How real is 'reality'?

[Walker]

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

Proof of what?

(I added a comma, for clarity).

Needs a bit more than a comma.

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof of God's existence to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

(A comma, three more words, and the mist clears for Will)

[Will Bouwman]

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof of God's existence to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

(A comma, three more words, and the mist clears for Will)

Well, if you can prove that any apprehension anyone has ever perceived with their mind sense is God, it's job done.

[Lacewing]

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

(I added a comma, for clarity).

You are free to ask convoluted, whack-job questions. I am free to focus elsewhere.

[Walker]

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof of God's existence to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

(A comma, three more words, and the mist clears for Will)

Well, if you can prove that any apprehension anyone has ever perceived with their mind sense is God, it's job done.

Not really ...
as far as communication and understanding goes,
and looking at the big picture,
that's the point.

Non-perceivers will not accept a perceiver's evidence of God, because one cannot apprehend for another.

The greatest, life-changing truths can be transmitted but not received, e.g., so what if a world can be found in a grain of sand and forever in an hour.

Then it (it being the situation) becomes not so much a matter of incomprehension, but a matter of dealing with attachment, which usually amounts to defending incomprehension of the evidence that was transmitted on another frequency (such as Blake's), or else doubling down on transmission content that doesn't transmit within range of the receiver's frequency.

And that's only natural since for the practitioners within the borders of that frequency it's been the proven formula for personal existence so far, and the ego protects the tried and true.

For the ego, wisdom can sometimes be satisfied with little more than a protection process for specific frequency attachment.

Surely a trained brain can understand this simple point.

[Walker]

Is the capacity to apprehend God via perceiving with the mind sense, proof to those with the corrupted, or dormant, capacity for such apprehension to perceive God?

(I added a comma, for clarity).

You are free to ask convoluted, whack-job questions. I am free to focus elsewhere.

The form if not the content of your writing indicates that you were here ... but honestly now, were you trying to make the most of it? Drag the old cart down the same path enough times and eventually you won't have the strength, need, or desire to veer out of the ever-deepening ruts and apprehend the big picture.

[Walker]

Needs a bit more than a comma.

After consulting e-prime, The Metaphorical Royal We can apprehend the effect of habitual pronouns inadvertently becoming the enemy of precision, but unlike initially cumbersome e-prime, optimally the alternative to any pronouns at all can endure the cumbersomeness of overriding old ways and work within the limitations of that hinderance, for clarity's sake.

e-prime = a boon of a gift for scientists

[Will Bouwman]

Non-perceivers will not accept a perceiver's evidence of God, because one cannot apprehend for another.

So the answer to your question is no.

[Lacewing]

You are free to ask convoluted, whack-job questions. I am free to focus elsewhere.

The form if not the content of your writing indicates that you were here ... but honestly now, were you trying to make the most of it? Drag the old cart down the same path enough times and eventually you won't have the strength, need, or desire to veer out of the ever-deepening ruts and apprehend the big picture.

You're still projecting. I don't drag an old cart around like you do. I'm flyin', baby!

Do YOU 'have the strength, need, or desire to veer out of the ever-deepening ruts and apprehend the big picture?'

[Lacewing]

Non-perceivers will not accept a perceiver's evidence of God, because one cannot apprehend for another.

So the answer to your question is no.

To Walker:

Perception can be many things to many people. Someone simply saying they know of a god is not proof of anything other than... that's apparently what they think they perceive. So what?

[Lacewing]

In some cases the contortions people will perform to protect their beliefs are impressive,

They are, indeed, impressive... but I would use other words too, such as mind-numbingly baffling. Are we not beings that come onto this planet learning and growing? Why would that stop? When we look at all we've learned since birth, why wouldn't we keep stretching? It makes no sense to pick a belief and STOP. Then stand on that belief arrogantly. What the Hell?

...ultimately, it's like listening to only one kind of music.

Yes. Maybe a kazoo.

At its worst, I'm not sure whether people hang on for dear life because they are fanatics, or they become fanatics because they cannot let go.

Probably both. Like a drug, they try it out, then they think they can't exist without it. From there, apparently, dependency or insanity feels normal... and everyone else should (in the addict's mind) be addicted too.

What might we be capable of experiencing and creating if we let go of belief addictions? If we saw and appreciated the vast range of choices and possibilities?

If every day was an opportunity to explore further rather than double-down?

Or for those who want to believe in a god, why not contemplate the idea of something so much bigger than mankind's small-minded and obviously primitive religious stories?

Why wouldn't we be willing to expand (at some point) beyond each 'currently known or imagined' idea?

[Walker]

So what?

Already explained so what.
No evidence, perception, reasoning, proof, or anecdote is acceptable from one who apprehends God, to one who does not.

So pay attention to the big picture, fly girl.

In other words, the onus (responsibility) for ignorance of God lies with the receiver of a transmission, not the transmitter.

[Walker]

Do YOU 'have the strength, need, or desire to veer out of the ever-deepening ruts and apprehend the big picture?'

Hey, that was my metaphor, and a good one, too.
It was better with the word drag in it.
Write your own.

Although I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as they say.

(blushing)

[Walker]

In other words, the onus (responsibility) for ignorance of God lies with the receiver of a transmission, not the transmitter.


Hey ... you should frame that, you coaxed it out of me.

[Lacewing]

Do YOU 'have the strength, need, or desire to veer out of the ever-deepening ruts and apprehend the big picture?'

Hey, that was my metaphor, and a good one, too.

Write your own.

It's not very good if you don't want to answer it either. Sorry, Walker, try again to come up with something that doesn't sound like one of your bullshit projections.

[Lacewing]

In other words, the onus (responsibility) for ignorance of God lies with the receiver of a transmission, not the transmitter.

You don't even know who/what is transmitting... as you demonstrate continually! You sure are gullible.