God is an Impossibility

[Dontaskme]

It is the same with your ONENESS, show proofs such ONENESS exists or could be that your experience of ONENESS is the same as the schizo who experienced talking to 'real' gnomes?

But it's not YOUR / MY ONENESS is it?

ONENESS is not owned is it?

No one is talking, there is just talking.

Ask yourself who is talking ? then listen for the answer, it will be in the question, all you'll get is either you are the one talking, or you get silence. Zero or One...which is it?

.

It can't be zero for how would that be known without the one to know it?

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the same with your ONENESS, show proofs such ONENESS exists or could be that your experience of ONENESS is the same as the schizo who experienced talking to 'real' gnomes?

But it's not YOUR / MY ONENESS is it?

ONENESS is not owned is it?

No one is talking, there is just talking.

You don't seem to get [not necessary to agree] my point.

Let me try this example;
Suppose a schizo believe he saw gnomes in the garden and claim gnomes exist because they had talked to him.
Generally I will say to the schizo, your gnomes are actually illusions from your hallucinations.
Obviously I am not implying 'your' to mean the schizo owned those gnomes.

It is the same, when I say your 'ONENESS' I do not imply you owned that 'ONENESS'.
What I am implying in the case of 'your' is that you are hallucinating there is a real 'ONENESS' like the schizo hallucinating the non-existing gnomes.

As I had stated, that 'ONENESS' you think is real by whatever means is actually an illusion arising from a hallucinating* experience in the brain.

*This is not meant to derogatory, but as Ramachandran had proposed we are hallucinating all the time. The difference is whether what is hallucinated is justifiable with empirical evidence and provable or not.

Ramachandran suggests the possibility that "perhaps we are hallucinating all the time and what we call perception is arrived at by simply determining which hallucination best conforms to the current sensory input."
https://www.nobeliefs.com/Ramachandran.htm

In this case, the 'ONENESS' you are postulating is a transcendental illusion, i.e. it is not something real at all.

Ask yourself who is talking ? then listen for the answer, it will be in the question, all you'll get is either you are the one talking, or you get silence. Zero or One...which is it?

It can't be zero for how would that be known without the one to know it?

Not sure of your point.

Who is talking is the empirical self and nothing else.
If you refer to the philosophical contention, there is no real 'atman' nor 'brahman'.

[surreptitious57]

ONENESS is the totality of all that exists and has ever existed and will ever exist as well
And to be as detached as is humanly possibly is the best way that it can be experienced

There is individual oneness we all subjectively experience but there is only one ONENESS
Our collective subjective experiences and everything that exists are part of the ONENESS

[Dontaskme]

You don't seem to get [not necessary to agree] my point.

And you don't seem to get (not necessarily agree) my point.

My point is that there is no (indivi(dual)ised) pointer to point. Pointer, pointing, pointed are ONE.

From a relative view..in the story of other.

I cannot see what you are seeing, neither can you see what I am seeing, so its pointless to assume we can divert or distract away anothers view point to meet a different view point if its not seen.
If the view point is seen, then that's known as resonanace, in resonanace the two RELATIVE minds (views) meet as ONE.

A view point is from a relative perspective only, its an appearance within the absolute that is without doubt or error. Any relative view point about the absolute is absurd, its an illusion within it. We cannot know or point to the absolute. There is only the absolute.

You postulate God is an impossibilty ...that's a relative assumption. I postulate God is a possibility again that is a relative assumption.

The ABSOLUTE is prior to that which appears as relative, the relative is just one tint pixal within the WHOLE PICTURE.

Relative appearances (knowledge) could and would not even arise, and the fact that it does, is proof enough that there is no such thing as the impossible.

Forget about the concepts, this is not about concepts, this is beyond conceptual knowledge where all conceptual knowledge is sourced.

The beyond the known into the unknowable, aka the ABSOLUTE.

All you are doing VA is playing around with concepts, which defeats the object of what we are both trying to say.





.

[Dontaskme]

In this case, the 'ONENESS' you are postulating is a transcendental illusion, i.e. it is not something real at all.

But don't you get it...that which only APPEARS to transcend never transcended.

There is no thing here that can transcend itself in the first place.

But that does not negate ''what is'' ...it just negates ''what isn't''

.

[Dontaskme]

This is not meant to derogatory, but as Ramachandran had proposed we are hallucinating all the time. The difference is whether what is hallucinated is justifiable with empirical evidence and provable or not.

But Ramachandran is a human being, which is a known concept, an appearance of the one.

Everything seen is an hallucination, its a holographic image of the ONE SEER.

The fact that there is seeing at all is its only proof, it doesnt require an empirical middleman to prove this. This is already this, with or without the middleman. Experience is an APPEARANCE of the ONE. ONE is not an experience.

No one knows what is seeing...there is only seeing.


No one knows what is being ...there is only being.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't seem to get [not necessary to agree] my point.

And you don't seem to get (not necessarily agree) my point.

My point is that there is no (indivi(dual)ised) pointer to point. Pointer, pointing, pointed are ONE.

From a relative view..in the story of other.

I cannot see what you are seeing, neither can you see what I am seeing, so its pointless to assume we can divert or distract away anothers view point to meet a different view point if its not seen.
If the view point is seen, then that's known as resonanace, in resonanace the two RELATIVE minds (views) meet as ONE.

A view point is from a relative perspective only, its an appearance within the absolute that is without doubt or error. Any relative view point about the absolute is absurd, its an illusion within it. We cannot know or point to the absolute. There is only the absolute.

You postulate God is an impossibilty ...that's a relative assumption. I postulate God is a possibility again that is a relative assumption.

Nope you claimed God is a possibility without proof at all.

I have given proofs why God is an impossibility.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
I invite you to prove me wrong on that.

Where is your basis of proof for your claim for me to counter.


Btw, I have told you I have had 'experiences' of what is normally claimed as 'non-duality' within the spiritual context. It is not a big deal. I was a theist before. So I have no problem understanding your point which the resultant is a transcendental illusion.

The ABSOLUTE is prior to that which appears as relative, the relative is just one tint pixal within the WHOLE PICTURE.

Relative appearances (knowledge) could and would not even arise, and the fact that it does, is proof enough that there is no such thing as the impossible.

Forget about the concepts, this is not about concepts, this is beyond conceptual knowledge where all conceptual knowledge is sourced.

The beyond the known into the unknowable, aka the ABSOLUTE.

All you are doing VA is playing around with concepts, which defeats the object of what we are both trying to say.

Show me proof where the 'Absolute' can exists by itself without being relative?
Point is the 'Absolute' can only be in relation to a subject. There is no other way to it.

Note there a loads of arguments within the philosophical community to support my point, there is no Absolute-by-itself which is not relative. This is why Kant famously argued there is NO thing-in-itself [Ding an sich] which is claimed as God by many.

Yes, I am dealing with concepts which is obviously reality.
In terms of concepts [empirical based] there are two perspectives, i.e.

• 1. Real concepts that are provable with evidence,
  2. Possible concepts that are provable if there are evidence.

I have argued before, besides concepts [empirical] there are ideas [based on thoughts only].
Your point of the Absolute is based purely on ideas which is thought only.
Show me on what basis can you prove your idea of the Absolute, that, ONENESS or whatever.

This idea of an Absolute is a transcendental illusion.

It the same illusion that some schizophrenia and other mental patients, or those with brain damage, etc. would cognize in their various circumstance.

I have asked the following and I don't see any answer from you.
If a schizophrenic insist gnomes are real because they [gnomes] had talked to him, would you believe the schizophrenic?
Answer?

[Dontaskme]

Show me proof where the 'Absolute' can exists by itself without being relative?
Point is the 'Absolute' can only be in relation to a subject. There is no other way to it.

The Absolute is not in relationship. A relationship is the Absolute relating to itself only.
There is not two 'Absolutes' one that is in relationship with another absolute.

Just as one single page of a book is not the whole book, but the book is all the singular pages.


There can be Awareness(Absolute) without being Aware of being Aware(relative)
But there cannot be Aware of being Aware(relative) without Awareness (Absolute). It's a two way mirror reflecting itself only. To see the invisible as and through the visible.

The Absolute is the invisible aggregate made up of all things seen.

.

[Dontaskme]

If a schizophrenic insist gnomes are real because they [gnomes] had talked to him, would you believe the schizophrenic?
Answer?

A schizophrenic is a known concept, no schizophrenic has ever been seen, let alone believed in. Concepts do not talk, or see, or know anything.

They are KNOWN by the only knowing there is which is Absolute knowing.



.

[Dontaskme]

I have argued before, besides concepts [empirical] there are ideas [based on thoughts only].
Your point of the Absolute is based purely on ideas which is thought only.
Show me on what basis can you prove your idea of the Absolute, that, ONENESS or whatever.

This idea of an Absolute is a transcendental illusion.

This idea of an Absolute is a transcendental illusion because there is no one having the idea in the first place...the one who believes it is having the idea of the Absolute dissolves when contemplating the Absolute because the Absolute is seen to be all there is.
Like I've told you before, that which appears to transcend, never transcends.

The one that dissolves is a relative ''thought'' appearing within what's already here as the Absolute. It's the Absolute watching the ''thought'' not the ''thought'' watching the Absolute. The relative cannot watch the Absolute. The relative is the Absolute watching itself.
Just as a single page in a book cannot be the whole book, but the whole book is every single page.

I have argued before that the idea of an Absolute is a relative thought, and that any relative thoughts about the Absolute is absurd.

The relative is a ''thought'' and a thought cannot appear without the Absolute.

''thoughts'' are appearances of the ABSOLUTE which does not and cannot appear relative to a thought...it only appears to appear as each thought is instantly recognised / known ..in the instantaneous moment relative to its Absolute Self.

.

[Dontaskme]

Btw, I have told you I have had 'experiences' of what is normally claimed as 'non-duality' within the spiritual context.

This is where you falter in your whole theory about the impossibilty of God.

It's time to throw out all your theories about what you postulate because there is no you to postulate anything is the first place except in this conception, a fictional story.

.

The reason you fail as a theoryist is when you claim that ''Non-duality'' is an experience. IT IS NOT.

That's not what Non-duality is.

.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, I am dealing with concepts which is obviously reality.

You are mistakingly taking images on the screen of awareness to be reality, it is not, no more than a subroutine in a computer is reality.

Reality may look virtual, but its not the images that are real, its the screen on which they are appearing that is real.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a schizophrenic insist gnomes are real because they [gnomes] had talked to him, would you believe the schizophrenic?
Answer?

A schizophrenic is a known concept, no schizophrenic has ever been seen, let alone believed in. Concepts do not talk, or see, or know anything.

They are KNOWN by the only knowing there is which is Absolute knowing.

As usual you are deflecting and running away from facts.

https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-dsm-5-definition/
A schizoprenic is one who suffers from schizoprenia above.

Let say for example sake;
If your own son or daughter is 'seeing things' and is diagnosed medically within DSM=5 as schizophrenic, would you deny 'seeing a schizoprehenic' and deny him recognized treatments just because you don't believe in such.
https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-dsm-5-definition/

So along with this drastic example;
If a your son a schizophrenic insist gnomes are real because they [gnomes] had talked to him, would you believe the him, a medically certified schizophrenic?

My point with the above example is to show theists who believed in a God [illusory and impossible] are affected by the same mental processes of a schizophrenic who is seeing illusory things as real but in a more refined and not harmful state.

[Veritas Aequitas]

''thoughts'' are appearances of the ABSOLUTE which does not and cannot appear relative to a thought...it only appears to appear as each thought is instantly recognised / known ..in the instantaneous moment relative to its Absolute Self.

My point is "that" which is "the ABSOLUTE which does not and cannot appear relative to a thought"
is a transcendental illusion in your mind.

There is no such thing as,
"that" which is "the ABSOLUTE which does not and cannot appear relative to a thought"

I can easily put aside 'thought' and posit the following;

"that" which is "the ABSOLUTE which does not and cannot appear relative to a self" is a transcendental illusion within a self.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, I am dealing with concepts which is obviously reality.

You are mistakingly taking images on the screen of awareness to be reality, it is not, no more than a subroutine in a computer is reality.

Reality may look virtual, but its not the images that are real, its the screen on which they are appearing that is real.

This is a philosophy forum.
I don't think you are well versed with the principles of reality and the contentious issues within this topic called 'reality'.

Suggest you read the following;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality