God DOES exist

[puto]

Is this a question of the occult or religion? What manifestation, terms are important and ritual is unquestionable. Experiences of occult differentiated from religion. The intent focused on reality. A pagan religion? Holy books and symbolism? The Kabbalah reveals the true nature of God. Transcendence in the medieval notion, humans are not in a position to say anything about God because of, “Otherness.” Illumination: can the occult and religion be reconciled?

[Walker]

Is this a question of the occult or religion? What manifestation, terms are important and ritual is unquestionable. Experiences of occult differentiated from religion. The intent focused on reality. A pagan religion? Holy books and symbolism? The Kabbalah reveals the true nature of God. Transcendence in the medieval notion, humans are not in a position to say anything about God because of, “Otherness.” Illumination: can the occult and religion be reconciled?

The thread begins with reference to the "supernatural God," so the OP applies to that, if "this" refers to the OP.

[LuckyR]

Would you like to consult the date of my post?

Posted on Mon Sep 23. Tomorrow - the 24th September came and went.
10 tomorrows have come and gone.

You aren't uncertain. You are just lying.

Just so you know, "tomorrow" refers specifically to the future, not the past.

24th September was the future.

Sorry, 9/24/2024 is in the past.

[seeds]

Where exactly is "tomorrow" in the context of the following images?:







What I mean is, can the universe itself say anything about there being a "tomorrow"?

That's a context error.

It's not an error of any kind.

No, it is simply a response to you saying this...

For 13.8 billion years there's always been tomorrow. What do you think is going to happen to it?

The point is that, as far as we know, for the first 10 billion years of the universe's existence, there was nothing in the universe that could be even remotely cognizant of the concept of a "tomorrow."

All that existed...

(assuming everything wasn't simply in a state of superposition)

...was the ever-present "now" of unconscious planets orbiting unconscious stars, as can be inferred in the pictures.

In other words, going back 3.8 billion years, where is "tomorrow" located as seen from the perspective of what this little gif represents?:


_______

[Skepdick]

Sorry, 9/24/2024 is in the past.

The past was the future.

[Belinda]

Sorry, 9/24/2024 is in the past.

The past was the future.

But time is nothing but our measurement by 'clocks'. For instance Skepdick knows the past was the future because of certain regularities that have intervened .

Sans time we have eternity. Eternity however is no guarantee God pertains to it.

[Skepdick]

Sorry, 9/24/2024 is in the past.

The past was the future.

But time is nothing but our measurement by 'clocks'. For instance Skepdick knows the past was the future because of certain regularities that have intervened .

What can and can't function as a clock (to be measured) is an arbitrary decision.

[Belinda]

The past was the future.

But time is nothing but our measurement by 'clocks'. For instance Skepdick knows the past was the future because of certain regularities that have intervened .

What can and can't function as a clock (to be measured) is an arbitrary decision.

I can arbitrate because I use reason. You too surely?

[Skepdick]

But time is nothing but our measurement by 'clocks'. For instance Skepdick knows the past was the future because of certain regularities that have intervened .

What can and can't function as a clock (to be measured) is an arbitrary decision.

I can arbitrate because I use reason. You too surely?

Sure but you are failing to arbitrate between the different notions of "time".

One is periodicity e.g regularity (such as the one you are using).
The other is linearity/ordering. What comes before and after what.

[Belinda]

What can and can't function as a clock (to be measured) is an arbitrary decision.

I can arbitrate because I use reason. You too surely?

Sure but you are failing to arbitrate between the different notions of "time".

One is periodicity e.g regularity (such as the one you are using).
The other is linearity/ordering. What comes before and after what. (Time's arrow and all that).

Yes, that's true . I'm permanently unable to get my head around the idea of linearity/ ordering. I wish I could!

I suspect linearity/ordering has to do with causality. If all causes were circumstantial (not matters of simple causal chains )then would linearity/ordering disappear?

[Skepdick]

I can arbitrate because I use reason. You too surely?

Sure but you are failing to arbitrate between the different notions of "time".

One is periodicity e.g regularity (such as the one you are using).
The other is linearity/ordering. What comes before and after what. (Time's arrow and all that).

Yes, that's true . I'm permanently unable to get my head around the idea of linearity/ ordering. I wish I could!

History...I don't grok much of it either.

[Belinda]

Sure but you are failing to arbitrate between the different notions of "time".

One is periodicity e.g regularity (such as the one you are using).
The other is linearity/ordering. What comes before and after what. (Time's arrow and all that).

Yes, that's true . I'm permanently unable to get my head around the idea of linearity/ ordering. I wish I could!

History...I don't grok much of it either.

Sorry! I think I must have made a mistake with the quotation boxes. Also our latest exchages crossed in the post. All so exciting!

[puto]

What is a skeptic?

[Fairy]

The thread begins with reference to the "supernatural God," so the OP applies to that, if "this" refers to the OP.

Reference is of past tense, which is dead, reference is a pointing to something that is already the case, else it could not be pointed to. What is already the case does not have a secondary reality.

Reality never refers to itself, because there is no other, reality is still and motionless, it's self-evidently self-illuminating and self-standing, all one one without a second.

Things cannot know they exist.

Things are known by no 'thing', a thing in and of itself, cannot know. No more than a machine can never knows it's maker.

The knowing mind is not a thing, but that which knows all things...the mind is a bubbling cauldron of synthetic nothingness, no thing, not a thing...appearing as everything..

[Belinda]

The thread begins with reference to the "supernatural God," so the OP applies to that, if "this" refers to the OP.

Reference is of past tense, which is dead, reference is a pointing to something that is already the case, else it could not be pointed to. What is already the case does not have a secondary reality.

Reality never refers to itself, because there is no other, reality is still and motionless, it's self-evidently self-illuminating and self-standing, all one one without a second.

Things cannot know they exist.

Things are known by no 'thing', a thing in and of itself, cannot know. No more than a machine can never knows it's maker.

The knowing mind is not a thing, but that which knows all things...the mind is a bubbling cauldron of synthetic nothingness, no thing, not a thing...appearing as everything..

You are not a thing like a dog toy is a thing. You are a set of experiences: the dog toy is nothing but its own history.
As you know, I agree with your view of the absolute (which you refer to as "reality"). But you don't and cannot live
without an ego self. The Indian sages who attempt to do so are kept alive by communities of other people.