There is no personal God or impersonal God.

[Dontaskme]

I have NEVER felt any animosity towards you at all, ever. 'you' will ALWAYS be a friend just expressing your views.

I see EVERY one's words here as just an expressions of views. Nothing more and nothing less.

If a view is expressed in a validly and soundly well reasoned argument, then so be it. But, if a view is expressed in any other way, then so be it also. I understand fully where and why ALL views have come from and arise, therefore, in a sense, I TOTALLY understand each and every view, without necessarily having to agree with it, nor accept it.

Thanks friend.

I had a spontaneous lightbulb moment this morning where I said to myself...I really get what Age has been trying to say to me after all this time. It was a wonderful moment of pure clarity.

I'm the one here, who has been the stupid one, so I would like to thank you for your patience and understanding.

Thanks for making me a better person, and for wanting to make the world a better place. I understand now your reason for wanting to write your book.

I'm fairly confident it will be the best book ever written...and I will be the first in line eager to grab a copy. I look forward to reading your book Age.

Again thank you so much.

You've got me to look in the mirror and face myself, I am laughing so much now...

I can see and understand what you were trying to say to someone who was not listening properly...but I'm listening now.

This forum is very lucky to have someone like you. I personally feel like your words have helped reform my wayward character. I'm so grateful, so thanks again.

[surreptitious57]

I do not always understand both of you but I try to as best as I can

[FrankGSterleJr]

When it comes to giving thanks before eating meals, etcetera, I personally would be quite willing to consistently say grace every day of every year if everyone on Earth—and not just a minority of the planet’s populace—had enough clean, safe drinking water and nutritional food to maintain a normal, healthy daily life; and I’d be pray-fully ‘thankful’ if every couple’s child would survive his or her serious illness rather than just a small portion of such sick children.

Furthermore, what makes so many of us believe that collective humanity should be able to enjoy the pleasures of free will, but cry out for and expect divine mercy and rescue when our free will ruins our figurative good day—i.e. that we should have our cake and eat it, too?

Obviously, it’s not desirable to challenge one of humanity’s greatest institutions on record—i.e. praying and saying grace to an omnipotent/omniscient entity—a pathetic fact quite evident by the total absence of this missive in virtually every newspaper on Earth.

Lastly, is it only me, or is there some truly unfortunate, bitter irony in holding faith and hope in prayer—when unanswered prayer results in an increase in skeptical atheism and/or agnosticism?

[Eodnhoj7]

Believed Gods and their creations do not exist except as fictional stories, all quite silly fables absent of any real literal actual substance.

In truth, the very idea that there is a ''My God'' would be like holding on to the believed idea that the cartoon character Cinderellla has a biological father.

The human mind wants these characters to be real because they make us feel good, they stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain, but sadly these characters are not real, and we really do know that deep down, but still we cling on to the belief. And that clinging is what keeps the story spinning, the world of make belief becomes a never ending story, and it's an addiction that is hard to break free from.

Whatever is labeled a ''thing'' is really not what the label says it is, but since it is NOT KNOWN what anything is, a label will always suffice and make what is really not known.. known. And it's the lie we all fall for.

The recursive nature of being necessitates a personal God exists in the respect the nature of man , as formed in the image of God, mandates a common bond at the individual level to the source. Man is personally connected to the creator in the respect man is made in the image of God. The connection between the image and the source necessitates a degree of personal relationship given each man is a fractal of the source.

This fractal nature necessitates a common symmetry between the source and creator with this symmetry being in the ability to observe. Creation is God observing God through God, with man's self reflective qualities being both part of and an approximation the greater act of self reflection of God. This common quality of self measurement necessitates God as simultaneously impersonal as well given this ability reflects across all of being, specifically the nature of man.

[Dontaskme]

The recursive nature of being necessitates a personal God exists in the respect the nature of man , as formed in the image of God, mandates a common bond at the individual level to the source. Man is personally connected to the creator in the respect man is made in the image of God. The connection between the image and the source necessitates a degree of personal relationship given each man is a fractal of the source.

This fractal nature necessitates a common symmetry between the source and creator with this symmetry being in the ability to observe. Creation is God observing God through God, with man's self reflective qualities being both part of and an approximation the greater act of self reflection of God. This common quality of self measurement necessitates God as simultaneously impersonal as well given this ability reflects across all of being, specifically the nature of man.

Thanks for your view. I used to believe in all that crap once. But now see it all as just another one of the human made silly fables.

God is just another word for the unseen invisible consciousness that is present in all living organisms. And since consciousness is actually unknowable in the sense it has never been seen, only known conceptually. The only image of God is nothing but an image of the imageless, inseparable from. In essence, nothing is real, nothing is everything, and everything is nothing.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

The recursive nature of being necessitates a personal God exists in the respect the nature of man , as formed in the image of God, mandates a common bond at the individual level to the source. Man is personally connected to the creator in the respect man is made in the image of God. The connection between the image and the source necessitates a degree of personal relationship given each man is a fractal of the source.

This fractal nature necessitates a common symmetry between the source and creator with this symmetry being in the ability to observe. Creation is God observing God through God, with man's self reflective qualities being both part of and an approximation the greater act of self reflection of God. This common quality of self measurement necessitates God as simultaneously impersonal as well given this ability reflects across all of being, specifically the nature of man.

Thanks for your view. I used to believe in all that crap once. But now see it all as just another one of the human made silly fables.

God is just another word for the unseen invisible consciousness that is present in all living organisms. And since consciousness is actually unknowable in the sense it has never been seen, only known conceptually. The only image of God is nothing but an image of the imageless, inseparable from. In essence, nothing is real, nothing is everything, and everything is nothing.

.

You are ignoring recursion with recursion, as universal, necessitating God, as consciousness, as both personal and impersonal. Consciousness is seen through the forms, and the forms are grounded in the simple dot, thus consciousness is seen through the dot. Consciousness is a self reflective dot which gives grounds to all the forms.

[Dontaskme]

You are ignoring recursion with recursion, as universal, necessitating God, as consciousness, as both personal and impersonal. Consciousness is seen through the forms, and the forms are grounded in the simple dot, thus consciousness is seen through the dot. Consciousness is a self reflective dot which gives grounds to all the forms.

Not ignoring it..I know what you are saying, but I see your words as just more silly meaningless knowledge known by no thing.

The universe is a deaf dumb and blind phenomena pretending to know and see itself. Human knowledge only showed up a few seconds ago, prior to which the Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 165 million years, that's how dumb life really is. The planet is riddled with dumb weird alien looking creatures, both in the oceans and on land, the human primate is the dumbest of all. If it wasn't for that big dumb rock smashing into the earth, humans wouldn't even be here telling their dumb fables to anyone who will buy them.

Who do you think is in charge of this planet earth? humans ...or some other creature? Humans can't even run a bath, let alone run the planet with any sort of intelligent authority.

There's just no one or thing running the show, it's a driverless train on a oneway track to nowhere for no reason or purpose.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are ignoring recursion with recursion, as universal, necessitating God, as consciousness, as both personal and impersonal. Consciousness is seen through the forms, and the forms are grounded in the simple dot, thus consciousness is seen through the dot. Consciousness is a self reflective dot which gives grounds to all the forms.

Not ignoring it..I know what you are saying, but I see your words as just more silly meaningless knowledge known by no thing.

The universe is a deaf dumb and blind phenomena pretending to know and see itself. Human knowledge only showed up a few seconds ago, prior to which the Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 165 million years, that's how dumb life really is. The planet is riddled with dumb weird alien looking creatures, both in the oceans and on land, the human primate is the dumbest of all. If it wasn't for that big dumb rock smashing into the earth, humans wouldn't even be here telling their dumb fables to anyone who will buy them.

You claim humans make up fables yet use a modern fable of creation yourself.
If all knowledge is fundamentally nothing then by default your stance is nothing as well.


Who do you think is in charge of this planet earth? humans ...or some other creature? Humans can't even run a bath, let alone run the planet with any sort of intelligent authority.

There's just no one or thing running the show, it's a driverless train on a oneway track to nowhere for no reason or purpose.

Recursion, as repetition, and isomorphism, as the inversion of one thing into a symmetrical opposite, necessitates underlying principles as governing creation. Context is constant as a fundamental loop which guides everything.

[Dontaskme]

You claim humans make up fables yet use a modern fable of creation yourself.
If all knowledge is fundamentally nothing then by default your stance is nothing as well.


yes, that’s exactly what I am/not saying..

[Dontaskme]

There's just no one or thing running the show, it's a driverless train on a oneway track to nowhere for no reason or purpose.

”Recursion, as repetition, and isomorphism, as the inversion of one thing into a symmetrical opposite, necessitates underlying principles as governing creation. Context is constant as a fundamental loop which guides everything.”

but the principal’s are fundamentally empty because everything is actually nothing.

[Atla]

does that ever sink into you that I do not have one iota of understanding a single word you are saying to me ?

This is sinking in further, to me, and to the "OTHERS", NOW.

Are these "OTHERS" humans, or other beings?

[Eodnhoj7]

There's just no one or thing running the show, it's a driverless train on a oneway track to nowhere for no reason or purpose.

”Recursion, as repetition, and isomorphism, as the inversion of one thing into a symmetrical opposite, necessitates underlying principles as governing creation. Context is constant as a fundamental loop which guides everything.”

but the principal’s are fundamentally empty because everything is actually nothing.

These principles alternate through eachother and are self referencing thus encapsulate nothing through being. Being encapsulates nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

You claim humans make up fables yet use a modern fable of creation yourself.
If all knowledge is fundamentally nothing then by default your stance is nothing as well.


yes, that’s exactly what I am/not saying..

Yet you use the stance to justify your stance to justify nothing. You are using nothing to justify nothing thus no justification for your stance ensues. You have no argument.

[Age]

does that ever sink into you that I do not have one iota of understanding a single word you are saying to me ?

This is sinking in further, to me, and to the "OTHERS", NOW.

Are these "OTHERS" humans, or other beings?

What is the difference, to you?

To me, "OTHERS" referred to 'human beings'.

But to answer your actual question, properly and correctly, then I will need to know how you differentiate those two words.

[Dontaskme]

You claim humans make up fables yet use a modern fable of creation yourself.
If all knowledge is fundamentally nothing then by default your stance is nothing as well.


yes, that’s exactly what I am/not saying..

Yet you use the stance to justify your stance to justify nothing. You are using nothing to justify nothing thus no justification for your stance ensues. You have no argument.

That's right, there is no argument, except as imagined, in this conception, in other words, nothing is arguing with itself. Oneness has no argument with itself, for who or what else could/would it possibly argue with?

Everything is sourced in nothing. Or, nothing is sourced in everything...it's always the same zero point default position that never moves.



.