Proof that God IS ..in 6 words.

[Reflex]

Please explain why “something exists” is not proof of an underpinning order or ground.

In the same way that your words exist but do not prove that you know much of anything. You are the one assigning meaning to things. Without you assigning meaning, there would be nothing that had any meaning to you. It would just be existence, without your crazy crap piled on top.

Neither can you admit to it without admitting to God by another name.

Is that what you're going to do... assign the idea of God to any kind of order at all? That's really dishonest and desperate. Nature has all kinds of order to it, but it is not a god. Why must you assign such a corruptible concept onto natural forces and rhythms that simply work together and feed into each other? Why impose distorted human ideas which are manipulated in so many ways for the human ego? Just let it be, and stop claiming to know it.

Humans make up all kinds of things to try and make sense of the world and the unknown and themselves. Why would any of that nonsense exist if humans were not here needing to believe it?

See what I mean?

[Lacewing]

See what I mean?

What you mean is meaningless.

[Greta]

God in not what is claimed.

People like to invent cool ideas.

Reality's weirder than you can imagine.

[Lacewing]

Reality's weirder than you can imagine.

Yes, and there's plenty of proof for that.

[Greta]

Reality's weirder than you can imagine.

Yes, and there's plenty of proof for that.

Reality is even weirder than that

[Reflex]

Reality's weirder than you can imagine.

Yes, and there's plenty of proof for that.

Indeed. But why exclude the obvious? You admit to an underpinning order or ground; what you reject is not God, but your idea of God. Find one that works for you.

[Dontaskme]

Seer is just another word for Consciousness or Awareness or Beingness or Presence or GOD


The human mind cannot see the seer.
So the human mind then claims to be the seer as it substitutes the seer it cannot see by sticking a name tag on it.
In doing so, the invisible seer which has NO IMAGE of itself is made visible as and through the name tag, attached by the mind, an aspect of seeing, the instrument of seeing by which the invisible is made visible.

The mind attaches name tag and then claims as and through that name-tag that the name-tag is the seer. But this claimer is not real, it's just a label, it's an imagined seer, not the real actual seer, the real seer is all that's real, the name tag is the imposter, it's an imagined thing. The mind is the looked upon as it's attached label is identified /seen/known.
But it's not the real seer, the real seer has no need for identification, it's already this immediate direct seeing.

Confusion and misery arises through misidentification as to who or what is the correct seer.
In reality, seeing is already here minus any name tag. The human mind is the looked upon, not the looker, the mind of labels is the dream story arising and falling within the seer that's already here. The seer never comes or leaves, only the dream story comes and goes in it. The seer is eternal which means this ever unfolding NOW.

There is nothing to negate the seer in this ever unfolding NOW..because there is nothing outside of NOW...EVERYTHING IS NOW.

NOW can never not be NOW. This NOW IS God - that which cannot be named YET every name is it, an attached copy of the original.





.

[Dontaskme]

It is definitely important not to label individuals.

Labeling separates what is whole and makes the whole unwholey.

You are the seeing, and the seen as one, yourself.

We all see the same things.

You don't need to separate the seer by giving it a label.

Individual means Indivisable Unity.

If you can't see something then stick a label on it to identify it, but know that this labeling is of the blind, only the blind cannot see that they already are what's seeing.

.

[Lacewing]

There are so many claims and labels which humans cannot help but make up stories with. On and on they can go, perhaps until they are spun up in cocoons of "knowing" some sort of greater truth, yet rarely do they appear content. To me, it seems ridiculous. I am not compelled to define in such detail any kind of "truth" or "all" beyond our human thinking/experience. Nor does it make sense to tell anyone to find or realize "IT". Strange to see when obvious blindness/intoxication/deception seems so intent on defining and advising.

I care about clarity and authenticity in each moment (even when being feisty) as well as allowing space and openness to exist without piling on definitions. Utterly amazing things happen (for me) in such space and openness. I don't want to distort that by trying to "know" or own it with stories.

Which is why I wonder when people seem to care more about what they think they know, than in allowing there to be anything beyond that. Perhaps they are trying to feel as big as the Universe, but it seems more like they are reducing the Universe to as small and limited and distorted as they are.

[Reflex]

A human being is the relating of a relation -- a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity -- relating to itself. So yes, LW, there are many and varied claims employing labels to describe how the finite-temporal-necessary relates to the Infinite-Eternal-Free. That does not mean, however, any particular story is simply "made up." Sure, how the relation is expressed may be clumsy and misleading, but a lot of that has to do with the limitations of language and its complexities. The Tao te Ching, for example, has been translated hundreds of times with results that sometimes cannot be recognized as being from the same source.

We all naturally tend to believe what we deem best for us, that which is in our immediate or remote interest. By claiming people's stories are "made up" might serve your interests, but it slams the door in the face of those who may want nothing more than to communicate what they deem to be of supreme value to themselves and for all mankind.

DAM uses an esoteric language to communicate, mine is less so. To be honest, I still haven't figured out yours, LW. From what I've seen, it's anything goes so long as people don't deem their ideas to be of supreme value. That's relativism in a nutshell.

[Lacewing]

We all naturally tend to believe what we deem best for us, that which is in our immediate or remote interest. By claiming people's stories are "made up" might serve your interests, but it slams the door in the face of those who may want nothing more than to communicate what they deem to be of supreme value to themselves and for all mankind.

I see what you are saying, and it is not my intent to slam a door in the face of such communication, rather my intent is to show how/when ego and human stories distort and try to control. Do you not see this tendency in people's belief systems?

Do you consider how the comments that you and others make about what someone needs to find or realize, places yourself on a higher platform, and shuts out all other potential? Such as you telling me to find an idea of God that works for me. WTF? Why should I?

DAM uses an esoteric language to communicate, mine is less so.

It's more than language -- it is WHAT is being communicated that draws feedback. I understand a lot of different spiritual languages... and I see a lot that is in common (as I've acknowledged). But there are things that are communicated -- as well as inconsistencies and avoidance in answering reasonable questions/challenges -- that appear to reveal the ego and stories at work. That is worth being questioned.

I still haven't figured out yours, LW.

I don't think there's an accurate label. My language is free-flowing in the moment -- as I don't have an agenda/platform, I just try to respond effectively and truthfully to what is being said.

From what I've seen, it's anything goes so long as people don't deem their ideas to be of supreme value.

When people claim their ideas to be of supreme value, yes that seems very indicative of major ego and delusion at work. Aren't those the sort of claims that we would want to question on a Philosophy forum? There appears to be a ridiculous amount of such claims on this forum, and it's natural to want to question/challenge them -- however, I can speak in harmony with many spiritual languages if they're not dripping with ego, and I would much rather talk about what we all see in common and how it serves/affects our experiences. This forum, however, seems more inclined toward people posturing on a stage, while people throw tomatoes at them.

[Dontaskme]

A human being is the relating of a relation -- a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity -- relating to itself. So yes, LW, there are many and varied claims employing labels to describe how the finite-temporal-necessary relates to the Infinite-Eternal-Free. That does not mean, however, any particular story is simply "made up." Sure, how the relation is expressed may be clumsy and misleading, but a lot of that has to do with the limitations of language and its complexities. The Tao te Ching, for example, has been translated hundreds of times with results that sometimes cannot be recognized as being from the same source.

We all naturally tend to believe what we deem best for us, that which is in our immediate or remote interest. By claiming people's stories are "made up" might serve your interests, but it slams the door in the face of those who may want nothing more than to communicate what they deem to be of supreme value to themselves and for all mankind.

Very well said. I salute you.

I love reading you're posts Reflex, they resonate very deeply with me.

.

[Lacewing]

Very well said. I salute you.

I love reading you're posts Reflex, they resonate very deeply with me.

What? No kiss kiss??

That does not mean, however, any particular story is simply "made up."

I thought you were in agreement, DAM, that all of our stories are made up? No?

[Reflex]

I see what you are saying, and it is not my intent to slam a door in the face of such communication, rather my intent is to show how/when ego and human stories distort and try to control. Do you not see this tendency in people's belief systems?

Every stick has two ends. It may not be your intent to slam the door in people's faces, but the effect is the very thing you complain about.

Do you consider how the comments that you and others make about what someone needs to find or realize, places yourself on a higher platform, and shuts out all other potential?

Not at all.

Such as you telling me to find an idea of God that works for me. WTF? Why should I?

You can't get an 'ought' from 'I don't know.' So, if you have values you need a solid foundation. Otherwise, your values hang on thin air, just indicators of personal likes and dislikes.

It's more than language -- it is WHAT is being communicated that draws feedback. I understand a lot of different spiritual languages... and I see a lot that is in common (as I've acknowledged). But there are things that are communicated -- as well as inconsistencies and avoidance in answering reasonable questions/challenges -- that appear to reveal the ego and stories at work. That is worth being questioned.

That goes for you, too. But understand also that words commonly used in one language may have no equivalent in another and that fact alone puts severe limitations on univocal language.

I don't think there's an accurate label. My language is free-flowing in the moment -- as I don't have an agenda/platform, I just try to respond effectively and truthfully to what is being said.

Responding effectively and truthfully to what is being said is your agenda, and a good one, but not knowing where you're coming from, the basis of your reasoning, makes it impossible for anyone to understand what you're trying to say.

When people claim their ideas to be of supreme value, yes that seems very indicative of major ego and delusion at work.

Yes, so let's look at those delusions square in the face. Their denial won't make them go away. Work with them. Find the unity between unity and diversity, between delusion and Reality.

Aren't those the sort of claims that we would want to question on a Philosophy forum? There appears to be a ridiculous amount of such claims on this forum, and it's natural to want to question/challenge them -- however, I can speak in harmony with many spiritual languages if they're not dripping with ego, and I would much rather talk about what we all see in common and how it serves/affects our experiences.

Here's one of my favorite quotes:

There is no trustworthy standard by which we can separate the “real” from the “unreal” aspects of phenomena. Such standards as exist are conventional: and correspond to convenience, not to truth. It is no argument to say that most men see the world in much the same way, and that this “way” is the true standard of reality: though for practical purposes we have agreed that sanity consists in sharing the hallucinations of our neighbours. Those who are honest with themselves know that this “sharing” is at best incomplete. . . .Only the happy circumstance that our ordinary speech is conventional, not realistic, permits us to conceal from one another the unique and lonely world in which each lives. -- Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A Study in Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness

This forum, however, seems more inclined toward people posturing on a stage, while people throw tomatoes at them.

Of course. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?

[Reflex]

Very well said. I salute you.

I love reading you're posts Reflex, they resonate very deeply with me.

What? No kiss kiss??

That does not mean, however, any particular story is simply "made up."

I thought you were in agreement, DAM, that all of our stories are made up? No?

A human being is the relating of a relation; a process, not a thing. The relating is not made up, but our particular story (or conceptual interpretation) is.