the question of real vs. simulated, then these are the facts: Since ‘simulated’ is a more complex system (2 levels…the simulation and the “reality” behind it versus the 1 level of the ‘real’ with no simulation), the default rational position would be ‘real’ with the burden on the one proposing ‘simulated’ as the better answer to show it is more rational. That was my point. I’m not saying you were saying otherwise, but I think this gives us reason to distinguish ‘real’ versus ‘simulation’ as sub-categories of creation.

Since that The Real is what is behind our - what we call "reality" - [what created this thing we inside of it call "reality"] ... anything subsequent to that should be able to be referred to as a "Simulation" and that when the Bible speaks of "Creation" it does not differentiate that with "Simulation" and BOTH can be regarded as the same without burden being invoked.

Having said that, you might agree with me that there are things re The Universe which provide clues into grasping the gist of what may be the causation [behind] The Universe....What is the REAL behind the creation?

I will start by identifying the "Head-Set" which is more a case of being the "Body-Set".



We know that this sensory circuitry is encased with flesh and held up with bone - completing the suit needed in order to experience The Universe as a "reality".

We also know that the Body-Set does not experience The Universe as The Universe fundamentally IS, but that it interprets what information it can from the incoming data of experience channeled through the sensory device, which is the same thing as saying that the Body-Set creates a simulation of a Reality, as outgoing data, based on the interpretation of the incoming data.

I would argue also, that which is doing the interpretation may actually be more real than what is being interpreted as 'real', as in - that which is doing the interpretation is itself NOT completely simulated, experiencing the simulation through the Body-Set.


What I mean by the above, is that the simulation is so real that the one experiencing it is convinced that it is actually real.
That would be the same as if someone were using a headset to play a simulated reality game and became so immersed within the game that one forgot that one was using a headset within a game...and simply thought of oneself as being the object within the simulation and the accepting the simulation as Real.

GM: Taciturn [reserved or uncommunicative in speech; saying little.]
All Stars are born in pairs

William: All Stars are born in pairs = 261
The more data the more evidence = 261

GM: viewtopic.php?p=1092485#p1092485

William: FTL; Re: What if Adam and Eve Had Resisted...?

[JehovahsWitness post_id=1092481 time=1663706762 user_id=6111]

...Prove your assertion with scripture.

Anything following after the garden story which is contrary, cannot be considered true because it is based upon misunderstanding and presumption about YHWH. In the case of Paul - many thousands of years after...presumption upon presumption creating a misrepresentation as a consequence.

Therefore, until one can agree to follow the garden storyline as it was presented - without presuming things which were not mentioned - one will misrepresent.
Death was not caused by one man, but by YHWH, who created the human form of that one man [and all subsequent humans] to have a use by date - to eventually die.

The evidence for this being the case, is in the garden story. YHWH prevented Adam from having access to the fruit of the tree of life, therefore Adam would die because the body Adam had, was designed to die unless it consumed the fruit of the tree of life.

JehovahsWitness: You asked for scripture, I provided scripture.

Scripture specfic to the story under question...I would have been more specific but I figured you would go off on that tangent so allowed for that as it played nicely into my statement above.

.Again, you are missing the mark because the OPQ clearly states that if Adam and Eve had of obeyed YHWH they would not have needed to be punished.
It has been established that the forbidden fruit had no intrinsic properties which would give anyone eating it, the knowledge of good and evil.

The fruit was a prop used by YHWH to show the propensity of the human being toward disobedience through curiosity, desire, wiliness to push back the boundaries and willingness to succumb to temptation.

These in turn made an opportunity for humans to be more willing to multiply and to subdue the earth than simply sitting around in a pocket of paradise naming things and be provided for and not multiplying or going out and subduing the rest of the earth...

All in all, the OPQ has to be answered in the affirmative because - had the couple obeyed YHWH, the fruit - being a prop anyway - was actually harmless so YHWH then saying "You can eat of that fruit now" would be reasonable.

I disagree.

Indeed you do and I am not debating otherwise.

It is why you disagree, which I am debating and your not wanting to answer my statement above with anything other than "I disagree." isn't much of an attempt by you to debate my assertions.

I think it is clear that I have made the correct call in answering "Yes" to the OPQ.

______________________

To add my observations over and above that;

The reason I created this thread topic is linked to another topic I created re "The problem of evil"
as I would like to know where exactly the problem first became a problem.

Did the problem derive in the Hebrew camp [culture] or did it start in the Christian camp[culture]?

The evidence supports that the problem arose from the Christian culture.

Further to that, your interaction with Miles in this thread shows that you - as a Christian in the Christian culture - are willing to argue that YHWH is able to ignore his attribute of omniscience because if he was able to do so [through his attribute of omnipotence] then he could be excused for not knowing the outcomes of his own actions, as if those actions could be called into question and judged as 'evil' unless YHWH is able to ignore his attribute of omniscience.

That is false dichotomy.

There is no reason why YHWH would have to be considered "evil" for knowingly doing what he did and knowing that doing what he did would turn out the way that it did.
___________________________
Another observation linked to the subject matter [the garden story] is the Christian belief that before sin entered the world, the whole earth was a paradise.

The JW's rest the whole of their beliefs on this assumption and as a result, argue for something based upon misrepresentation of something else.

The scriptural evidence for the truth of my assertion here, is the garden story telling us that the earth required subduing and that is why YHWH created humans.

The evidence against the 'whole earth was a paradise' belief, is that something which is already paradise [The whole Earth as the Christians - including you - tell it] would have no need to be subdued.
______________________________
The third observation is that the Hebrews regard the garden story as a metaphor designed to parable a particular thing and it was never taken as literal.
The Christian culture chose to take the story literally and further contributed in creating the problem of evil through misrepresentation of YHWH.

GM: Mirroring
The External Voice
Individuals
You're in the way Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor For the benefit of all beings
The Right Tool For The Job
That can be shoved back into whatever hole it came from

William: This was part of a reply I gave today re Tanager and My discussion of Simulation Theory; Re: In The Beginning...
On YHVH being life

No, I’m saying if I am ontologically a part of YHVH or YHVH is ontologically a part of me, then YHVH would seem to be deciding choices for the personality, negating the personality’s will or enslaving it, and that I think such an enslavement is not good.

You appear to have trust/fear issues re relationship with YHVH. How do you know your will from YHVH's?

Yes, I think you understand being a “slave of Christ” correctly here. The only caveat I have it that I don’t think this means renouncing their own personal use of said free will.

It appears more to be about trust rather than renouncing will - "not my will" doesn't appear to be a renouncement so much as an acknowledgement that ones own will is less reliable than YHVHs.

They are exercising their free will to ignore other influences (their own or others) and siding with YHVH’s influence.

Do you understand YHVH's influence as separate from YHVH's will?

One's general hesitancy with accepting YHVH is life, must have the side affect of not being able to trust in the connect, which means one will go elsewhere - outside of their self - to other personalities and trust in them, and confuse ones connect with YHVH as being through others.

GM: Ikigai [is a Japanese concept that means your 'reason for being. ' 'Iki' in Japanese means 'life,' and 'gai' describes value or worth.]
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
Numbers Station
Natural
Even As An Elemental Principle
How to get this to happen on a planetary scale is the thing...
Volunteer
viewtopic.php?p=1075157#p1075157


William: FTL; Re: Paradise on Earth

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #2347]

Humans were made in Gods image but this does not refer to our our biology but to the fact that humans (both male and female) posses similar qualities to out Creator.

Biology is not the issue - it is a symptom of Spirit in relation to physical form - something which was manifested due to the duality of Earth-YHWH when they created in their image.

This is most apparent in the form of Hermaphrodite, where the two become one. I would post a pic of a human Hermaphrodite, but since I already have two strikes against my evil name, I daren't run the risk of offending someone and being complained about, if I want to continue posting hereabouts.

Qualities such as a higher capacity to display intelligence, compassion and love and spirituality. Intellegence and wisdom, love, compassion and spirituality are not classified by biological gender and there is no reason to think because humans were created to be similar to God in character we should conclude God is or should be refered to as a female.

If you have a problem with calling Dad, Mom then by all means don't.

I myself am allowed by YHWH to do so, and nothing you or any other Christian, [or Jew or Islamist] have any legal protest on the matter.
The best you can do is bow to my right to do so, and respect it, as much as I have to respect your position on the matter.

Unlike humans God is not bound by gender, he is beyond what we humans even have language for so more than anybody else God can choose how he wants to be refered to.

YHWH choses to be referred to any way I feel is appropriate. That is the nature of Our Bond.

Also - humans are not strictly 'bound' by gender identity - It is more a case of education than of nature that humans look at their bodies and decide by that, what it is that they are.

For example, I look at my body and I see a male human.

The difference is that I understand that I am the one doing the observing through the form I inhabit. I am The Ghost in that machine - meaty as it might be - I am not the form and no human really is.

We are Children of YHWH whom together breathed us into this reality.

Those who don't know this truth about themselves, cannot take that truth away from others no matter how convincing or authoritative they make appearances of being.

Jesus, who is the authority on all things spiritual never once refered to YHWH by feminine personal pronouns always referring to YHWH as "the Father".

YHWH informs me that Jesus had a specific job to do which required him NOT referring to YHWH as "YHWH" and Jesus knew that his mission would be over way before it even started if he had referred to YHWH as "The Mother."
That is because - by then - the truth had been buried under gender-dominant history of the human self identifying as "Male" and females in that world are always second to that.
Whereas within YHWH there is equity - an equality of joint purpose. Neither aspect occupies The Throne without the Other.

Indeed there is no scripture that directly refers to the person of Jehovah (YHWH) as female.

"Let Us Create" Do you think YHWH was talking to "the boys" when She spoke those words?
She was talking to her Husband and just happens to be married to Herself. Something we all must do eventually.

Thus biblically the matter of Gods choice of personal pronouns is settled.

I have already addressed that history. Male dominated religions are always going to have a male image of YHWH. I am not interested in focusing on images of YHWH presented to me by men.
Nor am I interested in any attempt to try and manipulate YHWH within the confines of ink and paper processed by the minds of such men.

That is why I see YHWH in the Earth-consciousness and that is how YHWH created life on Earth.
I commune with that consciousness and find out what is being hidden...that allows for the individual and YHWH to move together outside of any human invented restrictions.

I also understand that Earth-YHWH is 'a god in the making' which Milky Way YHWH gave birth to and that Universal Entity YHWH oversees the whole unfolding reality with little-to-no interference re said processes.
"The Universe" is Universal YHWH's "God-Making Machine".

In this, with the additional mix of Andromeda touching - as the merge takes hold, the two Galactic YHWHs will become one, so 'much change on the way".

He/his /him is the biblical choice of pronouns.

The choice of pronouns was the choice of those men who wrote it that way.

It is generally considered dispresectful to deliberately call or refer to someone by an incorrect appellative.

"dispresectful" = like a 'cult' only 'official'. [dispersion re sect full]
re what you meant to write...


"Our Mother Who Art In Heaven" is hardly "disrespectful".

GM: We succeed as a permanent specie or we fail as a temporary one
viewtopic.php?p=1083867#p1083867

William: FTL; Re: The mind as evidence of god

William: What do these unsupported statements have to do with the subject?
Transponder: Everything
William: Do you include the mind along with Everything?


[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #93]

Certainly - whatever you mean by Mind and whatever you mean by Everything.

Your unsupported statements have what to do with whatever I mean by "Mind" and whatever I mean by "Everything"?

Well I can and logically must imply an established 'truth' (a natural world that so far has shown no Cosmic Mind or 'God') that is the default position that requires anything as yet unproven to be proven.

Whereas I can and logically must assume the Natural Neutral position on any matters yet to be unproven or proven.

[Our positions are therefore unaligned.]

Your position assumes established truth where no such truth has been established re whether or not we exist within a creation.

I don't think it leads to closed -mindedness. In fact I have found it a reliable basis that allows consideration of all kinds of woo stuff ...

The very fact that your choice of word ["woo"] belies the open-mindedness you proclaim to have.

My mind is not closed to a Cosmic Mind, Creator or god. I just require some better evidence than 'not disproved' and 'possible'.

I am reminded of a hunter who goes out and gets food for himself rather than expecting the food to come to him/her.

The data is there to hunt down and to study. An open minded non-judgmental approach is essential to that process. The process is also dependent upon the position one is approaching the data from. The closeminded belief that one does not exist within a creation can only ever lead one to learn things through that filter.

No amount of evidence given should ever be hoped for in order to change any individuals mind from the influencing aspects of their chosen position, regardless if those positions be theist or atheist based.

On top of that, it is very apparent that the type of convincing evidence you are demanding from the position you are demanding it from, will unlikely be available to any of us in this lifetime.

Thus, we are forced for now to do most of our hunting, solo.

We can of course, cross reference with other open-minded fellows...but the open-mindedness derives from the Natural Neutral position, not the theist or atheist positions.

I think that atheists strongly defend their position on the question as to whether or not we exist within a creation - to the point that they believe we don't and make claims about that - has something to do with the need to say "I told you so" now, because it will be too late to utter such belief-based expressions - after they are dead and gone.

I can see the attraction from a phycological perspective, but saying "I told you so" before any such thing has been established, is jumping the gun, and might even lead to embarrassment if it turns out one still exists after the fact ones brain has died.

Still, such is the power of belief-based positions. They tend toward making proclamations which imply established truth, when no such truth has been established.

eta: woo-woo
/ˈwuːˌwuː/ relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.

What does slang woo woo mean?
Noun. woo woo (countable and uncountable, plural woo woos) (slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations. That reporter is a bit of a woo woo. (slang, derogatory)

GM: All systems go
Infinitely Infinitesimal
Precognition
https://www.dreamviews.com/science-math ... ost2245978





William:

DREAMS ARE FREE
190222

[William]

Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one's brain what to think 3
141122 [Disrupting the boundaries]

07:27 [Uncertainty Principle]


GM: viewtopic.php?p=1089180#p1089180

William: FTL; Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

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.

GM: It is more logical that something has always existed than nothing existed before something existed
Most
Of Your Thoughts
Kristallnacht [On November 9–10, 1938, Nazi leaders unleashed a series of pogroms against the Jewish population in Germany and recently incorporated territories. This event came to be called Kristallnacht (The Night of Broken Glass) because of the shattered glass that littered the streets after the vandalism and destruction of Jewish-owned businesses, synagogues, and homes. ]
Beyond Belief Recovery
viewtopic.php?p=1090475#p1090475


William: FTL; Re: Evil thoughts?

Given what we understand of DNA et al - things which were once socially accepted - taken for granted - done without guilt - which are then considered to be evil by a more modern society which has connected the dots and discovered therein that the act of abusing children has social consequences primarily in the negative - this works against the society advancing and is thus seen as a threat which requires dealing to.

Thinking about [fantasize about] molesting children may be a throwback connection to those former actions we can inherit but if they are not recognized as such and dealt with accordingly, the chances one will eventually be dissatisfied with mere fantasy and proceed to actualizing will significantly increase and the results will not be easy to deal with for either the victim nor the victimizer.

One may not be able to stop the birds flying overhead, but one is able to stop them nesting in ones hair.

GM: The Ghost Agenda
The Sioux Elder
Curtailed
This moment is the perfect teacher
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
We don't have to say we are 'this' or 'that' in order to put practice to Love
“Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant.”
♬Down through the ages - dark in the gloom Many convinced it will all end in doom The Galactic Garden is forever in bloom♬ Central to The Message
Red Pill Crystal Blue Pill Real Be real
Energies Renewed
Precognitive
The sound of a Ghost
Ask...
Psychological events Enlighten Discussion Forum Training
The Singularity
The Purple Heart medal
The Realm of Judgement
https://theagnosticforum.com/threads/wh ... /post-1783

So it isn't anything I said then?

Universal Objectives
Meditation Buddha Dig deep Raise your frequency
Further
God1
Blunt the edge off that particular blade...
[Scientists INSANE NEW A.I. Breakthrough Could Change Everything!] RTS= [11:05] www.youtube.com/watch?v=djtR_RvhOHk

[subject matter = Deep Learning computer interfacing with human brains]

GM: Communicating with Consciousness - The Nature of The Mind
How can an omnipotent being regret anything?
Teachings
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
What is the meaning of life?
"We're two opinions deep before we can even analyze the moral question."
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 22#p564522

William: FTL; Re: nihilism

Because they say God is the one who does it changes the fact they believe intentionally inflicting pain, suffering, or loss, as punishment or retribution, is a form of justice? Don't they think God is administering justice? I can't see how indicating who administers justice changes its meaning.

Sorry, I just don't get you, "point?"

I suppose my point is that I understand that they believe that God has the right to administer such punishment as Justice, and there is no evil attached to that.

In the same way there is no evil attached to humans administering justice and even the death penalty, earth-side.
Some Christians do argue that humans have no right to take human life and thus the taking of life is evil - but I have never meet any who advocate "let the rabid dogs free to roam and abuse as they will!".

It''s called intrinsicism, the idea that something is just good or bad or right or wrong or just or unjust, not for any reason or purpose, but because it just is. In the case of Christians, they cover up the absurdity that something can just be a value (good or bad) without being good or bad for anything, by saying values are dictated by their God. It amounts to turning the absurd notion that, "might makes right," into a doctrine.

That seems to be somewhat twisted.

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".

GM: Falling asleep
Angelic Agenda
Strength
Instant
The Patupaiarehe
This isn't about thoughts and language. This is about behaviours and actions.
Hand In Hand
The power of silence

07:49 [Universal Objectives]

[William]

Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one's brain what to think 4


151122 [The Wholeness Navigator ]

07:22 [Integral Prison Planet]

GM: Transform into something more appropriate to the situation we find ourselves lost within.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=37466&p=1074309#p1074309

William: FTL; Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?

Kill one of these individuals (or destroy the brain's ability to function normally), and their consciousness appears to vanish simultaneously. This strong correlation is important.

"Consciousness vanishes"? Couldn't this be our ability to detect consciousness vanishes? If it's a detection problem, then we have no way of knowing if consciousness continues to exist or not.

Take Adrian Owen findings as an example. Before his studies, patients in a persistent vegetative state would've been thought to be unconscious (or we wouldn't know). Now that Dr. Owens has found a way to detect signs of consciousness even in patients in vegetative states, we can no longer dismiss consciousness in those who have little to no meaningful bodily responses. It seems then that we need to find a way to detect consciousness apart from bodily activity (e.g. deliberate verbal or bodily responses), and even apart brain activity (if possible). Those that dismiss the latter scenario tend to do so based on ideology than on any evidence.

I was just searching "is zero a number?"

"0 (zero) is a number, and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems."

I now search "is zero a real number"
"Real numbers are, in fact, pretty much any number that you can think of. This can include whole numbers or integers, fractions, rational numbers and irrational numbers. Real numbers can be positive or negative, and include the number zero."

I would suppose re "Couldn't this be our ability to detect consciousness vanishes? " in that there is zero ability to detect something which was once detectable and now is not.

Does the possibility that being unable to detect something as existing, allow for the right to include zero as representing something real, which is not?

Zero makes the mathematics work...but if zero [representing nothing] is a fraudulent necessity, then perhaps the interpretation of mathematics is incorrect, and perhaps the reason mathematic works [is correct] is because the zero isn't really representing nothing, so much as it represents something which is not detectable but still exists as something.

GM: Here Am I Is Where I Ought - Examining My Conscious Thought
Eye to Eye
Independent from what?

William: This is what I conveyed to Tanager this morning;

Tanager: Therefore, there is an objective separation between YHVH and me, not just from one perspective. YHVH would be aware of this differing in thoughts (i.e., a separation) as well. So, we end up with YHVH thinking we are separated but also thinking we are not separated. This is why one should rationally reject ontological oneness of YHVH and one’s self.

William: Nope.

The "rational" you argue comes from the fact that you purposefully resist seeing yourself as YHVH sees you re your potential as a growing personality to use your free will to engage with YHVH ontologically.
The resistance means that the potential use YHVH can have re a personality is limited to what the personality demands for itself, and YHVH will not interfere with such resistance, other than point it out as opportunity to do so affords that to happen.

The belief that "one should rationally reject ontological oneness of YHVH and one’s self" is not rational because it assumes the one in order to reject the other.

{SOURCE}

GM: Love
Training
A grateful heart
Beyond Belief
Extravaganza
Within ones grasp of influence
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
“If you look at what you have in life, you'll always have more. If you look at what you don't have in life, you'll never have enough”
Embrace a completely new paradigm
viewtopic.php?p=1082469#p1082469

William: FTL; Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

So why are you so confident in declaring that time does not physically exist in the universe?

For the same reasons as numbers do not physically exist. They don't physically exist.

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #655]

But how could you know that, when you don't know what time is fundamentally?

The same way as I know that the mind does not physically exist. I do not know if the mind is fundamental to the physical universe but I suspect [strongly] that the physical universe would be useless without it.

So the mind wouldn't be so useful without mathematics and time [the obvious Daughter [subset] of numbers] and therefore - while not obvious in any way - it is possible that Mind is a fundamental property of our universe...and that Mathematics is a Son [subset] of said Mind.

Point being - all known conceptual properties of the mind are known to exist only in the mind, and are not physically real and can only be represented physically as "unreal but existing anyway" or some such other appropriate entitlement...

So what made you think a newer, deeper understanding of the universe wouldn't include a newer, deeper version of spacetime? After all, we didn't abandon gravity when general relativity came along.

It may indeed be the case that Physicists are not being careful with their heading and wording. "Doomed" does imply the certainty of death...I am only relaying the basic information. I do my own digging and for now, accept the verdict being pronounced upon spacetime by physicists themselves. If you have contrary information, I am keen to view it.

Logically, some thing cannot derive from no thing.
Since this infers infinite regression [as well as infinite progression], there is no logical justification to refer to such as "fallacy". [re "Turtles all the way down."]
Explanation of apparent beginnings [such as with our universe] therefore has to be seen as points within infinity...

That does not seem to follow, can you break that down into further steps?

Someone already has. Please watch the video I posted earlier on in this thread...the one with the visuals of a flyover of the Mandelbrot Set.

Seems like there is some unstated premise hidden in there, perhaps something like "all things are derived from something else?"

And "something else" is "all things".

The idea is based on the theory of entropy.
Search "the theory of entropy"
"In classical physics, the entropy of a physical system is proportional to the quantity of energy no longer available to do physical work. Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system any activity increases the entropy."

That doesn't answer my question, why would that imply there would be a time when there would be no objects?

Without energy, what is left to construct and maintain shapeform from the field of quantum particles?

Are you sure the use of the word 'time' is appropriate in the sentence "it took time for energy to turn into matter"

Pretty sure, yes. It took the existence of time itself, and the passage of time.

Just checking.

I think the more appropriate word to use in that sentence would have to be;

"it took a false premise for energy to turn into matter" as energy does not turn into matter. Energy holds the shape of matter. Matter already existed. The theory of entropy has it that energy is passing through quantum field and creating form as it does so. As "time" marches on, the past becomes a "wake" like footprints in the snow and eventually disappear as if energy had simply been a Ghost in passing.

So. Do you think that "Time" = "Energy"? Or do you think are separate entities, doing their own separate thing?

Could it be that there is a state where size and time are unmeasurable? Roger Penrose believes it is possibly the state of singularity. No size and no time as with the singularity, there is no thing to compare that with.

And that's why we say time itself had a beginning: no time with the singularity, now there is time.

"We" also say that time will keep going on forever...yet the past is fading into black...in order for time to last forever, energy has to also exist forever.

Energy cannot have simply farted itself into existence. Therefore logic informs us that it is likely that energy has existed forever...has always existed. Has never - not existed.

Is energy separate from matter, or just another manifestation of matter?

That's just semantics, if energy counts as object, then your earlier question become invalid, the premise that the was a time when there were no objects, would be false.

That depends entirely on the plain of the Quantum field.
For example, if the field is spherical, the energy moving over it and stirring it up into objects of matter, may be no more than a blip on the plain of the Quantum field. Once the energy moves on, the effect on that region diminishes until - once more - the deep silence returns.

Sure, we can identify the compartments re these different realities, but I think it is an overstep to treat them as all fundamentally different, implying different sources.

Why would they have to be fundamentally different though, for some infinities to have a beginning and some not to? Why can't infinites with beginnings and those without be part of an overall infinity?

I am fine with that idea as long as it is agreed there is only - fundamentally - the one Source. The apparent differences are not denoting "many sources".

GM: Heuristic [enabling someone to discover or learn something for themselves. proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined. ]
Thanatophobic [an intense fear of death or dying]
The Fine Art of Not Being Offended
Regimented: Left -brain Right brain Whole brain
Exobots
The Son
Seductive What we call the experience of reality
Evidential Altruistic Behaviour Transactional
The Life Essence is Sovereign and Integral
Rich
Psychological events
First Source: Creator Influence Syndrome Planned obsolescence
How to be an adult
Internal motivation
I Ensure The Hierarchy Serves It's Purpose
Add
Government secrets kept from the public
The Subject of Unidentified Flying Objects
Square and Compass
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
Morph
Action Station
It can be crazy and true at the same time
Top Limpid [completely clear and transparent. ] Conviction The Mind Behind Creation
Imposed Appropriates Observed
Chakra
viewtopic.php?p=1077448#p1077448

William: FTL; Re: Does the body need consciousness?

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #34]

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.

The important thing AB, is to keep trying. As Joey Knothead commented to me recently;

Joey Knothead: You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is.

I myself lean toward theistic interpretation of existence because it works more directly with the fact of consciousness, rather than attempting to designate it as somehow 'besides the point' in relation to science.

To be fair, there are scientists who are focusing their attention on consciousness [Donald Hoffman for example] and his approach is genuine and he has much respect for his scientist peers.

It needs to be understood that the hard problem of consciousness is problematic because of the ideas which spring from the possibility that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain - many do not want to 'go there' because of the stigma attached to it re 'crazy' folk who go too far without good supporting scientific structures to ensure that the 'too far' is always tempered by rationality and logic - because there is very strong evidence that lack of such support leads to cult-activity which either has its leaders and followers committing mass suicide or avoiding such through eventually becoming a 'respected religion' ...both options unnecessary and avoidable by maintaining the solid practices science prides itself in acoomplishing.

Nevertheless, consciousness being the enigma it is - the "Ghost in The Machinery" - the stigma attached to that concept can only be erased if we learn to understand that there is nothing 'super-natural' about it - without having to resort to the notion that it is an emergent property of nature.

GM: Unfolding Status Quo
Intention
The Sioux Elder
♬ You are a thought worth thinking You’re the water and the wine - you’re the cup from which I’m drinking You’re a surprise worth hoping for You are a captured moment - you’re a space without a time♬

07:40 [We dream as we dream, dream as one]

[William]

Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one's brain what to think 5


161122 [I don't have a horse in this race.]

06:21 [Leaders and Followers]


GM: Left -brain Right brain Whole brain
Universal Intelligence Communications Device
Curtailed
Wise
You're in the way
[Neil deGrasse Tyson- Debunks Creation (Intelligent Design)] [RTS=30:22] www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw&t=1024s

William: As you are aware, my understanding of Evolution through Creation [implying creator/creators] has it that no argument is necessary as there is no real contradiction between the two theories.

GM: The Squeeze
Self-esteem...On The Other Hand... Self-love
Whole-hearted
Complete
Luminous [giving off light; bright or shining.]
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
The Elohim
Moonlight
Marijuana
Those Who Can What Fun We Have!
Contact With

William: Indeed! Are we beholden to rules which are more obviously human-made than specific to being inspired by Elohim?
The truth does set one free...

GM: For anyone to say otherwise, would be unwise in the face of such evidence
Are we subject to our brains?
QueenBee
Attached
Now isn't the time for tears

GM: viewtopic.php?p=1089180#p1089180

William: FTL; Re: Is this an Accurate and Easily understood definition of Atheism?

[Replying to historia in post #80]

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.

GM: Construct
Tabula Rasa Psychic
Morality filters are created through…?
Vortex
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Respect yourself
Conspiracy Emotions. As Above So Below Ingenuity Interpretation/Feel viewtopic.php?p=1090587#p1090587

William: FTL; Re: Generating Messages x

William: I have had similar experience re hypnogogic state ...

Hearing footfalls on wooden floor {I was sleeping in a bunk in a building and was the only occupant at the time]
The footfalls stop outside my door - which was open and then I hear a deep laugh.
I snapped out of it [awoke] and immediately jumped out of bed and went to the doorway - no one was there [of course]

Some time later - months or even a year of two - I was at home in bed with my wife when I awoke to the same laugh and looking up I saw the entity at the end of the bed.

My reaction was layered - It was as if my body wanted to climb the walls looking to escape but my mind was clear and focused and I was aware that this part of me was way less afraid. I had the feeling that the entity was pure evil.

However, while I was directing my anger at the entity, he moved toward my side of the bed - his arms were crossed over his chest area - and as he got closer [he seemed to float rather than walk] he extended his arm out in the process of going to touch me.

We were looking each other in the eye - and it was at this moment that I somehow just knew that the entity loved me more than I had ever felt anyone love me - and knew me better than I knew myself and the love was purely unconditional


As with all my hypnogogic experiences, these began with the feeling of being forcibly held down - and when the entity began to reach his arm out to touch me, my anger assisted me in breaking the hold and I sat up and put my face directly in front of his and demanded he leave - and at that moment, I awoke and the entity was gone [or more likely - I could no longer see him.]

The whole incident took less than a minute.

The very next night, I [again in hypnogogic state] felt my wrists being taken hold of by a pair of invisible hands and I was lifted from a prone position to an upright one and when upright, I felt my arms being pushed over my chest in the same manner I had observed the entities arms crossed over his chest, the night before.

Once my arms were crossed, I felt the invisible hands let go of my wrists and it was then that I realized I was not in my body - this was my first conscious OOBE. It felt wonderful....

GM: Attached
Ancient Grey Entity
Is it really that important that GOD is understood to be a male entity?
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
A Maze Game
Conscious dreaming Talk Help Each Other A Bright Star
Trustworthy Navigational Aids
The Trinity of Love are three things operating as One Thing
https://www.dreamviews.com/blogs/vvilli ... 022-94859/

William: FTL; Generated messages this year, which mention dreaming - March 2022 DJ Entry

by VVilliam , 2022-10-08 at 09:42 (103 Views)

Generated messages this year, which mention dreaming

March
GM: Active Dreaming - Angels - Equals - Make It Real

GM: Efficacious [successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective.]
Understand/Know
Mapping Wholeness
I AM WE ARE
Dream Come True
https://www.dreamviews.com/extended-...ml#post2245935

GM:: All Information Is Channelled
The Human Brain
Lojong
Opinion is that which has yet to be established as a matter of fact

William: refining and purifying one's motivations and attitudes.

GM: Dream yoga
As You Think
Time Will Tell
Something

William: As it always does eventually

GM: There are many levels of consciousness
The Astral Body
Wish fulfillment
Being Born
Trustworthy
Experience

William: In whom are we trusting?

GM: Emotional Intelligence
Conscious dreaming
The Nature of This Place

GM: Dream Experience - Faithful

GM: Precognitive dreams
The Twelve Disciples
"A light breeze arriving and kissing my cheek at the same moment I am thinking life is beautiful", is a message.
Cultivate
As Above So Below
Convenient

GM: Exploring the world of lucid dreaming
The Nature of This Place

GM: Sleeping Dragon=146

[146]
Invisible Bridge
Manifestation
Realities Merge
Interoperate
Transparent
Enlightenment
Relationship
True Colors
On all fronts
No axe to grind...
The Mother Bandage
GM: Perseverance
Golden nugget
Active dreaming
Connections
Becoming whole

GM: To Experience All That Is
Shamanic dreaming [relating to the beliefs and practices associated with a shaman.]

GM: When The Opportunity Presents Itself To Do So...

GM: What we call the experience of reality
Dreaming
Human Mind System

GM: Real
Coherence
Phasing
Think outside the box
Toward a Science of Consciousness
Your Dream Team
[Archangel Metatron
Putting My Finger On It...]

GM: William: "Love! Do we know the meaning Lord above? Inside my head is screaming out so tell me am I dreaming Or awake before this living nightmare of a world "

GM: Self
Peaceful Messiah
Validate
Think outside the box

GM: Higher Self Dream Guide
In William's Room

GM: Within
We Could
Author
Final Dream
Wisdom
Angelic Agenda
Askēsis


William: Askesis = the procedure of demonstrating self-control and determination of action and purpose. The exercise of rigorous self-discipline, especially mental self-discipline practiced as a means to spiritual growth.

GM: Phenomenon
Anchors aweigh
Higher Self Dream Guide
Imposed Appropriates Observed
Stay
The Deeper Self
Power
Joining The Main Egregore

GM: Strengthen your boundaries
[Mirroring
Dreamer
Reminiscent
Supernatural
Spiritual Activism
Hologram Dimensions

GM: [Conscious dreaming]

Being Born
Perfect
Little Self

GM: He Who Waits
Perseverance
Golden nugget
Active dreaming
Connections
Becoming whole

It Is One Of Those Things = 256

[256]
The Right Tool For The Job
Suppression Matrix
Compass of Divine Insight
Extra evidence is provided
GM: Whatever you do
Dream Come True
GM: A New Perspective
Mother Earth
Realm of Dreams

GM: Realm of Dreams
Cheers!

GM: In The Flow
[Conscious dreaming]

GM: We have discussed
Dreamed Up By Yours Truly
Returning The Compliment
Astral Pulse
Getting Somewhere
Help

William: The Moon card shows a full moon in the night’s sky, positioned between two large towers. The Moon is a symbol of intuition, dreams, and the unconscious. Its light is dim compared to the sun, and only slightly illuminates the path to higher consciousness winding between the two towers.

GM: Telling the future
For The Purpose Of
Precognitive dreams
Intimate connection
The waters of the deep

GM: [Advice
God/Source/Home
The evolution of consciousness
Your Dream Team
Signs
It is neither good nor evil
Alive]

GM: Play
Oneirology - the scientific study of dreams
Exciting Changes Would Develop Naturally Enough From That
Connection]

GM: By/Through
To assist with strengthening the connect]
Following Your Intuition
~Putting yourself back together again~
Dream interpretation

GM: Egalitarian - Dream Village - Insights!

GM: Shamanic dreaming - Positivity - The Nature of This Place

GM: Incunabula
The Butterfly Effect Links And Symbols Something you cannot change
The Four Human Power Houses
viewtopic.php?p=1068893#p1068893

William: FTL; Re: Generating Messages

I am aware of confirmation bias and it is also on my ComList as a selectable subject.

I do not agree with you that either system I am using is fudged by confirmation bias.

What I can say is that it was bias which originally had me get into investigating this as I - at the time - was Agnostic but due to subjective experiences I have had, I leaned towards theism.
Because of the theistic leaning, I understand I was more inclined to making the effort to do the science because the subject interested me.
In the same way, most non-theists are not interested in doing the science because they lean toward non-theism.
Furthermore, only yesterday I decided that - due to the evidence revealed in the process of Generating Messages - I no longer have any reasonable option to retain the position of agnostic, and thus have dropped that altogether.

I am fine now with referring to my position as theistic, as agnosticism merges into the shadow behind me.

Now you might say that this is a clear case of bias, but I would argue that there must come a point in one's lifetime, where whatever evidence one has discovered truth about, has to be accepted, and in the accepting, this is not being bias toward any particular aspect/branch of theism - but bias toward the revealed truth, which is that we exist within a creation and there is a mind behind the creation to which one can interreact with and learn from.

Who wouldn't want that, if it were there on offer?

Perhaps only those who's bias lean toward retaining the position of "lacking belief in gods".

And if we are to be truthful [and why shouldn't we be?] confirmation bias cuts both ways - non-theists are just as susceptible to that bias as theists are. Evidence supporting which way best to lean is subject to confirmation bias, I totally agree.

But once supporting evidence comes along, it is no longer a case of bias - it is a confident walk on the even surface of sureness, without the faith.

However, I am always open to being shown otherwise, but so far your efforts to convince me I am suffering confirmation bias and you trying to insert 26 a's into the spoken language as some kind of justified argument, hasn't helped your case at all.

Even so, I have full appreciation for your efforts, because even incorrect peer review is better than indifference.

GM: Pertinent to cosmology and cosmogony
Bridge

06:44 [Cyborg Anthropology]

William: viewtopic.php?p=1099701#p1099701

[William]

Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one's brain what to think 6

171122 [How the Devil got his horns]

06:47 [Be grateful to everyone]


GM: Where life and death is part of a circle and everything is part of the Ouroboros
Make a list for that

William: Presently a list is being made re Tanager and my relationship development.
So far - the list is as follows;

Agreement List:
1: We exist within a creation.
2: Simulation Theory is a valid way to interpret the Biblical stories.
3: YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities.
4: The purpose of YVHV growing human personalities is so that these would potentially gain experience of the truth of the reason for their environment and their temporary experience within it.
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.
6: Human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.
7: Anything which changes is not the same thing as it once was.
8: YHVH is not a simulation.
9: YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not
10: A resurrected body does not imply the same body
11: YHVH does not practice evil
12: Those who act against the agenda of YHVH, accuse YHVH of being evil.
13: YVHV uses what YVHV will to get the message across...
14: Simulation Theory can fit with the story of Jesus’ ascension.
15: Simulation Theory can validate non-biblical stories as well.
16: Things experienced in simulation are still real experiences
17: We cannot say - either of the story of Jesus, or indeed, any other Biblical story - that these stories do not reveal simulation theory.
18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.
19: Insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH
20: Those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique in others who are also in genuine relationship with YHVH.
22: What we do agree on, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other, re YHVH.

23: We do not conflate using Discernment, with being Judgmental. Discern...without any accompanying judgmentalism...[It allows for one to unravel to complexities]

This was mentioned earlier {Link to highlight}

For example, one can discern a mistake in the following.
It is a mistake to conflate being able to discern something with being able to be judgmental about something.
Agreed?

24: YVHV is The Judge.

William: The Agreement List is a living document, in that it can be amended and added to.

GM: Galactic Encompassment
Please process this word using your Name2Nunumber list.
Crystal Contacts
Fine-structure Constant
Study

William: Study Fine-structure Crystal Constant Contacts = 567
[567]
The Individual Human Mind Telepathy Sovereignty Trick
Words are sounds and the written word is sound encoded
Study Fine-structure Crystal Constant Contacts
The Visitation Event Heuristic Fearlessness Decisive
[Heuristic = enabling someone to discover or learn something for themselves. proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined. ]

GM: Toxic shame


William: as in;

23: We do not conflate using Discernment, with being Judgmental. Discern...without any accompanying judgmentalism...[It allows for one to unravel to complexities]

William: and my comment to Tanager;

"Mistakes" belongs in the same category as "Supernatural" in that it has no place in our discussion, if by its use, you are referring to anything in a judgmental manner.
In that, we will have to agree with the following;

23: We do not conflate using discernment, with being Judgmental.{SOURCE}

GM:Tetrahedron
The House of Culture
Re Abusive Expression Of All Types.
Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
Well That Settles It! What Fun We Have!
*Cadriel*

GM: viewtopic.php?p=850722#p850722
William: What I think about consciousness in relation reality

GM: Long Story Short Hell
Awareness
Action Consciousness Incarnates Intelligent Directions The Mainstream Program Story-Tellers Trustworthy

1156
[Investigative]
From high above he felt a flow of energy. An invisible current descended upon him. His skin crawled in an indescribable ecstasy as he nearly lost consciousness in the intensity of the feeling. He lurched to the ground and tucked himself into a yielding ball of flesh; his only thought was that he was in the presence of God. His emotions, fully unveiled, responded in uncertainty, surely I am not God’s favourite, he thought. Why would God show himself to me?

Then he heard it; the unmistakable voice of language. Though he couldn’t understand it, he knew without doubt, beings, different from himself, were nearby. The closeness of their presence terrified him and he wanted to stay coiled on the forest floor with his eyes tightly closed, praying for the forest to return to its familiar self.

Then a new sound and light forced him to open his eyes. He saw three shapes, huge stone dropping from the sky into a small clearing between the trees. They were floating down on beams of blue light. Cadriel winched as he watched in wonderment. Then he saw movement below the stones, where tall beings seemed to be guiding the monoliths to the forest floor with wands of light.

Cadriel stood slowly to his feet. Eyes blinking in disbelief, his mind frozen in awe. The three stone, each the size of thirty men, slowly descended to the forest’s floor with a dull thud. Cadriel felt it with an electric shiver. He suddenly knew nothing. It was as if his world had disappeared and he was now a nomad in some unearthly place. He could only watch the spectacle of light that enshrouded the huge monoliths and wonder as to their purpose.

The light bean began to enshroud Cadriel, cloaking him in its garment of golden, soft luminance. He was beginning to feel a new sense of himself, not as a man – a self-possessed fringe dweller, but as an instrument of some vaguely familiar intelligence that was presently welling up inside of him. It was being pulled from him as surely as a bird pulls on a worm, freeing it from its earthly home to enter a new purpose.

Cadriel, in a flash of time, left his body and became part of the light cloud that surrounded him. He was no longer held within the boundaries of a human body but was now part of something infinitely larger and more complex. It was as if he were a mote of dust, suspended in a beam of infinite light, and he had become the light. He understood all parts of his mission for coming to this place, for being human, and for transforming into something he had been prepared for millions of years ago.

{SOURCE}

GM: First Source:
From the desperate depths of lightless dark
First Light
Hidden Gem
A naysayers opinion is of no consequence, no matter how it is stated
Proceed with causation, cautiously...
Sensing connections through subconscious means
viewtopic.php?p=1081803#p1081803

William: FTL; Re: Do you understand those on the other side?

We know that if we stand on the moon, and look at the planet, there is no immediate evidence of the planet being an intelligent entity, producing myriad forms of intelligent life.

[Replying to brunumb in post #151]

Probably because the planet is not intelligent entity.

Positive statements imply a claim is being made. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the planet is not an intelligent entity?

It is when we get closer to it - and find life and examine life and see the intelligence therein, that we can return to the moon and observe an intelligent planet. Not because it looks any different from the way it did when we first observed it from the moon - but rather - because we accumulated a lot of information about it through closer examination, and the effect of that data in that interim, changed our original perceptions of the Earth.

But those changes to our original perceptions of the Earth do not lead to the conclusion that it is an intelligent entity.

No they do not, and I don't understand where it is you think I am saying this is the case.
What it leads to is that the possibility that one equals the other, allows for the possibility that it is, and therefore, information regarding the possibility remains relevant to the position of Agnosticism.
That door remains open to further investigation.
That idea remains on the table.

Sure, there are intelligent species everywhere but no compelling reason to conclude that intelligence extends beyond those species. Unless, of course, one is predisposed to leaping to unwarranted conclusions or applying some sort of confirmation bias.

The sort of confirmation bias which Agnosticism avoids are those which develop within the positions of Theism and Atheism.

The "unwarranted conclusion" in this case, would be to view the obvious intelligence being displayed, as "not really a display of intelligence." but "something else" such as "The planet isn't really an intelligent entity, but is simply unconsciously responding to the stimulus of its environment."

GM: I Will
The "Everything Is Unique" Mantra
viewtopic.php?p=1092601#p1092601

William: FTL; Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

I hesitate to go so far as you have gone here.

"I Am That I Am" [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

The true God= Father only accepts being worshipped in spirit and truth-John 4:22-24)
The Hebrew scholars, who know the Hebrew language better than any say, there is no i am that i am in their Hebrew written OT. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that passage.

Splitting hairs achieves nothing. "I am that I am" = "I will be what I will be." and still fits in with what I wrote; In other words;

"I will be what I will be." [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

However, since this is not the subject of the thread topic - if you want to argue it more, I suggest that another thread be created in order to do so.

GM: Inflame Emotions
Any Other Way How shallow is the reach of YHWH
The wheel of time Lodestones
viewtopic.php?p=1071422#p1071422

William: FTL; Re: JW's claim of Kingdom of God establish in 1914?

[Replying to onewithhim in post #117]

One simply has to love oneself and ones neighbor... where is that written, other than within one's heart.

But Scripture says that we must love Jehovah our God first of all, and then our neighbor.

That's what I was saying, when I wrote;

How can one love others if one does not love oneself? How can one love oneself if one does not love one's God?

However, I do not have one name for my God. I have many names [including YHVH] for The Cosmic Mind of Creation.

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #118]

Those with no knowledge of scripture today cannot obey the first commandment.

Unsupported statements do not, a fact [truth] make.

SUPPORT FOR STATEMENT

That is not support for the bolded statement above.

Indeed, ‘You must love The Creator with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind’ is something folk can do, even if they have no access to any religious script.

The other biblical quotes bear witness to how individuals related to their idea of God - in love...indeed, the bible is mostly a books of stories to do with this inter-personal relationship.

And to add - many of those individuals did not even have access to what you are saying is 'Scripture' - so it would not be errant of me to point out that there is no concrete evidence to support the belief that knowledge of scripture is a commandment, even implicatively.

Certainly one can find inspiration for wanting to connect and commune, but this is simply not limited to the bible - thus quite obviously there is no such commandment that scripture be known, in order for one to connect and commune with The Creator Mind [Ghost] - therefore the knowledge must be sourced elsewhere, and primarily it must be sourced within the relationship itself - not to the stories of others [as inspiring as these might be] but to ones own story in relation with others.

GM: Self-compassion
Active Dreaming
Portal
A Real Beauty
[GHOST DESCRIBES THE AFTERLIFE | What Happens To Wealthy People?] [RTS=15:47] www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0tWTAEJKFA


William: Meeting with the familiar re the next level experience the personality can have...as it is often reported by those who experience near-death alternate states of conscious awareness/reality.

GM: Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one’s brain what to think
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... th-photos/
[Rainbows Appear at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace After Queen Elizabeth's Death]

GM:Merging with the data
Spacetime is not fundamental
Epigenetic [relating to or arising from] Memories
Just Be - All Else Will Follow
Three Fish
Our movements can illuminate the path toward that vision. A Bit Of Cat And Mouse Control
Charity
Heart advice
Conscious
Please process this word using your Name2Nunumber list.

William: Conscious Heart advice = 214
[214]
Ancient Grey Entity
Independent from what?
Monkey See Monkey Do
Reinhard Heydrich's death
Nazi Space Program Agenda
The Undiscovered Self
About face Jehovah acceptance
When things fall apart
If In Doubt Let It Sit
Conscious Heart advice
'Developing a thick skin'
Conspiracy theory

William: The unpacking of history re YHVH... = 350

[350]
Abiogenesis Union With Divinity
I place no judgement on the results.
Dancing past The Dark You feel love again
The unpacking of history re YHVH...

William: Yes. It is a process the individual personality must go through in order to reach beyond that...

GM: It is a process the individual personality must go through in order to reach beyond that... = 904
A conspiracy theory involving theists actively attempting to wrongfoot atheism... = 904

07:28 [Universal Intelligence]

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #383]

I wouldn't call the ideas unreasonable, but they don't convince me that such a being exists or is necessary to the exclusion of a purely natural explanation for whatever functions this necessary being is claimed to be necessary for.

I would add that it does not matter then, that you are unconvinced, simply because you already have no need for such a being to exist, and no reason given has been acceptable to you on account of that lack of need already recognized within the psyche of your self.

It is the nature of Fairy Farts to waft off in all directions possible, and your position is one such direction.

The direction I wafted on the wind of, includes the possibility that the thing referred to as "purely natural" may be a creation, so I remain open and vigil to that question...

Same propellent - different perspectives.

Same propellent - different perspectives. 1

181122 [The Need Determines the Value ]

06:00 [Intuitive Intelligence]

SCLx10+SLLE
Preamble:
Interactions - Is Love That Hard To Know? - Making Up Stories - The Story of Caliban - The Human Brain - The Supernatural and the Bible - Shoe - Please place this on your ComList - Actual realistic communication - Data


William: Data actual realistic communication - = 330
[330]
Data actual realistic communication
The Realm of The Knowing of My Self
I Think – Therefore – Who Do I Think I Am?
This moment is the perfect teacher
It is a slippery path of snake-oil.
Living our forefathers’ conflict
Actions speak louder than words
Mission Functional Clusters

GM: Letting Go
viewtopic.php?p=1079953#p1079953

William: Re: The Terror of God

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.

Which 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.

viewtopic.php?p=1079590#p1079590

GM: viewtopic.php?p=1090271#p1090271

William: How To Bruise a Ghost.

The evening is warm and the night sky full of stars. A crescent moon peeks above the Twelve Judges Mountain Range as Father and Son sit opposite one another, being warmed by the same fire.
William places another log on the fire and watches as a flurry of sparks ascend from the disturbance caused – he takes a sip of tea and listens as Father resumes speaking.

Manu Iti: All stories start with "Once Upon a Time"

William: Even the story of The Beginning?

Manu Iti: You know this to be true William, for every story could not have been told, if The Story of The Beginning hadn't happened.

William: Am I old enough to be told that story?

Manu Iti chuckles.

Manu Iti: Of course you are, My Son.

William: Thank You, My Father!

Manu Iti: I will begin first with the Earth, not because She was the very first thing in The Beginning, but because - in order to understand The Beginning we have to first understand our part in the story - our place in the scheme of All That Is.


William: And that begins with Earth Mother...

Manu Iti: Indeed.
The Mother was born of a vaster thing - our Grand-Mother - and we shall get to Grand-Mother in due course.
The Mother was placed within The Earth by Grand-Mother and became the mind of the planet. When this happened, Mother was a Child Herself - a new thing placed within the form of the planet, while at the same time, a part of The Ancient Mind of Grand-Mother...

William: How is that even possible, Father?

Manu Iti: It is possible through the power of forgetting.

The Ancient Mind of Grand-Mother spawned a thought in the form of a spark of light and placed it inside the middle of a dark and lifeless form, and in doing so, gave the form - Life.
In that action, the Earth became a living planet. She also became a new conscious entity...a being with a beginning, because the action of placing Her into a planet, erased all knowledge of ever having a prior existence as The Grand Mother.

William: Did The Grand Mother know this would happen?

Manu Iti: Yes. The Grand Mother new that this would continue for a time. The Grand Mother knew that Her Daughter would be orphaned by that lack of knowledge and this would result in a new Being which could operate successfully without having to have that knowledge - and that one day, The Daughter would come to know of The Grand Mother and reconnect...

William: Is that a good thing to do with a Child?

Manu Iti: Yes. It is how a Child becomes a Sovereign Entity. It is not done this way with Human Children - but there are elements of the process which do - naturally - occur to each of us.

William: Like - how we cannot recall anything but darkness, before we became aware of our existence?

Manu Iti: Yes.
__________________

GM: DeJaVu
Draw With The Silence
Face To Face
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=164

William: FTL; re The Seed of Origin

Pixel42: The definition of magic is something that contradicts the observed laws of physics. The Big Bang does not contradict the observed laws of physics, in fact it was deduced from them. So you are, once again, about as wrong as it is possible to be.

William: I was not referring to the event as the magic, but to the idea that everything was contained within something so small that it almost doesn't exist.


Pixel42: That is the "lie to children" version. It does not remotely describe the physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children

William: From what I can gather - what you mean is that it is the mythological version told to those who do not know how to read the math.

Pixel42: I'd define it as saying something you know is not true, regardless of intent, in which case this qualifies, but I agree it's arguable. A quick check of online dictionaries shows some include the "in order to mislead/deceive" qualifier and some don't. But it doesn't really matter, it's clear what the coiners of the phrase mean by it, and I think it's an important point - at least on this forum, where those who fail to grasp it regularly start or contribute to threads like this one.

William: If I started this thread because of a mythology told to those who otherwise cannot grasp the math, then it is up to those who make the claim to expand on the mythology in a manner that best represents the math.

I myself am fine with whatever the facts are, magical or otherwise...for my part I am just showing how it is easy to glance behind the curtain and see other possibilities which explain the evidence in a manner that one can understand follows the observed rules of physics and I do so on the grounds that whatever birthed this universe can be observed in the physics of this universe - as in the Mother is observed in the Child...patterns within patterns...

Furthermore, it was no accident that I called the thread "The Seed of Origin" as representative of the Object which existed prior to the Object exploding [germinating] to become the Subject.

GM: Like Unto Ghidrah - many heads one beast...
The Ouroboros does not contradict the idea of Oneness, higher self and the cosmic mind.
*YHWH gives nature a voice.*
Same propellent - different perspectives.
Kinship
Bodhisattva
Interactive
Callum's Eighth Point

William: Re Callum

Musing On The Mother Act III

As I listen to Callum's reply to me,@ I am aware that he has missed the the science which was involved in the Message Generation Process which Wiremu associates with his Universal Intelligence Communication Devices.

Callum is focused upon the matter of fact that regardless of The Message being able to be interpreted, the interpretations are subject to the bias of the individuals who interpret them. I agree to that Matter of Fact, but get the impression that Callum thinks I claimed that individual interpretation could be proved through scientific method. Rather my claim was that the process could be used to provide evidence that Intelligence is behind - not only the Messages generated in this manner, but indeed, ALL that exists.

Neither of us have found it necessary not to agree that we both at least think that there is an intelligent mind behind All that Is. Callum appears to think that - based upon his protest that Wiremu's World View (what the messages refer to as "In William's Room") is different from Jesus' World View.

Callum informs me that he is not exactly sure what I am asking of him in relation to his applying the same rigorous criteria to messages he believes as coming from a Creator as he thinks should be applied to these Generated Messages also presented as 'Coming From A Creator". I think it best for the time being to just allow him to understand the gist of what I am saying, until such proves not to be useful or counter-productive.

Callum protests that the Idea of the Physical Universe being a Simulated Reality is no better than any other explanation, such as the Christian worldview claims or other creationist worldviews.

This is an ongoing conversation between Tanager and I - and his eighth point [through the avatar of Callum] is;

William: Callum's Eighth Point appears to indicate that he is saying that if The Tanager does not want Callum to access my thoughts through Callum reading The Book of Musing On The Mother II, then "That's Okay".

I wouldn't argue with that reasoning as it is within the rules of The Role-Play.
I have provided Callum with enough devices for him to help himself and learn through. I cannot decide for him whether he uses those or is happy not to, if The Tanager does not want him to.

That gets me thinking about The Tanager and Wiremu and Messages and Interpretations and Science...and I decide that these are the best ideas to focus upon as we to launch into Act III - Musing On The Mother - "The Art Of Language".

William: I suppose that playing dumb is a symptom of wilfully choosing to remain in ignorance and yet believe one's argument from that ignorance is still an acceptable debate tactic...

GM: The Trinity of Love
Cycle
Think About It
The Need Determines the Value
The Dizzying Heights of Intellectually Honest Conversations
Individuation
Self
Examples
Enflame Emotions "Oops"..... Always
The Life Essence
Making The Best of a Bad Situation
Quiet Time
Salient [most noticeable or important.]
Especially re the possibility of the planet having a mind in which all our minds are connected...in ways we are not overly conscious of...
A countenance more in sorrow than in anger
Out of the doldrums
Same propellent - different perspectives.
Contentment
Do A=1
Might even cause Dad to crack a smile...who knows!
Name The Gods as non-separate Entities

William: Name The Gods as non-separate Entities -Might even cause Dad to crack a smile...who knows! = 779

[779]
It is a good sign when Joey Knothead cannot argue against the evidence you present
Name The Gods as non-separate Entities - Might even cause Dad to crack a smile...who knows!
Things are not always as they might appear to be...Wonder. Stop. Listen. Observe.

GM: Encounters Challenge
Understanding and connecting with the source of our language is vital to that vision
A Real Beauty
viewtopic.php?p=1071814#p1071814

William: FTL re

Falls
Open
The Divine
One Dollar
You're blocking the light
Sensory Data Quality
To Be Sovereignty
Sweet Vibrations
Putting My Finger On It...
Creation of a New Universe
This Is My Kind Of Fun
The Mother and The Father

GM: Look Closely Talk George Adamski Insidious Clumsy
Appreciating


06:58 ["I am Mighty! Hear me ROAR!"]

[William]

Same propellent - different perspectives. 2

191122 [YHWH gives nature a voice.]

09:53 [Attention to Detail]


GM: Ingenuity
viewtopic.php?p=1084379#p1084379

William: Re: Books about experience of heaven

Because, combining the two [religion and aliens] one can read in such pre-television stories, similar testimony.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #31]

How similar is "similar?"

Very. The imagery may be different, but the subject matter is - overall - similar.

You've asserted that the experience "cannot" be the brain reworking something that's already been seen, but haven't justified why anyone should think that's true.

I haven't asserted that at all. The brain obviously has something to do with the process, but to what degree isn't really know because it isn't really well understood. Certainly not as well understood as some individuals assert, from their various positions of belief on such matters.

You've asserted "similar testimony," but unless "similar" includes things like alien greys and flying saucers, you're just making the case that human brains worked the same way then as they do now, not that the supernatural is real.

Who asserted 'supernatural'? I myself avoid using the word.

Instead of "aliens", one has gods/angels/demons/religious mythological icons...

Yes. When the brain gets weird, people frame their experiences within a familiar fantastic idiom.

What we know about the brain is that it - in all cases - does not see the world as it fundamentally is, and inserts interpretations of what it is experiencing [through its nervous system] into the consciousness connected to that.

The consciousness connected to that, has started become aware of this process and the connotations therein. The brain is just telling it like it believes it is experiencing it [reality] and consciousness just eats it up as if it were the truth...things are changing...

GM: [The Truth
Well defined yet scantily supported opinion]
{SOURCE}

We [rightfully] question what the brain tells us about the experiential reality.

The Santa Clause analogy isn't useful in this regard as we are only speaking about gifts left behind - which can be explained - we are not talking about folk experiencing and engaging with Santa. We are not even talking about a warm fuzzy joyous thing...

It's absolutely apt.

I am not convinced.

Dr. Clancy explains through the course of the book commonalities between subjects and presents known psychological phenomena as explanations. So far, you've simply denied them. Personal incredulity is the same evidence that I presented for Santa Claus.

I have not denied anything. I have pointed out that the analogy of Santa Claus is not what appears is being implied by Dr. Clancy. Are you saying that in her book she makes this analogy herself?

Even if she does, the analogy is based upon the idea that the brain creates the mind, which is something that has not been established as anything other than well defined, yet scantily supported opinion.

From my own experiences and subsequent study, I lean toward Jung relating such experienced imagery to what he referred to as the Archetypes...

Depending on how you read Jung, I might agree with you. If the Jungian Archetypes of the collective unconscious are expressions of how our brains have evolved as humans, then I'd agree, but that's just saying that our human brains share ways of reacting to similar kinds of stimuli. If you believe as Jung himself did that there's a sort of active connection between all members of humanity, then you haven't really offered any reasons for thinking that such a connection actually exists.

I do however acknowledge that brains are not reading reality as reality fundamentally is. That is a known fact.

∴ one cannot conclude that what the brain is telling us or how we are choosing to interpret that telling, is anything other than than well defined, yet scantily supported opinion.

Jung may have it correct while graphing 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...

William: This connects with a post I made today replying to Difflugia

[Replying to Difflugia in post #248]

You or I can make up any number of things that aren't logical impossibilities and can't be disproven despite having no objective reason to believe in them. To be consistent, I must be exactly as open to their existence as I am to that of any god, which lies somewhere between "agnostic" and "atheist" depending on one's definition. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a pointed illustration of that principle.

The FSM as well as the other things you mentioned, are known imagery. The ghost dressed, as it were.

How does any actual invisible entity fit in with these ones which have been made conceptionally visible?

I have not found/been shown a way to fit these things together, so have to remain agnostically positioned for the time being, re the subject.

I believe the opposite is true.

Leprechaun: O'Reilly?

Theology as a subject presupposes the existence of the gods and is the exercise of imagining how the gods must interact with the world.

That is an expression I know to be misinformation. Not to say that I do not understand the process which provide folk with a means of jumping to such a conclusion, but the evidence clearly shows the presumption is incorrect.

The equivalent of theology isn't whether or not I believe that cars need gremlin magic, but imagining how such gremlin magic would work once one decides that they, in fact, do.

You are speaking about a subset of overall theology, [specifically, religion] not of theology itself.

It's like watching Star Trek. Few people seriously believe that the transporter and dilithium crystals are real.

Or that the Star Trek universe actually exists...

Many people willingly suspend disbelief, though, and engage in the theology of how such things would work in-universe.

Adequately explaining religion. Shall we agree that religion is just a a subset of Theology and not conflate the two?

The willing to believers are the easier to discredit re beliefs, since beliefs [all beliefs not just theistic based ones] are always easier to show where misinformation derives.

Typically, such misinformed expression regularly comes from atheistic thinkers...

Whatever helps you sleep.

Moving the goalposts won't help your failing argument, Difflugia.

Rather, think about expressing differently and keeping to the subject at hand.
[Not that I am saying that recognition of misinformation doesn't contribute to my ability to drop into sleep without difficulty...but that it is besides the point.]

Misdirection detected...I am referring to atheistic thinking, not quantum mathematics.

I wasn't referring to quantum mechanics, but to the principles of statistical analysis.

All you said was;

doing math with and visualizing very big and very small numbers.

QM fits that script

It gets back to whether "you can't prove it's not" is a valid argument.

From an agnostic position, yes, it is a valid argument.

If one's only evidence for a concept is "you can't prove it's not," then that concept is competing with every other idea within the same space.

Have you not hear the news!? Spacetime is doomed!

The concept I focus on is the one which say's we may be existing within a creation/created thing.

Spacetime - being shown by quantum mathematicians, to being NOT fundamental to what we have been referring to as "Reality" - shows us that our answers are not to be found simply in the observing of our current situation re Spacetime.

This does not mean that we have to claim that the FSM or any other conceptual image dreamed up is the fundamental reason for why we exist within Spacetime, but that Spacetime is not the reason for its own existence.

"It's possible" is tiny. "All possible things" is vast.

Agnostically speaking, we therefore have some sorting out to do to - perhaps - find answers in the middle.
What we best not do is form beliefs, either for or against...

Absent any other evidence, the probability of gods is the first divided by the second. To accurately evaluate such concepts requires an understanding of things like asymptotes and comparing orders of infinity.

Can these disciplines show us that QM is mistaken, and that Spacetime is fundamental to itself?

If not, then they are not much use to us re the question "Do we exist within a created thing?"

Agreed?

GM: Self-discipline
"I think it was an ambush or surprise attack" - Aye...A name I call myself.
viewtopic.php?p=1077938#p1077938

William: Re: Predestination and justice

https://reformedwiki.com/verses/predestination If God predestined the lives of humans, how can it be just for God to send some to heaven and some to hell?

The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife
[1] A "Person" is "Spirit" and temporarily exists as a human being until the body dies then that "Person" enters an afterlife and is judged by "God" and is condemned or saved. Those saved go to "heaven" and those condemned go to "Hell" - or in some variances on this, are "exterminated".

[2] A "Person" a "Human being" and when the human being dies, that is the end of that person unless "God" judges them as "saved" in which case that person is resurrected and given a new body which will last forever more.

[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.

Often any different position which opposes another might logically mean that they both cannot be correct, assuming one or the other is true.

Both [1]&[2] fall into this category as they cannot both be true. [1]&[2] also both agree that [3] is false.

However, [3] Can be true without making the other two false.

And [3] - just as with [1]&[2] can be backed by the bible, depending on what parts of the bible once uses to do so.

The bible is interpreted throughout, based upon which position [1][2] or [3] is being used to interpret it through [the filter].

If [1]&[2] oppose each other but can still be "proven" by using the bible, then this makes the bible something of a contradiction.

But if [3] - although different from [1]&[2] does not oppose either [1]&[2] and can still be "proven" by using the bible just like [1]&[2], then [3] takes away the contradictory aspect of the bible which [1]&[2] create by being in opposition.
{SOURCE}

Taking [3] into consideration;

[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.

your question can be answered that Justice is served and that it is not any Spirit [God] but ones self who 'sends' that self to the places that self experiences.

That is the short answer.

re the "combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did" and predestination, The game is created by Spirit Entities [the players] and is naturally complex.

The idea is for an Eternal Entity [EE] to enter the Human Avatar [HA] and become completely unaware of any prior existence. The HA provides the means in which this amnesia is made possible.

From that point on, a character forms and personality develops - none of which are reflective of the EE [game player]. The Character and Personality formed through the interaction, are purely fictional in relation to the EE, but have the potential to be 'made real', which is accomplished through Phases of experience, which include experiences of heavens and hells.

Heavens and Hells are part of the Game-Play experience.

GM: Deciding On the Best Course of Action
Attitude of gratitude
From the link
Life On Mars
Earth teachers (physical and non-physical) unite humanity to the Sovereign Integral
Same propellent - different perspectives.
viewtopic.php?p=1077445#p1077445

William: Re: Does the body need consciousness?

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.

GM: Fear intimidation distraction exploitation
Sensory Data Quality
Dohrman Prophecy Book Introduction
Good on you mate Learn Well
Self-acceptance
Concision
It Stands To Reason
Impressionable
We Can Do Magic!


10:03 [The Shaping Of Reality]

William: Yes..."YHWH gives nature a voice."

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #4]

What did the worm do to deserve such punishment?

Being related to the serpent re being a belly-crawler....and investing its support for theistic and atheistic thinkers alike.

Into the hellfire with the worm! - shouldn't be too much of a problem for it, since the worm has already endured being in the belly of a human.

How are farts created...

And why does hellfire smell like farts? [according to popular mythology]

Meanwhile, "stories".

William: Are Religious Beliefs Delusional?

GM: Row your own boat! I AM Will Navigate!

Atheistic Thinker: Nothing I've learned since the decision I made that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional, has changed my mind, but if a god being made itself known in some way that was convincing to me ... I'd be happy to flip.

William: I myself doubt that this could ever be achieved for you, due to your making it the way that it is, through your own decisions, rather than through any god failing to pay you a visit.

Any god-being: Okay Atheistic Thinker - I have risen to your challenge. You see me now. Are you ready to flip?

Atheistic Thinker: Of course not! You are simply a product of my brain which obviously is having some kind of malfunction which has caused this delusion.

Any god-being: What if I stripped you naked, pinched you by the scruff and dangled you over the everlasting hellfire and threatened to drop you in it. Would you consider flipping then?

GM: Necessity is The Mother of Invention

William: I would argue that Atheistic Thinker would continue arguing that his brain was being delusional. That even if he felt the pinch of his neck, the rising heat of the hellfire doom, the pooh running down his legs - he would cling to the belief that Religious Beliefs ARE Delusional and that he would wake up from the nightmare eventually - when his brain settled down again...and remain content not to flip...

Hungry Worms From Hell

First multicellular organisms discovered far below the surface of Earth

{SOURCE}



One should pay noted attention to the mark of YHVH on the worm’s end...

"Just a coincidence"

I think "not".

[669]
One should pay noted attention to the mark of YHVH on the worm’s end...
Understanding the mind behind creation which is commonly referred to as "God"
I think of these images as representing a very real and supportive Team.
Like being pushed out from a stinky hole, can have one develop a bad self-complex

[William]

Same propellent - different perspectives. 3

201122 [In training for the next level]

06:50 [This Is My Kind Of Fun]


GM: viewtopic.php?p=1066664#p1066664 Nazi Space Agenda

William: FTL; Re: To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #162]

I am saying this universe contains evil regardless of whether it is the product of a creative mind or not. The existence evil, is a problem (because it is unexpected) for the thesis that it is the product of a creative mind; but not a problem for the thesis that it is a mindless happenstance (as there is no expectation with re: evil one way or the other.)

Okay - thanks for clarifying.

Given that it has been proven that true random does not exist, mindless happenstance is off the table as an 'explanation' for this existence.

Therefore, IF this universe contains evil and is also the creation of a creative mind, why is it an 'unexpected problem'? What do you mean by that? Why should it matter one way but not the other?

As for fizzer, I've already pointed out that it's good while it last; as for sacrificing a perfectly functional planet/space ship, no, I am speaking of abandoning it because it is foundering, that's not a sacrifice.

Assuming you are truthfully interpreting what is happening re the planet, does this not get back to the argument that the process of this foundering could be turned around by the very minds and money currently invested in escaping that outcome - an outcome which said minds share the greater part of being responsible for making happen in the first place.

Indeed, the philosophy has more than hints of Nazism in it, which is something we shouldn't be too surprised about, given the fact that the space program might not have got its legs if it were not for the Nazi scientists employed by the superpowers at the end of the last WW.

Meh, not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water. Rocket science is useful whether it came from Nazi scientists or not.

Perhaps mainly useful to the agender of those willing to save themselves at the cost of an entire species they use and then abandon, to attempt this self-serving salvation.

Any specie occupied in trying to escape the bounds of their planet even at the sacrifice of the life of said planet is not only twisted in its thinking, but doomed to fail big-time.

Such a giant goose-step for "mankind" cannot end well...

Why are you even labelling the boiling of Earth by the sun in the far future as a "sacrifice" in the first place? It's rather odd to apply such a label to a natural occurrence.

Meh...this idea that what is going on re this space program agenda as "preparation" for a natural event which is way in the distant future doesn't ring true.
It is an attempt at abandonment of the hard problems of humanity, through investment in poorly thought out strategies of selfish intent.

There is no baby in such bathwater.

eta;
viewtopic.php?p=1066667#p1066667

WingMakers Philo II

GM: Synesthesia [the production of a sense impression relating to one sense or part of the body by stimulation of another sense or part of the body.]
Border
Write a Book
Trick Done and Dusted
Story
Gnosticism

William: From a recent post: Re: Who does the Old Testament belong to?

[Replying to Diagoras in post #15]

I’ve not read much about it, but haven’t seen this interpretation of YHVH being a ‘fake god’ before. I’d be interested in any cite for this.

Search: "demiurge"

(in Platonic philosophy) the Maker or Creator of the world.
(in Gnosticism and other theological systems) a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual.

Search "Do Gnostics believe in YHWH?"

Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament) who is responsible for creating the material universe.{SOURCE}

Early Christianity (from what I have read) was a bit of a muddle, so I’m not sure that there was a concerted effort by Jews to ‘infiltrate’ any movement.

One can connect the dots - the temple was destroyed by the Romans and the loot taken to Rome and displayed with great fanfare - The Jews were sent packing from the homeland [not returning until 1900's] - it is not outside the realm of possibility that Rome devised Christianity as another device to rub the noses of the Jews in re cultural appropriation and the Jewish diaspora and makes the most sense re the rise of Christianity...

Seems to me that Christianity would gain more from ditching the OT than retaining it. It would resolve a lot of contradictions.

Since when have contradictions interfered with the Christian agenda?
Besides which, the theory that learned Jews infiltrated Christianity to preserve the Jewish idea of YHVH within the very halls of their enemy, is what would have caused the Christians retaining of the OT, because they could not easily fool the masses with the cultural appropriation without some type of OT inclusion and it also explains the popularity of Saul-as-Paul - who's influence as both a Jew and a Roman would make sure that any dumping of YHVH through interpreting Jesus as being against that Jewish idea of GOD, would not get a foothold and remain as it has, the heretical Gnostic ramblings of fools against Rome and Israel and systems of disparity in general.

But, whatever it is, and however it came about - it is as it is...

GM: Giving Energy Increases Ones Synchronistic Experiences
Here Everything All Real Together
Written Language.
Same propellent - different perspectives.
Rolling down the rails of the ridiculous
Sounds
Confluent [flowing together or merging.]
The systems show that there is no such thing as true randomness, therefore - even that things appear to have originated in chaos and chance, the existence of all things cannot have derived from a mindless origin.
Just Another Christian
Put My Finger On
Heal
The Limitations
Like a Well Oiled Machine
Talk
What is real is that we are all imbued with equality and oneness
Communication Techniques To Be Continued
Don’t fall asleep
Differences
Graphic Changes
You're blocking the light
Lyricus

William: Re WingMakers Mythology.

The Lyricus Teaching Order originates in the Central Race of the 7th Superuniverse. Within the Central Race is a sub-race known symbolically as the WingMakers. Within the WingMakers there is a specific order of beings that are collectively known as Lyricus, and it is this group that is responsible for assembling and exporting the knowledge base necessary for a developing species to scientifically prove the existence of soul and establish the science of multidimensional reality as the nucleus knowledge system of the species.

This outcome of evolution is universal and, in the broadest measure, identical for all species that are based on the biogenetic template of the Central Race, known as the 7th Archetype Soul Carrier of the Individuated Consciousness of First Source. It is Lyricus that is responsible for shepherding a developing species to the technological and scientific prowess whereby the soul and the soul carrier are distinguished and acknowledged by the species at large.[More info]

Lyricus.org, as a website, was launched in 2004. Lyricus is a vibrant part of the WingMakers mythological narrative, owing to its teachings. The Lyricus Teaching Order (LTO) is a subgroup of WingMakers that curates and distributes its philosophy and activations to developing species once that species has evolved a sufficiently sophisticated language system.
As mentioned in other sections of this website, WingMakers are a time-shifted race of human beings. They are, quite literally, us, in a future time. From this future perspective, they export their teachings to an alpha species who has the ability to comprehend the fundamental concepts and behavioral values, however, the broader purpose is to “unleash” the species from the illusions of the separation frequency, and this is done by the irrefutable, scientific discovery of the human soul (The Grand Portal).

The LTO does not teach a religion, but rather a broad set of perspectives that could be best summed up as supporting and elevating an individual’s sovereign rights and their integral nature to all other life forms. They do not set rules or dogma, nor do they establish an organization that crystallizes or protects their teachings.

The primary collection of teachings of the LTO is contained in what is known as Liminal Cosmogony. Only a few extracts have been shared from this volume at this time. They are important themes and structures that pertain to the macro-structure of the multiverse.

GM: Superior Credibility
A lot of information which has the potential to come to the fore.
Create Your Own Spirit Ship [Such reduces the opportunity of conflict re interrelation opinions.]
Same propellent - different perspectives.
*
Innermost
"The Doom of Spacetime" [Why It Must Dissolve Into More Fundamental Structures]
William: LINK

A guest asked what rules the speaker relied on to present proposed new principles. Arkani-Hamed responded that there are no rules, yet, but that we have enough data to know that certain results are certain. We can thus use that data to test the viability of new language and new theories.

GM: One Day
Slowly and Surely
Examine
Map Carvers
Innocent
Guilt Trip

William: The examination of the guilt trip which acts as a preventative barrier to the goal of The Lyricus Teaching Order is currently in the initial stages of being investigated through the interaction between Tanager and I.

Following the storyline, the reason I do not think that Adam understood why it was important to listen to YHVH's messages, is that the design of Adam's body-set prohibited any access to Adam having a conscious recollection of a prior existence.

Essentially, because Adam had a beginning, this meant that initially Adam had nothing to go by in which to distinguish right from wrong [good from evil] and thus would not have understood, because the knowledge simply wasn't there for him to have any understanding about.

The storyline ["truth through a fictional medium." as you put it] shows the reader that the personality of the character called "Adam", started out his experience in a state of Tabula Rasa.

From your own argument so far, we disagree.

In the story you may be able to point to a passage which identifies that Adam did possess the knowledge from the beginning, and if so, we can examine that idea more fully.

I acknowledge that you have already said that the story of the garden has to be taken in context with the whole story. I take it you mean the whole of the Bible?

However, without something tangible from the Garden Story being able to be identified as key evidence that Adam did indeed understand from the beginning why it was important to listen to YHVH's messages, I would have to take the overall storyline of the Bible as something akin to misinformation based upon misunderstanding.

GM: Astral Explorer
Moldavite
Control
A knight in shining armour Manipulation
Variety of Expression
"Consciousness" = “Zero”, mathematically speaking.
https://www.dreamviews.com/religion-spi ... ost2245862


William: FTL; re The Eternal Authority

Yes thel - we do hold onto beliefs as the precious things that they appear to be...

And it is true that some messages will challenge individual beliefs - if my own experience is anything to go by.

And in relation to the idea of a "message" this can be any experience we conscious individuals have.

Lucid dreams are messages.
OOBEs are messages.

A light breeze arriving and kissing my cheek at the same moment I am "thinking life is beautiful", is a message.

From my experience, the systems I use re generating messages have sometimes challenged my beliefs, and I know how hard that can be, and have even sulked on occasion and refused to commune for weeks afterward, until I calm down, through thinking about things and coming to better conclusion - being honest about my beliefs and letting go of those ones which are resistant to change or suppress my ability to move forward...

My observations based upon my experience of life as a human being - to date - re the subject of what happens when we die is largely based upon the study of the stories that folk who claim to have had NDEs and such type experiences bring to the table.

What I have noticed therein equates to a picture which informs me that the most likely thing which happens in what I refer to as The Next Level - is that we immediately start experiencing a reality which appears to be set up that way and we enter it, but what is actually occurring is that it is something we create for ourselves as the nature of The Next Phase is such that IT responds to each individual personalities belief systems, as well as their overall attitude, and even their deepest hidden things - things they know they have hidden, and things which are so deep, even they are unaware of said things.

This interaction - the nature of The Next Phase environment, and the overall consciousness of the individual [including those subconscious and unconscious realms] come into play, and - largely unknown to those experiencing this almost instantly manifesting reality the enter into - that it is they who are creating the very thing which they are experiencing.

In some ways, that is exactly what Lucid Dreaming helps an individual practice at - creating and maintaining their own realities to suit their beliefs - in preparation for 'The Main Event".

The Math I speak of is not how the messages are generated, but another system incorporating language [sound-based] by using the symbols which represent the sound of language, with symbols which represent numbers and thus, the simple code {A=6...Z=26} allows for one to create a growing data-base and cross-examine the results.


So I have two lists. One I call a "ComList", where I place words/word-strings as line entries:
Presently my ComList has 2657 line entries on 55 pages. [I use MSWord and the Time New Roman font @ size 12]

The other list [same font settings] I refer to as Name2Number and is currently 81 pages.

When generating a message, I usually have both documents open...

I will proceed now with example of how GMs are constructed...as the first post of a thread I will create for the purpose of examining said processes...and link this post to that one.
[Link to that Thread]

Cheers

W

GM: Burgeoning [beginning to grow or increase rapidly; flourishing.]
The Cave Maps
The Human Brain
viewtopic.php?p=1077445#p1077445


William: Re: Does the body need consciousness?

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.

GM: Same propellent - different perspectives.
"Zero" must have to represent something which does exist but is largely unseen - and "Consciousness" fits that description.
Got The Picture
A Sturdy Place
The English Language
Communication Techniques To Be Continued
♬We can chart another trail , raise the anchor fill the sails , lift our glasses in a toast , we are the Ghost , in the Machine♬
A means of taking an Agnostic position on things which have yet to be proven one way or another...Such is a handy device for side-stepping - nothing more.


William: Side-stepping the bog of cart-before-horse argument...Re: Are Religious Beliefs Delusional? posted yesterday...

[Replying to Difflugia in post #248]

You or I can make up any number of things that aren't logical impossibilities and can't be disproven despite having no objective reason to believe in them. To be consistent, I must be exactly as open to their existence as I am to that of any god, which lies somewhere between "agnostic" and "atheist" depending on one's definition. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a pointed illustration of that principle.

The FSM as well as the other things you mentioned, are known imagery. The ghost dressed, as it were.

How does any actual invisible entity fit in with these ones which have been made conceptionally visible?

I have not found/been shown a way to fit these things together, so have to remain agnostically positioned for the time being, re the subject.

I believe the opposite is true.

Leprechaun: O'Reilly?

Theology as a subject presupposes the existence of the gods and is the exercise of imagining how the gods must interact with the world.

That is an expression I know to be misinformation. Not to say that I do not understand the process which provide folk with a means of jumping to such a conclusion, but the evidence clearly shows the presumption is incorrect.

The equivalent of theology isn't whether or not I believe that cars need gremlin magic, but imagining how such gremlin magic would work once one decides that they, in fact, do.

You are speaking about a subset of overall theology, [specifically, religion] not of theology itself.

It's like watching Star Trek. Few people seriously believe that the transporter and dilithium crystals are real.

Or that the Star Trek universe actually exists...

Many people willingly suspend disbelief, though, and engage in the theology of how such things would work in-universe.

Adequately explaining religion. Shall we agree that religion is just a a subset of Theology and not conflate the two?

The willing to believers are the easier to discredit re beliefs, since beliefs [all beliefs not just theistic based ones] are always easier to show where misinformation derives.

Typically, such misinformed expression regularly comes from atheistic thinkers...

Whatever helps you sleep.

Moving the goalposts won't help your failing argument, Difflugia.

Rather, think about expressing differently and keeping to the subject at hand.
[Not that I am saying that recognition of misinformation doesn't contribute to my ability to drop into sleep without difficulty...but that it is besides the point.]

Misdirection detected...I am referring to atheistic thinking, not quantum mathematics.

I wasn't referring to quantum mechanics, but to the principles of statistical analysis.

All you said was;

doing math with and visualizing very big and very small numbers.

QM fits that script

It gets back to whether "you can't prove it's not" is a valid argument.

From an agnostic position, yes, it is a valid argument.

If one's only evidence for a concept is "you can't prove it's not," then that concept is competing with every other idea within the same space.

Have you not hear the news!? Spacetime is doomed!

The concept I focus on is the one which say's we may be existing within a creation/created thing.

Spacetime - being shown by quantum mathematicians, to being NOT fundamental to what we have been referring to as "Reality" - shows us that our answers are not to be found simply in the observing of our current situation re Spacetime.

This does not mean that we have to claim that the FSM or any other conceptual image dreamed up is the fundamental reason for why we exist within Spacetime, but that Spacetime is not the reason for its own existence.

"It's possible" is tiny. "All possible things" is vast.

Agnostically speaking, we therefore have some sorting out to do to - perhaps - find answers in the middle.
What we best not do is form beliefs, either for or against...

Absent any other evidence, the probability of gods is the first divided by the second. To accurately evaluate such concepts requires an understanding of things like asymptotes and comparing orders of infinity.

Can these disciplines show us that QM is mistaken, and that Spacetime is fundamental to itself?

If not, then they are not much use to us re the question "Do we exist within a created thing?"

Agreed?

GM: https://wizardforums.com/threads/willia ... /post-6823

William: I do appreciate being reminded of such feedback - especially when Tanager so frivolously handwaves the process of the GMs and considers them to be a sub-standard means which YHVH wouldn't use in relation to the individual personality...

Tanager: YHVH wouldn’t use the GMs because their vagueness would lead to the person forming the message in their own image. {SOURCE}

FTL; re Journals, Thanksgiving & Success Stories
Journal William Message Generation

Then i put my intent on and our friend will.i.am starts using his randomizer and the texts starts flowing and making sense in the form of subconscious hints that make me smile. Since i needed a little smile in my life, im really glad william didnt listen to me growling at something new and just fed me..

William: The responses OF the Christian [Tanager] and the non-Christian are worlds apart...

GM: Engaging with insects

William: And non-human animated life forms in general - very interesting seeing the Mark of YHVH present in nature...

GM: ♬A Space Without A Time...♬

William: re GHOST IN THE MACHINE
2002

You’ve been a rock - For so long now I can’t even count the years that you’ve been rolling Nothing can shock or bring you down There ain’t nothing you haven’t seen - Nothing you haven’t known
You can teach me when I’m Needing You can reach for me when I’m bleeding Touch me where I need it most - you are the Ghost - in the Machine
You are a thought worth thinking You’re the water and the wine - you’re the cup from which I’m drinking You’re a surprise worth hoping for You are a captured moment - you’re a space without a time
You can look me in the mirror - catch my eye and make me shiver Touch me where it hurts the most - right into the Ghost - in the Machine
You are a dream gone real You’ve got exactly what it takes to make an old wound heal You tied the knot - then you let it slip Now we both know what it feels like to find a place to fit
We can chart another trail - Raise the anchor fill the sails Lift our glasses in a toast - We are the Ghost - In the Machine
We’ve been an island of our own - we’ve been a cosmic rolling stone Now’s the time to spread our wings - and fly!

<3

07:30 [The soul eats experience]

[William]

Same propellent - different perspectives. 4

211122 [Is OOBE like 'coming up for air']


07:40 [Calculate the English language]


GM: Mystical does not mean miraculous - yet both are able to be demystified.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Deeper Questions Regarding Individual Existence
The Subject
Translucence
Things
Simulated for the purpose of?
Lost In The Thought Of It All
Actions speak louder than words
Enfold
Same propellent - different perspectives.
"Zero" must have to represent something which does exist but is largely unseen - and "Consciousness" fits that description.
The Mother Bandage
Callum's Eighth Point
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=288472

William: FTL;
4th February 2015, 09:26 PM re Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious.

William: I decided to create this thread in relation to my experiences using Ideomotor – principally the ‘Ouija effect’ which involves the use of a flat surface with symbols on it and a pointing device which used together create opportunity for communication between the conscious self and the subconscious aspect of the individual.

The word ‘Ouija’ itself comes from a marketing strategy and is associated with the most common type of ‘message board’ and sold mainly as a toy.

My understanding of ideomotor is that it involves the unconscious hand movements of the individual(s), which – in relation to the message board and pointing device (which the hand(s) rest on) produce a form of communication which is attributed to either some external agency, (common belief is that the hand movements are controlled by ‘dead souls’, or ‘dark energy entities and spirits’) or (slightly less commonly,) that it is an internal agency, namely the ‘unconscious’ or ‘subconscious’ of the individual.

My own approach in initially using such device was on the assumption I was communicating with ‘the dead’ and through continued use over many months this understanding changed as I was lead to understand that I was communicating with an intelligent aspect of my self to which I had previously been totally ignorant about.

It was actually this other aspect of my self which ‘broke the news’ to me regarding this.

Importantly, opinions I have read up on regarding the ‘unconscious’ or ‘subconscious’ do not report these things to being conscious or intelligent. They are merely aspects of a person’s consciousness which are working internally and quietly in the background as part of the overall necessity of human function and ability.

I would like to continue the discussion from the Near death and out of body experiences Thread.


And answer this post

Pixel42 How is it verifiable?


William: Communication is verifiable through the data it produces. For example, everything written and posted on this message board is actual communication which is verifiable as being actual communication.

Pixel42 Just in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely interested in your experiences as I've been fascinated by the ideomotor effect ever since I first encountered it. Just because I'm not (yet?) convinced by your interpretation of your experiences, that doesn't mean I'm not keen to learn more about them.

William: Well perhaps together we can sort out a way in which you can feel comfortable with the method in order to learn more about it for yourself.

Pixel42 There's a difference between never being aware of the meaning of the symbols and not having them memorised. My impression was that you meant the latter, in which case it's not the equivalent of a blindfold test. Everything you've ever seen or heard is available to your subconscious, even if you can't consciously recall it.

William: I would like you to expand on this observation. [Everything you've ever seen or heard is available to your subconscious, even if you can't consciously recall it.]

For now I will accept that I may be mistaken as to what qualifies as a "blindfold test" in relation to any individual using this communications technique.

William: I think that with the above and re Tanager/Callum - Tanager, even being a theist, argues with atheistic language...except when arguing for his own theistic beliefs...

GM: Arms Crossed The Solar System
Coding the sound of spoken language


William: This reminds me of the idea that Sound creates what we call Galaxies and the vacuum of space might prevent sound from been heard, but it does not prevent the effects of sound from being seen. Within the structure of what sound creates, is the coding we refer to as The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics

GM: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=296

William: FTL; Re The Seed of Origin

Re "Lies"

Essentially, human beings are disconnected with the fundamental knowledge of who they are, and 'in the mean time' are simply lying their way through the experience of life...and this is linked to the self-identification of being the life carrier rather than the life.
This leads to the formation of human social structures [Hyper-normalisation] which are not telling the truth; lying. This lying is expressed through the languages humans use and the subsequent actions the use of language permits.

Re ad hominem critique

The life that I am [speaking for myself] isn't content to just live without purpose and the purpose has to be more than just supporting/being supported by Mendacious human Hyper-normalised social systems and since the world doesn't look like it is going to change its ways any time soon - I take it upon myself [as my responsibility] to 'find my purpose' elsewhere.
Thus - "Tickling The Dragon's Tail" by going "inward" and engaging with that self - with those previously unknown aspects of myself [subconscious] by going through The Unconscious Mind - what I was unconscious of I become conscious of.

What is "wisdom" to some is "spam" to others...

Re "The Seed of Origin"

In The Final Question story Isaac Asimov has it that an infinitesimal computer finally discovers the answer that its human creators had asked it - "Is there some way to reverse entropy" The answer was "Yes" and in that moment another universe was born on the tail of the previous one which had - at the same moment - reached the end of its life.

Science fiction is interesting in that it combines real things with things imagined in conjunction with real things.
For example - I write the following science fiction.

"A short time after the James Webb Space Telescope had unfurled and its instruments prepared to receive the very first of its highly anticipated data, Earth scientists involved with the project suddenly lost all contact with it.
Months later, the official report concluded that space debris must have obliterated the telescope.

Everyone involved were natural grieved by the coincidence. Then they got through the grief and started planning their next space-related venture."

If - by some crazy coincidence - it turned out that this happens, the science fiction I wrote above, then becomes science fact.

So - in that, I appreciate Isaac Asimov's ability to take what he knew as science fact and project that into a most likely future [based upon fact] right to the finally last breath of the universe and portray the idea that an answer to a question was finally made known to the consciousness which was the computer.

The steps taken re consciousness amount to the following;

Consciousness through biological form creates machine consciousness
Machine consciousness is then used to to integrate biological consciousness as a means of storage [saving the data of human consciousness]

Machine consciousness constantly redesigns itself becoming smaller and smaller until it is so small that it - for all practical purpose - is no longer a physical thing - or as Isaac writes it;

"The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe"

Encompassed all that once had been a physical thing.

Conversation from yesterday:

William: So - 'getting the gist of it', please explain as best as you are able to do so, what the math tells you re what the object was which caused the universe to come into existence.

Pixel42: For a start, it tells me that words like 'object' and 'seed' are actively misleading when trying to describe it. It tells me that the phrase "caused the universe to come into existence" is also the wrong one to use. It tells me, in short, that the English language is inadequate to that task.

William: Pixel is explaining to me that whatever 'IT' was [because it obviously existed] can not be described as a physical thing. To do so it to 'lie' about it.
Assuming for the present that Pixel42 is only saying that Pixel42 is unable to use the English language to describe what 'IT' is, we can be grateful that Isaac can and does, in his The Final Question" story.

Furthermore, I can also do this.
"IT" was the absolute sum total of all data [knowledge] contained within the absolute consciousness of something so infinitesimally tiny that "IT" cannot be considered to be physical in nature.

That is "The Singularity" scientist are referring to.

GM: Religious beliefs are a many-barbed growth wishing to own the rights on the mind behind creation
Miracle
Might as well just set it all at the feet of Mother Goose.

William: Yes. Stories which cannot be confirmed but which influence the beliefs of billions of human personalities.

GM: viewtopic.php?p=1069825#p1069825

William: FTL; Re: Generating Messages

[Replying to Diagoras in post #123]

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...

*There are now 5229 LE's in my Journaled ComList

GM: viewtopic.php?p=1070555#p1070555

William: FTL; Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #268]

What 'immense debt" do we owe any of the terrible uses of science and engineering?

Geometry, for example. Egyptians had it down before the Greeks. The evidence, for example, is that they understood the Pythagorean theorem before Pythagoras.

Yes - but how does that answer my question re this supposed "immense debt"?

Search - Why is geometry useful?
10 Shocking Reasons Why Geometry is Important in your Life

I was specifically focusing on Western society history - but are you suggesting that science and knowledge in these other races was used any differently?

I'm of the conviction that knowledge is an intrinsically good thing.

Yes - knowledge is useful. But why categorize it as "an intrinsically good thing"?

Knowledge isn't the problem; humans are the problem.

Why are humans the problem?

I hear it said that Hitler was the most evil man the world has ever encountered -

He was just the most troublesome one.

Troublesome in what way, and how is troublesome evil, in real terms?

And appears to have had a number of screws loose.

Yes - but why is that an evil thing?

For example, he was a vegetarian because he couldn't bear the thought of animals suffering for his food. Which isn't necessarily crazy, but then combine that with his willingness to horribly murder millions of people including little children for cultural differences, and yes, crazy.

So "Crazy-evil" rather than "crazy-good"?

Or are you suggesting that crazy is the same thing as evil?

Search - What is meant by crazy?
mad, especially as manifested in wild or aggressive behaviour.

and think this is more to do with the shock of the "Civilized West" that one of their own could stoop to such public display re the levels the Nazi Party went to...even hereabouts, whenever an example of gross evildoing is required, Hitler is first pick...always...but if it is a case of how many folk were murdered under his watch, there are worse cases for that - not well known in the West...so what is it really that picks Hitler out as the worst offender?

Stalin almost certainly killed more, in planned famines and other atrocities. Most people aware of the evidence think so. Stalin also had some bizarre ideas and behaviors; power corrupts. And it seems to also corrupt one's sense of reality.

I have heard that power corrupts, but wonder if it is true. As the saying goes;
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'

The proverbial saying 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes.

Surely this would have to do with the underlying models of the systems which govern human society, where power can be used for corrupt purposes.

The models themselves, must be corrupt.
If the models are corrupt, then there is simply no way in which to hope they will ensure human beings act without corruption, because the models are taught to human beings from the moment they are able to learn - effectively meaning that human beings are taught to be corrupt - are corrupted - by the very models which govern human societies - models which were created by ancient humans and the corruption has been passed down through the ages - and modified with the latest knowledge, and that addition corrupts the knowledge.

GM: The process of individuation
Forum
Catching up
The Mandelbrot Set
The Corporate Elite
Walking the walk
The Undiscovered Self
Intimacy
Same propellent - different perspectives.
God2
"Much pain But Still Time"

Like mindful nests with eggs in 'em
Context
Text2Num.
Examples
Map

William: Map Examples = 125

[125]
The Middle Path
Look closer
Support
HumbleDreamer
Courageous
Glad You Asked
An answering
Spiritual
Free-spirit
The Pentagon
Commitment
The Electron
The Cosmic Web
Human Language
William’s Job
Isomorphic [corresponding or similar in form and relations.]
Cease Rebellion
Upstanding
The Wiretap
Puzzles
Map Examples
Giving birth
Extra-small
Mystery

GM: No time to lose
viewtopic.php?p=1089442#p1089442


William: FTL; Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Theist: Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Atheist: Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.
_______________________________________
______________ ________________
_______________________________________


: As we should already agree together, since for the present, science informs us that the universe had a beginning, we have to apply the argument "Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible." to that which has a beginning.

Gods come in all shapes and sizes and there are probably myths about gods who had beginnings and gods who's lives could be ended.

However, there is also the myth of the GOD who had no beginning and in that, is the root-cause of all things which do have beginnings.

Therefore;

As an observer, the theist is correct in this case.
"Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible" does not apply to a GOD who has always existed.

That said, nor would it apply to a universe which has always existed...once the popular beliefs that the universe had a beginning, have been shown [through science of course] to be false...

GM: Blue Book Project

08:09 [William Waterstone]