God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

[Eodnhoj7]

THEREFORE, OBVIOUSLY, and CONTRADICTORY to YOUR CLAIM, I ALSO can answer 'What is 'being'?' without ending in contradiction.

Yet you state elsewhere, several posts up, I am not addressing the argument and am incorrect.

This IS Correct. One example IS; You stated that I cannot answer "What is being'?" without ending in contradiction, YET I have just PROVEN that you ARE INCORRECT, once again.

Actually you did contradict yourself given you also stated whatever argument I provide you would prove wrong.

"Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

If you do NOT, then that PROVES you have something to hide, are afraid, already know that you are wrong, or for some other reason."

You have to prove me wrong now, therefore it cannot be your answer. The premise and conclusion is: •

LOL So the 'premise' AND 'conclusion' of YOUR, so called, "argument" is the EXACT SAME ONE THING. Okay, but NOTHING MORE REALLY NEEDS TO BE SAID HERE. The illogicality of this SPEAKS for ITSELF.

Also, you have ALREADY RESPONDED to what I said above in your previous post. But anyway;

All comes from a common form. The argument was broken down later.

1. All comes from a point.

Are you confusing this thread with another one? You have NOT mentioned the word 'point' in your opening "argument"/CLAIM here in this thread.
Anyway, how do you KNOW all, so called, "points" do NOT come from ALL?

How do you know everything changes?

How do you KNOW 'points' and 'ALL' do NOT come from ANY 'thing' but rather have ALWAYS existed?

The point is a constant unchanging form.


And, what do you ACTUALLY mean by; "All comes from A point"?

All comes from a single point, what else is there to say?

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

Again, what do 'points' ACTUALLY have to do with the thread title here;
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

God is the point of origin as the point. The point contains the totality of reality, thus God contains the totality of reality.

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

And, if you REALLY want to bring these 'points' into this thread, then with an even CLOSER INSPECTION what is REVEALED and SEEN is that ALL 'points' are CONSTANTLY 'changing'. Which, by the way, counters AND defeats your other CLAIMS in that other thread.

The individuation of one point into another is the same point repeating itself.
One 0d point equals another. For a point to change into another point is the point repeating itself as a constant.

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

Okay, if you say so.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

I am ALREADY AWARE of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, right, AND correct regarding 'points'. But are you SURE you would NOT like to PROVIDE here, in 'point form' YOUR 'premises' and 'conclusion' for YOUR, alleged, "argument" in regards to:
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination, INSTEAD?






Also, WHY would you put this "argument", from another thread, in list and point form but will NOT do the same thing for the "argument" in this thread?

Because the argument has already been stated in the beginning of the thread:
.
A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

1. God is the totality of being.
2. The totality of being is a hallucination.
3. Therefore God is a hallucination.
4. However the totality of being is not an hallucination.
5. Therefore God is not an hallucination.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. God is the totality of being.
2. The totality of being is a hallucination.
3. Therefore God is a hallucination.
4. However the totality of being is not an hallucination.
5. Therefore God is not an hallucination.

The above is a very horrible argument.

P1. God is the totality of being.
Where is your proof God exists as real?
If no proof, then your conclusion end up with a the unreal or falsehoods.

Note this sound argument;

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. All-there-is a hallucination-Epistemological
  3. God is a hallucination-transcendental from 2.

Notes:
2. Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316&p=379628&hil ... ty#p379628

3. God is an Impossibility to be real - i.e. a hallucination
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Eodnhoj7]

1. God is the totality of being.
2. The totality of being is a hallucination.
3. Therefore God is a hallucination.
4. However the totality of being is not an hallucination.
5. Therefore God is not an hallucination.

The above is a very horrible argument.

P1. God is the totality of being.
Where is your proof God exists as real?
If no proof, then your conclusion end up with a the unreal or falsehoods.

Note this sound argument;

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. All-there-is a hallucination-Epistemological
  3. God is a hallucination-transcendental from 2.

Notes:
2. Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316&p=379628&hil ... ty#p379628

3. God is an Impossibility to be real - i.e. a hallucination
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

God is real as the totality of reality is real, the totality of reality is proof in itself as it is accepted as is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. God is the totality of being.
2. The totality of being is a hallucination.
3. Therefore God is a hallucination.
4. However the totality of being is not an hallucination.
5. Therefore God is not an hallucination.

The above is a very horrible argument.

P1. God is the totality of being.
Where is your proof God exists as real?
If no proof, then your conclusion end up with a the unreal or falsehoods.

Note this sound argument;

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. All-there-is a hallucination-Epistemological
  3. God is a hallucination-transcendental from 2.

Notes:
2. Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316&p=379628&hil ... ty#p379628

3. God is an Impossibility to be real - i.e. a hallucination
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

God is real as the totality of reality is real, the totality of reality is proof in itself as it is accepted as is.

What??

Scientific truths is the standard bearer of truth.
Reality as all-there-is is verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.

God cannot be verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.
If you insist where is the scientific paper that justified God is scientifically real?

[Eodnhoj7]

The above is a very horrible argument.

P1. God is the totality of being.
Where is your proof God exists as real?
If no proof, then your conclusion end up with a the unreal or falsehoods.

Note this sound argument;

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. All-there-is a hallucination-Epistemological
  3. God is a hallucination-transcendental from 2.

Notes:
2. Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316&p=379628&hil ... ty#p379628

3. God is an Impossibility to be real - i.e. a hallucination
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

God is real as the totality of reality is real, the totality of reality is proof in itself as it is accepted as is.

What??

Scientific truths is the standard bearer of truth.
Reality as all-there-is is verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.

God cannot be verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.
If you insist where is the scientific paper that justified God is scientifically real?

Scientific truths are not the standard bearer for truth given they are conditioned on abstract metaphysical question and mathematics. Where has science proven the number 1? Scientific truth is empty in itself and because it is condition on further phenomena it cannot be the apex. You are using science as a starting point out of the totality of multiple other phenomena. It is merely a chosen starting point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is real as the totality of reality is real, the totality of reality is proof in itself as it is accepted as is.

What??

Scientific truths is the standard bearer of truth.
Reality as all-there-is is verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.

God cannot be verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.
If you insist where is the scientific paper that justified God is scientifically real?

Scientific truths are not the standard bearer for truth given they are conditioned on abstract metaphysical question and mathematics.
Where has science proven the number 1? Scientific truth is empty in itself and because it is condition on further phenomena it cannot be the apex. You are using science as a starting point out of the totality of multiple other phenomena. It is merely a chosen starting point.

If scientific truths are not the best and most credible we have, thus the standard bearer, then what other truth is better than science is verifying and justifying what is reality?

Metaphysics merely leap into la la land and spins its woo woo.

[Eodnhoj7]

What??

Scientific truths is the standard bearer of truth.
Reality as all-there-is is verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.

God cannot be verifiable and justifiable by science as scientifically real.
If you insist where is the scientific paper that justified God is scientifically real?

Scientific truths are not the standard bearer for truth given they are conditioned on abstract metaphysical question and mathematics.
Where has science proven the number 1? Scientific truth is empty in itself and because it is condition on further phenomena it cannot be the apex. You are using science as a starting point out of the totality of multiple other phenomena. It is merely a chosen starting point.

If scientific truths are not the best and most credible we have, thus the standard bearer, then what other truth is better than science is verifying and justifying what is reality?

Metaphysics merely leap into la la land and spins its woo woo.

Science studies hallucinations according to your stance, scientific truth is merely a hallucination of the mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Scientific truths are not the standard bearer for truth given they are conditioned on abstract metaphysical question and mathematics.
Where has science proven the number 1? Scientific truth is empty in itself and because it is condition on further phenomena it cannot be the apex. You are using science as a starting point out of the totality of multiple other phenomena. It is merely a chosen starting point.

If scientific truths are not the best and most credible we have, thus the standard bearer, then what other truth is better than science is verifying and justifying what is reality?

Metaphysics merely leap into la la land and spins its woo woo.

Science studies hallucinations according to your stance, scientific truth is merely a hallucination of the mind.

You need to see it this way,

hallucination [science verify and justify reality]

[Age]

"I will AGAIN suggest that if one Truly WANTS to discover or learn and understand what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, then just BE and REMAIN Truly OPEN, and CURIOUS, and STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the perspective on one's OWN ALREADY gained thoughts and BELIEFS."

^^^This is a belief.

You could NOT be FURTHER FROM THEE ACTUAL Truth.

Soundness' is; the quality of being based on valid reason or on logical reasoning

'Validity' is; the quality of being logically or factually sound;

Soundness and validity are thus circular, one defines the other and this is circular reasoning. This is the fallacy of circularity. You contradict yourself.

LOL WHY did you ONLY use this definition? Why did you NOT use the other definition I gave?

Also, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus is PURE OBVIOUS one does NOT define the other, and so this is NOT circular reasoning.

And for you to be accusing this of being 'circular reasoning', especially considering when it was ACTUALLY YOU who stated: The premise and conclusion is: •[A point], in reply to when I said to you; Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to the EXTREME.

1. False, you have yet to clarify why this definition is wrong, all you are stating is that I am wrong with no argument. God as defined as "all in all" is God as the totality of being.

The definition is OBVIOUSLY WRONG because a definition of 'God' does NOT entail the SIN, the EVIL, nor the WRONG that adult human beings do. So, " 'God' as defined as "all in all" is God as the TOTALITY of being ", as you CLAIM is just PLAIN ABSURD and WRONG.

2. What determines truth then?

Agreement, and acceptance, OBVIOUSLY.

Truth is order, order is application of boundaries, boundaries are definition thus truth is definition.

In YOUR long and drawn out way if 'truth' is definition, then, AGAIN, what ACTUALLY determines truth/definition is, AGAIN, agreement, and acceptance, OBVIOUSLY.

3. The definition is accepted as is, the senses are believed to be correct when being imprinted by a definition.

But if a human being accepts a definition 'as is', then that human being is one Truly EXTREMELY EASILY MANIPULATED human being.

Do 'you' accept EVERY 'definition' 'as is'?

And, if a human being BELIEVES that their OWN interpretation of what the senses are telling them, or saying to them, to be correct, then that is one Truly EXTREMELY MISLED human being.

4. I said if God is a hallucination then the totality of being is a hallucination as God is the totality of being.

If this is Truly what you said, then WHEREABOUTS, EXACTLY, did you say this?

And, I have ALREADY informed you and told you 'God is NOT the totality of being'. I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY.

The totality of being is not a hallucination therefore God is not a hallucination.

YOUR 'interpretation' of 'totality of being' could be a 'hallucination'. Do you KNOW HOW to verify what you think or believe is true IS a 'hallucination' or not?

If no, then you would NEVER KNOW if YOUR 'interpretation' of things is a 'hallucination' or not.

But if you do KNOW HOW to verify if what you think, believe, or interpret IS a 'hallucination' or not, then HOW?

5. I never said jumping to a conclusion is a contradiction.

You have OBVIOUSLY MISREAD, MISTAKEN, MISUNDERSTOOD, or MISINTERPRETED what I ACTUALLY WROTE and MEANT.

But because you MISQUOTE what is said in this threads, do NOT expect me to CORRECT things for you here.

Either you quote the ACTUAL WORDS that you are replying and responding to, so that what was ACTUALLY SAID can be SEEN by 'us', or just ACCEPT that you are SEEN as being DECEIVING and MANIPULATIVE here.

I NEVER said that you said jumping to a conclusion is a contradiction.

IF I recall correctly I said some thing about the conclusion that you have OBVIOUSLY JUMPED TO IS a contradiction.

6. One represents any person claiming the totality of reality is an hallucination.

As with the other five points I could NOT be bothered going back and LOOKING FOR what was ACTUALLY SAID here at this point, which you are replying to now.

But if this is what you BELIEVE and CLAIM is true, then so be it.

7. I did clarify: If God is the totality of everything and God is a hallucination then the totality of everything is a hallucination.

AND, I have informed of HOW and WHY 'God', Itself, is NOT the, so called, "totality of everything".

Also, if you want to 'try to' form an argument with the words "God is a hallucination" in it, then you have to DEFINE what 'God' IS, EXACTLY.

Considering the totality of everything is not an hallucination God is not an hallucination.

This is ONLY on the ABSURD and ILLOGICAL PRESUMPTION that 'God' IS "the totality of everything".

And, if you want to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that 'God' IS 'the totality of everything', then PLEASE EXPLAIN just EXACTLY HOW 'God' IS the EVIL or WRONG behaviors and things, which 'you', adult human beings do, and CREATE?

[Age]

Actually you did contradict yourself given you also stated whatever argument I provide you would prove wrong.

LOL I have NEVER stated ANY such thing as this.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can PROVE me WRONG here. And, if you can, then PLEASE DO.

All comes from a common form.

What does the word 'All' here refer to EXACTLY?

What is the 'common form', EXACTLY, which you propose 'All' comes from?

And, if the word 'All' just refers to Everything, then are you proposing that Everything comes from whatever you propose is a 'common form'?

The argument was broken down later.

This is a bit confusing because the word 'was' here infers that your "argument" 'was' broken down PREVIOUSLY.

But the word 'later' here infers that your "argument" 'will' be broken down LATER.

Will you CLEAR this up?

1. All comes from a point.

Are you confusing this thread with another one? You have NOT mentioned the word 'point' in your opening "argument"/CLAIM here in this thread.
Anyway, how do you KNOW all, so called, "points" do NOT come from ALL?

How do you know everything changes?

I ASKED you two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, but you REFUSED to ANSWER THEM. So, do you expect me to ANSWER YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION here now?

I will TELL YOU, EXACTLY, HOW I KNOW Everything AND EVERY thing CHANGES when you ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I POSE to 'you'.

By the way, MY ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION here begins with, VERY EASILY.

How do you KNOW 'points' and 'ALL' do NOT come from ANY 'thing' but rather have ALWAYS existed?

The point is a constant unchanging form.

So, the, so called, "point", itself, CANNOT CHANGE, correct?

And, what do you ACTUALLY mean by; "All comes from A point"?

All comes from a single point, what else is there to say?

If you can NOT CLARIFY, then just maybe you do NOT KNOW what you are talking about.

Saying, "All comes from a point" is just like saying, "All comes from a big bang", or "All comes from a God". And ALL of these are just ILLOGICAL CLAIMS based on ABSOLUTELY, and LITERALLY, NOTHING AT ALL.

Next you will be saying things like; A 'point' has ALWAYS EXISTED and one time just CHANGED into Everything or ALL things, or that that ONE 'point' came from Absolutely Nothing but then turned itself into Everything or ALL things.

If you can NOT or will NOT CLARIFY or you do NOT YET KNOW HOW to EXPLAIN things SIMPLY, then just maybe you do NOT YET KNOW this well enough.

2. All being is reduced to a point from a distance.

Again, what do 'points' ACTUALLY have to do with the thread title here;
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

God is the point of origin as the point.

So, you appear now to be just like EVERY other human being who BELIEVES (in) God, but who is ACTUALLY TOTALLY INCAPABLE of being ABLE to substantiate and support their BELIEF.

The point contains the totality of reality, thus God contains the totality of reality.

Is this 'point', which you refer to here, just the same one as some scientific people refer to as the 'singularity' at the big bang?

Also, the second part of YOUR SENTENCE here does NOT logically follow on from the first part of YOUR SENTENCE.

IF the point contains the totality of reality, then this does NOT necessarily mean that 'God contains the totality of reality', AT ALL.

Your currently HELD BELIEFS are just SO STRONG, that they are making you write is such ABSURD and ILLOGICAL ways now.

3. All is composed of points upon closer inspection.

And, if you REALLY want to bring these 'points' into this thread, then with an even CLOSER INSPECTION what is REVEALED and SEEN is that ALL 'points' are CONSTANTLY 'changing'. Which, by the way, counters AND defeats your other CLAIMS in that other thread.

The individuation of one point into another is the same point repeating itself.

IF, as you CLAIM here, the SAME point is repeating its 'self', then HOW could one point turn/change into ANOTHER point, as what you ALSO CLAIM here?

One 0d point equals another. For a point to change into another point is the point repeating itself as a constant.

But the EXACT SAME QUESTION REMAINS; How can a point that is, supposedly, repeating itself, as a constant, then cause A CHANGE, which is what is OBVIOUSLY ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING?

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the CONTRADICTION in suggesting that; One point changes into ANOTHER POINT, but, the one point is actually just repeating its OWN self, and that this is a constant?

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

Okay, if you say so.

5. The point as existing through further points necessitates the point as continuous thus static.

I am ALREADY AWARE of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, right, AND correct regarding 'points'. But are you SURE you would NOT like to PROVIDE here, in 'point form' YOUR 'premises' and 'conclusion' for YOUR, alleged, "argument" in regards to:
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination, INSTEAD?

Also, WHY would you put this "argument", from another thread, in list and point form but will NOT do the same thing for the "argument" in this thread?

Because the argument has already been stated in the beginning of the thread:
.
A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

'you', "eodnhoj7" REALLY are Truly BLINDED by your currently held BELIEFS. But, which I Truly thank you for. As you could NOT be providing with me with MORE PROOF and MORE SUPPORT than what you are doing and SHOWING here now, for what I will be EXPLAINING, soon enough.

1. God is the totality of being.
2. The totality of being is a hallucination.
3. Therefore God is a hallucination.
4. However the totality of being is not an hallucination.
5. Therefore God is not an hallucination.

Do you REALLY think or BELIEVE that writing a sentence BUT THEN writing ANOTHER sentence stating that the former sentence is TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, and Incorrect is presenting 'premises'?

YOUR, so called, "argument" here would be one of the MOST ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, UNSOUND, INVALID, and NONSENSICAL arguments that I have SEEN presented in this forum.

1. ALREADY BEEN PROVEN False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
2. Your number 4. states that this is False, Wrong, and Incorrect anyway.
3. Your CONCLUSION here does NOT and could NOT logically follow on from your 1. and 2.
4. Your INABILITY to KNOW if you are hallucinating or not counters this CLAIM of yours here.
5. Your now COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION does NOT logically follow from ANY of the preceding points.

Also, just countering previous points does NOT make the new points true AT ALL.

Your five point, so called, "argument" here is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UNSOUND and INVALID.

[Eodnhoj7]

If scientific truths are not the best and most credible we have, thus the standard bearer, then what other truth is better than science is verifying and justifying what is reality?

Metaphysics merely leap into la la land and spins its woo woo.

Science studies hallucinations according to your stance, scientific truth is merely a hallucination of the mind.

You need to see it this way,

hallucination [science verify and justify reality]

Yet reality is a hallucination according to you thus science is an hallucination.

[Eodnhoj7]

"I will AGAIN suggest that if one Truly WANTS to discover or learn and understand what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, then just BE and REMAIN Truly OPEN, and CURIOUS, and STOP LOOKING AT and SEEING things from the perspective on one's OWN ALREADY gained thoughts and BELIEFS."

^^^This is a belief.

You could NOT be FURTHER FROM THEE ACTUAL Truth.

That is a belief also.

Soundness' is; the quality of being based on valid reason or on logical reasoning

'Validity' is; the quality of being logically or factually sound;

Soundness and validity are thus circular, one defines the other and this is circular reasoning. This is the fallacy of circularity. You contradict yourself.

LOL WHY did you ONLY use this definition? Why did you NOT use the other definition I gave?

It is still a definition you used.

Also, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus is PURE OBVIOUS one does NOT define the other, and so this is NOT circular reasoning.

Soundness relies upon validity, validity relies upon soundness.

And for you to be accusing this of being 'circular reasoning', especially considering when it was ACTUALLY YOU who stated: The premise and conclusion is: •[A point], in reply to when I said to you; Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to the EXTREME.

Being is tautological, one thing expressed in a variety of ways, the single point expressing itself does so through another point, thus one point exists through many. The premise is a single point, the conclusion is another point as many points. All of this, premise as a single point, and conclusion as multiple points can be represented under a single : •

1. False, you have yet to clarify why this definition is wrong, all you are stating is that I am wrong with no argument. God as defined as "all in all" is God as the totality of being.

The definition is OBVIOUSLY WRONG because a definition of 'God' does NOT entail the SIN, the EVIL, nor the WRONG that adult human beings do. So, " 'God' as defined as "all in all" is God as the TOTALITY of being ", as you CLAIM is just PLAIN ABSURD and WRONG.

Sin is the presence of God's wrath. It is the presence of God's justice when one turns away from God. It is God existing through justice.

2. What determines truth then?

Agreement, and acceptance, OBVIOUSLY.

Then the group is assuming the same phenomenon while dually this is the bandwagon fallacy.

Truth is order, order is application of boundaries, boundaries are definition thus truth is definition.

In YOUR long and drawn out way if 'truth' is definition, then, AGAIN, what ACTUALLY determines truth/definition is, AGAIN, agreement, and acceptance, OBVIOUSLY.

If truth is based upon agreement and acceptance it is the agreement and acceptance of definitions which come prior to truth. Since truth cannot exist without definition prior to agreement and acceptance then truth is grounded in definition.

3. The definition is accepted as is, the senses are believed to be correct when being imprinted by a definition.

But if a human being accepts a definition 'as is', then that human being is one Truly EXTREMELY EASILY MANIPULATED human being.

Do 'you' accept EVERY 'definition' 'as is'?

I accept I need water, air and food as is. Also I accept being as is. All degrees of falsity have elements of truth within them.

And, if a human being BELIEVES that their OWN interpretation of what the senses are telling them, or saying to them, to be correct, then that is one Truly EXTREMELY MISLED human being.

You are accepting your own interpretation of what you are sensing in this argument.

4. I said if God is a hallucination then the totality of being is a hallucination as God is the totality of being.

If this is Truly what you said, then WHEREABOUTS, EXACTLY, did you say this?

In the beginning.

And, I have ALREADY informed you and told you 'God is NOT the totality of being'. I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY.

And I have explained why he is.

The totality of being is not a hallucination therefore God is not a hallucination.

YOUR 'interpretation' of 'totality of being' could be a 'hallucination'. Do you KNOW HOW to verify what you think or believe is true IS a 'hallucination' or not?

That which aligns to other assumptions. A mirage of water does not align with water actually being present thus it is an hallucination.

If no, then you would NEVER KNOW if YOUR 'interpretation' of things is a 'hallucination' or not.

But if you do KNOW HOW to verify if what you think, believe, or interpret IS a 'hallucination' or not, then HOW?
By seeing which assumptions align with othere.

5. I never said jumping to a conclusion is a contradiction.

You have OBVIOUSLY MISREAD, MISTAKEN, MISUNDERSTOOD, or MISINTERPRETED what I ACTUALLY WROTE and MEANT.

But because you MISQUOTE what is said in this threads, do NOT expect me to CORRECT things for you here.

Either you quote the ACTUAL WORDS that you are replying and responding to, so that what was ACTUALLY SAID can be SEEN by 'us', or just ACCEPT that you are SEEN as being DECEIVING and MANIPULATIVE here.

I NEVER said that you said jumping to a conclusion is a contradiction.

IF I recall correctly I said some thing about the conclusion that you have OBVIOUSLY JUMPED TO IS a contradiction.

And what conclusion is that?

6. One represents any person claiming the totality of reality is an hallucination.

As with the other five points I could NOT be bothered going back and LOOKING FOR what was ACTUALLY SAID here at this point, which you are replying to now.

But if this is what you BELIEVE and CLAIM is true, then so be it.

7. I did clarify: If God is the totality of everything and God is a hallucination then the totality of everything is a hallucination.

AND, I have informed of HOW and WHY 'God', Itself, is NOT the, so called, "totality of everything".

Also, if you want to 'try to' form an argument with the words "God is a hallucination" in it, then you have to DEFINE what 'God' IS, EXACTLY.
See above.

Considering the totality of everything is not an hallucination God is not an hallucination.

This is ONLY on the ABSURD and ILLOGICAL PRESUMPTION that 'God' IS "the totality of everything".

And, if you want to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that 'God' IS 'the totality of everything', then PLEASE EXPLAIN just EXACTLY HOW 'God' IS the EVIL or WRONG behaviors and things, which 'you', adult human beings do, and CREATE?

Sin is God's wrath as a result of man turning away from God. It is the presence of God's justice.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually you did contradict yourself given you also stated whatever argument I provide you would prove wrong.

LOL I have NEVER stated ANY such thing as this.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can PROVE me WRONG here. And, if you can, then PLEASE DO.

I dont have to prove anything it is already in the posts.



Page 3 around post 9:

Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, and then I will SHOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.

All comes from a common form.

What does the word 'All' here refer to EXACTLY?

Being.

What is the 'common form', EXACTLY, which you propose 'All' comes from?
The point as the totality of all forms under a formless nature.

And, if the word 'All' just refers to Everything, then are you proposing that Everything comes from whatever you propose is a 'common form'?

Yes.

The argument was broken down later.

This is a bit confusing because the word 'was' here infers that your "argument" 'was' broken down PREVIOUSLY.

But the word 'later' here infers that your "argument" 'will' be broken down LATER.

Will you CLEAR this up?

No, you can figure it out for yourself.

1. All comes from a point.

Are you confusing this thread with another one? You have NOT mentioned the word 'point' in your opening "argument"/CLAIM here in this thread.
Anyway, how do you KNOW all, so called, "points" do NOT come from ALL?

How do you know everything changes?

I ASKED you two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, but you REFUSED to ANSWER THEM. So, do you expect me to ANSWER YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION here now?

Are you refusing to answer my clarifying questions? The answer to my question is the answer to yours.

I will TELL YOU, EXACTLY, HOW I KNOW Everything AND EVERY thing CHANGES when you ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I POSE to 'you'.

By the way, MY ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION here begins with, VERY EASILY.

No you will answer my questions first.

How do you KNOW 'points' and 'ALL' do NOT come from ANY 'thing' but rather have ALWAYS existed?

The point is a constant unchanging form.

So, the, so called, "point", itself, CANNOT CHANGE, correct?

the point is always a point.

And, what do you ACTUALLY mean by; "All comes from A point"?

All comes from a single point, what else is there to say?

If you can NOT CLARIFY, then just maybe you do NOT KNOW what you are talking about.

The point divides itself into forms.

Saying, "All comes from a point" is just like saying, "All comes from a big bang", or "All comes from a God". And ALL of these are just ILLOGICAL CLAIMS based on ABSOLUTELY, and LITERALLY, NOTHING AT ALL.

Next you will be saying things like; A 'point' has ALWAYS EXISTED and one time just CHANGED into Everything or ALL things, or that that ONE 'point' came from Absolutely Nothing but then turned itself into Everything or ALL things.

If you can NOT or will NOT CLARIFY or you do NOT YET KNOW HOW to EXPLAIN things SIMPLY, then just maybe you do NOT YET KNOW this well enough.

See above.

Again, what do 'points' ACTUALLY have to do with the thread title here;
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

God is the point of origin as the point.

So, you appear now to be just like EVERY other human being who BELIEVES (in) God, but who is ACTUALLY TOTALLY INCAPABLE of being ABLE to substantiate and support their BELIEF.

God is defined as the origin of all being, this origin begins with a point dividing itself into forms, these forms are reality.

The point contains the totality of reality, thus God contains the totality of reality.

Is this 'point', which you refer to here, just the same one as some scientific people refer to as the 'singularity' at the big bang?

Yes but not limited to it.

Also, the second part of YOUR SENTENCE here does NOT logically follow on from the first part of YOUR SENTENCE.

IF the point contains the totality of reality, then this does NOT necessarily mean that 'God contains the totality of reality', AT ALL.

God and the point are one and the same.

Your currently HELD BELIEFS are just SO STRONG, that they are making you write is such ABSURD and ILLOGICAL ways now.

And, if you REALLY want to bring these 'points' into this thread, then with an even CLOSER INSPECTION what is REVEALED and SEEN is that ALL 'points' are CONSTANTLY 'changing'. Which, by the way, counters AND defeats your other CLAIMS in that other thread.

A point changes into another point thus the point remains the same.

The individuation of one point into another is the same point repeating itself.

IF, as you CLAIM here, the SAME point is repeating its 'self', then HOW could one point turn/change into ANOTHER point, as what you ALSO CLAIM here?

Through the manifestation of form. A point divides itself into a line or a circle or from which other forms result.

One 0d point equals another. For a point to change into another point is the point repeating itself as a constant.

But the EXACT SAME QUESTION REMAINS; How can a point that is, supposedly, repeating itself, as a constant, then cause A CHANGE, which is what is OBVIOUSLY ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING?

The one point dissolves to many and the many dissolve back to one. This repetition of the point is the constant change of the point. The point as everchanging is the point as ever being the same. The point is continually renewing itself.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the CONTRADICTION in suggesting that; One point changes into ANOTHER POINT, but, the one point is actually just repeating its OWN self, and that this is a constant?

The division of Nothingness into being is a contradiction. Contradiction is distinction,

4. The point Inverts to another point and repeats through further points.

Okay, if you say so.

I am ALREADY AWARE of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, right, AND correct regarding 'points'. But are you SURE you would NOT like to PROVIDE here, in 'point form' YOUR 'premises' and 'conclusion' for YOUR, alleged, "argument" in regards to:
God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination, INSTEAD?

Also, WHY would you put this "argument", from another thread, in list and point form but will NOT do the same thing for the "argument" in this thread?

Because the argument has already been stated in the beginning of the thread:
.
A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

'you', "eodnhoj7" REALLY are Truly BLINDED by your currently held BELIEFS. But, which I Truly thank you for. As you could NOT be providing with me with MORE PROOF and MORE SUPPORT than what you are doing and SHOWING here now, for what I will be EXPLAINING, soon enough.

1. God is the totality of being.
2. The totality of being is a hallucination.
3. Therefore God is a hallucination.
4. However the totality of being is not an hallucination.
5. Therefore God is not an hallucination.

Do you REALLY think or BELIEVE that writing a sentence BUT THEN writing ANOTHER sentence stating that the former sentence is TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, and Incorrect is presenting 'premises'?

One sentence after another is an argument.

YOUR, so called, "argument" here would be one of the MOST ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, UNSOUND, INVALID, and NONSENSICAL arguments that I have SEEN presented in this forum.

1. ALREADY BEEN PROVEN False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
2. Your number 4. states that this is False, Wrong, and Incorrect anyway.
3. Your CONCLUSION here does NOT and could NOT logically follow on from your 1. and 2.
4. Your INABILITY to KNOW if you are hallucinating or not counters this CLAIM of yours here.
5. Your now COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION does NOT logically follow from ANY of the preceding points.

Also, just countering previous points does NOT make the new points true AT ALL.

Your five point, so called, "argument" here is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UNSOUND and INVALID.


False, 1 has not been proven false.
The conclusion follows from the premise.
The totality of being is not an hallucination as it contains all phenomenon thus what really exists.
If the totality of being is not a hallucination then God is not a hallucination.

[Scott Mayers]

The continual progression of one meaning to another necessitates the meaning of totality as eventually being "God" in the respect one phenomenon as progressive to another leaves all phenomena embodied under a simple term. The progressive definition may begin with "totality" or God but given the continuous stream of phenomena progressing to further phenomenon all phenomenon eventually equivocate to another thus necessitating any beginning point to the argument ("God" or "Totality") being one of relative choice.

While it is likely that the original intelligence of ancient people devolved to become religion, the origins in thought that are used AFTERTHEFACT are separate issues. I argue strongly that all religions originate for some very real reasons based on either an inspection of nature or to social constructs based initially on 'civilization', the terms "God" and "Totality" are NOT interchangeable IN MEANING.

For most of the ancients, the terms were rationally INCLUSIVE in meaning but ONLY some presumed a SPECIFIC meaning beyond the logical concept of the UNKNOWN. As such, most ancient names for the 'gods' were ALWAYS based on a term that meant stictly, "the unknown", such as "the source" [YWYH = "Ye ovah" = "Je ovah" equals literally, "the egg", and meant any unknown source].

But just because "the source" word became synomously a reference to the same being that the religious have added SPECIAL essence to, does not mean we should abandon ANY term's meanings that are merely associated with it. That is itself no different than asserting that one's derogatory coincidence of a label suffices to abandon the MEANING for fear of association, a type of genetic fallacy, as well as a fallacy of irrelevant association [not a formal label, though I'm sure there is one].

But note too that I also chose the term, "Totality, as well as "Nature", sometimes interchangeable, to be PERMITTED by the religious to interpret as "God" so as to be INCLUSIVE of respect to the meaning. This allows the conversation about physics or metaphysics concept to ALL people, regardless of their contemporary beliefs. This may not be something that all religious people may welcome given some will find it taboo to ask what their god(s) themselves might be made up of. This is why I chose, Totality, rather than "Universe" or something like, "Absolute Universe", both that continue to take on baggage. ["universe" for some IS identical to meaning this physical reality of this World only; the term, "absolute", also has concerns for many as you should be able to see from my conversations here.]

[Age]

^^^This is a belief.

You could NOT be FURTHER FROM THEE ACTUAL Truth.

That is a belief also.

Soundness and validity are thus circular, one defines the other and this is circular reasoning. This is the fallacy of circularity. You contradict yourself.

LOL WHY did you ONLY use this definition? Why did you NOT use the other definition I gave?

It is still a definition you used.

Also, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus is PURE OBVIOUS one does NOT define the other, and so this is NOT circular reasoning.

Soundness relies upon validity, validity relies upon soundness.

And for you to be accusing this of being 'circular reasoning', especially considering when it was ACTUALLY YOU who stated: The premise and conclusion is: •[A point], in reply to when I said to you; Let us make this EVEN SIMPLER you provide your, so called, "argument" in a few premise and conclusion point form, is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to the EXTREME.

Being is tautological, one thing expressed in a variety of ways, the single point expressing itself does so through another point, thus one point exists through many. The premise is a single point, the conclusion is another point as many points. All of this, premise as a single point, and conclusion as multiple points can be represented under a single : •

1. False, you have yet to clarify why this definition is wrong, all you are stating is that I am wrong with no argument. God as defined as "all in all" is God as the totality of being.

The definition is OBVIOUSLY WRONG because a definition of 'God' does NOT entail the SIN, the EVIL, nor the WRONG that adult human beings do. So, " 'God' as defined as "all in all" is God as the TOTALITY of being ", as you CLAIM is just PLAIN ABSURD and WRONG.

Sin is the presence of God's wrath. It is the presence of God's justice when one turns away from God. It is God existing through justice.

2. What determines truth then?

Agreement, and acceptance, OBVIOUSLY.

Then the group is assuming the same phenomenon while dually this is the bandwagon fallacy.

Truth is order, order is application of boundaries, boundaries are definition thus truth is definition.

In YOUR long and drawn out way if 'truth' is definition, then, AGAIN, what ACTUALLY determines truth/definition is, AGAIN, agreement, and acceptance, OBVIOUSLY.

If truth is based upon agreement and acceptance it is the agreement and acceptance of definitions which come prior to truth. Since truth cannot exist without definition prior to agreement and acceptance then truth is grounded in definition.

3. The definition is accepted as is, the senses are believed to be correct when being imprinted by a definition.

But if a human being accepts a definition 'as is', then that human being is one Truly EXTREMELY EASILY MANIPULATED human being.

Do 'you' accept EVERY 'definition' 'as is'?

I accept I need water, air and food as is. Also I accept being as is. All degrees of falsity have elements of truth within them.

And, if a human being BELIEVES that their OWN interpretation of what the senses are telling them, or saying to them, to be correct, then that is one Truly EXTREMELY MISLED human being.

You are accepting your own interpretation of what you are sensing in this argument.

4. I said if God is a hallucination then the totality of being is a hallucination as God is the totality of being.

If this is Truly what you said, then WHEREABOUTS, EXACTLY, did you say this?

In the beginning.

And, I have ALREADY informed you and told you 'God is NOT the totality of being'. I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY.

And I have explained why he is.

The totality of being is not a hallucination therefore God is not a hallucination.

YOUR 'interpretation' of 'totality of being' could be a 'hallucination'. Do you KNOW HOW to verify what you think or believe is true IS a 'hallucination' or not?

That which aligns to other assumptions. A mirage of water does not align with water actually being present thus it is an hallucination.

If no, then you would NEVER KNOW if YOUR 'interpretation' of things is a 'hallucination' or not.

But if you do KNOW HOW to verify if what you think, believe, or interpret IS a 'hallucination' or not, then HOW?
By seeing which assumptions align with othere.

5. I never said jumping to a conclusion is a contradiction.

You have OBVIOUSLY MISREAD, MISTAKEN, MISUNDERSTOOD, or MISINTERPRETED what I ACTUALLY WROTE and MEANT.

But because you MISQUOTE what is said in this threads, do NOT expect me to CORRECT things for you here.

Either you quote the ACTUAL WORDS that you are replying and responding to, so that what was ACTUALLY SAID can be SEEN by 'us', or just ACCEPT that you are SEEN as being DECEIVING and MANIPULATIVE here.

I NEVER said that you said jumping to a conclusion is a contradiction.

IF I recall correctly I said some thing about the conclusion that you have OBVIOUSLY JUMPED TO IS a contradiction.

And what conclusion is that?

6. One represents any person claiming the totality of reality is an hallucination.

As with the other five points I could NOT be bothered going back and LOOKING FOR what was ACTUALLY SAID here at this point, which you are replying to now.

But if this is what you BELIEVE and CLAIM is true, then so be it.

7. I did clarify: If God is the totality of everything and God is a hallucination then the totality of everything is a hallucination.

AND, I have informed of HOW and WHY 'God', Itself, is NOT the, so called, "totality of everything".

Also, if you want to 'try to' form an argument with the words "God is a hallucination" in it, then you have to DEFINE what 'God' IS, EXACTLY.
See above.

Considering the totality of everything is not an hallucination God is not an hallucination.

This is ONLY on the ABSURD and ILLOGICAL PRESUMPTION that 'God' IS "the totality of everything".

And, if you want to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that 'God' IS 'the totality of everything', then PLEASE EXPLAIN just EXACTLY HOW 'God' IS the EVIL or WRONG behaviors and things, which 'you', adult human beings do, and CREATE?

Sin is God's wrath as a result of man turning away from God. It is the presence of God's justice.

Because you will NOT put the effort into just LEARNING how to quote CORRECTLY I am NOT going to put the effort into reading your responses and replying.