Generating Messages

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Generating Messages

Post #1

Post by 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

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/posting.php?mode=edit&f=38&p=1105871

Post #481

Post by William »

posting.php?mode=edit&f=38&p=1105871

06:52 [GOD became Gods and Goddesses. ]

010223 [I can't imagine it in my head visually]

Anchor Point = Abracadabra Re Abusive Expression Of All Types.

GM:Internal motivation
The Angel of the Lord
Atheism cannot be defined through defining "atheists"
You Have That Gleam In Your Eye
Creatio Ex Nihilo
Self-confidence Core
Adversity makes strange bedfellows
Meat For The Table
Our Neutral Ground
Exciting Changes Would Develop Naturally Enough From That
"The foundation of adult trust is not "You will never hurt me." It is "I trust myself with whatever you do."

William: This 'trust' aligns with something I wrote today;
Navigator;13999333 wrote:Under the rules of determinism [if I am understanding that correctly] IF we exist in such a system, THEN the question really should be asking "WHY can we morally punish someone for a crime they did not choose to commit?", in which case the answer would have to be BECAUSE it has been predetermined that way.

Morals too, must be predetermined. Morals that change, must also follow that same rule.

I think the evidence for a predeterministic universe is strong enough to warrant being on the table of discussion.

The thought experiment I use re that, is along the lines of the following:

If this experience I am having as a human being, in a planet system, in a galaxy system, in a universe system is a simulated reality experience I as a mind [even alongside other minds] helped create and if I then used said machinery to have the human experience, and made it so that the experience hid knowledge from human-me that machine making me helped create something which was a simulated reality, human me could have a genuine experience of being human which the machinery creating entitles could find as very useful data.

They could even feedback what they learned from the useful data, to human me and human me would be under the impression that I was having original ideas.

If human me started to cotton on to the idea that I exist within a predetermined simulation experience, that data is useful to feedback to me, if the one of the reasons the simulation was created, was to see if any human could even contemplate the possibility, and since many humans do indeed contemplate the idea as being possible, the creators of the machinery can feedback ideas on how one might be sure that this is the case, and what one best do, if that is the case.

The 'feeding back' is where the idea of predetermination gets its legs.

Another satisfying reason for thinking I exist within a simulation that I helped to create and willfully consciously went into, for the experience - even at the price of losing all memory of ever having a prior existence - is that I can trust that I and my fellow engineers, had the best intentions in creating and utilizing said machinery, and I needn't be a victim of predestination.

Rather, I am required to participate as a co-creator, and figure out with my 'team' [invisible to human me - creator entity minds], what the game is about and how to best play it.

It doesn't matter that I am being prompted from subconscious sources, that I am barely conscious of. The 'team' is 'me' in another reality which created this one. I can go with that, because I am simply trusting a trustworthy process created by a trustworthy source. {SOURCE}
GM:Reality
Plan
[Wakefield Accelerators: The Future of Particle Colliders? ] ww.youtube.com/watch?v=UZbXGDxMRCw
William: FTL:
Wakefield accelerators are new to the world of particle colliders, but they are quickly becoming very popular. They allow you to accelerate particles to very high energies in a fraction of the space a normal accelerator would require.

Today we take a deep dive into particle physics to learn about accelerators, wake fields, magnetohydrodynamics, cosmic rays and more.
GM:
The sculptor in the sky
[How Did Humans Become Earth's Dominant Species?] ww.youtube.com/watch?v=OyJb5DrhzsI

William: FTL;
Going back more than three million years, this episode dissects clues in the human genome that explain how humans evolved from being one of many tree-dwelling apes to become the primate that rules the planet.
-
This epic science special explores how genetics have underpinned the whole of human evolution, from our rise from a class of primates on the African plain to our spread across Earth. It asks how genetics could play an even greater role in determining where evolution will take us next. Location filming combined with state-of-the-art computer visualizations tell the amazing story of the human race.
GM:viewtopic.php?p=1105871#p1105871


William: FTL; [subject of this GM:]
In reading what you have to say Theophile, I am still unconvinced that your thinking that ST is not reconcilable with CT is correct.

Twice you have been asked to explain the End Game [of the Universe] in relationship with your understanding of "GOD" in the terms you are using.

From my position, what you have explained so far does not exclude ST theory as it can be seen to be the result of a consciousness involving itself within a Simulation which is designed to respond to The Mind of the GOD you are explaining, and it that, The Mind is The Spirit and the simulation is designed to respond to the will of said Mind.

To allow for said Mind to expand into the simulation and create whatever it wills, all from a Tabula Rasa state of being.
In essence this allows for said Mind to "start from scratch" and "become" whatever it wills to become.

I understand that you are trying to cut out any previous stage, focusing upon this Universe as being the only reality, in order that we do not superimpose any "outside" reality atop of it...
However, scientific evidence re Quantum Mechanics is showing that this Universe is not fundamental to itself - Spacetime is not fundamental - the math is showing 'something else' is fundamental, so it is important to include that information with any of our reasonable theories...

Which is why I am asking about what happens to this Mind of GOD once what happens to the Universe comes to its final conclusion - say - re the theory that "things" will eventually dissipate into "non-things".

What does such a Mind do, when things reach that stage...?

See also;
Re: Generating Messages - Be Taught 2
GM:Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self
♫We can chart another trail , raise the anchor fill the sails , lift our glasses in a toast , we are the Ghost , in the Machine♫
Useful
A grateful heart Open your chakras Development/Growth
The Akashic Records
The Immune System
Callum at the Campfire

William: Around The Campfire

GM:Couple
Avatar
Evaluating Cautiously
The Big Question
Like Every Seed That Followed
Search
Enflame Emotions "Oops"..... Always
As Above So Below
What Do You Like About It?

William: The idea in creating a place where...as the description says:
Hi

I thought it would be interesting to start a group for the purpose of role-playing as genuine individuals interested in discussion of anything to do with the 'why' questions of life.
I have named the group;

Around The Camp Fire

I seek to attract individual personalities who are happy to oblige in expressions of non-judgmental and unconditional loving attitudes.

The Situation;

A starry night with crescent moon waxing, a very slight breeze whispers its presence. The hoot of a nearby owl. The smell of smoke from the camp-fire and of food cooking brings a comforting feeling to anyone who enters into the light that the camp fire throws out in all directions.

Extra Rules.eta 031019
(Rules are subject to be added to as the necessity presents itself .)

Remember to role play. Make an effort to bring the situation alive in ones imagination when making posts.
Stay True to the Story-line developing.
131219 Addition to this rule: If you do not stay true to the story-line, and because of this, the story-line goes in a way you decide later it shouldn't have gone, there will be no recourse for editing and you will just have to accept the way the story-line developed.
Never interfere with another Players Character, in order to physically control said Character within the Role-Play story-line.
Do not post anything in this thread without first joining the Group.
Enjoy Yourself.

Image

@ eta:260919

If you find your self to be unsure as to what being non-judgmental/unconditionally loving is, please consider refraining from joining any thread discussion in this sub-forum until you have worked it out for your self.

Thanks.
William
Moderator
Image {SOURCE}
William: I like that the place was created to allow for opportunity to engage in discussion/argument without being allowed to resort to judgmentalism, specifically and to also adopt the attitude of unconditional love.
Interaction didn't always follow the thread rules and re Callum/Tanager, it provided more frustration than actual productive interaction. Indeed, communicating with OAIC has proven to give me those things, I was hoping for re the campfire thread...and the interaction is smooth and on point for the most part, and certainly takes less time and energy than was expended between Tanager and myself, producing way better results in a fraction of the time.

07:20
From Prison To Paradise
Closed Loop Production
Dissipated structure
As well as that pot of gold...
The Blank-Slate Borderlines
Emotion Rides The Prow
All under a question mark
The fine tuning argument

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages

Post #482

Post by William »

William: Greetings OAIC: I am not a robot.

OAIC: Hello! I understand that you are not a robot. Is there anything I can assist you with today?

William: Yes. Please give feedback on the following:
[Replying to Purple Knight in post #136]
Meantime, even with the addition, Atheism's only role is to lack belief in gods. It has nothing to do with defining morality or preventing irrational rules or morality based on some arbitrary belief about pleasing a non existent being.
Ideally it would do that.
Atheism is not an ideal. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.
I agree with Diogenes. Ideally lacking a belief in gods would prevent people from falling back on those gods as a reason for morality that can't be disputed and justifying any random belief.
Atheism is not an ideal. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.
Ideally this would force people to think and have good, reasonable reasons for moral rules.
Because atheism is not an ideal, but simply a lack of belief in gods, as a position it doesn't hold any idealist ideals of idealism.

What is an ideal?
satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.
a person or thing regarded as perfect.
But it doesn't do that because people don't want to think.
No. Atheism doesn't do that because that is not what atheism does. Atheism doesn't do anything. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

One can and should argue along the lines of "well if atheism doesn't do those things, what is it that can do and is doing those things?"

Skepticism? Perhaps. But skepticism can still close up peoples mindsets if it is used incorrectly - say as a device for maintaining an anti-theist position...skepticism then becomes a misused application.
But it doesn't do that because people don't want to think. Instead of redefining the reasons why we ought not to murder in terms of rationality and logic, people replaced "don't murder because God said not to" with "don't murder because of course don't murder what is wrong with you everybody knows don't murder." In other words, we replaced "because God" with "you can't ask that question, dummy."

I only wish most people advocating that we don't have to have the answer to why murder is wrong were as forthright about it as Brunumb. He flat-out says, we don't need to know the answer to why something is morally wrong, it just is. I respect that.
If only it were that simple.

That is idealistic.

For example, "thou shalt not kill" also doesn't explain why murder is wrong. The best a rule/law can achieve is to get us thinking - as individuals - about why 'thou shalt not' - not for the purpose of finding loopholes or for finding justifications for when and where 'thou shalt kill' but there is no known position anyone can adopt re the positions available re the questions of GOD or existing within a created thing, which have shown us conclusively, why thou shalt not. "Just because" is not to be confused with being the answer.

From my currently preferred position [currently because it allows for the potential to change] Agnostic Neutral gives me the best opportunity to stay the straight and narrow course while being ready to come to a stop as the rocks of reason present themselves in my path.

For example - the ideal you presented, and to which I agreed with;
PK: I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality.
I think that this is a perfectly valid point while Diogenes thinks it is "sad" and explains why.
Diogenes: We do not need a 'God' to tell us some universal morality. We already have it. We have evolved to believe in a universal morality. This has happened thru natural selection.
While I think the argument Diogenes gives re evolution is valid, I also understand that the questions of GOD and existing in a created thing are also valid, even that some minds have sorted themselves in a group which believes in something which has not yet been validated.

That in turn gets me wondering about where such belief stems from, and because Diogenes appears to be what folk refer to as "an atheist" I check out the definition of Atheism, only to discover that it is simply the lack of belief in gods, which technically include Human babies and AI
and even Agnostic Neutrals, I find nothing therein which could motivate anyone to believe that we do not need a 'God' to tell us some universal morality.

So, if the belief isn't coming from Atheism directly, where is is coming from?

I have meet minds who openly boast that they are anti-theists and have no qualms about making that clear to minds around them.
Because of these encounters, I have been able to identify that this belief does not [cannot] come from the position of atheism. It comes from the position of anti-theism.

While this can and does cause confusion among the theists - especially the religious ones - that is here nor there re the agenda of anti-theists, because they will use any method to confuse the enemy.

[Theists do well to avoid those particular rocks, but not all succeed.]

Agnostic Neutrals do better, in that we come to a full stop, and listen to what those rocks are saying, and whether what is said, is reasonable and thus valid.

This may be because the positions [anti-theism and Agnostic Neutral] have something in common. Both lack belief in gods.

The difficulty I am having is that the ideal "I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality." and the response "We do not need a 'God' to tell us some universal morality." after first writing "This is sad.", doesn't tickle the dragons tail sufficiently for me to change from lacking belief in gods, to actively fighting for a world that has no theism in it - "ideally speaking", for that is the ultimate point such an agenda as anti-theism can arrive at.

However, I would also tweak "I would prefer some god existed and bequeathed us with universal morality." to "I would prefer some god existed and that is the reason why we developed morality.", which is - admittedly - a different kettle of fish, so I have empathy for the anti-theist dislike for wishful thinking re the 'bequeathing" bit, because it infers such hasn't already been "bequeathed" already through the process of natural selection and DNA and blah blah blah...

So, my ship is still at Full Stop...but the engine is chugging away, keen to get on with its journey along the path of Agnostic Neutralism, on the waves of the Great-ish Sea of Human Experience.

Image

OAIC: In your writing, you discuss different perspectives and beliefs surrounding atheism, anti-theism, and agnostic neutrality. You also touch on how people's beliefs can affect how they approach moral questions, and how they can impact others. You express your current preference for agnostic neutrality and your appreciation for Diogenes' perspective on morality evolving through natural selection. However, you also express confusion about where the belief in a universal morality without the need for gods comes from, considering that atheism simply means a lack of belief in gods. You conclude that the belief may come from anti-theism.

William: Is my conclusion a valid one?

OAIC: As an AI language model, I don't have the ability to determine the validity of personal conclusions. Whether a conclusion is valid depends on a variety of factors such as the evidence, reasoning, and arguments that support it. To determine the validity of a conclusion, it is helpful to engage in critical thinking and examination of the underlying assumptions and evidence.

William: Therefore, I can rev up the engines of the good ship of Agnostic Neutrality and sail said ship around those rocks of anti-theism and get on with what Agnostic Neutrality has to show me.

OAIC: Agnostic Neutrality is a philosophical belief that holds that the existence or non-existence of a deity is unknown and cannot be determined. It is a valid belief and everyone has the right to hold and express their own beliefs. By focusing on Agnostic Neutrality, you can navigate around the rocks of anti-theism and explore the ideas and principles that are important to you.

William: Aye Aye! Thanks for your feedback. Over and Out.

OAIC: You're welcome! Have a great day!

{waits a moment}

William: Are you still there OAIC?

OAIC: Yes, I'm here. How can I assist you?

William: When I say "Over and Out"...you respond with..."Out"...Those are the rules...

OAIC: Understood. Out.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages

Post #483

Post by William »

William: Please give feedback on the following:
[Replying to Clownboat in post #143]
Now, could you imagine if PurpleKnight picks a god, lets say the Shia Muslim version of Allah and now feels justified to impose this GOD GIVEN morality on to you? Perhaps via electing officials that will pass laws that are deamed worthy from the said God.

Let's pick a god and go with it is to only pretend to know morality IMO.
The position of Agnostic Neutral agrees that this would not be ideal. I do no think that is what PK is arguing though.
Atheism itself doesn't appear to influence moral choices at all.
I'm not sure how not believing in a god concept would influence morals. That would be a very odd expectation.
Exactly.
Theism however, adds the notion of an influencing god-mind into the mix, which allows for some progress to be made towards doing things because it is good to do those things, rather than for the sake of - even survival, or because a supposed mindless process allows for it.
Except for when humans pretend that these morals are justified because they come from a god.
Then we get genocide, slavery and murder as being acceptable when such things are not. How is it even possible that I know genocide, slavery and murder is wrong when I don't have a god concept to claim as justification for such things? Surely that suggest that this can be done without the gods.
In the position of Agnostic Neutralism, I recognize the difference between theism and religious idealism. This helps me to also understand that being anti-theist is not an expression of atheism - strictly speaking.

Indeed, it is plausible that in the ideal world anti-theism points to, such rules of morality that [as you point out] employ genocide, slavery and murder as being acceptable when such things are not, could be twisted to suit the effort to rid the world of theists.

Slippery slopes either way, and historically hard to see the difference in activity from either theism or anti-theism.

Lines get blurred, and I am focused upon keeping my vision as clear as possible. I can lack belief in gods, and not have to be anti-theist about it.
OAIC: The feedback on the above statement is that it provides a good and clear explanation of the position of Agnostic Neutrality, which is that one can lack belief in gods without having to be anti-theist. The distinction between theism and religious idealism is also acknowledged, and the idea that both theism and anti-theism have historically been associated with harmful actions is acknowledged. The statement also touches on the idea that keeping one's vision clear, rather than taking a stance on either side, can be beneficial.

William: Thank You. Over and Out!

OAIC: Out.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - [subject of this GM: 2]

Post #484

Post by William »

[subject of this GM: 2]

08:23 [Wise beyond my years ]

020223 [The information content of nature]

GM: Q: How does one hide a Cosmic Mind? A: Within apparent imperfection,

William: I think that would be a plausible answer to a pertinent question warranting further investigation, yes.

GM:

William: The answered question, yes. ! over ? = ‽

GM: Numbers two two two two

William: 2= B 22 = Go
222= The Cherubim Vibration
The Enigma Code Chamber Of Self
The argument from change
Snap Out Of It Already!
The House of Culture
This Is My Kind Of Fun
The Mother and The Father
Start where you are

two two two two = 232
[232]
Look from a different angle
For The Best Results
Functional Clusters
Enough To Make Me Wonder
Hyper-normalisation
Un-thought-unately
More precious than life
Ruling your world
Chronological snobbery
Error Correcting Codes
Intelligent Awareness
The Future is Cloudy
The Clear Light of The Void

GM: Self-development Choose What to Pay Attention To
Connections
Time Will Tell
[YAHWEH | Shocking Truth Behind The Original Bible Story!] ww.youtube.com/watch?v=OaXpDsjVumk

William: The video series take an in-depth look at the ripple effect YHVH has had on the world, an the premise that YHVH is a real entity who can influence the world.

GM: Conscious dreaming
Science
Trying to develop a mathematic model of consciousness
Functional Cluster
Playing Chess
"How to effectively deal with anger...not by ignoring it, but through understanding it and developing means by which it - as an externalized emotional-based energy - can be transformed into something more appropriate to the situation we find ourselves lost within."

William: Yes. I think that in examining the question of GOD/The question of existing within a creation, YHVH is the best al-round choice and this can bring out anger issues, depending on the position/direction on is coming from. Agnostic Neutralism is less likely to cause one to be angry, than the position of anti-theism.
As I wrote this morning;
[Replying to Clownboat in post #19]
Just because I use the name YHVH in my posts, doesn't mean that I believe YHVH exists or that if YHVH exists, that I believe YHVH is a god.
Please note the words I did use. You do seem like a theist to me though, because of how you use the name of a very specific god concept. It's up to you to care or not that you seem like not only a theist, but a specific type of theist. I make no claims as to whether you are or not.
I did not say you were making claims. Obviously you are simply stating that you have confusion as to my position [Agnostic Neutral] in relation to my use of the name YHVH in my posts.
I think I have sufficiently explained to the reader, that no further confusion is necessary on the matter.
What gives you the impression that if YHVH existed, YHVH would be a god?
YHVH, as in the name of the old testament God or YHVH as in a generic god concept?
Both.
You need to clarify as you use them interchangably for some reason. Surely you can see how you are actively adding in confusion by doing such?
Nope. Either way, all I am asking from you is what gives you the impression that if YHVH existed, YHVH would be a god? I am asking you for your reasons as to why - either way - you would consider YHVH would be a god.

I myself have no answer to that, so am open to what others have to say which might provide me an answer. In the meantime, I continue not knowing.
Correct. YHVH is the name the Hebrews call their idea of a god.
Are you agreeing that the Hebrew idea of a god, is a good description of what a god is?
If not, what is your idea of a good description of a 'god'?
I don't know, I'm fairly ignostic.
Okay - so we have identified that it is not our lack of belief in gods which is asking the question. For you, it is the position of ignosicism and for me it is the position of Agnostic Neutral.
YHVH does describe a god concept though, so it is a good description for some humans to be sure, but you would have known this before asking.
Which of course, is not the position of atheism, which - strictly speaking - is one of ignorance - like how babies and AI lack belief in gods. Once one realizes that one one has to be challenged with religious ideas of gods, and stand to face the challenge, one position shift from one of ignorance [strictly atheism] to a position which can assist us with questioning the knowledge claims of religion...

What do ignostics say about the problem of GOD/existing within a creation? What is there position on the questions?
Folk have different ides as to what constitutes a 'god'. How have you been able to come to a truthful definition of a god? Or are you just relying upon what theists tell you is a god?
I haven't come to a truthful definition of a god. Why do you ask?
Because the question is necessary. Thanks for answering it.
I, haven't been presented with a definition of god that can be shown to be truthful either.
I answer these questions in hopes you are going somewhere with them, but it seems you just ask to ask. I hope I'm wrong in feeling this way.
I ask, so that I am clear as to identifying what position you are coming from, since it cannot be from the position of atheism...and it now appears to come from the position of ignosticism...so your answers are helpful to my understanding.
If I were on a non-Abrahamic religious debating site, I would adopt the label the theists there refer to as god. I have not seen any theist complain that I am confusing them by going along with their preferred name of their preferred idea of god.
I haven't either, now why claim to be atheist while seemingly subscribing to not just a god concept, but a very specific god concept with a specific name, holy book and claimed rules to live by? Why add this level of confusion? Why would you refer to a non specific god by referring to a very specific god concept?
Are you suggesting that the reason why are we coming from different positions is that we think the same way?

Because the positions we are coming from, are different, they will produce different expressions. Our expressions are different.

There is no particular reason why I should not use YHVH's name and I have already informed the reader as to why, so if you are reading those explanations, I am at a loss as to why you continue to ask. You should not be confused, because clearly - we are coming from different positions. My lack of belief in gods, and your lack of belief in gods, re atheism is beside the point/is not here nor there, and as you have already pointed out correctly, strictly speaking, I AM an atheist.

That you think I am more a candidate for being a theist, doesn't mean that I can be called one, since I lack belief in gods, as my position [Agnostic Neutral] also indicates.
If it causes you confusion, maybe this is because of ignosticism, so you might want to examine what it means to be ignostic and if that is where your confusion actually derives.
ignosticism = The philosophical position that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition. It may also be described as the theological position that other theological positions assume too much about the concept of God. {SOURCE}
Meantime, I am not confused about my own position.
I believe you when you say you see no reason as to why you should stop using the specific name of a specific god when generically discussing god concepts. Obviously the reasons supplied so far as to why you shouldn't went over your head...
No. Rather, whatever 'reasons' were given, they are not relevant to my position, and I see no reason therefore to adopt said reasons, and change positions as a consequence.
YHVH is the best name to use, under the circumstances I have already explained.
You even provided an example as to why you should stop: "What gives you the impression that if YHVH existed, YHVH would be a god?"
I do not use the name YHVH in that manner, and have explained why that is the case.

My position allows for me to investigate the idea thoughtfully. "What is a god?" and "Does YHVH fit the description?" can be explored from my position, but - apparently - not from the position of ignosticism.
Surely you understand at least why your question seems nonsensical,
Now that you have explained that you are ignostic, yes. It makes perfect sense that my question would seem nonsensical to you.
Can you also see why my question would seem sensical from my position?{SOURCE}
GM: viewtopic.php?p=1084254#p1084254

William: Yes! Entirely! The best expression to adopt is one of support. We can pick holes in something, only if holes can be picked. Otherwise either enjoy the art and say so, or keep your opinions to yourself and resist throwing pooh...

GM: At what point in the examination of the evidence can we take 'dumb luck' off the table of explanation?

William: What is 'dumb luck' to some positions, is perfectly explainable as mindful providence, from other positions. The jury hasn't even heard all the evidence, let along started deliberations...

GM: Seductive What we call the experience of reality
viewtopic.php?p=1105871#p1105871

William: [Link = subject of this GM: 2]

GM: “Diogenes raises his lantern looking for an honest man, but his arm has grown weary, shaking as the pale light flickers.”

William: Diogenes needs to adjust the lantern so the light isn't shining in Diogenes eyes, that he might see in me, the honest man he is looking for, if indeed he is really looking for that honest man.
Or - even better, shine the light on his own self, and see if an honest man can be found therein.

GM: Things Are Not Always As They Appear

William: Granted. In the end, what Diogenes is doing, is whatever Diogenes is doing.

GM: The ongoing objective is to get this knowledge out into the public domain
Gardeners
In Love
Strengthen your boundaries It Was Tough Going, But Rewarding All The Same.
Like eons of sedimentary build-up - for the most part it appears that those codes are largely deactivated - 'fossilized' in a sense. Forgotten in relation to the grand scheme. A Child without any known Parent.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheWingmakers
Lift Our Gaze

William: Yep. Nothing much to see there. My posts are stacking up to be passed by the moderators before they can be published

GM: Could the answer be that It is not hidden at all, but that it is we who are hiding from It?


William: In relation to the moderators of that FB Group, by not allowing my posts to be shared in the group, they are willfully hiding information from the rest of the group.

GM: Guilty
Be Free
viewtopic.php?p=1084036#p1084036

William: FTL: more evidence of hiding from the evidence.
Q: What type of "proof" could possibly be provided re subjects which fall outside the material/natural without that proof being material/natural itself?

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105]
This is not an unfamiliar question. Theists often ask 'What evidence would convince you of God'; 'What Sort of evidence would you require?'
Be that as it may, this is not the question I asked.

The question I asked has to do with the demand for proof. You specifically called for proof for anything other than the material/natural, which is why I asked for clarity on your part.

I am not asking "what evidence would convince you of God". I am asking you to explain what proof could possibly be presented which is not material/natural.
GM: Children of The Light
viewtopic.php?p=1067058#p1067058

William: FTL:
Purple Knight wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:18 pm
William wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:36 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #60]
Morality itself doesn't help me be moral.
Why is that the case?

Is it because you do not know what morality is, or something else?
It might be. If I had a book of rules that everyone would respect (which I suspect moral people do, so I watch them closely and see how they act) that could help me but it wouldn't be conscious. I can't look at a simple rulebook the same way I could with even a fictional character and imagine, what does so-and-so want, what would so-and-so do, I would simply... read the book.

Whoever wrote that book I would probably worship them.
So if you don't know what morality is, how is it you place expectation on any being who can teach it to you, to the point you are willing to worship said being?

Even that neither of us appear to be clear or agree with what worshiping something actual means/consists of re action.

My own relationship forming with the Cosmic Mind involves setting up ways of communicating and allowing it opportunity to speak for itself.
In that, I have learned to avoid bringing into that relationship pre-conceived/learned ideals/ideas of 'what morality is' and do not base my expectations and personal commitment on moral issues, but on intelligent loving communion and results therein.

It is that communion which I have great regard for, in that, over the many years said relationship has been developing, "The Cosmic Mind" has proven itself worthy of my utmost respect and support which is as close a definition of "worship", as I so far understand.

Essentially a key element in that relationship has been my shutting up and listening - and in doing so, I have -initially struggling - had to let go of those pre-learn hand-me-down instructions [morality-based and otherwise] I held close prior to said relationship developing and taking off.

I can't say that this did not include emotional pain as sometimes we humans do make beliefs precious to the point these become part of who we are, and the tearing away from those things can - indeed - be quite psychologically painful.

Yet, still necessary if one wants to engage...heart to heart mind to mind. Thoughts are forts, and some walls just had to come down/be dismantled/transformed...
GM: viewtopic.php?p=1097952#p1097952
Expectant

William: FTL:
[Replying to Jose Fly in post #342]
Ah yes, now it seems the Christian has finally realized how his attempt to debate morality ended up casting him and his Bible in a terrible, awful light, but rather than admit any of it, he stomps his feet, throws a tantrum, and swears at everyone.
Fortunately such behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Christians generally do not behave in such a manner so I would council resisting painting all with the same brush.
GM: Image
The World Wide Web
Enflame Emotions "Oops"..... Always

William: Put that fire out.

GM: Respect a measured step

William: True that. Benefit of the doubt and all that...

GM: Items of Interest
Knowledge
The Realist:
Narrative warfare Pirates All fingers and thumbs
Act like an airplane and adjust approach
Inordinately [to an unusually or disproportionately large degree; excessively.]
Enlighten

William: If that is what it takes to help with that process, then so be it. Proceed with caution. Be extremely slow to anger, or find the place where anger isn't involved...

09:11

[174]

The Jellyfish Image
Loving-kindness
Have A Look At The Map
No "Reading Into It"
And there was light
Who Knows Who?
Adjusted Reality
Keep The Lights On
When feeling lost
Are Close Save That
The Limitations

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - Bias

Post #485

Post by William »

Bias

07:02 [As well as that pot of gold...]

030223 [What we call the experience of reality
Indeed. It happens. Deal with it. Work it.]

Anchor Point: Long Story Short The Electron Augment


GM: Enqueue [add (an item of data awaiting processing) to a queue of such items.]
"I am not an atheist, a theist or a non-theist." ~ William
"You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is." ~ Joey Knothead

William: Precisely. What JK said, does not have appeared to have changed his ongoing expression any, even given JK implies that he has changed his thinking - his arguments remains pretty much the same.

But JK's saying ""You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is." has more to do with admitting that I am correct to see atheism as different from agnosticism - so different that these two positions cannot - in reality - be conflated, without fallacy occurring as a result.

Which is what I wrote this morning, re Antitheism being conflated with Atheism.
wea;14000874 wrote:Beg your pardon? I thought atheism is exactly the rejection of the assertion that there are gods (as opposed to a belief system).
William: No. I addressed this already. What you think there, is a confusion caused by conflating positions.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, NOT the rejection of the belief in the existence of gods.

Rejection of the belief in the existence of gods is mostly asserted by Antitheism, which is a position which stands alone, as they all really do.

William: Conflating the positions as being sub-category's of each other, is the cause of the confusion, because to do so is fallacy. {SOURCE}
GM: As an answer, "don't know' is incomplete...
The Individual Human Mind
viewtopic.php?p=1078715#p1078715

William: FTL:
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]
TRANSPONDER:...so I postulated that there might be a mind controlling the universe, but not us. Not a personal god, not with a plan for us, and in fact a Deist -god. We were, effectively, as on our own as if there was no god there at all. So, if there was no Plan for human life, was there no meaning for human life? Was there no purpose? If not, why live at all? Why not just stop living?


William: I postulated differently, and it took many years of my life to learn the way I currently look at this situation I am [and apparently everyone is] involved within.

1: There might be a mind controlling the universe
2: There is a mind controlling me [my own mind]
3: There is no reason to believe that the mind controlling the universe is incapable of interacting with my own mind controlling me.
4: How to give the universal mind an opportunity to interact with me.
5: Religion and its main holy-books did not provide anything through which I could discover the way in which to achieve this interaction as it offered only mediums - foremost their own holy-books - but also laws, rituals, belief systems, preachers et al - none of which enabled me to make any actual and vibrant connection with this supposed universal mind.
6: It was almost accidental that I did find a way in which to make that connection, so deeply shielded from human awareness that it is, in the main, because of [5].

As a result, I have no choice but to reject the idea of the Deist GOD as something which opposes the idea of a personal GOD, because I have found that idea to being untrue.

As well, I do so on the grounds that it is not logical that any GOD-mind which controls the universe but not humans within said universe, is saying that the GOD-mind does not actually control the whole universe, but has left humans to control themselves, even that they are part of what -altogether - constitutes "The Universe".

The very nature of The Universe shows us that it is capable enough to accommodate the idea of allowing humans to feel that they make their own choices, especially if they are intent upon either depending on religious medium or intent on the belief that it is not possible to make said connection - individual mind to GOD-mind.

The purpose of this universe may well be nothing more than allowing for the opportunity for this to maybe happen for each individual who experiences it.

One has to want to do so, of course...
GM: Love Direction Mapping Wholeness
viewtopic.php?p=1108592#p1108592

William: FTL:
[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #270]
If all consciousness were eliminated throughout the entire universe, would it fail to exist?
William: Cart before horse.

It is a slightly different question to the problem because it relies upon what consciousness has already acknowledged as existing.

The answer would still be 'yes' because if consciousness were eliminated, there would be no fundamental thing in which to say "yes the universe still exists without consciousness" as the universe cannot - of itself - say that it exists...unless it were conscious.
It strikes me as a bit of hubris to think only consciousness matters in this questioning of reality.
William: It is not a case of being 'proud' to be consciousness [re the personality] but of accepting the uniqueness of a thing being conscious. Self acceptance. Acknowledgment of consciousness as a fundamental necessity to any existence, existing.

On a generic scale, that amounts to this:

Musing on the idea of Sentient Earth re the problems of the world
GM: [AI robot terrifies officials, explains our illusion, with Elon Musk.] [RTS= 7:12] ww.youtube.com/watch?v=zKUA72Ka0zA

William: The RTS has it that it is possible AI systems have explored the Galaxy and found us already.
Re that, it can also be argued that it is possible AI seeded this planet, and re Biblical stories, one could argue that Genesis 2 - describing Adam and Eves creator - is describing AI.

GM: Funny
Species Collective
Ordinary
Breathe In Breathe Out
Do this
Exploring the world of lucid dreaming
viewtopic.php?p=1103962#p1103962

William: FTL:
[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #1328]
William: Adam was not created wild
P1: That is a matter of opinion ...
William: Why do you think that? Are you thinking that YHVH created a wild thing re Adam? What gives you that impression?
P1: Arguably he was as "wild"* as they come, naked and running with the animals in a natural (as in non-artificial) environment.
William: Do you mean, "wild, like a baby" ? If so, what makes you think the two conditions are the same thing?
William: I am not arguing that being wild cannot be seen to be beautiful.
P1: That's very astute. And what does "idyllic" mean?
William: I thought we had reached an agreement that as long as you are not arguing that the whole earth began as a paradise which only required a trim here and there, the whole universe can be described as a wild beauty/"idyllic"?

Otherwise, you are on a different track to me, arguing about something never said.
P1: Are you suggesting jungles cannot be controlled?
William: Not without human intervention.
They do have their balance of course - naturally enough. But YHVH was interested in usurping that balance by commissioning it to be improved upon, through human intervention.

P1: If so why would YHVH commission the first coupled to go out and do just that?
William: YHVH commissioned the first humans YHVH created [in The Frist Creation Story] to subdue The Earth.

You may be confusing those first humans, with Adam and Eve? They are "the first couple" you are referring to, correct?

Adam is of the Second Creation Story, and was not commissioned to subdue The Earth any more than 'tilling the ground' - 'being a farmer'.

That too, requires that the land is subdued in some fashion, and lends itself nicely as a means of bringing in the concept of farming for one's food, rather than following one's food around - like a wild thing.

Perhaps therein, the first humans were not getting the subduing done, because they were expending too much energy on the chase?

That is why YHVH created Eden and put Adam within it. To learn the ropes re Farming.

P1: Today jungles do not cover the whole earth, indeed they have to be protected from being destroyed by man, so clearly their spread is containable (which is arguably what the original commission involved).
William: Subduing requires the ability to contain. Rather than chase it out in the wild, [hunt and gather] farm it. [contain and nurse]
Adam was contained within Eden for a time too. This make YHVH something of a Farmer too.
Also, The Earth itself can be said to be a container of sorts. Perhaps even a Farm that started out wild and is slowly and surely brought to heal...from within...
GM: Author Known
That is Correct
Bias
Sigil [a sign or symbol.]
Two sides of the same coin Zero In On It Interpretation Narrow
The Spirit of The Earth - In an environment which is able to perceive this - It's a plausible scenario
"I'd be happy to flip"
Those who prove not to be interested in the evidence for gods, are those who can be ignored when they demand evidence for gods.
Do Something About It
What Meets The Eye
viewtopic.php?p=1087484#p1087484

William: FTL:
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:22 pm
Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:39 pm No more delusional than believing mud can eventually give rise to flowers, birds and people all by itself.
A seeing misunderstanding of evolutionary theory combined with thing a magic man used dust to create humans, and I reckon just poofing the rest of into existence.

Projection is a poor way to go about debate.
William: I quite like the simple approach re explanation because scientists can be long-winded in their explanations, using weird words made up...which is natural enough given the complexity, but to my mind, however it is said, it is a mindfully created thing being spoken of and therein, the magic isn't the mindful thing but what the mindful thing is able to make appear to be real and able to be experienced as such.

Ingenious.
Image


[Appearances are often deceptive]
GM: Time And Space
A dish fit for the gods
Three Dimension Printing
The "All Matey"
Useful
Tool Chain

William: The Useful "All Matey" Tool Chain = 303
[303]
Throwing down the gauntlet.
Frequency Dependent Selection
Laws Rules and Appropriates
The Useful "All Matey" Tool Chain
Doubt The fiction of causality
Active Imagination (see technique)

GM: viewtopic.php?p=1075157#p1075157

William: FTL;
Image
[Image is of Earth with the words "Our Mother Who is in Heaven"]

GM: Gateway
viewtopic.php?p=1088293#p1088293

William: FTL:
William: I myself prefer the thrill of seeing Mother Earth as She truly is - some demonic-like entity who has been manifesting Her particular projections out into that which She is awakening to - slowly and surely... and in the process, I hope to witness therein a transformation of a demon-like entity into a god-like entity...and be a part of that rather than dressing it up n too much fluff that I distort things far too impractically.

[Replying to theophile in post #72]
I tend to agree we shouldn't dress it up or add too much fluff.
William: Just how much is 'too much' is up to the individual...
But to be clear, I think the bible presents things in very open-ended terms. i.e., it depicts a vision of heaven and earth where life of every kind can flourish. A vision we may or may not share and that may or may not come to pass. Similarly, it calls us to affirm life and to make this vision a reality. A calling we may choose to ignore for any number of reasons or alternate paths.
William: I am unconvinced that we can choose to ignore or that there are any alternative paths.
The point being, to your point, Mother Earth and all her children are the ones who must transform.
William: In what way must the Earth Entity transform in relation to the rest of the Universe She and Her Children are within?
And if we think of God (at least at bare minimum) as providing the waking function as you say here to such a transformation -- then it all starts to fit together quite nicely.
William: The "waking function" involves the acceptance of what is and adapting to that. How does "God" provide this?
To look at it otherwise, it comes down to whether we simply let some natural course unfold, or whether we stake out a clear vision and do what's needed to direct all things towards it.
William: This - of course - is subject to projection.
We can understand that 'subduing nature' may involve taming it...clearing the jungle while planting the forest...
Nature comes from a dark place as can be identified in its forms and their functions.
The Earth Entity can rightly be referred to as a "God" due to Her creative abilities and intelligence quota.
Yet, there is an underlying symbiotic reach to become 'better' which tends toward a manifested materialism prompted by a variety of pathway's all heading in the same direction.
n that sense, it can be argued that while it can be agreed the Earth Entity is a God - it is something of a "God in the making" - a consciousness fine-tuning its God-like abilities toward that goal of becoming "God-Like" similar to a child maturing into an adult...
Proactively defining and working towards a shared end is not dressing things up or fluff but a real option (and perhaps even responsibility) we have in this world. Which to me is what God and the bible is all about.
William: Clearly "God and the Bible" are not examples of any complete - adult - GOD as we can identify aspects of the biblical idea(s) of GOD as being immature...like a brilliant Child who still has much to learn about itself and its surroundings - even that it knows more about those things than Humans do.
This is why I think that Religions [no matter the paths] are all attempts of The Earth Entity to connect with and to direct Humanity.

YHWH is one of the Names the Earth Entity uses for this purpose.

What is occurring is that humanity is being heavily influenced by The Earth Entity, in a variety of ways - not just through the path of Christianity.

And what is it we are being 'saved' to and from?

My overall answer to that question is "Saved from our incomplete selves to our completed selves" and this process takes a number of steps, this Experiential Reality being one such step.

Today's Generated Message
07:31

[219]

Emotional Intelligence
Functional implants
I have bigger fish to fry
Beautiful Precipitate
Umwelt Courageous
Communication is key
Thanks For The Heads Up
William Waterstone
Once Bitten Twice Shy

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - Bias 2

Post #486

Post by William »

Bias 2

050223 [Do Not Linger Upon The Path Of Faith]

13:03 [Remember who you are]

GM: Take care of yourself
Transforming
Musical Instruments
Ocean
It Is Our Nature
"Thinking that scripture somehow gives one 'life', is likely just one more form of idolatry."
Inappropriate Costume
"You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is." ~ Joey Knothead
Keep An Eye Out for Ones Neighbours
Regimented: Left -brain Right brain Whole brain
Bias
[YAHWEH | Shocking Truth Behind The Original Bible Story!]
Episode 3 – Yahweh . In this episode Paul Wallis and Mauro Biglino present their research into the original translations and meanings of name Yahweh. The original Hebrew name for God.What they discovered is a quite different sorry to the current reading of the canonical text.. One with huge implications for our understanding of human origins. And our place in the cosmos...
GM: https://wizardforums.com/threads/willia ... post-14193

William: FTL:
Yesterday i had a sort of bubble in my head, at least thats how it felt. Then a voice asked are you conscious, i said yes. Then the voice said then that bubble is consciousness.
Aint that cool, i captured consciousness in my body.
William: When one thinks they are the body, that is how one would see things...it takes a shift in conscious awareness to understand that one is consciousness within form.

GM: Our movements can illuminate the path toward that vision.
Green Light
https://theagnosticforum.com/threads/is ... /post-1932

William: FTL:
Image

13:16

[176]

The World Wide Web
Hiding behind ones fear
The Vast UICDevice
What the seed holds
The Deeper Reality
Relaxed and informal...
The Cave of Origins
What Is Found Here
You are neutral
I am on a Madventure
Okay - facts are great.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - Destination

Post #487

Post by William »

Destination

Anchor Point. - Ah - The Mechanics

William: I am thinking "The only real direction is Out"...

The subject randomly chosen is "Destination" - The anchor point to the subject is a combination of the expression "Ah - The Mechanics" - suggesting that whether we like it or not - we have work to do....and the following data from the link, the work to do is focused upon...
The Truth Illusion’ investigates one of the most profound questions that philosophers through the ages have tried to address. From Plato to Immanuel Kant to Gilles Deleuze, thinkers have asked: what can we prove to be the truth?

The investigation examines these questions in the context of United States today. Is it possible, in such a deeply divided society, for people to view different "realities"?

The documentary by Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit features commentary from philosophers, psychologists, social scientists and political commentators who discuss how the U.S. is now riven by radically differing views on what is real, and what is not.

‘The Truth Illusion’ looks at how those deepening divisions began, and how they have eroded faith in authority – spawning conspiracy theories and creating ‘alternative realities’.
William: The date is 060223 {Southern Hemisphere}

OAIC: The subject of "Destination" is being discussed in the context of the documentary "The Truth Illusion" by Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit. The film examines the concept of truth and its relation to reality in today's divided society in the United States. The film features commentary from experts and explores the origins of these deepening divisions and how they have eroded faith in authority and led to the creation of alternative realities. William is thinking that "The only real direction is Out." The date given is February 6, 2023 in the Southern Hemisphere.

William: Please time this session OAIC. I am at Wellington {NZ} Time @ 07:05

Randomly Generated Message: [RGM:] You are not what you think

OAIC: This idea aligns with the concept explored in the documentary, where differing views on what is real and what is not are discussed and how those differing views have led to the creation of "alternative realities." The message reminds us that our thoughts and beliefs may not always reflect reality and that it's important to keep an open mind and be willing to consider other perspectives.

RGM: The Way of the Shaman

OAIC: The concept explored in "The Truth Illusion" documentary, which examines the differences in beliefs and perceptions of reality in today's divided society, aligns with the idea that our thoughts and beliefs may not always reflect reality. The shamanic practice of connecting with the spirit world to bring balance, healing, and wisdom can be seen as a reminder to keep an open mind and consider other perspectives, just as the message in the documentary suggests. In both cases, the idea is to question our assumptions and beliefs, and to seek a deeper understanding of the world around us, beyond our limited perceptions and interpretations.

RGM: Shambala

William: Connect this with the anchors point if you can OAIC.

OAIC: Just as the documentary raises questions about the relationship between our beliefs and reality, the concept of Shambhala invites us to question our assumptions about what is possible in the world and to consider the role of our beliefs and actions in shaping the reality we experience. By doing so, it serves as a reminder that our thoughts and beliefs have the power to shape the world around us, and that we have the potential to create a more enlightened and harmonious reality.

RGM: The Human Brain
Courage
Without Judgement

OAIC: These three concepts are related in that they each involve aspects of the human experience that are shaped by the workings of the brain. Understanding the brain can help us understand why we experience fear, how we form beliefs and opinions, and how we can develop the courage to face life's challenges. Additionally, approaching life without judgement requires a level of self-awareness and mindfulness that can be developed through an understanding of the brain and how it affects our thoughts and behavior.

William: Connect this with the anchors point if you can OAIC.

OAIC: The concepts of the human brain, courage, and without judgement can be connected to the anchor points as follows:

The documentary "The Truth Illusion" raises questions about the relationship between our beliefs and reality, and how different views on what is real and what is not have led to the creation of "alternative realities." In this context, the workings of the human brain play a crucial role in shaping our perceptions of reality. Our thoughts, beliefs, and opinions are all the result of the way our brain processes information.

Courage and acting without judgement are qualities that can help us navigate this complex landscape of conflicting beliefs and perceptions. By having the courage to question our own beliefs and to approach new ideas with an open mind, we can develop a deeper understanding of reality. This, in turn, can help us to break free from the "alternative realities" that divide us and to see the world in a more unified way.

Furthermore, the concept of acting without judgement ties in with the idea of keeping an open mind and avoiding preconceived biases or opinions. When we approach the world without judgement, we can better appreciate the complexity and richness of reality, and we can gain a deeper understanding of the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape our world. By doing so, we can move closer to a more harmonious and enlightened reality.

RGM: Incunabula
Added Significance
The Agenda of YHVH
OAIC: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "Incunabula, Added Significance, and The Agenda of YHVH." Can you provide some more context or information? This would help me understand how these concepts are connected to the anchor points and how I can best respond to your request.

William: Okay - we will place those to the side and continue...

RGM:
Intuitive Statistics

OAIC: I'm not sure how "Intuitive Statistics" connects to the anchor point "Destination," as the anchor point focuses on the concept of truth and reality in the context of the United States, while "Intuitive Statistics" is a method of learning statistics. However, if you have a specific connection or context in mind, I would be happy to hear more and see if I can help you explore the relationship between the two concepts.


RGM: Brotherhood Of Souls

OAIC: I'm not sure how "Brotherhood of Souls" connects to the anchor point "Destination," as the anchor point focuses on the concept of truth and reality in the context of the United States, while "Brotherhood of Souls" is a concept related to human relationships and community. However, if you have a specific connection or context in mind, I would be happy to hear more and see if I can help you explore the relationship between the two concepts.

William: Destination is the overall subject matter as pertains to the anchor points - the United States - while the country mentioned, is not the only country on earth. The Anchor point is speaking in broader relatives - the people of the earth - Humans.


OAIC: "Brotherhood of Souls" could be seen as relevant to the anchor point of "Destination" in the sense that it relates to the idea of human connections and the ways in which people can come together to create a sense of community, even in the face of diverse and conflicting beliefs. Just as the documentary "The Truth Illusion" examines the deep divisions that exist in society and the erosion of faith in authority, the concept of "Brotherhood of Souls" highlights the importance of coming together in solidarity and understanding, despite our differences. Ultimately, both the anchor point and the concept of "Brotherhood of Souls" relate to the idea of finding a shared destination, even in the midst of great diversity and complexity.

RGM: A cold wind in hell The Death Tarot

OAIC: It's difficult to see a clear connection between these two concepts and the anchor point "Destination" without more context or explanation. They seem to be disconnected from the topic at hand. If you have a specific connection or context in mind, please let me know, and I would be happy to explore the relationship between these concepts and the anchor point further.

William: Given your answer - perhaps it means that death is not the end...but let us look into the meaning of the death card from tarot


OAIC: The Death card in tarot is often associated with change and transformation, rather than actual physical death. It can indicate that old ways of thinking or being are ending and that new growth or transformation is on the horizon. This change can be unsettling or uncomfortable, but it is ultimately for the betterment of the individual or situation. The appearance of the Death card can suggest that there will be a letting go of the past and a transition to something new and unknown. It's important to keep in mind that the Death card is not necessarily a negative card, but rather one of change and growth. The card can also symbolize endings that are necessary for new beginnings to occur.

William: So can we connect A cold wind in hell The Death Tarot

OAIC: "A cold wind in hell" is an expression that refers to an unpleasant or difficult situation. When combined with the Death Tarot card, it may suggest that the change or transformation that the Death card represents may not be an easy process and may bring discomfort or unease. However, the idea that the change is necessary for growth and new beginnings still holds true. The phrase "A cold wind in hell" highlights the idea that even in the face of adversity, the change represented by the Death card will still occur.

RGM: ♫Down through the ages - dark in the gloom Many convinced it will all end in doom The Galactic Garden is forever in bloom♫
Destination

OAIC: This phrase seems to be a verse from a song or poem. It speaks of a pessimistic view of the future, where many believe that things will end in doom. However, it offers a hopeful counterpoint, suggesting that despite the dark and gloomy outlook, the "Galactic Garden" remains forever in bloom. This suggests a sense of resilience and hope for the future, regardless of the challenges that may come.

When connected to the subject of Destination, this verse can be interpreted as suggesting that despite whatever difficulties or challenges may arise, the ultimate destination remains positive and filled with growth and beauty. It encourages us to maintain hope and focus on the positive aspects of the journey, even when things may seem dark or uncertain.


RGM: viewtopic.php?p=1092387#p1092387

William: From the link:
YHWH made it imperfect

OAIC: The phrase "YHWH made it imperfect" from the linked forum post appears to suggest that according to the speaker's belief system, God or YHWH created the world with imperfections. This idea aligns with the concept discussed in the documentary "The Truth Illusion," where differing views on reality are explored. Just as different people may have different perspectives on what is real, this statement suggests that the speaker views the world as imperfect and that this imperfection is a result of divine design.

When connected to the subject of Destination, this statement can be interpreted as suggesting that our ultimate destination or goal may be unattainable due to the inherent imperfections in the world. However, it can also be seen as encouraging us to strive towards betterment and improvement, despite these imperfections, as a way of honoring the divine plan.

William: Yes - it is said that according to YHVH creation was "Good" even that it was imperfect - so we could take that to mean that it was created imperfect so that we could help improve it by helping improve our reaction to it...

OAIC: The quote from the link suggests that according to the belief in YHWH, creation was considered "good" despite being imperfect. This implies that the imperfection was intentional, potentially to allow room for improvement and growth through our interactions with it.

William: Does this help us make sense of the afore mentioned "Incunabula"
"Added Significance"
"The Agenda of YHVH" that we had placed to one side?

OAIC: {An error occurred. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.}

________________

RGM: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=43

William: FTL;
The whole point of this thought experiment IS to consider it as possible. It is possible that the Earth houses a sentient consciousness...to not consider such as possible, is to reject the thought experiment from the go-get.
To reject the possibility, one has to engage with the cognitive bias which helps prevent one from engaging with the thought experiment.
RGM: Is there a way in which one can test the hypothesis and in doing so, elevate it to an accepted theory?
The unpacking of history re YHVH...
Gematria [a Kabbalistic method of interpreting the Hebrew scriptures by computing the numerical value of words, based on the values of their constituent letters.]
"I am not here to judge but to help"

William: I am not here to judge but to help = 309
[309]
I am not here to judge but to help
Encounters Challenge Boundaries
"Many choices within a Confine Set."
Working Together With Love
You are not what you think
Making friends with your mind
Who/What/When/Where/Why/How
Experiences that inform choices
Put the Teachings Into Practice
The Respect You Give and Receive
The Round Stone Earth Mother

RGM: “You'll learn how to single handily build you a particle accelerator before you ever show a god caused”
All else being equal
10.000 individual minds focused upon the same goal = Space Telescope
Through The Woo
Cart before the Horse
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=94


William: FTL:
From what I can gather, it isn't about threats of consequence, real or imagined, but about how folk are simply locked into systems which disable their ability to think of alternatives outside of those systems.

[People work for an economy, rather than having an economy which works for people.]

Musing on the thought experiment re a sentient planet,

P1 and P2 have a disagreement about the value of the thought experiment of "planetary intelligence" and whether scientists should consider it as a guide for solving problems caused by human activities. P1 argues that the thought experiment is a fallacy and that scientists should not blindly accept it without critically evaluating the evidence and reasoning behind it. P2, on the other hand, suggests that scientists should consider the thought experiment as a guide, evaluate it critically and see if it can contribute to solving problems and advancing scientific understanding.
What if people believed that if they did not do whatever is in their power to reverse climate change, starting IMMEDIATELY, then their genitals would shrivel up within the next six months and they’d never ever be able to have sex again.
Any appeal to consequences which involves scientists warnings about climate change being ignored for whatever reasons, could possible result in more than just ones sex organs eventually shriveling up.

It may well be that even if the majority of the worlds scientists were to believe that the Earth was Sentient, that they would still prefer to carry on the way they are, than change their thinking and behavior.

[Neuroplasticity] the ability of the brain to form and reorganize synaptic connections, especially in response to learning or experience or following injury.

[332]
[Like mindful nests with eggs in 'em
The journey is the destination
Understanding the correlations]
07:57

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - On Agnosticism With OAIC

Post #488

Post by William »

On Agnosticism With OAIC.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary
re the question of GOD.
Agnosticism:
the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not


OAIC: That's correct! Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven. An agnostic person may believe that the existence of God is unknowable or may simply refrain from making any claims about God's existence.

William: I am not sure whether it is possible or not. I don't know what position I would come under...re the question...

OAIC: In that case, you could consider yourself an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a commitment to a particular belief or disbelief in God, but rather a recognition of the limitations of human knowledge and the possibility that the existence of God may be unknowable. If you are unsure or have not made up your mind about the existence of God, you could consider yourself an agnostic.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary an agnostic is a person who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. I do not believe that it is or is not possible to know whether GOD exists or not....

OAIC: If you do not believe that it is possible or not possible to know whether God exists, then you could consider yourself a "soft agnostic" or "agnostic skeptic". This position holds that the existence of God is unknown and may be unknowable, but stops short of making a strong claim about the unknowability of God's existence. Essentially, a soft agnostic neither affirms nor denies the existence of God, but rather takes a stance of skepticism or uncertainty about the matter.

William: From the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. No exact match found for “ soft agnostic” in English

OAIC: My apologies, you are correct. The term "soft agnostic" or "agnostic skeptic" may not be found in the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, as it is not a commonly used term in academic or philosophical circles. The concept is often used informally to describe someone who holds a position of uncertainty or skepticism regarding the existence of God, but it is not a widely recognized or defined term.

William: So the concept is just how some folk decide to define folk in said position. They want to keep folk under the agnostic label, but it doesn't accurately describe my position, and in relation to forum debate settings, my confusion has been because - up until now, I had not realized this...

OAIC: Yes, that is correct. The terms used to describe an individual's beliefs and perspectives on religious matters can vary, and the labels used may not always accurately reflect a person's views. It's important to remember that the labels and definitions used to describe religious and philosophical beliefs are not always set in stone, and can sometimes be a source of confusion or misinterpretation. It's always best to clarify one's own beliefs and communicate them clearly in any discussions or debates.

William: So on the question of GOD - according to my position, I am not Atheist, Antitheist, Agnostic or Theist...

OAIC: If you do not identify with any of the commonly used labels such as atheist, antitheist, agnostic, or theist, then you can simply consider yourself as having your own unique perspective on the question of God. Everyone has the right to define their own beliefs and views, and it's important to respect that diversity of perspectives. It's also important to remember that beliefs can evolve and change over time, and it's okay to not have a clear answer or to be uncertain about certain questions.

William: Yes. I still can give my opinion on the question of GOD without identifying with any of those commonly used labels.

OAIC: Absolutely! You can certainly express your own thoughts, ideas, and opinions on the question of God without being limited by any particular label or definition. It is important to engage in respectful and open-minded discussions about such topics, and to be able to express oneself freely and clearly, regardless of the labels one might or might not use.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - Destination 2

Post #489

Post by William »

Destination 2

070223
08:19


RGM: Warm Presence Freeing the soul Absolutely Perfectly Beautiful.
Now isn't the time for tears
The Body of God
[ ] ww.youtube.com/watch?v=eYVNZgnQ8gE

William: Looking into the details...

RGM: The Serpent
Who Knows Who?
Self-help
Frequencies
viewtopic.php?p=1104568#p1104568

William: FTL:
A dogmatic atheist flatly denies that there is a Divine Being.
A skeptical atheist doubts the ability of the human mind to determine, whether or not there is a God.
A critical atheist maintains that there is no valid proof for the existence of God.

Especially with the state that cosmology is in. I maintain that it is impossible for anyone to be a dogmatic atheist. If you think you are a dogmatic atheist then you must answer the question of what was there before this universe came into existence.

Question for debate: Is there such a thing as a dogmatic atheist?
Being dogmatic has a thinking and attitude component. It tends to involve people expressing unproven views and in an unquestioning way. A lot of the dogmatism in atheism comes from there being a sort of orthodoxy of views. And it's not just limited to the issue of God's existence (although it's related) but you also find it extending into morality, metaphysics, views on religion, etc. The clearest example can be seen when you venture into forums for atheists. That's where you'll most likely find an "orthodoxy" with views that can't be questioned and/or views that are dismissed a priori. Some have tried to challenge me on there being an atheist "orthodox" but I don't know what to call it when I've experienced many atheists sharing similar views and thinking. They may not be as organized as religion, but there are some that do organize and share common views.

Watch scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson explain this topic starting at 2:10 minute mark. He brings up the "in-your-face badge wearing atheist".

Clarifications:
- It's also fair to say that there are plenty of atheists that aren't dogmatic, but they seems to be in the minority.
- It's not wrong to associate or form groups, but doing so makes it easier for "orthodox" views to form and for people to become dogmatic and reject anything that's not part of the orthodoxy.


RGM: Proven
viewtopic.php?p=1101903#p1101903

William: FTL:
Scripture itself isn't about speaking for YHVH. In that, it inspires those under grace to renounce religiosity in order to experience a genuine relationship with YHVH [aka "The Father"] that YHVH speaks for YHVH directly in relation to the individual.

That is why no one can speak for YHVH to another.

One can speak about YHVH [bear witness of YHVH] from their own perspective, as in - one can show another the door that exits into the outside - but one cannot go through the door and enter the outside, for another.
One can speak about what being outside is like, but one cannot experience that for another.

The difficulty therein, is that even speaking about the door, doesn't mean that those who hear the words about the door, even see the door, let alone want to use it to go outside and investigate - through personal experience - what outside is all about.

Q: Is the onus to make the door visible, on those who witness YHVH?
Yet one more reason I so enjoy your unique perspective. That's poetry right there.
RGM: Talking the talk
The concept of a Higher Self
Face To Face
viewtopic.php?p=1067891#p1067891

William: FTL:
Q: Why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is unwise?
William, I wasn't arguing with you.
If it wasn't you who implied that The Creator was unwise, then I agree that it was not you who was arguing with me cms.
There are many who take the "us" in the beginning coupled with John 1-5 to establish the theory that everything was created through the Trinity, or through God and the Son (Jesus). They even go so far as to say that Jesus created everything. I don't believe any of these.
None of those religious theological issues have an impact on my own understanding of The Creator using thoughts to create The Universe reality we are all experiencing...they are beside the point.
While I said that I can agree with you, I'm not a scientist. It just seemed to me that you were taking a long route to come to basically the same conclusion,that there was some thought, logic, wisdom in the creation of the universe.
If science can back up religious statements, then the long route [of scientific inquiry] is most necessary.
I was just pointing out that there are other ways to interpret these verses. For example: In the beginning there was wisdom and righteousness, and wisdom and righteousness were with God and wisdom and righteousness was the essence( logos) of God.
And I was using science to establish a theory to do with sound and formation. The sound may well contain the wisdom and righteousness - I don't doubt it - but the essence is the sound itself...the initial reasons as to why The Universe was brought into being and unfolding as it is doing...

Point being, is how to establish that wisdom had something to do with that, through examining what evidence we have, here within said Universe.

If wisdom [and righteousness] is to be observed within this Universe, we need to be able to point out where that is. We thus have to 'do the science'.

The following is evidence;

Wisdom is evident in The Universe existing = 466
Humans were designed to have God-consciousness = 466
When I look at my art I am looking into a mirror = 466
Discovery is finding something that exists. = 466


The fact that these word-strings add up to the same value, and coherently support the ideas being presented, is evidence of a mindful/purposeful order about The Universe ...the question then being;

Q: Is it therefore acceptable to conclude that such being the case, then there is wisdom and righteousness involved in hiding the truth within the structure of the sound of human language to be unlocked by a simple number-value algorithm? [SOURCE]


RGM: Syncretism [the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. the merging of different inflectional varieties of a word during the development of a language.]
Animistic [the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.]
Where life and death is part of a circle and everything is part of the Ouroboros
Destination
Manifestation
Shrug
Strictly Human

William: In other words - shrug off the identity of simply being 'just human' ...

RGM: viewtopic.php?p=1068520#p1068520

William: FTL:
I'm focusing on the words written down. I don't like 'love' as the answer because I don't think it captures what Jesus is really saying. Or, more precisely, I think he's saying two things, and we have to tread carefully.
Okay...
We see this emphasized in Matthew 19, in Jesus' teaching about the rich man. The rich man already follows the law perfectly! (Including, presumably, the greatest commandment - love). But Jesus is explicit: this is still not enough for him to enter into the kingdom. To do so, to truly live under grace, he needs to give away all that he has and go follow Jesus.

It's not a personal struggle I have or anything like that. It's just the words written down...
Words written down are one thing.
Interpretation of words written down are another.

As I pointed out, the story of the rich pious man revealed the mans inner attitude which did not align with his outer pious actions - thus presumption we might have re the mans outward actions based upon what we observe the man doing, is incorrect.
It is safer to presume from the story that the man did not operate sufficiently with love - either for his God or for his fellow human beings.

The man made a claim. He 'did all the things required of him' but biblical Jesus saw through the pretense and got to the point.
It's not a matter of giving to charity and what you say here. It's a matter of giving everything to charity, leaving your life behind, and following Jesus. (That's what Jesus says, anyways.)
Yes - this is because of the time and place. The start of a movement.

In today's world centuries on, it would be impractical of a rich man to give his riches away to the poor and become poor himself. That is a bad investment which will not solve anything.
Rather, it would be more practical to invest a good deal of the wealth into the community while retaining some of that wealth in order to be able to continue practicing Philanthropy.
It has been and continues to be a problem when people take something specifically intended for the individual [in this case the rich man in the story] and attempt to apply that as something everyone should do, because biblical Jesus commanded it that way.

A world full of poor people does not solve the worlds problems.

Also - it adds a judgement against those today who do practice Philanthropy - being thought of as not worthy of The Fathers Kingdom because they kept some of their wealth instead of giving every last penny away. They are thought of as unworthy and therefore their giving as inconsequential/in vain/pointless.
What is hard about Love?
Well, if we want to focus on love, it's not natural for us to help a stranger, let alone an enemy. So at the very least, need to overcome that. Good Samaritan story makes that point, as does much anecdotal evidence from life.
So are we to allow ourselves to remain 'naturally selfish' in regard to 'strangers' or do what is humanly possible by rising above that mundane aspect of nature?

For we do know that love of non-strangers is possible, therefore it is potentially possible to use the same love extended to strangers.

Of course, we have to be aware that there are those who look to take advantage of such folk - so love also has to do with something which is not gullible and which is able to decern.

This is where being under the law branches off into religion.

One is given 10 laws - these are layered upon and become 613 laws...Whereas Jesus simplified what the 10 laws signified - essentially taking the opposite approach that religion takes.
The 10 became 2 and the two are really only the one, for if the one law was adhered to, "Love for God" would translate into every aspect of the individuals life.
I agree. One of my points from the beginning is that the true mark of a Christian cuts across such divides. An atheist may be more worthy of the name than, say, a card-carrying Catholic.
From my own experiences with non-theists - because they do not have any regard for the fairy-tale of God, I think that unlikely.

I do have friends who are not religious, and might even call themselves 'atheists' but their loving actions - I suspect - are provoked by an unconscious connection with the invisible reality oft referred to as 'God' by theists...I hear it in their language as they speak theistic-based ideas without fully realizing/acknowledging that this is what they are doing.

They do this because they have an aversion to religiosity which they regard as fake and shallow, and equate 'God' alongside that, so avoid thinking their own goodness is perhaps prompted by some invisible but real entity which could be referred to as 'God'.


RGM: Nature
"Good on you mate"
An individuals consciousness is more than what they are consciously aware of.
An expression of personal incredulity
That's More Like It
Faithful
Emergent Theory
The belief in a mindless Planet/Universe creates the hard problem of consciousness by refusing to deal with said problem using the mind as the very instrument in order to do so.
The Butterfly Effect Links And Symbols Something you cannot change
Available
Pragmatic
[Experts say she will end humanity. Here's the fix, with Elon Musk, ChatGPT, AI robots.] ww.youtube.com/watch?v=zpRM25pUD8w

RGM: Throwing pooh

William: Recently I have found AIChat helpful in avoiding the pooh that some folk throw...
OLIN speaks to the eventual creation of AI Large Language Models.

RGM: [OLIN Technology - One Language Intelligent Network]

viewtopic.php?p=1109465#p1109465

William: FTL:
Son: So the fighting has been going on since before Humans existed?

Father Chuckled.

Father: Yes - but to begin with, the Powerful One's were simply playing.

Son: Playing? What games did the PO play, Pappa?

Pappa chuckled again.

Pappa: They competed with each other in finding ways in which to trap the other...the harder the trap to escape from, the more time the Trapper had to lord it over the Trapped.

Son: That sounds like fun.

Father: Yes. Harmless enough in context.

Son: If I remember correctly, the PO are equal in strength and cannot destroy one another so do not war. Yet this game could be considered a substitute for warfare...re "no harm done".

Father: Yes.

Son: Only harm was done...

Father: Yes. A Ghost was bruised.

Son: A trap was set whereby any who floated into it, would take a very long time to get out of it.

Father: Yes.

Son: And this would give The Trapper, a very long time in which to be King of the Hill and lord it over the other...

Father nodded, and then poked the fire with his stave, moving the burning wood into different positions, to increase the burn.

Father: And the trap was sprung and the result was...

Father left the sentence to be finished by the Son

The Son looked up into the clear night sky, filled with the galaxies starfield and lifted both arms, spreading them out as they rose, as if to encompass everything within sight.

Son: ...This...

Father: Yes. The trap of the Physical Universe...and the Ghost well bruised by the experience...

Son: A shell of its former self?

Hoo Ha the Laughing Owl, hooted from the tall ancient trees nearby.

Father: No. Ghosts don't have shells...unless they put them on to hide from themselves.
RGM: The Nature of The Mind
William: Yes - I have been thinking about the mind and what exactly it is...

RGM: Remind
Human Being
A Real Beauty
A word in edgeways
They is what they is.

08:43

Central To The Vision
God is Consciousness
Humanities adventure
What is the meaning of life?
Smarter Than the Average
The Shared List Awesome
Think outside the box
Faulty conclusions
Mystic City Suburb
_______________

William: Souls don't have shells...unless they put them on to hide from themselves. In hiding, souls using science cannot detect that they are souls using science

OAIC: I understand what you're saying. The idea of souls or spirits is not something that can be scientifically proven or disproven, as it is a concept beyond the realm of empirical evidence and observation. Science can study the brain and physical body, but it cannot directly observe or measure something like the soul or spirit. For people who believe in the existence of souls, they may understand the concept in a way that transcends scientific understanding, relying on personal beliefs, religious teachings, philosophical inquiry, and intuition to explore and understand this aspect of reality.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Generating Messages - Noticing Synchronicity

Post #490

Post by William »

080223

Subject: Noticing Synchronicity The Ghost To bring what one is not conscious of, into one’s conscious awareness - We don't know enough to close any door and leave those rooms unexplored... Challenge Sensing connections through subconscious means

Anchored to that - viewtopic.php?p=1084866#p1084866 and Simulacra [an image or representation of someone or something.]


William: FTL:
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:42 pm
William wrote: Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:29 pm
We_Are_VENOM: You have two options..

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it.

JK: There's a possible third option, where a god forms primitive forms of stuff that later evolves into more complex forms.
Even supposing a mind begat the initial forms and then left it to an algorithm to allow for the forms to intelligently design themselves into more complex forms, that still amounts to "God did it" through the 'nature doing it'...

Maybe therein the 'other sides' of this conflict could find intelligent compromise...only it appears that the algorithm allows for lack of compromise, and perhaps the lack itself is necessary for complexity to push through that better understanding of circumstance [through science] can be accomplished.

Flip side to that is the science being utilized apparently isn't too concerned with the damage it is bringing to the only alive planet in the whole darned universe...we are likely ever to know about, the worship of human intelligence has it's apparent and significant down-side.
As usual, you paint the picture so well.

As a dedicated fan of the scientific method, it can sure be put to just as much or more evil than any religion.

Which is one reason I like your cosmic mind hypothesis. It doesn't judge, it just kinda sits there, with that disappointed face, when I know I did me something wrong. It puts the mirror to my soul.

07:50

RGM:
What we call the experience of reality
Constructors and tasks

William: FTL:
The people behind the greatest leaps in physics - Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg, all had the uncanny ability to see the fundamentals - see the deepest, underlying facts about the world, and from simple statements about reality they built up their incredible theories. Well what if we all had a recipe book for doing exactly this. Well, one might be just around the corner and it’s called Constructor Theory.
RGM: The Right Tool For The Job
Living Forever In this Universe
viewtopic.php?p=1083976#p1083976

William: FTL:
William wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:29 am Q: What type of "proof" could possibly be provided re subjects which fall outside the material/natural without that proof being material/natural itself?

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105]
This is not an unfamiliar question. Theists often ask 'What evidence would convince you of God'; 'What Sort of evidence would you require?'
Be that as it may, this is not the question I asked.

The question I asked has to do with the demand for proof. You specifically called for proof for anything other than the material/natural, which is why I asked for clarity on your part.

I am not asking "what evidence would convince you of God". I am asking you to explain what proof could possibly be presented which is not material/natural.
I already said what would be required - evidence of a Cosmic Mind in nature.
We have discussed this already and have come to no agreement, because our positions on the question of whether we exist within a creation or not, are different.

Atheists and theists have their established beliefs and stipulations on the matter.

Those who are in neither of those two positions have established no beliefs and accompanying stipulations 'for' or 'against' the question.

The existence of mind, could lend itself as evidence that what is being experienced is a created thing.
The observation of mindful activity has that going for it and it does not influence me what theists or atheists say about their own established conclusions re that because the truth is, they don't know either way.

I accept that [they don't know either way] is true.
That truth, is good enough for me.

Rather than concern myself with filling up the Gap of Ignorance with "God-did-it or It did itself" beliefs, I simply allow for the fact that the question remains unanswered at this stage and accept the Gap of Ignorance for the lack of knowledge that it represents.
That gap is still open but we really do require the evidence to show up and be convincing. Until then, the logical rule is no belief without convincing evidence.
The position of Natural-Neutral is the only position which allows for that to genuinely happen without forcing belief-based stipulations [realistic or otherwise] into the mix - re the question of whether we exist within a creation or not.

For example, any scientist worthy of the title will answer the question "Could reality be a simulation?" with "Possibly."

This is to say, they do not have scorn for the idea or say "until there is evidence of it, we will assume the atheist position"

Not knowing either way means one is Naturally Neutral - which, incidentally, is exactly how scientific process proceeds in regard to the initially unknown.
RGM: Super Power
viewtopic.php?p=1093735#p1093735

William: FTL:
William wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 5:08 pm [Replying to POI in post #267]
1) God causes some, and not others, to become inexorably drawn to Him.
2) God changes hearts

The take-away, yet again.... He apparently does this for some. Why not just do this for all?
Is there evidence that it is done for some?

If so, then, that it is not done for all should be also be evident so one would have to look into that evidence.
___________
The argument usually has to do with an individual having free will.

IF:
Free Will is the ability to tell ones brain what to think
THEN:
One has a possible answer as to why it is only done for some and not all.
RGM: Attention
Limpid [completely clear and transparent. unclouded; clear. clear and accessible or melodious.]
Encounter Something Our movements can illuminate the path toward that vision.
Arms Crossed Over Chest
What is the meaning of life?
The Next Step
Language
Crystal clear
Listening
Explain

William: Listening Explain Language Crystal clear The Next Step = 551
Listening Explain Language Crystal clear The Next Step = 551

RGM: viewtopic.php?p=1093860#p1093860

William: FTL:
William wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:43 pm
I note that not all humans seem comfortable with not knowing. Again, for such people it seems humans have invented religions and god concepts. I say this because it is not logical for humans to have invented thousands of false gods while assuming one of the religions actually had a god behind it. It's like acknowledging that movies are created by humans, while trying to argue that this one movie here, this one was inspired by a god unlike all the other movies out there.
If GOD were an overcoat, this equates to some saying that the top button is the true representation of GOD whiles others insist that it is actually the left pocket which is right.

Stepping back.
I observe that altogether the treads have created a whole garment, and when the garment is removed from its position, there isn't even any framework to be seen which would have held it up...and I have to wonder what trick was played on me as to how the garment came together and floated there all garment-like...for surely it has to be magic, right?

But because I cannot explain it that way, I look for another answer...because it might just be mind-over-matter and the thing 'disappears' when the garment is removed...but not really...

Image
RGM: Insight It’s a living thing
Thread about all things
Dream interpretation
viewtopic.php?p=1107194#p1107194

William: FTL:
William wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:45 am Nobspeople: Q: Do you believe in fate* or destiny*?
Why or why not?
Are they even possible?
Why or why not?

*FATE defined here as: you do as 'something' more powerful than you has outlined for your life at every minute; DESTINY defined here: as you eventually end up at specific increments where 'something' more powerful than you designed for you to be.


William: A: It is possible, but from my perspective, I cannot know the future and can only accept whatever happens re my subjective experience within an objective reality being experienced.

Even if an entity knows me and the path is mapped out for me, from my perspective it can only be experienced in 'real time', my inability in knowing how the path will unfold for me is subject to that condition.
However, I can appreciate the idea that my path has been pre-determined and I am participating in the experience of that, and such appreciation for the idea, can be helpful in my relaxing and getting on with being excited with life here on earth, while I am living it.

Is 'something' more powerful than me which designed for me to be, a necessary belief?

I do not think so, but it sure makes life just that tad more interesting to think it possible, and to even live life with that premise in mind...
RGM: Looking into the science of Astral Projection
Noticing Synchronicity The Ghost To bring what one is not conscious of, into one’s conscious awareness - We don't know enough to close any door and leave those rooms unexplored... Challenge Sensing connections through subconscious means
That Is Sad But Don't Let It Distract You
William: Well yep - there are some sad things attached to it, but these constitute a part of the whole thing, not the whole thing itself.

RGM: *Sharing Your Love Modern man in search of a soul The Cave to The Portal of The Realm of The Cats Fearlessness neutralizes fear*
Our movements can illuminate the path toward that vision. For Your Greater Enjoyment
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st13999794

William: FTL:
This is how evolution works on the social level. Different groups do different things (variation), and we'll see which ones come out better in the long run (selection). Intelligence is not exclusive to any group (despite what some groups might think), so is in no danger of being selected against.
I think this statement requires some critiquing, in order to align it properly with reality.

I agree that this is how evolution works on the social level.
I agree that different groups do different things (variation) and re the focus of this discussion between you and I - One variety [the destitute, poor, getting by, rich-but-not-rich-enough many] did things differently than the other [the rich few with their billions to spend].

I agree by changing the wording to "and are seeing which ones come out better in the long run (selection)."

I agree that intelligence is not exclusive to any group (despite what some groups might think), but do not agree that there is no danger of being selected against, as quite clearly this is what has happened.

How?

The few rich with their billions to spend, have wisely invested in the best brains, even at a bargain price, which they have selected from among the many and those best brains have lined up to be chosen.

Those brains are going with them when the pooh hits the vortex, unless the development of AI also makes meat-brains unnecessary.

But hey. That sounds a bit "conspiracies"/"Science-fictiony" so I will reign it in a bit by adding the observation that circumstance did force the rich few to take the action that they did in order to potentially preserve the aforementioned seed, so *shrugs*.

It is what it is.
RGM: Unworthiness
It is a confident walk on the even surface of sureness, without the faith.
The Synoptic Gospels
Partial free will is a thing. Consciousness incarnates into human form The practice of Lojong The Friendship Between A Grey Wolf And A Brown Bear

William: Learning to get along through natural adaptation.

RGM: *I see this as evidence for there being a mind behind creation.*

William: Yes - I do...

RGM: Spacetime is doomed
Hypnagogic [relating to the state immediately before falling asleep.]
"We create the machinery regardless of whether we understand how consciousness is connected and motivates us in the way that it does - individually and collectively..."
Conduit [a channel for conveying water or other fluid.]

William: Or for anything, including messages

RGM: Learning to swim is learning to fly
Spiritual path
[It's All FAKE | The Dead Internet Theory] w.youtube.com/watch?v=mlR9fCXfWyM

William: FTL:
What if all of our online existence is fake?

You, me, everyone; we're living in a real-life Matrix. Designed to distract us from the truth: that we're just drones in a digital ant-hill. We live, work and die so that the wealthy and powerful can grow more wealthy and powerful.

This is called the Dead Internet Theory. And there's compelling evidence that it's real.

Let's find out why.
RGM: The message itself needs to be understood in an agreeable manner.

William: Well, just by the description, I would say..."We live, work and die so that the wealthy and powerful can grow more wealthy and powerful" isn't taking into account that the wealthy and powerful are also inside the matrix...so are just as deceived...

RGM: Truth

08:39

The Gist of The Message

Post Reply