God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

[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.

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.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I NEVER said ANY such thing as you CLAIMED.

You brought the "WHATEVER" word into your CLAIM, either intentionally or unintentionally, for DECEPTIVE purposes. However, because you DID, then I can OBVIOUSLY state, and be 100% CORRECT; 'I have NEVER stated ANY such thing'.

And which is now PROVEN True, Right, AND Correct, by YOU.

[Age]

"eodnhoj7" what is a point made up of, EXACTLY?

[Eodnhoj7]

You could NOT be FURTHER FROM THEE ACTUAL Truth.

That is a belief also.



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 : •



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.



Agreement, and acceptance, OBVIOUSLY.

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



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.



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.



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.


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.



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?



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.



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.



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.

Then don't, if you have no response then don't respond.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I NEVER said ANY such thing as you CLAIMED.

You brought the "WHATEVER" word into your CLAIM, either intentionally or unintentionally, for DECEPTIVE purposes. However, because you DID, then I can OBVIOUSLY state, and be 100% CORRECT; 'I have NEVER stated ANY such thing'.

And which is now PROVEN True, Right, AND Correct, by YOU.

You are now lying, page 3 post 9 you said these words.

[Eodnhoj7]

"eodnhoj7" what is a point made up of, EXACTLY?

Points. Formlessness is composed of formlessness.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

The argument can be broken down to this:

1. A=B and B=A
2. If A=B then A=C means B=C
3. However B=-C therefore A=-C

[Age]

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.

Then don't, if you have no response then don't respond.

But I, more than likely, would have a response, that is; IF I read it. But because you have DECIDED to NOT learn how to quote, so as to make reading, and responding, FAR EASIER, I have DECIDED to NOT read it. And, obviously, if I do NOT read it, then I could NOT form an accurate nor sufficient response. So, I have DECIDED to NOT respond for THIS reason and NOT for the, so called, "reason" you have provided us here.

[Age]

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.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I NEVER said ANY such thing as you CLAIMED.

You brought the "WHATEVER" word into your CLAIM, either intentionally or unintentionally, for DECEPTIVE purposes. However, because you DID, then I can OBVIOUSLY state, and be 100% CORRECT; 'I have NEVER stated ANY such thing'.

And which is now PROVEN True, Right, AND Correct, by YOU.

You are now lying, page 3 post 9 you said these words.

But I am NOT lying. You, OBVIOUSLY, have, ONCE AGAIN, MISSED what occurred here. That is;

You are RIGHT in that I said those words, which can be CLEARLY SEEN here in the printed words above. And what else, which can be CLEARLY SEEN is; I NEVER stated what you CLAIMED I HAD. Which was;
"Actually you did contradict yourself given you also stated whatever argument I provide you would prove wrong."

Now, these are YOUR ACTUAL WORDS, and what can be CLEARLY SEEN in ALL of my words throughout this forum is that I have NEVER said that I would prove wrong WHATEVER ARGUMENT YOU WOULD PROVIDE.

You, here, once again, CLAIM that I "am lying". So, please feel FREE to go ahead and PROVE where I have EVER stated or said that "WHATEVER argument you provide I would prove wrong".

Maybe it is I who has MISSED some 'thing' here. So, go ahead and SHOW 'us' readers where I have EVER said or stated such a thing as this. From what I recall, and have researched, I could NOT find ANY such thing. Remember, 'you' are the one making the CLAIM that I am "lying" so I suggest to just end this ONCE, and for ALL, you PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF of where I said or stated such a thing as this.

I await YOUR PROOF.

[Age]

"eodnhoj7" what is a point made up of, EXACTLY?

Points. Formlessness is composed of formlessness.

So, to 'you', a 'point' IS 'formless', correct?

If this is correct, then what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you ACTUALLY have that these formless 'things' ACTUALLY EXIST?

However, if a 'point' to you is NOT 'formless', then what, EXACTLY, is a 'point'?

[Age]

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.

The argument can be broken down to this:

1. A=B and B=A

HOW, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, does this, supposedly and allegedly, REALLY exist? WHAT is 'A' and WHAT is 'B' and HOW EXACTLY are they EQUAL?

When I LOOK AT 'A' and when I LOOK AT 'B' they LOOK LIKE two very distinctly different things and there is NOTHING that I can see that can make me IMAGINE that they are EQUAL. Except of course other than 'you' just saying and stating that they are.

2. If A=B then A=C means B=C

I will IMAGINE for a while that 'A' does EQUAL 'B' as you CLAIM they do in YOUR first premise. Okay I have this held within IMAGINATION now, but now HOW EXACTLY did 'you' get to JUMP TO 'A' EQUALING 'C' here?

What 'logic' where you following, which led you to JUMP TO such a conclusion as this?

3. However B=-C therefore A=-C

WHY did you use the "however" word here?

From what you had written in YOUR second premise 'B' ALREADY EQUALED 'C'.

And also, 'A', supposedly EQUALS 'C' in the second premise, so there was NO need to ARRIVE at the conclusion, and therefore make it a "therefore" that 'A' EQUALS 'C'

From what I am OBSERVING here, and as I have said BEFORE, 'you' are just 'trying' absolutely ANY thing, which you hope, think, or believe will back up AND support your currently held ASSUMPTIONS about what you currently BELIEVE is true.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Then don't, if you have no response then don't respond.

But I, more than likely, would have a response, that is; IF I read it. But because you have DECIDED to NOT learn how to quote, so as to make reading, and responding, FAR EASIER, I have DECIDED to NOT read it. And, obviously, if I do NOT read it, then I could NOT form an accurate nor sufficient response. So, I have DECIDED to NOT respond for THIS reason and NOT for the, so called, "reason" you have provided us here.

Or you could just ask less questions and relegate your posts into a few pivotal questions rather than fill it with nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I NEVER said ANY such thing as you CLAIMED.

You brought the "WHATEVER" word into your CLAIM, either intentionally or unintentionally, for DECEPTIVE purposes. However, because you DID, then I can OBVIOUSLY state, and be 100% CORRECT; 'I have NEVER stated ANY such thing'.

And which is now PROVEN True, Right, AND Correct, by YOU.

You are now lying, page 3 post 9 you said these words.

But I am NOT lying. You, OBVIOUSLY, have, ONCE AGAIN, MISSED what occurred here. That is;

You are RIGHT in that I said those words, which can be CLEARLY SEEN here in the printed words above. And what else, which can be CLEARLY SEEN is; I NEVER stated what you CLAIMED I HAD. Which was;
"Actually you did contradict yourself given you also stated whatever argument I provide you would prove wrong."

Now, these are YOUR ACTUAL WORDS, and what can be CLEARLY SEEN in ALL of my words throughout this forum is that I have NEVER said that I would prove wrong WHATEVER ARGUMENT YOU WOULD PROVIDE.

You, here, once again, CLAIM that I "am lying". So, please feel FREE to go ahead and PROVE where I have EVER stated or said that "WHATEVER argument you provide I would prove wrong".

Maybe it is I who has MISSED some 'thing' here. So, go ahead and SHOW 'us' readers where I have EVER said or stated such a thing as this. From what I recall, and have researched, I could NOT find ANY such thing. Remember, 'you' are the one making the CLAIM that I am "lying" so I suggest to just end this ONCE, and for ALL, you PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF of where I said or stated such a thing as this.

I await YOUR PROOF.

The whatever is in response to the argument I would provide. Given I can present any argument the "whatever" is in response to the argument I would provide. My point still stands.

[Eodnhoj7]

"eodnhoj7" what is a point made up of, EXACTLY?

Points. Formlessness is composed of formlessness.

So, to 'you', a 'point' IS 'formless', correct?

If this is correct, then what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you ACTUALLY have that these formless 'things' ACTUALLY EXIST?

However, if a 'point' to you is NOT 'formless', then what, EXACTLY, is a 'point'?

Formlessness exists through change, change is the inversion of one form into another thus necessitating change as the absence of form. A point is change. Any observation of a point is the observation of one change into another.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

The argument can be broken down to this:

1. A=B and B=A

HOW, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, does this, supposedly and allegedly, REALLY exist? WHAT is 'A' and WHAT is 'B' and HOW EXACTLY are they EQUAL?

When I LOOK AT 'A' and when I LOOK AT 'B' they LOOK LIKE two very distinctly different things and there is NOTHING that I can see that can make me IMAGINE that they are EQUAL. Except of course other than 'you' just saying and stating that they are.

2+2=3+1 observes two seeming different phenomenon equal the same thing. The same concept applies.

2. If A=B then A=C means B=C

I will IMAGINE for a while that 'A' does EQUAL 'B' as you CLAIM they do in YOUR first premise. Okay I have this held within IMAGINATION now, but now HOW EXACTLY did 'you' get to JUMP TO 'A' EQUALING 'C' here?

What 'logic' where you following, which led you to JUMP TO such a conclusion as this?

If A=B and B=C then A=C because A=B.

3. However B=-C therefore A=-C

WHY did you use the "however" word here?

From what you had written in YOUR second premise 'B' ALREADY EQUALED 'C'.

If A=B and B=C then A=C

However B=-C.

One state occurs under the potentiality of "if", "however" points to what is actual.

And also, 'A', supposedly EQUALS 'C' in the second premise, so there was NO need to ARRIVE at the conclusion, and therefore make it a "therefore" that 'A' EQUALS 'C'

From what I am OBSERVING here, and as I have said BEFORE, 'you' are just 'trying' absolutely ANY thing, which you hope, think, or believe will back up AND support your currently held ASSUMPTIONS about what you currently BELIEVE is true.

Read above, the key words is "If" and "however"

[Age]

You are now lying, page 3 post 9 you said these words.

But I am NOT lying. You, OBVIOUSLY, have, ONCE AGAIN, MISSED what occurred here. That is;

You are RIGHT in that I said those words, which can be CLEARLY SEEN here in the printed words above. And what else, which can be CLEARLY SEEN is; I NEVER stated what you CLAIMED I HAD. Which was;
"Actually you did contradict yourself given you also stated whatever argument I provide you would prove wrong."

Now, these are YOUR ACTUAL WORDS, and what can be CLEARLY SEEN in ALL of my words throughout this forum is that I have NEVER said that I would prove wrong WHATEVER ARGUMENT YOU WOULD PROVIDE.

You, here, once again, CLAIM that I "am lying". So, please feel FREE to go ahead and PROVE where I have EVER stated or said that "WHATEVER argument you provide I would prove wrong".

Maybe it is I who has MISSED some 'thing' here. So, go ahead and SHOW 'us' readers where I have EVER said or stated such a thing as this. From what I recall, and have researched, I could NOT find ANY such thing. Remember, 'you' are the one making the CLAIM that I am "lying" so I suggest to just end this ONCE, and for ALL, you PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF of where I said or stated such a thing as this.

I await YOUR PROOF.

The whatever is in response to the argument I would provide. Given I can present any argument the "whatever" is in response to the argument I would provide. My point still stands.

They are STILL YOUR words, and NOT mine. SO, the point still stands.