God: What is your opinion or belief?

[Lacewing]

What did you think of that post, Lacewing? As it was a comment to one of yours.

I didn't read it. I typically don't read your posts anymore, even if they are in response to me. Sorry, Gustav, it seems that there's not much chance for us to have much interaction of value, as I find your communication too thick with yourself... and your ongoing arrogant and critical personal assessments of other people are shockingly inaccurate and inflammatory. For me, whatever insights you might have to offer are not worth being bombarded with all the rest of it -- especially when there are limitless sources of insight in this world. You haven't appeared to generally see value in my perspective either... so we are in agreement about finding our value elsewhere. But I DO wish you well, even if I've thrown out some curse words in your direction when I thought it appropriate.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

You are repeating yourself, Lacewing. There is really no reason to apologise. The value of my comments to your posts - if there is value - is for the third-party readership. But it all helps me to better organise my own ideas. I think that is what you describe as self-centredness. I own that one hundred percent. 'The first order of offering is slways to the self': a metaphysical principle.

You are mistaken in thinking I don't find value in your ideas though. Yours more than dome others, certainly. It is part of your nature to midunderstand, that's all.

I would argue though that the structure of your ideas is far too limited and needs to expand tremendously. Essentially, all my writing is about how that can be done. Not how you can do it but how it might be done. That conversation flies over your head. Obstinacy makes it impossible to hear ... for all that one has ears.

[The Inglorious One]

Hey, Gustav. That's why I ended my conversation with Lacewing LMAO.

One of the things I note in watching people here go through an absurd rehearsals of their near total ignorance of the evolution of ideas, and the breadth and depth of philosophy and theology, is that they are in essence in a battle against a specific dogmatic religious structure that they bitterly resist. But even that 'thing' itself they have no comprehension of, in any sense that could be taken seriously ... by anyone!

How true, indeed. It's all sweetness and the infinite possibilities of oneness until it is suggested that the "energies" might in some way be personal. Then, all of a sudden, you're a theist trying to shove your "anthropomorphic" idea of God down everyone's throat.

[Obvious Leo]

It is part of your nature to midunderstand, that's all.

Of course it is, mate, she's just a dumb sheila. We got that bit in your very first post.

I would argue though that the structure of your ideas is far too limited and needs to expand tremendously.

Clearly once Lacewing's ideas expand into line with your ideas they will be far less limited in their structure. It's very generous of you to advise her in this matter, Gustav, because she's only an inferior female after all.

That conversation flies over your head.

Probably got something to do with hormones, mate, you know how it is.

[Obvious Leo]

By the way.

Q. How do make a hormone

A. Don't pay her.

[The Inglorious One]

Critics of theism very often claim that dualism no longer has a place in rational thought. Yet, there's a problem. Here's some excerpts from Holophay: The Loop of Creation, a book I've linked to in the past. I think it is very interesting.

Wholeness can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to wholeness, then it would not be wholeness. On the other hand, if wholeness was the only existence, then it could relate solely to itself. Yet to be a self-referential system, wholeness needs to define itself as such, where the defined self reflects all of existence without the possibility of anything external to it. The moment All-That-Is, the totality of existence, would say “I” it would define a projection, which would be less than it is from its point of view. Trying to achieve identity (a true definition of itself wherein the defining and defined selves are identical), it would endlessly attempt to redefine itself, and by that it would create infinitely more and more reflections of itself. We could say then that whatever defines, creates. Wholeness defining itself is an infinite activity because it cannot define itself, so it “tries” to do so infinitely.

...When wholeness defines itself as such, the act of definition creates something beyond itself, which makes it no longer wholeness. But since it created something beyond itself, this beyond belongs to it, so now it can define itself as wholeness with nothing beyond it. But alas, as soon as it defines itself thus, the definition creates something beyond this new “self” and etc. The process of continuously redefining itself with each instance defines a different but similar entity — similar because it repeats its act of self-definition and different because each wholeness includes more parameters of the beyond than the previous definition of wholeness. With each new definition, wholeness creates more and more parameters by which it can define itself. Further, these parameters also have to be defined, and their definitions have to be defined — another infinite recursion. Each additional parameter of the beyond comes from a previous definition that defined wholeness, albeit stating “there is no beyond” (the meaning of wholeness being, ‘all-inclusive’), but the act of definition infers the necessity of the beyond (which the meaning of the definition denies). Due to these extra parameters, the wholeness that first defined itself as such and the wholeness that defined itself as such afterwards are similar but not identical.

...If self-reference is not a time-related concept, then in an a-temporal framework there could be an infinite chain of defining processes, which at the limit approaching infinity would really define infinite wholeness, and consequently, this infinite process of defining would be included in the definition of wholeness.

...Wholeness and not-wholeness certainly seem to be the two opposing sides of a paradox, but a deeper look reveals something utterly fascinating. We have established that when wholeness defines itself then it is not wholeness. Before it set out to define itself, it was indefinite, whereas when it defined itself, it could not succeed to define itself as wholeness, so in fact it stayed indefinite and nothing happened except the fact that it created a process of definition, which nevertheless, left the defining entity indefinite. From our point of view, the process of definition is something discrete. In
fact, when we analyze this process, we discover a repetitive pattern characterized by discrete redefinitions constituting this one process wherein the indefinite attempts to define itself. However, from the point of view of wholeness, it continues to stay indefinite in a continuous fashion in spite of
attempting to be defined. From that point of view, the act of definition is one continuous act creating infinitely while wholeness stays indefinite. And that’s the dynamic: the infinite repetitive process of definition, which is one continuous action

...All our attempts at defining Nature, seeing how things really are, investigating the truth about objective reality, are measurements. Whenever we attempt to establish any fact or behavior, we are doing a measurement. Any measurement is discrete, whereas what we measure is continuous. In other words, our tools to think with (be it mathematics or spoken language), define in discrete terms, whereas what we measure, whether subatomic particles (waves) or the complexity of a human’s behavior, is continuous, so it can never be precisely defined. Not because our tools are too primitive, but because the more precise the measurement will be, the closer it will approximate the indefinite continuous substratum of existence.

[Obvious Leo]

Inglorious. Do you think your credibility will be hindered or advanced by quoting the half-baked opinions of an advocate for intelligent design who has no physics and even less philosophy?

Clara Szalai is a fundamentalist fruitloop.

[The Inglorious One]

Inglorious. Do you think your credibility will be hindered or advanced by quoting the half-baked opinions of an advocate for intelligent design who has no physics and even less philosophy?

Clara Szalai is a fundamentalist fruitloop.

What has that to do with the ideas presented?

[Lacewing]

It's all sweetness and the infinite possibilities of oneness...

Ooh baby, you know it!

...until it is suggested that the "energies" might in some way be personal.

There's nothing wrong with energies being personal... unless they're being projected as the vile gaseous waste product of someone's greatly bloated ego. Nobody benefits from being bombarded with that.

Then, all of a sudden, you're a theist trying to shove your "anthropomorphic" idea of God down everyone's throat.

Or a pompous fool who thinks they uniquely and righteously know the ultimate truth/reality and have all the answers for (and about) EVERYONE. Yep, either way, it's an ignorant, self-worshipping delusion that doesn't succeed in fooling many people who are skilled in thinking for themselves beyond fear and convention.

[The Inglorious One]

There's nothing wrong with energies being personal... unless they're being projected as the vile gaseous waste product of someone's greatly bloated ego. Nobody benefits from being bombarded with that.

Lacewing, you praise of infinite possibilities without end and insist that it does not make sense that there would be any entity that would be separate from all that is. I never said or implied that there is separation. Perhaps you imagined it because your bigotry compelled you to see something that was never there.

Are the possibilities really infinite in your mind, or is that just for public consumption? Ever consider the possibility that human personalities are the projection? That human personality is the time-space image-shadow cast by a Creator personality? If you reject that idea, why? Where is the separation in that scenario? Or are you just resentful of the idea that there may be something bigger than you ego? I'm just asking.

Or a pompous fool who thinks they uniquely and righteously know the ultimate truth/reality and have all the answers for (and about) EVERYONE. Yep, either way, it's an ignorant, self-worshipping delusion that doesn't succeed in fooling many people who are skilled in thinking for themselves beyond fear and convention.

So, anyone who presents an alternative to your model is a pompous fool who thinks they uniquely and righteously know the ultimate truth/reality, as well as ignorant, self-worshiping and delusional?

Interesting.

[Skip]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM

Interesting.

No, it isn't! Can you two verbose self-congratulatory apologists get a room already?
I'm so bored....
....I went looking for that clip from Airplane where Ted Striker is driving fellow passengers to suicide by telling them his life story, but I think I'll just set myself on fire.

[The Inglorious One]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM

Interesting.

No, it isn't! Can you two verbose self-congratulatory apologists get a room already?
I'm so bored....
....I went looking for that clip from Airplane where Ted Striker is driving fellow passengers to suicide by telling them his life story, but I think I'll just set myself on fire.

Can I watch?

[Lacewing]

There's nothing wrong with energies being personal... unless they're being projected as the vile gaseous waste product of someone's greatly bloated ego. Nobody benefits from being bombarded with that.

Lacewing, you praise of infinite possibilities without end and insist that it does not make sense that there would be any entity that would be separate from all that is. I never said or implied that there is separation. Perhaps you imagined it because your bigotry compelled you to see something that was never there.

Did I say you did? I'm not trying to project or define what YOU see or think... truly! I speak in general terms about behaviors/comments I've seen by some people in various threads. To me, it's thought-provoking to review what seems outrageous, as I refer to above (the description of which still cracks me up, by the way). But I'm not trying to attack anyone. Shake or poke them a little, maybe. I basically reflect what I think I see people DOING, and it's up to anyone reading to see if that offers any insight to them about themselves or anyone else.

Are the possibilities really infinite in your mind, or is that just for public consumption?

Yes, I think the possibilities are wide open. Of course there are limits imposed by all sorts of things... including being human and all the mental stuff we build up and carry around... but I don't think those are limits that cannot be transcended to much greater degrees while we're here. I think there are immensely more possibilities than we're utilizing and realizing. HOWEVER, it's not my intention to tell people what they need to do in their life (I DON'T KNOW!! That's their path.) -- it's only my intention to say "here's what else I think there is to choose from and experience".

Ever consider the possibility that human personalities are the projection? That human personality is the time-space image-shadow cast by a Creator personality?

Sure... except I don't think of it in terms of there being a "creator". Rather... we could be projections and "feelers" (so-to-speak) for the collective of all-that-is... which could be exploring and trying out every manifestation possible as infinite energy might do. If there's any kind of "knowingness", I think it's much different than how we humans think of "knowing" and "consciousness". I just think it's all so much bigger and different than limited human ideas and vision.

...are you just resentful of the idea that there may be something bigger than you ego? I'm just asking.

Thanks for asking, and not assuming (like some people). No, I am not resentful -- I am respectful of that which is so much more than this little form that I might refer to as "me", but it is just a form. I think of my "energy" as part of a collective that ultimately does not need identity and definitions. I had an experience of being in my final few hours of dying slowly, and I felt/experienced being within a vast expanse that was so open and free and perfect... without thoughts or fear or agendas or judgments or desires (or even words). All of that was human stuff... and there was no judgment about that either. I knew it would be up to the "mortals" to save this body so that I could remain. But there was no desire one way or the other.

Or a pompous fool who thinks they uniquely and righteously know the ultimate truth/reality and have all the answers for (and about) EVERYONE. Yep, either way, it's an ignorant, self-worshipping delusion that doesn't succeed in fooling many people who are skilled in thinking for themselves beyond fear and convention.

So, anyone who presents an alternative to your model is a pompous fool who thinks they uniquely and righteously know the ultimate truth/reality, as well as ignorant, self-worshiping and delusional?

Of course not. You've just taken what I said and accused me of thinking something ELSE very specific (which I've bolded). I made a statement about the way some people behave... and what I think about it. That in NO WAY says that "anyone who presents an alternative to my model" is that way! Why would you make such a huge leap with your logic to accuse me of such a thing? I don't care if people think the way I do. I think the world is better with diversity. I was making an observation about certain behavior... to essentially ask/challenge: "What is this and why would someone act this way?" I have repeatedly said that I do not think there are any definitive answers/truths... and that none of us know much of anything, really. That includes me! I'm sharing my perspective... as everyone does... and I'm not trying to tell people what to do... and I'm not telling people they're doomed if they don't do something a certain way. I've said it probably doesn't matter what any of us do. But we can certainly discuss what we DO choose to do, and explore why. It might be entertaining, if not informative.

[The Inglorious One]

What if we simply do not know and cannot know what being is and use the word "God" to denote the mystery of its existence? Our existence?

[Obvious Leo]

Inglorious. Since you've never answered a single one of my previous questions I'm not optimistic that you'll bother to answer this one either but here goes:

Q. Do you believe (A) that you will continue to exist eternally in some non-material form after your current physical body of matter and energy dies? and (B) that such an eternal existence will be denied to me because I don't share this opinion.