Free Will

[Immanuel Can]

1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

How does a causal chain get going without a First Cause? Whatever that “first cause” is, it’s either intelligent or not. And as you’ve admitted, the data overwhelmingly implies intelligence.

The question was for you to provide an answer, that's what questions were invented for.

The question has to be coherent. And given what you’ve already admitted you know, it’s not.

2. Where does God exist in this universe?

Do you know what “transcendent” means?

Yes, it is used when someone hasn't got a clue what they have been banging on about.

Then you don’t know what it means. By definition, the Supreme Being is transcendent. So see if you can figure out why “where does God exist IN THIS UNIVERSE is a silly question.

3. Why did your version of God use words to create the universe?

You should ask Him that. But my supposition would be that since information is at the basis of our universe, for example, in DNA, or in natural ‘laws,’ “word” refers to that data. So “speech” is a very appropriate metaphor.

I actually like that answer (I don't agree with it but it was an honest effort).

Your approval is neither sought nor needed. If it’s right, it’s right: if it’s wrong, it’s only a man’s explanation.

4. Why does God inisist on faith rather than proving to all of "His" existence?

Again, you’d have to ask Him. I can only give you what I think, based on what is revealed in Scripture. But you don’t regard Scripture, so we are left without a source of information I can point to that you will accept. But I think the documents you reject are actually very informative on that.

I don't reject scripture, I only reject the stuff that fails scrutiny. So certainly cite scripture, I'm genuinely interested in this question.

Then consider looking up “faith” in an online concordance, and you’ll find it’s an exceedingly informative exercise, but far too much data for me to reproduce here.

God\sage stated to me just two days ago - something relating to me and perfection (I wont bore you with the details) - you wouldn't believe it with all my cussing <-- still room for improvement - and certainly nobody on this site would consider me anything close to what a sage would consider a sage.

You seem to want me to believe you have what they call a “spirit guide,” or others call a “daemonic familiar.” This does make sense of why you think “god” refers to a created being, and one located within the material universe, I suppose…but it’s not comparable to what Theism means by “God.”

[attofishpi]

1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

The question has to be coherent.

What part of "1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?" is not coherent - certainly the premise is illogical, but that's what you insist everyone believes.

Certainly it's about time you provide some form of answer as to the quest I have upon your soul:
AGAIN: How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

Do you know what “transcendent” means?

Yes, it is used when someone hasn't got a clue what they have been banging on about.

Then you don’t know what it means. By definition, the Supreme Being is transcendent. So see if you can figure out why “2. where does God exist IN THIS UNIVERSE is a silly question.

There is nothing 'silly' about my question. The only "silly" thing would be an answer from you because according to you:

Nothing exists outside of the universe & the universe is not eternal & God is eternal.

Surely you see a contradiction?

[Fairy]

There is nothing 'silly' about my question. The only "silly" thing would be an answer from you because according to you:

Nothing exists outside of the universe & the universe is not eternal & God is eternal.

Surely you see a contradiction?

There is no contradiction. 'Transcendent' described in this particular topic, simply means an absolute intelligent 'knowing' that's beyond the temporal relative human perception of something, namely, a physical object also known as matter.

The awareness of the object is transcendent of the object, and is never the actual object in and of itself. There is no experience of ever being an object, as objects have no awareness. Physical objects are contingent upon the transcendent absolute 'knowing' to have their existence, and be conceptually known to exist. In the same context; a dream character is always contingent and dependant upon the dreamer, to know dreaming has occurred. Both the dreamer and the dream are identical, appearing as two things, but always inseparably one thing.

This is all metaphor for what God is. God is known to himself, only within the dream of spacetime duality, in his dream so to speak. And the is dream all there is.

The dreamer of the physical universe, is not in the physical universe, because the dreamer is not-physical. So the physical universe has to be in the non-physical dreamer. In the same context, the painter/artist is never in the picture, the picture is in the artist/dreamer. And the canvas upon which the picture is SEEN. That which is seen, is ever changing, but the transcendent screen behind the picture, is constant and never changing, and never seen. Although the canvas / screen, MUST be ever-present for the picture to be known to itself alone. So there is never any contradiction between the artist and it's creation.

Pictures/images/ objects seen, are subject to change, and their only existence is within the dream of separation, within space time duality, which implies, change.

However, these changes are all temporal finite changes within, not external to what is always and ever present this changeless eternal transcendent God. So notice that which never changes is always present here and now, as this immediate now, utterly changeless, motionless, causeless, and infinite. And closer than your very own skin.

I've probably described this in a clumsy way as usual, but I can only try my best. Take it or leave it.

[Fairy]

How does a causal chain get going without a First Cause? Whatever that “first cause” is, it’s either intelligent or not. And as you’ve admitted, the data overwhelmingly implies intelligence.

My personal definition of what 'First Cause' implies...and how it gets going...is for something, some 'thing' to become known. So how does some thing become known.

First of all, any thing 'known' is what is called ''knowledge''. And for knowledge to become known, would FIRST require a knower. This is obvious.

If ever a human being claims to know some thing, then that causes them to be a 'knower' which has to be first, and then what they claim to know, is secondary, not first. And so that is how a 'FIRST CAUSE' is born, becomes known, so to speak.

And so what must always come FIRST is the ''knower''. This 'knower' is what is causing the effect of knowing, as in some thing known, and this known must be(secondary) within what is always this FIRST, this singular, unitary, 'knowing', or 'knower' ...one with itself.

Only effects are KNOWN, never the causer of the effects, because an effect creates the causer, and the causer creates the effect in the same instantaneous moment one with the knowing. Each are required for the other to exist, as both cannot be without the other, even though they are the same ONE unitary movement.

In the same context, the seer that is claimed to be looking out of every physical eyeball is never actually seen, only the physical eyeball is seen. ( The actual evidence of self-seeing and self-knowing.
And it seems the physical eyeball is what seems to be causing the capacity to see the seen. But the object, ie; the eyeball, is only the effect/secondary seen thing, within the actual seer/first cause...it's not external to the seeing seer.

[attofishpi]

10/10 for a posts containing THE most piling waffling bollocks of nonsense I have ever bothered to read.

[Fairy]

Clarity requires lots of patience, especially for those who are genuinely willing to listen to what it is they are actually seeking, which is the truth.

That’s a good point, I’d say. Unfortunately, people come to sites like this for multiple reasons, some of which are not reflective of this thought, I suspect. Some just come to argue speciously, some to self-present as gurus, some to gain the cap-and-badge of a “philosopher,” in their own minds, some to troll…and multiple other reasons. So “clarity” Isn’t always what they’re seeking.

I agree.

I see I.C.

That you are indeed a good man. Thanks for never faltering and for being ever impeccable with your words, and for being tirelessly patient with everyone who has ever tried and pushed your patience to the maximum limit. Thanks for being here.

[Fairy]

10/10 for a posts containing THE most piling waffling bollocks of nonsense I have ever bothered to read.

Your very welcome, but get this...No one actually cares!

[Fairy]

I’m not sure precisely how you are understanding that. As I see it, it’s about the relationship between us, God and ethics, not per se about the nature of God Himself. But maybe you’ll unpack that a bit, if you’re inclined.

By asking the question as to what is the nature of God, would demand an answer that is identical to a theological concept that refers to who and what God is….right?

Well, of course, a “theological concept” can be right or it can be wrong. But the purpose of theology is to get it right, if possible, ideally.

Human thinking, human conceptions, can be right or wrong. The good ones align with what turns out to be the truth; the bad ones don’t.

Yes this is very true, notice how everyone wants to be right, it's only natural. Well said.

So good point, yes, lets be ideally right about this topic. We're all full of ideas, so lets all let them loose, unhinge them from their fetters, lets bring all our God's out into the open to stand fully naked, so we can all see what we are looking at, until we all arrive at the same truth, and finally settle this whole matter of God, once and for all.

[Immanuel Can]

1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

The question has to be coherent.

What part of "1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?" is not coherent - certainly the premise is illogical, but that's what you insist everyone believes.

You’ve already said you think there’s a God and that He’s an intelligence. If you are understanding the words “God” and “intelligence” in any reasonable sense, then you’ve already conceded such to be possible. And if you don’t mean either in a conventional sense, you’re really not saying anything at all…unless you elaborate.

accordingto you:
Nothing exists outside of the universe & the universe is not eternal & God is eternal.

Premise 1 of your paraphrase above, I have not claimed. Premise 2 is definitional: if there’s a God, He would be eternal. If He were not, he would only be a “god,” not “God,” the capital indicating the difference between Zeus, Thor and Ashtaroth, on the one hand, and YHWH, for example.

Surely you see a contradiction.

I see the contradiction you invented. I don’t see a contradiction in what I have stated. But feel free to quote me directly if you think I’ve ever misspoken on the subject.

[Immanuel Can]

How does a causal chain get going without a First Cause? Whatever that “first cause” is, it’s either intelligent or not. And as you’ve admitted, the data overwhelmingly implies intelligence.

My personal definition of what 'First Cause' implies...and how it gets going...is for something, some 'thing' to become known. So how does some thing become known.

Hmmm…does something have to be “known” in order to be the “cause” of something? If a tree falls in the woods, and there’s nobody around to “know” what caused it to fall, does that mean it didn’t fall?

The problem is that of “what exists” versus “what is known,” and thus of ontology versus epistemology, I think.

[Fairy]

How does a causal chain get going without a First Cause? Whatever that “first cause” is, it’s either intelligent or not. And as you’ve admitted, the data overwhelmingly implies intelligence.

My personal definition of what 'First Cause' implies...and how it gets going...is for something, some 'thing' to become known. So how does some thing become known.

Hmmm…does something have to be “known” in order to be the “cause” of something? If a tree falls in the woods, and there’s nobody around to “know” what caused it to fall, does that mean it didn’t fall?

The problem is that of “what exists” versus “what is known,” and thus of ontology versus epistemology, I think.

Yes, some thing has to be known as a concept in order for it to exist, the thing will exist as a concept known.

That which knows a concept is that which exists prior to what is known, else knowing any thing never happens.

Don’t forget, every word, including the words “ first and cause and effect” are only concepts in this conception known by that which is always present, always existing, but cannot be conceived of because it’s infinite, it’s eternal.

What exists without a concept attached to it still exists, it’s just minus a label. That’s why in the Bible it says: In the beginning ( meaning first) was the word, and the word was with God, in this conception known.

[Immanuel Can]

My personal definition of what 'First Cause' implies...and how it gets going...is for something, some 'thing' to become known. So how does some thing become known.

Hmmm…does something have to be “known” in order to be the “cause” of something? If a tree falls in the woods, and there’s nobody around to “know” what caused it to fall, does that mean it didn’t fall?

The problem is that of “what exists” versus “what is known,” and thus of ontology versus epistemology, I think.

Yes, some thing has to be known as a concept in order for it to exist, the thing will exist as a concept known.

Hmmm… I don’t think I agree with that. I think the thing to which the “concept” refers most certainly exists, whether we have a concept of it or not. For example, primitive mankind had no concept of “the globe of the Earth.” But Earth existed, regardless of the lack of that concept in the minds of men.

Perhaps, then, I’m missing your point…maybe you’ll clear that up for me.

You seem to agree with my view when you say….

What exists without a concept attached to it still exists, it’s just minus a label.

[Fairy]

Hmmm…does something have to be “known” in order to be the “cause” of something? If a tree falls in the woods, and there’s nobody around to “know” what caused it to fall, does that mean it didn’t fall?

The problem is that of “what exists” versus “what is known,” and thus of ontology versus epistemology, I think.

Yes, some thing has to be known as a concept in order for it to exist, the thing will exist as a concept known.

Hmmm… I don’t think I agree with that. I think the thing to which the “concept” refers most certainly exists, whether we have a concept of it or not. For example, primitive mankind had no concept of “the globe of the Earth.” But Earth existed, regardless of the lack of that concept in the minds of men.

Perhaps, then, I’m missing your point…maybe you’ll clear that up for me.

You seem to agree with my view when you say….

What exists without a concept attached to it still exists, it’s just minus a label.

Sorry I wasn't more clear on my point.
I stated for some 'thing' (something) to be known to exist, the 'something' must be a concept known within the KNOWER.
However, even though 'things' still exist to the conscious awareness of such, the 'something' that apparently appears to be a reality out-there, is not known, in the sense of what is actually out-there, and what that apparent external existence actually IS?
The 'something' seemingly out-there, is just existing as nothing more than a pure unknown non-conceptual existence, or ISness.
That's what I meant to say. . and notice that what appears to be external to internal seeing, is one unitary reality without a second, as there is no separation between what is seeing and what is seen, it's all one seeing experience, which is known as conscious awareness, aware of itself as 'otherness'. It's like the external world is the mirror that reflects back onto itself it's inner self. Both the inner and the outer are identical, they are mirror images of each other.

It's not until we attach labels to this unknown somethingness, does the unknown somethingness, become known to itself, in this conception. In other words, only the mind that labels 'things' is born, not existence itself, which is unborn, and unknowing to itself, because it has no mind to inform itself of anything. Again, existence is, and can never be negated, or denied, but it is only through our conceptual knowledge that cause the unknowing to seem knowable. But here's more, even knowledge doesn't know, knowledge is an artificial imposed fiction upon unknowing. Knowledge is a story, it's comparable with a fairytale. But to the mind that constructs the birth of the conceptual reality, the reality appears very real indeed, and that it is simply illusory, in that our knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, the illusion is so unbelievably convincingly real.

I'm speaking here in a nondual context, which is irrefutably the actual truth of reality, so I'm not sure this will make sense to you personally, maybe it does or doesn't, IDK



It's like there are two realities, one that simply exists unknowingly, and the other that exists as a conceptually known reality, which can only be a superimposed artificial reality over real reality...appearing to make what is unknown, be known.

I understand I have a weird convoluted way of putting this into words, so I would like to offer my apologies for any, misinterpretations or misunderstandings.

[attofishpi]

The question has to be coherent.

What part of "1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?" is not coherent - certainly the premise is illogical, but that's what you insist everyone believes.

You’ve already said you think there’s a God and that He’s an intelligence. If you are understanding the words “God” and “intelligence” in any reasonable sense, then you’ve already conceded such to be possible. And if you don’t mean either in a conventional sense, you’re really not saying anything at all…unless you elaborate.

It's not that I think God exists, I know it as fact. The thing is, you seem to think that if God formed its intelligence from chaos then it is not worthy of being considered "God" - just god at best eh? - certainly, "He" will note that.

accordingto you:
Nothing exists outside of the universe & the universe is not eternal & God is eternal. ...Surely you see a contradiction.

Premise 1 of your paraphrase above, I have not claimed. Premise 2 is definitional: if there’s a God, He would be eternal. If He were not, he would only be a “god,” not “God,”

Again, you appear to reject God if it is not eternal - best hope you are correct other-wise all that worshipping was a waste of time

IC: "“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one."

Are you suggesting God does not have any physical existence?

[Immanuel Can]

…one unitary reality without a second, as there is no separation between what is seeing and what is seen, …
I'm speaking here in a nondual context…

I recognize the problem you’re recognizing here. Simply put, it’s that one monolithic “oneness” cannot actually exist. Existence requires at least two things, because it requires “differentiation.” To say that something “exists” is only to say it is “not another thing,” in some way. And this does, indeed create a problem.

Hinduism and Taoism recognize this, and try to solve it, each in their own way. If God is merely “one,” then there is no existing. And this is why they have to suppose the externality of the physical universe — that it must be permanently differentiated from “the god.” But the Hebrew conception of God does not suffer from this problem. He is the “I AM,” meaning, “the self-existent One.”

“How is that even coherent,” the Hindu or the Taoist, or some other non-dualist would ask. And Judaism, in the modern form, has no simple answer to that. But Christianity does. For God Himself is triune…which means that even in eternity, God was both Himself and the Divine Other, united in Spirit…all before the universe ever began, as the apostle John so clearly describes in the beginning of his gospel, and as is found in Genesis 1. And if that’s right, then it means that the problem that exists in a pure monolithic conception of god does not exist in the Christian worldview.

However, in non-dualism, the problem is persistent. Material reality must remain eternal, in order to serve as the “other” that allows the existence of the god. Unfortunately for non-dualism, we already know that the universe was not eternal. It’s a contingent, time-limited, unnecessary entity. And mathematics itself, along with the causal chain and entropy, which are some of the most well-established scientific realities we have, demonstrate this. So the problem returns: if there was a non-dual god, then there was also a time when the universe of material things did not exist. How then did this “god” ever manage to exist, rather than being dissolved by its own pre-creation oneness?