time to take the finger off the ignition switch

[ken]

We are talking about a time when lightening was attributed to the God of thunder. There was actually very little science known then and superstition obviously ran rampant as too many things were unknown, extremely powerful and bewildering. And someone realized how that could be used to his or her advantage and ran with the idea. It is no coincidence that religion has evolved with science. As more things got explained a lot of things had to be changed. Now the only thing that remains unexplained is how life and the universe came into existence. That is why we don't believe in the God of thunder anymore but believe in the 'unknowable' God ( a cop out if there ever was one). Till we can explain these mysteries, this particular God is here to stay. You will notice that all the Gods believed in today, are just out of the reach of science. And that is how it has always been. The only difference is that in the earlier days, there was less science so there were more physical Gods one could believe in.

"God" though was likely just a useful variable as an 'X' is to math or logic. The extended idea is that this 'X' is also something with a preferred value ('good' for most traditions and the very etymology of the term, 'god'). But this presumption begs that our existence has some default 'favor' to nature itself. So even using the term "God" today lacks substance. We use "Universe", "Cosmos", or "Totality" as non-emotionally laden terms to stand in for the 'X' as a question we are trying to solve. To discover whichever is the truth about reality, we can't grant it a specific or constant value. This would be like questioning what 'X' is but demanding that the DOMAIN of X is {1} only. This would mean that using X as though it appears to be an unknown is just deceptive. For the example of this domain of X, X = 1 ALWAYS. Thus it is redundant to treat or use X because it is NOT VARIABLE but FIXED (CONSTANT).

Would you agree with this or are you proposing some other significance to require using "God" as a term for inquiry? It appears that it has too much baggage connected to it.

I think you have misunderstood. God is not a term of inquiry. God is a final and absolute conclusion. It is the end of reason. Why do we exist? Because God. Don't bother looking for answers. How did the universe come into existence? God did it. It is final. Don't bother thinking about it or looking for answers. God is a brake on thought processes. He is a conclusion reached when 'I don't know. Let me look for an answer' would be the better option. No one has seen him. No one knows what he looks like but they know from their higher consciousness that he exists. So stop looking for answers. Please. God is the conclusion. I today's age at least thought processes should be mature enough to agree that God is just another hypothesis. It is ridiculous for thinking people to reach a conclusion with nothing to back it. We have people here discussing the futility of reason!

We have people who want intelligent design included in schools. In India every single school has prayers before school. This kind of brainwashing and primitive thinking is holding us back.

Holding us back from what exactly?

What answers are you still looking for?

[sthitapragya]

Holding us back from what exactly?

What answers are you still looking for?

This wasn't addressed to you. And not only me. The whole scientific community is looking for a lot of answers. We know nothing yet. There is just too much to learn and not enough time to be wasted on invisible entities.

[Scott Mayers]

sthitapragya,

To Ken, you ended the last post with,

If however you say I am God, I will ask for proof. In the absence of proof, I will reject your God.

I think we are likely all on the same page here. I would give a good guess that those deemed "Jesus Christs" were those street soapbox philosophers who may have challenged others in a Socratic way by declaring a prior meaning of those questioning the meaning of some word for a god. Looking at our history in scriptures, the Judeao-Christian bible used "YHWY" too in a similar way. This meant "Ye hovah" (I am the source, from ye or je meaning 'I' and hovah, from what became 'ova', 'oval', 'ovum' to us for meaning egg, the source as from an egg, or the shape of such a source, as the sun is ovular or round)

To challenge others in a past 'Gnostic' way, one might ask, "Do you know who I am?" which initiates the discussion to speak of the various religious interpretations of terms for what then were interpreted as "Gods" in the same mistaken way, since most of the names that became 'gods' were just older lost languages having variant meanings based on "I am" as an initial past way like Descartes, "I think therefore I am". Beginning reasoning by asserting one's own existence is a rational way to attempt to make sense of reality. We have to at least begin by accepting our existence in order to interpret reality as a whole. So most original words relating to what later devolved into gods began with secular questions, "who am I?", "What is the source of all things?", "What is Nature itself?"

[ken]

You have completely misconstrued what I have said or you are confused. I have never said 'a guy' is or even could be God. God is certainly NOT a guy. The 'I' IS God, i.e., the 'I' in the question who am 'I'. This 'I' is absolutely NOT separated from any other thing, ever. Therefore, 'I', God am NOT a guy. Have you ever tried to challenge them or argue with them? I can not see any reason for NOT doing so.

Anyone can say that. How do I argue with that? The guy is not the God but the 'I' is God. Okay. To me they are one and the same thing.

And there my friends is the problem. If you believe something before 'exploring', arguing, challenging, etc. any thing, then how would you ever find further knowledge, Truth? If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you.

Why would you challenge Me is to prove Me wrong. You would LOVE to prove that 'you', your beliefs are absolutely true, right, and correct, once and for all, am I right?

Not really. Either I would be proved right or I would be proved wrong. If I am proved wrong, I would come away learning something. There is no shame is being wrong. Everyone is wrong most of the time. Why should I be any different?

EXACTLY

EXACTLY

EXACTLY.

So, why NOT argue and/or challenge Me? There IS absolutely nothing at all to loose. The very reason I LOVE to be challenged and argue IS for the EXACT same reason. I can ONLY come away learning MORE. I found if I am neither believing nor disbelieving in the beginning, then I can NEVER be wrong. I can ONLY learn more There is absolutely NO shame in that at all. This, I found, IS very rewarding.

Because Truth appears and is revealed through 'arguing', logical reasoning.

I don't know what you mean by Truth. But if you mean knowledge beyond the known, I think it is a load of crap, if people think that meditating or thinking or whatever is going to get them there. It is not. There is no such thing. Studying and reading and researching is going to get us towards some level of knowledge. But no one knows the Truth of Everything. Not Buddha, not Jesus. No one.

Again, your assumptions/beliefs are misconstruing/confusing what I have actually written and mean. I NEVER said, the Truth of Everything. 'Truth', is just newer, accepted and agreed upon knowledge. Known knowledge of "today" was once 'knowledge beyond the known', once upon a time. All newer knowledge is, in some respects, 'knowledge beyond the known'.

By the way if you believe there is no such things as meditating or thinking or whatever is going to get people to Truth, then that is fine. I was not going to go talk about any of this kind of stuff here anyway.

See your first sentence, "I don''t know what you mean by Truth", if that is the case, then just ask me to clarify what I mean by Truth. I WILL explain. Then the next eight sentences would have been totally unnecessary and as such are a waste of "time".

If ALL assumptions and beliefs were removed from ALL discussions and just clarity was asked for, then Truths would have been found millenniums ago.

I will give an example of this type of discussion after my next quote with the words you used.

If you argued the point with others, then you just might be able to formulate a sound, valid argument or one would appear that you could then use as proof to show and reveal to others that there really is NO god whatsoever. But, I suppose, the opposite could actually just happen, also. We will never know until you argue with Me and/or challenge Me.

sth: I have never argued that there is no God whatever.

ken: Fair enough, but why not?.

sth: That would be a conclusion.

ken: Is that an assumption?

sth: I am rejecting all Gods because Gods are taken to be foregone conclusions.

ken: Is that a belief? (Agreed and accepted definition is needed first before a "conclusion" could become concluded)

sth: I have always maintained that God is a hypothesis, a possibility among many others.

ken: Clarity on what god is exactly would be needed here now. Also, can maintaining anything slow learning down? Just something to think about?

sth: God could be the answer or the answer could be different.

ken: Far more open, and as you will notice is true. Truth always appears in Openness.

sth: I have a problem with the conclusion people reach about God. They never call it a hypothesis.

ken: If people believe strongly in something then of course they will not call it a hypothesis. How could we fix this "problem"?

sth: A conclusion needs proof.

ken: Fair enough. Is there any proof that would satisfy you?

sth: A hypothesis does not because it is still to be proved.

ken: Ok, and again true.

sth: A hypothesis cannot be disproved because it has not been proved.

ken: Maybe true but it can still be "pulled apart" and seen for what it really is.

sth: A conclusion can be disproved if it is wrong otherwise it is right.

Agreed, and thus again true.

You believe:
1. Life and the Universe came into existence (began).
2. How Life and the Universe came into existence is still unexplained.
3. There are no God/s of any kind whatsoever.

No. 1 and 2 are correct. Three is not. I believe any kind of God is a hypothesis. If you say that any kind of a God is a conclusion, i reject it in the absence of proof because conclusions must have proof to back them. If you say, it is my hypothesis that 'I' am God but I still have to prove it, I have no problem with that. I have nothing to prove or disprove. I have nothing to believe or disbelieve.

If however you say I am God, I will ask for proof. In the absence of proof, I will reject your God.

But that is EXACTLY what I said. You have not, yet, asked for proof. I have also been asking for and inviting to be challenged. I have asked to be challenged on the very issue of 'I' am God, which you have not yet at all attempted. I WISH people would at least ask Me for proof. I WANT and WISH for as many challenges as I can get. But, if I am asked for proof, the first clarifying question I am going to ask back is what proof do you want and/or need?

Have you ever heard anyone say, " Since we don't know how the universe came into existence. we might need to consider the possibility that there is a being which created the universe." ? No. What you here is, " God created the universe". No proof, nothing. A blanket statement which you MUST believe to be true. I cannot accept that. Give me proof if it is such a firm conclusion.

PLEASE. PLEASE, PLEASE, STOP assuming before you ask Me clarifying questions first.

NONE of this is even remotely close to anything I am wanting to say, which I will delve into shortly.

When I say I want to be challenged, what I want exactly is to be asked for clarity before people assume what it is that they think I am saying.

I would have liked to delve into this a bit further but I will leave it for now.

[ken]

Ken, read my responses. I actually understand where you may be coming from given the evolution of history. Note that "Jesus Christ" was an ancient literal translation of "I am" and "A king" (Christ is derived from the same roots as 'Caesar' and both are forms of asserting that nature or 'god', by many, has granted formal authority of a person to rule. There formal process back then was by 'anointing', as pouring libations, like our cheers, to commemorate the new leader.)

But this interpretation even derived earlier in Egypt too. "Isis" is a transliteration meaning "I am" or "I am the same as". In Greece, "Zeus" meant "same as" from the similar roots as he had asserted being the newly anointed 'king' of gods following the Titans (Chaos, Kronos, etc.) [Chaos = gas, fluidity, as in the air and water; Kronos = chronos = time.]

Thanks for this scott. Actually this was not were I was coming from but actually this gives MORE foundation to where I am actually coming from. Thanks again.

By the way i was going to reply to one of your posts, which i read very quickly, about logic, in relation to what I have said. I wanted to clarify something with you there, which I forget now. But I will get back to you.

[Scott Mayers]

Thanks for this scott. Actually this was not were I was coming from but actually this gives MORE foundation to where I am actually coming from. Thanks again.

By the way i was going to reply to one of your posts, which i read very quickly, about logic, in relation to what I have said. I wanted to clarify something with you there, which I forget now. But I will get back to you.

You and sthitapragya raise a good set of arguments and dialogue here, and I hope my contribution helps on this too. I just wish that others could be as enthusiastic about such activity.

[ken]

Sometimes I think I'm speaking a complete different language than everyone.

I know the feeling that comes with this.

I don't disagree with you here. And in fact, what you just said merely agrees with my take on this. I said that to either you or another that the term 'God' and its meaning is an idea that has deceptively become what used to be a likely a sincere VARIABLE that has turned into a CONSTANT, meaning that the thinkers of the past originally treated Totality (or the Cosmos or the Universe) as an unknown intending to question it but latter peoples reinterpreted this to BE a fixed and certain constant (your apparent choice word for this is, "conclusion").

So yes, the error of people is to assume that reality as a whole is what 'God' is. To see how this has evolved, refer to Anselm's transference of this in his Ontological Argument for the existence of God. In that link, Anselm interpreted what we call the Cosmos/Universe/Reality as a whole as the very definition of "God" in error.

Anselm begins with a stipulative definition of “God” as “a being than which no greater
being can be conceived.”

As such, this definition falsely takes what was the question of the whole and merely transferred the question into a conclusion. This makes what was a variable (that which has some set of many possible answers yet to be determined) into a constant (one unique particular answer of all possibilities). But this is just a trick because it is like Ken here begging the definition of "God" to mean "I", then assert that "I" exists; Therefore, the meaning of "I" must exist, that being "God". Its the same kind of irrationality that goes on in many areas by Equivocating some selective label to two distinct meanings.

I HAD to give God a definition before we could even begin here. So I did that. I certainly was NOT going to assert that 'I' exist, therefore the meaning of 'I' must exist, that being 'God'. I probably have, at the moment, over 100,000 words to explain before I get even close to the conclusion. Explaining each and everyone of those words in order to prove what I say is going to be easy. The hard part is just trying to get past people's beliefs and assumptions, once that is done, and if people seriously want to change their wrong ways, then the rest is plain simple, easy, and quick.

Let "X" stand for "All things"
Let "Y" stand for "All things and more"
"X" exists
Therefore "Y" exists.

I do not follow here:

How could there be a "Y", "All things and more"? There is NO more of ALL things.

The transference con here is that we generally use "Universe" to be "X" while the religious person uses "God" to be "Y". But the error is the "...and more" part to which they also have their extended meaning of "God" to mean something like, "that caring creator of all things who will reward or punish you in the end if you don't believe or behave in some specific way". So it is intended to trick some into believing that if the SYMBOL stands for more than one definition, the SYMBOL when used in fact DOES mean all different definitions at once.

Ah ok, you answered my last question here already. If I was to quickly attempt what you did above, knowing that it would not be sound or valid, then I would say something like:

Let us call "God" "ALL things".
Let "W" stand for "ALL physical things".
Let "X" stand for "ALL space in between ALL physical things".
Let "Y" stand for "ALL thoughts and emotions".
Let "Z" stand for "Self-awareness conscious of It Self, the Mind".
If "W" "X" "Y" and "Z" exists, then
only that is "ALL things", (sometimes referred to as "God").
Therefore, "God" exists.

If 'I' am not yet Self-aware, then
"Z" does not exist.
Therefore, NOT "ALL things" exist.

"Z" exists.
Therefore, "ALL things" exist.

Contrary to what a LOT of people have heard, think and/or believe or disbelieve 'I', God, did not create the Universe, the way it is NOW, at any other point other than NOW. I am thee Creator creating "W" "X" and "Y" exactly how I want them to be right HERE and NOW.

As I said previously this may take 100,000 words, or less depending on HOW, Honest, Open, and Willing a person wants to change, them selves. E=MC2, for example, was not proven in one concise half a dozen words or so. With HOW comes Self-awareness and with Self-awareness comes a complete new understand and knowledge. Some things, namely new knowledge, can take a while to be fully understood.

I have been speaking/inspiring for ever. I am no hurry. I just sit and wait until an intelligent species evolves enough. Sadly species sadly though can become to clever for their own good. There 'intellect', already gained knowledge, can override their 'intelligence', their ability to learn, understand, and reason.

The logic, while clear as I spell it out, is as equally an easy one that we ALL accidentally make. All humor, for instance, is about using this trick.

Example: "How did they find out that the girl who got killed in Jaws had dandruff?"

"They found her Head and Shoulders on the beach."

We laugh at this because we define "Head and Shoulders" as both

(1) one's literal body parts called a 'head' and a 'shoulder'

and

(2) the brand name of a dandruff shampoo and general body product named, "Head and Shoulders".

The two definitions listed are distinct and have different meanings. But the irrationality of it still emotionally affects us for the dumb animals we are. If this wasn't true, you wouldn't find anything funny either. (Any, incidentally why logical people tend to be less emotional!)

Depending on how a person wants to look at what I write. 'God', in the physical sense, is ALL physical things. "God", in the non physical sense, is ALL the non-physical things. God is freely able to create Its Self eternally-NOW because of these two distinct and different meanings.

"God" is able to gain the knowledge of all of this from the capacity of the human brain to gather, store and hold more and more newer knowledge as long as human beings exist. 'I', God, am able to learn, understand and reason ALL of this, including who 'I' am because of the Mind.

Actually, in the non-physical sense, 'I' am the Mind, i.e., "a being than which no greater being can be conceived." 'I' can and do KNOW ALL of this because the Universe is freely able to move, change, and from into the shape that It is in NOW, which IS how a intelligent enough species has evolved.

ALL of this, and more, can be learned, understood and reasoned. All it takes is Mind over matter, which is just using the open Mind instead of the grey matter. In other words look and see from the completely and truly open Mind instead of looking and seeing from the already gained thoughts/knowledge stored in the brain.

[ken]

Thanks for this scott. Actually this was not were I was coming from but actually this gives MORE foundation to where I am actually coming from. Thanks again.

By the way i was going to reply to one of your posts, which i read very quickly, about logic, in relation to what I have said. I wanted to clarify something with you there, which I forget now. But I will get back to you.

You and sthitapragya raise a good set of arguments and dialogue here, and I hope my contribution helps on this too. I just wish that others could be as enthusiastic about such activity.

How I wish to.

Also, an enthusiastic mediator is much appreciated also, from My perspective.

[sthitapragya]

You have completely misconstrued what I have said or you are confused. I have never said 'a guy' is or even could be God. God is certainly NOT a guy. The 'I' IS God, i.e., the 'I' in the question who am 'I'. This 'I' is absolutely NOT separated from any other thing, ever. Therefore, 'I', God am NOT a guy. Have you ever tried to challenge them or argue with them? I can not see any reason for NOT doing so.

Anyone can say that. How do I argue with that? The guy is not the God but the 'I' is God. Okay. To me they are one and the same thing.

And there my friends is the problem. If you believe something before 'exploring', arguing, challenging, etc. any thing, then how would you ever find further knowledge, Truth? If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you. [/quote]

Sorry. But they are a belief to you. This is a hypothesis which needs proof to me. Prove it, and I will believe it. Till then I will not.

So, why NOT argue and/or challenge Me? There IS absolutely nothing at all to loose. The very reason I LOVE to be challenged and argue IS for the EXACT same reason. I can ONLY come away learning MORE. I found if I am neither believing nor disbelieving in the beginning, then I can NEVER be wrong. I can ONLY learn more There is absolutely NO shame in that at all. This, I found, IS very rewarding.

Because a hypothesis need not be challenged. A hypothesis is something that is in the development stage. It has not been proven. It is up to the person who comes up with the hypothesis to prove it. It is not upto anyone else to disprove it. So you will need to come up with proof for your hypothesis. I will challenge you on the proof, not the hypothesis. A hypothesis can never ever ever be challenged.

I don't know what you mean by Truth. But if you mean knowledge beyond the known, I think it is a load of crap, if people think that meditating or thinking or whatever is going to get them there. It is not. There is no such thing. Studying and reading and researching is going to get us towards some level of knowledge. But no one knows the Truth of Everything. Not Buddha, not Jesus. No one.

Again, your assumptions/beliefs are misconstruing/confusing what I have actually written and mean. I NEVER said, the Truth of Everything. 'Truth', is just newer, accepted and agreed upon knowledge. Known knowledge of "today" was once 'knowledge beyond the known', once upon a time. All newer knowledge is, in some respects, 'knowledge beyond the known'.

Well, there is no proof of any knowledge beyond the known, so till I have some proof of it, I will not waste my time on it.

See your first sentence, "I don''t know what you mean by Truth", if that is the case, then just ask me to clarify what I mean by Truth. I WILL explain. Then the next eight sentences would have been totally unnecessary and as such are a waste of "time".

Okay, what is the Truth?

If you argued the point with others, then you just might be able to formulate a sound, valid argument or one would appear that you could then use as proof to show and reveal to others that there really is NO god whatsoever. But, I suppose, the opposite could actually just happen, also. We will never know until you argue with Me and/or challenge Me.

sth: I have never argued that there is no God whatever.

ken: Fair enough, but why not?.

sth: That would be a conclusion.

ken: Is that an assumption?

sth: I am rejecting all Gods because Gods are taken to be foregone conclusions.

ken: Is that a belief? (Agreed and accepted definition is needed first before a "conclusion" could become concluded)

sth: I have always maintained that God is a hypothesis, a possibility among many others.

ken: Clarity on what god is exactly would be needed here now. Also, can maintaining anything slow learning down? Just something to think about?

sth: God could be the answer or the answer could be different.

ken: Far more open, and as you will notice is true. Truth always appears in Openness.

sth: I have a problem with the conclusion people reach about God. They never call it a hypothesis.

ken: If people believe strongly in something then of course they will not call it a hypothesis. How could we fix this "problem"?

sth: A conclusion needs proof.

ken: Fair enough. Is there any proof that would satisfy you?

sth: A hypothesis does not because it is still to be proved.

ken: Ok, and again true.

sth: A hypothesis cannot be disproved because it has not been proved.

ken: Maybe true but it can still be "pulled apart" and seen for what it really is.

sth: A conclusion can be disproved if it is wrong otherwise it is right.

Agreed, and thus again true.

I think it is offensive that you believe you can decide the questions I can ask. None of the above would have gone the way you think it would. It is a load of crap. I think you are being insulting here. Don't ever EVER EVER assume what another person will think. It is very very offensive. How DARE you believe that you can think of the answers I will give? You have no right to think that. You have demeaned me by this whole dialogue. I think an apology is in order. If you think you know what I think, then this conversation is over. Right now.

[ken]

Anyone can say that. How do I argue with that? The guy is not the God but the 'I' is God. Okay. To me they are one and the same thing.

And there my friends is the problem. If you believe something before 'exploring', arguing, challenging, etc. any thing, then how would you ever find further knowledge, Truth? If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you.

Sorry. But they are a belief to you. This is a hypothesis which needs proof to me. Prove it, and I will believe it. Till then I will not.

Prove what exactly?

That what 'you' believe is already truth, to you, is that what you want me to prove?

Easy. Name me one thing that you believe and which is not truth, to you.

BUT, even if I do prove that to you, you then said that you will believe it. You are going to defeat the very purpose of what I am trying to achieve with you, i.e., to STOP believing (in) any thing so that you can become more open, so that you then can learn more.

Even the quotes here have been misconstrued by you. That is not something to be too overly concerned about. In fact it is a very easy thing to do in this forum. I have done it, and accepted and apologized for doing it. But it is just more proof of how easily it is for things to be misconstrued and/or taken out of context. I will provide further evidence of misconstruing and taking things out of context at the bottom of this post. I will fix these quotes up here now, so that others later on when reading this will not be to easily misled.

So, why NOT argue and/or challenge Me? There IS absolutely nothing at all to loose. The very reason I LOVE to be challenged and argue IS for the EXACT same reason. I can ONLY come away learning MORE. I found if I am neither believing nor disbelieving in the beginning, then I can NEVER be wrong. I can ONLY learn more There is absolutely NO shame in that at all. This, I found, IS very rewarding.

Because a hypothesis need not be challenged. A hypothesis is something that is in the development stage. It has not been proven. It is up to the person who comes up with the hypothesis to prove it. It is not upto anyone else to disprove it. So you will need to come up with proof for your hypothesis. I will challenge you on the proof, not the hypothesis. A hypothesis can never ever ever be challenged.

OK. Sounds very logical to me.

'I', The Mind, (sometimes referred to as God) exist eternally and KNOW ALL things.
'I' exist with-in ALL physical things and create (what is sometimes referred to as the Universe), the way It is NOW, through an evolving-reactionary and evolutionary-creating process, always.

The proof IS already HERE.

I don't know what you mean by Truth. But if you mean knowledge beyond the known, I think it is a load of crap, if people think that meditating or thinking or whatever is going to get them there. It is not. There is no such thing. Studying and reading and researching is going to get us towards some level of knowledge. But no one knows the Truth of Everything. Not Buddha, not Jesus. No one.

Again, your assumptions/beliefs are misconstruing/confusing what I have actually written and mean. I NEVER said, the Truth of Everything. 'Truth', is just newer, accepted and agreed upon knowledge. Known knowledge of "today" was once 'knowledge beyond the known', once upon a time. All newer knowledge is, in some respects, 'knowledge beyond the known'.

Well, there is no proof of any knowledge beyond the known, so till I have some proof of it, I will not waste my time on it.

You will have to define what 'any knowledge beyond the known' is:

What do you mean by 'any knowledge beyond the known'?

Are you referring to some 'point', "place or time", in existence? Or,

Are you referring to for ever more? Or,

Are you referring to some "unknowable knowledge"?

If you believe that there is no proof of any knowledge beyond the known, (whatever that means to you), how could you ever obtain some proof of "it"?

See your first sentence, "I don''t know what you mean by Truth", if that is the case, then just ask me to clarify what I mean by Truth. I WILL explain. Then the next eight sentences would have been totally unnecessary and as such are a waste of "time".

Okay, what is the Truth?

Maybe you skip a lot of my writings but just READ one quote back. I wrote 'Truth', is just newer, accepted and agreed upon knowledge.

Maybe you have not read what I have previously written about where I place my definition to the words I am using, which is totally understandable if you have not read this. I wrote that when I write a word in single quotation marks ' ', with a coma directly after that word then that is the word i am defining with the words in italics before the next coma, or period, being the definition. For example just what I have written in this quote and the quote above it for Truth.

To make it more accurate, clearer and concise. 'Truth', is that what is agreed upon by ALL. Whatever 'that' is IS Truth.

If you argued the point with others, then you just might be able to formulate a sound, valid argument or one would appear that you could then use as proof to show and reveal to others that there really is NO god whatsoever. But, I suppose, the opposite could actually just happen, also. We will never know until you argue with Me and/or challenge Me.

sth: I have never argued that there is no God whatever.

ken: Fair enough, but why not?.

sth: That would be a conclusion.

ken: Is that an assumption?

sth: I am rejecting all Gods because Gods are taken to be foregone conclusions.

ken: Is that a belief? (Agreed and accepted definition is needed first before a "conclusion" could become concluded)

sth: I have always maintained that God is a hypothesis, a possibility among many others.

ken: Clarity on what god is exactly would be needed here now. Also, can maintaining anything slow learning down? Just something to think about?

sth: God could be the answer or the answer could be different.

ken: Far more open, and as you will notice is true. Truth always appears in Openness.

sth: I have a problem with the conclusion people reach about God. They never call it a hypothesis.

ken: If people believe strongly in something then of course they will not call it a hypothesis. How could we fix this "problem"?

sth: A conclusion needs proof.

ken: Fair enough. Is there any proof that would satisfy you?

sth: A hypothesis does not because it is still to be proved.

ken: Ok, and again true.

sth: A hypothesis cannot be disproved because it has not been proved.

ken: Maybe true but it can still be "pulled apart" and seen for what it really is.

sth: A conclusion can be disproved if it is wrong otherwise it is right.

Agreed, and thus again true.

I think it is offensive that you believe you can decide the questions I can ask.

WHERE oh WHERE did I put a question after your name?

SERIOUSLY you really NEED to READ what I write.

I was the ONLY One who was asking the questions.

None of the above would have gone the way you think it would.

If you had left the correct quotes in their correct place it would be SO MUCH EASIER for any person to look back and SEE that those words are EXACTLY YOUR WORDS.

NOW when others are checking up on what was actually written and WHY I wrote it that way they will have to go back until they can clear up the mess that this is becoming, once again.

It is a load of crap.

A load of crap IS a load of crap.

This is just Me showing how the 'Mind', Me, and the 'brain', you, works, here. So that others can learn and understand better.

I think you are being insulting here.

Well, I am NOT.

Don't ever EVER EVER assume what another person will think.

If you could see the funny side of this. It is pretty funny.

NOW you are telling Me not to assume, EVER, what another person will think.

I would say that is GREAT advice.

Something i have been trying to tell you to do now for a while though.

More good advice I think is go back and find the right quotes and put them in their right positions and READ and RE-READ and see if you actually find something different from what you think/believe is happening here.

It is very very offensive.

Are you SURE?

How DARE you believe that you can think of the answers I will give?

RE-READ and you will find that those answers are actually what YOU, "yourself", wrote. WORD for WORD.

Actually I never pressed a key for those words to come out. I just wrote in between them with what I WOULD say. And, I added your name to what YOU WROTE so as to separate what you wrote from what I wrote. But obviously to no avail with you.

Also without clue whatsoever you used one exact right word here that peoples of the "future" will either find very amazing and/or extremely hilarious.

You have no right to think that.

Are you saying here that every person has no right to 'think', assume, how another person will answer or what answers they will give?

If so, then great advice. I had not thought of that one before.

BUT it does appear that you are talking to you because I certainly did not do that, in this case.

It is great advice but sadly it is also something every person does.

Discussions would take a lot longer without them BUT also those discussions would be much more thorough with a lot clearer outcome for ALL concerned.

You have demeaned me by this whole dialogue.

Just maybe it was some one else? Ummm, let me think, who could of that been? Ummm...

Others can and will SEE who demeaned who here.

I think an apology is in order.

Apology for what EXACTLY?

If you think you know what I think, then this conversation is over. Right now.

Why does it "always" end this way with you?

[sthitapragya]

Anselm begins with a stipulative definition of “God” as “a being than which no greater
being can be conceived.”

My argument against Anselm is very simple. Anselm would have to begin with :

I have never conceived of any idea that was false.

Every idea I have conceived of is true.

I conceive of a God, a being than which no greater can be conceived.

And so on.

The problem is in the assumption of the conceptual truth. It would be a correct premise only if Anselm could prove that every idea he has ever had is true or proven true in the long run. Only then could he claim his conception of God as a conceptual truth. If he has had ideas which have been proved to be false, there is no way he could identify which are true and which are false at the time of conception and later without proof.

Would you agree ?

[sthitapragya]

Easy. Name me one thing that you believe and which is not truth, to you.

Okay first of all, I feel stupid for feeling so offended over something that was pretty trivial when I look at it. So take my embarrassment as an apology. I am sorry for my childish outburst. Getting back to my reply,

Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me with the proviso that I might be proved false and need to change my views or plans accordingly.

BUT, even if I do prove that to you, you then said that you will believe it. You are going to defeat the very purpose of what I am trying to achieve with you, i.e., to STOP believing (in) any thing so that you can become more open, so that you then can learn more.

You are assuming that I take everyone of my beliefs to be true. Don't assume things about people.

'I', The Mind, (sometimes referred to as God) exist eternally and KNOW ALL things.
'I' exist with-in ALL physical things and create (what is sometimes referred to as the Universe), the way It is NOW, through an evolving-reactionary and evolutionary-creating process, always.

The proof IS already HERE.

That is not proof unfortunately. Those are just statements. There is no proof of the mind existing eternally independently of the brain. You just make an assumption that it is so. Also you might refer to 'I' the Mind as God. A lot of people do not. I for one also do not. There is also no proof that the Mind knows all things. That is again an assumption for which no evidence has been given by you.

There is no proof that 'I' exists within all physical things. There is no proof that it is the 'I' which creates the universe the way it is now. It is your hypothesis for which you have not given any proof. There also is no such thing as evolving reactionary and evolutionary-creating process. There is no reference found on any such theory.

Again, your assumptions/beliefs are misconstruing/confusing what I have actually written and mean. I NEVER said, the Truth of Everything. 'Truth', is just newer, accepted and agreed upon knowledge. Known knowledge of "today" was once 'knowledge beyond the known', once upon a time. All newer knowledge is, in some respects, 'knowledge beyond the known'.
Well, there is no proof of any knowledge beyond the known, so till I have some proof of it, I will not waste my time on it.

Okay, so I understand your definition of truth. Now we just have to agree upon it.

You will have to define what 'any knowledge beyond the known' is:

What do you mean by 'any knowledge beyond the known'?

Are you referring to some 'point', "place or time", in existence? Or,

Are you referring to for ever more? Or,

Are you referring to some "unknowable knowledge"?

If you believe that there is no proof of any knowledge beyond the known, (whatever that means to you), how could you ever obtain some proof of "it"?

I have no idea what knowledge beyond the known is because I don't believe in that crap. But a lot of forum users use that term and call it the higher truth or the higher consciousness or whatever. I just assumed you meant that kind of knowledge.

[ken]

And there my friends is the problem. If you believe something before 'exploring', arguing, challenging, etc. any thing, then how would you ever find further knowledge, Truth? If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you.

Sorry. But they are a belief to you. This is a hypothesis which needs proof to me. Prove it, and I will believe it. Till then I will not.

Prove what exactly?

That what 'you' believe is already truth, to you, is that what you want me to prove?

Easy. Name me one thing that you believe and which is not truth, to you.

Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me with the proviso that I might be proved false and need to change my views or plans accordingly.

BUT, even if I do prove that to you, you then said that you will believe it. You are going to defeat the very purpose of what I am trying to achieve with you, i.e., to STOP believing (in) any thing so that you can become more open, so that you then can learn more.

You are assuming that I take everyone of my beliefs to be true. Don't assume things about people.

I can not dispute the last sentence. Do not assume (and believe) is what I have been telling you not to do, from the onset for the reasons I have given.

Are you playing with me here?

Do you really believe what you are saying in the first sentence in this last quote, do you realize what you are actually saying?

The funny thing about the brain is because it is so amazing it can even fool its own self. Self-talk is more powerful than people fully realize yet. EVERY word, EVERY syllable, even EVERY letter we say to our selves has an impact on us.

If, and when, a person says "I believe..." then what they are really saying is that they believe (in) what they are about to say as being true. So, instantly that person (the brain) has just closed them self (its self) off from being able to see and learn more.

If a person, however, changed them self from saying "I believe...(things to be a certain way) " to "I view... (things in a certain way)", then they remain more open to see and learn more.

You do realize, right, that 'you' actually just said one quote back, "Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me..." These are your words about 'you'. You just proved what I have been saying all along AND what you thought I was assuming. Your own statement proves what I already knew.

The reason WHY I am allegedly "assuming" that you take everyone of your beliefs to be true IS because every person takes everyone of their beliefs to be true. Every person is made up of the same things as 'you'. I know 'you' better than you know 'you'. I did not have to assume anything, this IS an already known 'fact', to Me.

This could be getting confusing for some but I will continue by starting again:

ken: If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you.

sth: Sorry. But they are a belief to you. This is a hypothesis which needs proof to me. Prove it, and I will believe it. Till then I will not.

('i', ken, have already explained enough times that i do not have neither beliefs or disbeliefs so i disregarded that you used the word 'belief' in relation to me last time)

ken: Prove what exactly? That what 'you' believe is already truth, to you, is that what you want me to prove? Easy. Name me one thing that you believe and which is not truth, to you.

sth: Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me with the proviso that I might be proved false and need to change my views or plans accordingly.

Besides the very fact that you wanted me to prove what I said, which I have done through your own statement, and the fact that you said you would believe it if I can prove it, which is exactly what I have been saying is not the best thing to do, it STILL appears that you still have not comprehended what I have been trying to express and what has actually been going on here.

If 'you' have a "view", which you believe is assumed to be true, then WHY have that belief in the first place?

Can you see now that there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for believing (in) something that might be able to be proved false anyway?

If something is NOT yet absolute Truth, then WHY oh WHY believe in it, yet?

If something might be right or wrong, then because of the word might is involved, then that is a great indicator that that "view" would be better NOT to be believed in at all.

WHY oh WHY 'believe', assumed to be true, if the Truth is that it might not even be true at all?

The Truth that having and maintaining beliefs and assumptions leads to stupidity whilst disregarding ALL beliefs and assumptions leads to intelligence IS becoming more and more proved here, and thus also becoming more and more obvious to others here. The more beliefs and assumptions one has then the more stupid one becomes whilst the less beliefs and assumptions one has then the more intelligent one becomes, I think.

I used double quotation marks around the word view because if a view is 'believed', assumed to be true, then it is not actually just a view. It has become a belief. Further delving and looking into that may be needed for some but I think it is pretty obvious.

Now, from about the onset I have been saying if people stop believing and assuming, then people can start learning more and anew.

'I', The Mind, (sometimes referred to as God) exist eternally and KNOW ALL things.
'I' exist with-in ALL physical things and create (what is sometimes referred to as the Universe), the way It is NOW, through an evolving-reactionary and evolutionary-creating process, always.

The proof IS already HERE.

That is not proof unfortunately. Those are just statements.

Obviously the first two are just statements.

The proof is IN the third statement. If you are unable to SEE it, then I suggest the best thing to do would be to ask a clarifying question. Something like, WHERE is the proof and/or HOW do i find it? AGAIN, if you just believe or assume everything you say is true, then you can and will never become wiser.

There is no proof of the mind existing eternally independently of the brain. You just make an assumption that it is so.

You just make an assumption that it is not so. You also just make an assumption that I just make an assumption that it is so.

How do you know that I do not KNOW this already?

Instead of making assumptions first and instead asked clarifying questions first, then I could provide answers for clarity. But if you believe otherwise, then there is absolutely no thing that any thing could do to show you. Even evidence and proof can not override a person's belief.

Also you might refer to 'I' the Mind as God. A lot of people do not. I for one also do not.

One person referred the fact that the earth went around the sun. A lot of people did not. You, for one, also probably would not have, also.

There is also no proof that the Mind knows all things.

For you, yet, maybe not. But that in of itself does NOT mean that there is no proof, yet.

That is again an assumption for which no evidence has been given by you.

You said previously, "A hypothesis is something that is in the development stage. It has not been proven. A hypothesis can never ever ever be challenged."

What you are calling "an assumption" here I might start calling 'a hypothesis'. I am not sure how long the development stage should be for 'My' theory/hypothesis to get to final proof stage so that every person can see and understand it, but I am looking in about the order of somewhere between January 5, 2020 and March 14, 2027. I have yet to make the exact date known.

But it best you remember how long it takes some people to stop believing (in) things, for example is the earth flat or not?

I guess one answer to that question could be, "That all depends on what a person believes".

How a person looks at the 'world', things, literally, depends on what they believe. AND,

What a person 'sees', and understands, about the 'world', literally, depends also on what they believe.

There is no proof that 'I' exists within all physical things. There is no proof that it is the 'I' which creates the universe the way it is now. It is your hypothesis for which you have not given any proof.

I have already given proof. Maybe you missed it. Everything HERE and NOW IS proof.

Of course I would not expect you to fully understand this yet, but you will have to wait and SEE. AND, how long you have to wait will depend on how open you.

Some people are already able to SEE, others are NOT. Maybe you are one of those that it may take till the end days.

Some could SEE and UNDERSTAND that the earth revolves the sun much earlier than others. This lapse in "time" between observers is a very natural phenomenon, which is caused by exactly what I have been talking about and showing here in this forum.

There also is no such thing as evolving reactionary and evolutionary-creating process. There is no reference found on any such theory.

If this is 'My' "theory", then there IS obviously already reference to evolving-reactionary and evolutionary-creating process. You yourself have read it, and even quoted it here.

And, because this is 'My' "theory" then there is no rule to how many times or how much and how many changes I make. Re-wording is a necessary part, until I KNOW it is right.

Again, your assumptions/beliefs are misconstruing/confusing what I have actually written and mean. I NEVER said, the Truth of Everything. 'Truth', is just newer, accepted and agreed upon knowledge. Known knowledge of "today" was once 'knowledge beyond the known', once upon a time. All newer knowledge is, in some respects, 'knowledge beyond the known'.

Well, there is no proof of any knowledge beyond the known, so till I have some proof of it, I will not waste my time on it.

You say you will not waste your own time on any knowledge beyond the known till you have some proof of it.

Make sure you read to the end please.

You will have to define what 'any knowledge beyond the known' is:

What do you mean by 'any knowledge beyond the known'?

Are you referring to some 'point', "place or time", in existence? Or,

Are you referring to for ever more? Or,

Are you referring to some "unknowable knowledge"?

If you believe that there is no proof of any knowledge beyond the known, (whatever that means to you), how could you ever obtain some proof of "it"?

I have no idea what knowledge beyond the known is because I don't believe in that crap. But a lot of forum users use that term and call it the higher truth or the higher consciousness or whatever. I just assumed you meant that kind of knowledge.

[/quote]

Why would you assume 'I' meant that kind of knowledge? 'You', "yourself", were the one who brought that term into this discussion.
Conclusion: Your assumption once again led us nowhere.

If you do not believe in that "crap", then WHY bring it up here? 'You', "yourself", were the one who brought that term into this discussion.
Conclusion: Your beliefs once again led us nowhere.

You have just gone full circle. You have NO idea of what a thing is because you do not believe in it. You talk about things, as though they are real and true although you believe they are 'crap', not real and untrue. How much "time" and "energy" are you going to waste here?

Please refrain from saying things that leads to back and forth questioning for clarity when in the end all you are going to say is something like:

'i', sthitapragya, actually have no idea what "it" is that i am actually talking about, even though 'i' was the one who actually brings the "thing" into the discussion."

[sthitapragya]

I can not dispute the last sentence. Do not assume (and believe) is what I have been telling you not to do, from the onset for the reasons I have given.

Are you playing with me here?

i have no clue what you are talking about. Just say it.

Do you really believe what you are saying in the first sentence in this last quote, do you realize what you are actually saying?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The funny thing about the brain is because it is so amazing it can even fool its own self. Self-talk is more powerful than people fully realize yet. EVERY word, EVERY syllable, even EVERY letter we say to our selves has an impact on us.

If you say so. What has this got to do with anything?

If, and when, a person says "I believe..." then what they are really saying is that they believe (in) what they are about to say as being true. So, instantly that person (the brain) has just closed them self (its self) off from being able to see and learn more.

If a person, however, changed them self from saying "I believe...(things to be a certain way) " to "I view... (things in a certain way)", then they remain more open to see and learn more.

You do realize, right, that 'you' actually just said one quote back, "Everything I believe is assumed to be true by me..." These are your words about 'you'. You just proved what I have been saying all along AND what you thought I was assuming. Your own statement proves what I already knew.

What did you know? Just say it. Don't talk in circles. I don't think either one of us has the time.

The reason WHY I am allegedly "assuming" that you take everyone of your beliefs to be true IS because every person takes everyone of their beliefs to be true. Every person is made up of the same things as 'you'. I know 'you' better than you know 'you'. I did not have to assume anything, this IS an already known 'fact', to Me.

Sorry. Then you have not read what I wrote. I said, I assume things to be true WITH THE PROVISO THAT THEY MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE FALSE AND I MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE MY VIEWS AND MY PLANS ACCORDINGLY. The part in the capitals is the important part. Not the first part.

If you believe something, then that is already truth, to you.

No, it is not. It is assumed to be true WITH THE PROVISO THAT IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE FALSE AND I MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE MY VIEWS AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY. biiiiiiigggg difference.

Besides the very fact that you wanted me to prove what I said, which I have done through your own statement, and the fact that you said you would believe it if I can prove it, which is exactly what I have been saying is not the best thing to do, it STILL appears that you still have not comprehended what I have been trying to express and what has actually been going on here.

And I still don't understand what you are trying to say here. Why are you trying to explain it to me with my words? Just do it with yours. What are you trying to say?

If 'you' have a "view", which you believe is assumed to be true, then WHY have that belief in the first place?

This question makes no sense to me. What are you asking?

Can you see now that there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for believing (in) something that might be able to be proved false anyway?

No. If a car is 100 meters away, I will assume that I can cross the street safely. That is a belief. I assume it to be true with the proviso that I might have to change my plans if I am wrong. I start crossing the street. Suddenly the car appears much closer. I realize I was wrong and either step back or sprint across to save my life. My original belief was proved false. I now have a new belief. A car needs to be 200 meters away if I want to cross the street.

If something is NOT yet absolute Truth, then WHY oh WHY believe in it, yet?

Because you cannot live without making certain assumptions. Assumption is a synonym of belief unfortunately.

If something might be right or wrong, then because of the word might is involved, then that is a great indicator that that "view" would be better NOT to be believed in at all.

Not necessarily. When you cross the street, you have to make an assumption about your safety. It might be proved true later. But till then it is an assumption. You cannot get by without beliefs or assumptions which are synonyms.

WHY oh WHY 'believe', assumed to be true, if the Truth is that it might not even be true at all?

Because it just might be true.

The Truth that having and maintaining beliefs and assumptions leads to stupidity whilst disregarding ALL beliefs and assumptions leads to intelligence IS becoming more and more proved here, and thus also becoming more and more obvious to others here. The more beliefs and assumptions one has then the more stupid one becomes whilst the less beliefs and assumptions one has then the more intelligent one becomes, I think.

That is a belief of yours.

'I', The Mind, (sometimes referred to as God) exist eternally and KNOW ALL things.
'I' exist with-in ALL physical things and create (what is sometimes referred to as the Universe), the way It is NOW, through an evolving-reactionary and evolutionary-creating process, always.

The proof IS already HERE.

That is not proof unfortunately. Those are just statements.

Obviously the first two are just statements.

The proof is IN the third statement. If you are unable to SEE it, then I suggest the best thing to do would be to ask a clarifying question. Something like, WHERE is the proof and/or HOW do i find it? AGAIN, if you just believe or assume everything you say is true, then you can and will never become wiser.[/quote]
No, see that is where you play a trick on me. Your theory is important to you. Not to me. I don't care about it. You want to prove it to be true. I don't. i am doing just fine without it. So I have no reason to look for a proof. I would wait for you to provide it because since it is your theory, you need to prove it. It is not my burden to look for proof. It is yours to provide it. Why should I ask a clarifying question? If you have proof, just damn well give it.

There is no proof of the mind existing eternally independently of the brain. You just make an assumption that it is so.

You just make an assumption that it is not so. You also just make an assumption that I just make an assumption that it is so.

How do you know that I do not KNOW this already?

Instead of making assumptions first and instead asked clarifying questions first, then I could provide answers for clarity. But if you believe otherwise, then there is absolutely no thing that any thing could do to show you. Even evidence and proof can not override a person's belief.

There is no need to ask clarifying question. You just should provide the proof of your statements. You are not important to me. Your theory is not important to me. It is important for you to make me approve of it. So why should I bother with finding the proof. Just give it to me if you have it. All of it.

Also you might refer to 'I' the Mind as God. A lot of people do not. I for one also do not.

One person referred the fact that the earth went around the sun. A lot of people did not. You, for one, also probably would not have, also.

That is not important. The person who proved that the earth goes around the sun PROVED IT WITH EVIDENCE. You should do the same with your theory if you want to be taken seriously.

There is also no proof that the Mind knows all things.

For you, yet, maybe not. But that in of itself does NOT mean that there is no proof, yet.

Well,give me the proof. Where is it?

That is again an assumption for which no evidence has been given by you.

You said previously, "A hypothesis is something that is in the development stage. It has not been proven. A hypothesis can never ever ever be challenged."

What you are calling "an assumption" here I might start calling 'a hypothesis'. I am not sure how long the development stage should be for 'My' theory/hypothesis to get to final proof stage so that every person can see and understand it, but I am looking in about the order of somewhere between January 5, 2020 and March 14, 2027. I have yet to make the exact date known.

Well then we will discuss after march 14 2027 when you come out with the proof. Till then it is pointless, isn't it?

But it best you remember how long it takes some people to stop believing (in) things, for example is the earth flat or not?

There is no proof that 'I' exists within all physical things. There is no proof that it is the 'I' which creates the universe the way it is now. It is your hypothesis for which you have not given any proof.

I have already given proof. Maybe you missed it. Everything HERE and NOW IS proof.[/quote]

No it is not. I see no 'I' in a piece of rock. You need to show me the 'I' in the rock.

Of course I would not expect you to fully understand this yet, but you will have to wait and SEE. AND, how long you have to wait will depend on how open you.

Now this is what I was waiting for. This is what all theists do. "you will not fully understand yet" is their escape. You are basically saying that I don't have your intelligence. You are smarter. You can see things better. I am a fool. I have no concepts. I have no understanding. This is typical of all theists. It is the excuse you give when you cannot give proof. Degrade the other person. Put them down. There is nothing else left to do. You wont understand. Classic.

Some people are already able to SEE, others are NOT. Maybe you are one of those that it may take till the end days.

See? What you are saying is, I am better than you. I can see. You cannot. I am special. You are not. This is what your argument boils down to. You are the same as all the others with beliefs. You have beliefs which you are certain are true. You have no proof for them. So you will point to the lower intelligence of others as the reason that they cannot 'see'.

You are exactly what you tried to put down at the beginning. You have very firm and dogmatic beliefs for which you have no proof. You claim you have no beliefs. Unfortunately, my friend, you are exactly like anyone else who believes in an elephant headed God.

[Reflex]

I highly recommend that the author of the OP read Religion is Not About God by professor of philosophy and religion, Loyal Rue.

Yeah. Like that's gonna happen.