[
Replying to post 92 by Justin108]
It is the same for most people and I am assuming it is the same for you. Think of the data stream which is the greater part of your subjective experience as a human being and therein notice what confirms and conflicts with that data of experience.
Can I perhaps get a more direct answer?
Can you explain to me why you require a summary of the vast amounts of confirming and conflicting data I have sifted through?
Do I need to provide a specific counter-explanation in order for you to dismiss your own explanation?
If it is your intention to make an attempt at getting me to do that, then yes. What do you mean by 'it could be 'something else'.
If you heard a noise in the night and someone said "it's a vampire!", would you need to explain exactly what the true source of the noise is in order to dismiss the given explanation that it's a vampire? Or is "that was probably something else" a sufficient explanation?
In the case of your vampire example, I would not find it necessary to explain the exact source of the noise unless I knew. I may be able to offer more likely explanations for the source of the noise.
So please explain; 'It was probably something else' has to at least be accompanied by examples of who/what that 'something else' might be.
Otherwise I see no reason why I shouldn't continue with understanding that what the entity told me it is, that is what it is.
Umm... yes. They are two very different things.
When you used the word 'assuming' you misrepresented what I actual have been saying.
I have not said that my thoughts come exclusively from the planet entity. I said that it is one means by which it is able to commune with me.
Our thoughts are shaped through a variety of sources, and in that, the planet entity has intimate access to all my thoughts. Given the type of relationship which naturally develops through this type of interaction, thoughts of themselves - in relation to me as an individual entity and it as an individual entity - are not as 'separate' as one might assume.
I will re-post this so as to bring things back into line with what i actually was saying,
The Categories:
1: The
same though the lens perspective of the Source Reality (overall consciousness);
2: Similar through the lens perspective of those who are being enlightened by diligent observation and investigation - no matter what form they are within, other than any form which is unable to be used for that purpose - and;
3: different though the lens perspective of those who
can go there but who
chose not to do so.
So back to your claim;
Not knowing where our thoughts come from and assuming our thoughts come from some sort of planet god are two very different things.
Someone who thinks these are from different sources belongs in category
3
I am category
2: which is also the default category of
1:
Our thoughts come from consciousness. They are formed through the lens of our perceptions. Thus our perceptions create the form that the thoughts take.
In your case, the thoughts see 'difference' and in my case the thoughts see 'similar/same'
I have seen no reason why my ability to see sameness is erroneous and/or egregious.
If you cannot support your claim, why bother making it in a debate site? This is for all intents and purposes no different from preaching. The only difference is Christians use a book to preach. You use claims of direct divine communication. A claim that is without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I will remind you that you invited JW to respond to your question "Can you perhaps describe how exactly God communicated with you?" and I replied "I know your questions were to JW but I am always keen to answer such questions, so hope that you don't mind that I do."
If you want to dismiss my claim as nothing more than a theist/philosophical idea, that is no skin off my nose, as the saying goes.
I am rather unfamiliar with your brand of god. Is your god not also omnipotent?
The Earth Entity is not all powerful.
As hilarious as you might find it, can this entity read minds or not?
The Earth Entity is able to be intimately aware of an individuals thoughts. It is able to access the individuals mind, yes.
Time and time again? Oh so you've done this before? You've read someone's mind?
Where did you get that from what I asked?
Remember when I said you would probably come up with an excuse not to go through with my proposed test? Well this is it. "The Earth Entity can, but he doesn't want to".
He?
It is not a question of not wanting to, as is clear in my question to you. As an individual conscious self aware intelligence, would YOU like to be used simply because you have abilities which might be useful, but prove not to be, time and again?
The hilarious part had to do with your use of the word 'USE' ...
"If so, should one not be able to use this Earth Entity to read minds? "
One does not USE the Earth Entity. One has a relationship WITH the Earth Entity.
If YOU want me to know all about YOU, that is YOUR job to tell me. My relationship with EE has no direct interest in finding out about YOU through IT. I do not USE the EE.
This:
A: [lol] Problem: Expectations and anticipations formed through the bias of individual autonomous thought processes, act as dysfunctional devices inhibiting the process of coherent and useful dialogue between those individual aspects of overall consciousness.
Potential solution: Understanding and agreeing together that is the case and working around that in order to attempt to find solution.
Is not "All pseudo-intellectual nonsense" as you claim. However, it does shine a light on what type of personality you are. Not one who necessarily is interested potential solution mentioned above. I will keep that in mind.
Very well, give me the name of one of my dogs. I have two. You can name either of them. This is not public information, nor are their names common enough for anyone to just guess them. If you can tell me the name of one of my two dogs, I will concede that there is no alternate explanation for how you could possibly know that. So with that excuse aside, please ask your Earth Entity what my dog's name is? Or are you going to make another excuse to refuse the challenge?
You presume that the Earth Entity is something to use - to jump through your hoops in order that you can ascertain whether it exists and can access you private life.
Apart from that, your 'name my dogs' idea is faulty as it stands. It is open to being able to be tampered with.
Lets say that I ask the entity and the reply is "Sid and Gypsy" and I say so and lo and behold I am correct BUT you lie and say that I am incorrect.
So in summary, you are trying to create rather flimsy testable criteria for the EE under the assumption It does not have rules of its own and in relation to its position related to your own, why do you think you should be interesting enough to It, that it should go to the trouble of agreeing with your criteria?
Your assumption is that It wants you to know it, and will set aside its own requirements regarding that and go along with your requirements regarding that, when - all said and done, there is no guarantee that even if it were to provide you evidence of its existence by going along with you demands, you would want to have a relationship with it anyway.
Indeed, I say it can access your thoughts intimately. Perhaps therein, it can see for itself the pointlessness of even trying to get it on with you in that regard?
In relation to my finding out about the EE, I was curious and went looking - not specifically for it, but nonetheless, that is where my seeking led me. I did not create hoops for It to jump through.
