Philosophy Now Forum

My personal answer to this OP question is..

You are God. You are God dreaming / imagining it is a man or a woman, or a person, or just about every conceivable thing thought about. There’s nothing outside of that “You” arena, because it’s infinite in scope. It’s all You. This is all your dream.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am Age, discussion with you is lost on me, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say to me in your last 3 replies.

Okay, but I sensed this from you way before just the last three replies.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am Call me lost and confused for all intents and purposes because quite frankly it’s a compliment.

Okay.

you are lost and confused, here.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am I continue to not understand a single word you say to me.

Okay, but if you, really, can not understand a 'single word', I say, to you, then does that say more about 'me', or 'you'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am Discussing with you is likened to chewing my way through a packet of broken bits of glass flavoured crisps.

But, here you are, continuing to do so.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am It’s tedious.

Okay.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am You’ll never change,

Am 'I' meant to, for 'you'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am so it’s hardly likely we’ll ever see eye to eye on anything philosophical.

If this is what you what to think or believe, then this is perfectly fine with me. But, do you think or believe that it is also hardly likely we will ever see so-called 'eye to eye' on other things non 'philosophical?

And, by the way, what do 'you' mean by 'philosophical', here?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:13 am But then I could be wrong about that of course.

In regards to 'this thread', and this thread's heading, I have just answered the question.

What God is, is the One Universe, Itself, which is visible.

Who God is, is the One Mind, Itself. which is invisible, to the human eyes.

Now, if you can not, or do not want to, comprehend and understand this, then that is all well and good. But, if you would like to even just try to understand it more, here, then you know 'we' can have an open, and peaceful, discussion without fighting over who's views are Right, and who's are Wrong.

I know I can back up, support, and prove my views, here, fully. I can also explain things in 'a way' that could be comprehended and understood, fully, as well.

“Now, if you can not, or do not want to, comprehend and understand this, then that is all well and good. But, if you would like to even just try to understand it more, here, then you know 'we' can have an open, and peaceful, discussion without fighting over who's views are Right, and who's are Wrong.”

I don’t actually need to understand certain views because I already know I am creating all misunderstandings and so I’m happy and delighted to inform you that I embrace and accept these failures unconditionally.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:33 am In a nutshell Age, I personally don’t understand your chosen method of communication skills.

And, 'which way' is my 'chosen way', exactly?

Also, and by the way, as I have said and explained many times, before, what I am communicating is not necessarily to be understood by 'the peoples', in the day when this is being written.

What I am writing, and communicating, is for 'those' who are Truly Open, Honest, and who seriously Want to change, for the better.

So, in other words, when, and if, any one of you adult human beings becomes Truly Honest, Open, and Want to change, for the better, then that is HOW my 'chosen method of communication' will become much better, and fully, understood.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:33 am The way you communicate with me is completely lost on me and is way beyond my usual personal comprehension skills to be honest.

There is nothing at all for me to disagree with you, here.

But, remember I have suggested, before, that if one wants to Truly learn, comprehend, and/or, understand more, and/or anew, then HOW to do this is by not assuming nor believing absolutely any thing, at all, while being Truly curios to learn more, and the best way to do this is by being Truly Open, which is done by being absolutely Honest.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:33 am I’ve tried to get on a level with you, but it’s obvious that I’m failing to do that every time we speak.

Have you considered trying another method?

And I would certainly not say 'every time we speak'.

Remember I say that you are on a 'deeper', or 'higher', level of understanding than me sometimes, and i sometimes do have trouble trying to get to 'your level' as well.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:33 am Anyways, I’ll endeavour to try to understand what you are talking about. I’ll persevere, but I’m not going to hold my breath that I’ll one day suddenly understand your communicating skills when conversing with me in particular.

If you do not mind me sharing a piece of insight, with you, after nearly 20 years of trying to explain these things with some one, and getting relatively absolutely nowhere, that one had a couple of 'ahha' moments, split seconds of inspiration, or epiphanies, and now they are not just listening, but they are actually comprehending, and understanding.

Prior to 'those moments' they 'hated' what I was saying, and especially 'my method' of communicating as well, and the 'hatred', or annoyance, would not have been any less than the posters, here, have.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:41 am My personal answer to this OP question is..

You are God.

Great, now 'we' can have a discussion.

When you say and use the word 'you', here, what do you actually mean?

As I have stated before when the 'you' word is used there can be a connotation of 'another', which is some thing 'we' both know, at the very deepest and fundamental, level of things is not True.

Also, when you use the 'you' word, here, are you referring to 'me', the one known as "age" in this forum, or to some one/thing else?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:41 am You are God dreaming / imagining it is a man or a woman, or a person, or just about every conceivable thing thought about.

But, God would not and does not dream. For the very simple fact that It would not have to. Being Aware, and Conscious, of any and every thing, there is no need to 'dream', let alone any need nor want to actually do it.

To me anyway, it is 'the thoughts' within human bodies that 'dream'.

And, as for you human beings calling, and labelling, "yourselves" as a 'man', a 'woman', a "Christian", a "jew", a "doctor", a "garbage truck driver", a "mother", a "son", an "american", an "eqyptian", or any other of the conceivable things, then 'I' have totally agreed with 'you', (although you have missed this), that those 'things' are not actually 'real things' and never could be.

As continually keep 'pointing out' 'they' are just illusory things.

However, as for a 'person', then, to me, a 'person' is just the, invisible, thoughts and emotions within an individual human body.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 8:41 am There’s nothing outside of that “You” arena, because it’s infinite in scope. It’s all You. This is all your dream.

Again, the word 'you' implies an 'other', of which there is absolutely none.

The word, 'I', by itself, however, implies One, and not 'another'.

The question has been answered.

Nothing more to say.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 12:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 11:09 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:02 pm Who? What Is God?

God is whatever you make him/her/it to be...

-Imp

Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

take a second step

-Imp

'that''s' obvious How? why?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 11:29 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 12:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 11:09 am

Well 'this' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

take a second step

-Imp

'that''s' obvious How?

Because a 'Thing' can, obviously, only be what it is.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 11:29 am why?

Because a 'Thing' is not whatever anyone says it is.A 'Thing: is what it is.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:48 am The question has been answered.

Nothing more to say.

Okay, but 'which answer' is the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct answer?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:04 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:48 am The question has been answered.

Nothing more to say.

Okay, but 'which answer' is the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct answer?

Who will answer. What will answer?

Philosophy is about how we think about questions like this. Not about finding THE answer.

We can document about the last 4000 years of pondering this question. Don't you think if there was AN answer we would have cone up with it by now? The best we can hope for is OUR answer, and more important, understanding the assumptions we have made to get there. If you think you have a solution by logical argument from assumptions youn expect all to accept,I have a bridge to sell you.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:36 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:04 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:48 am The question has been answered.

Nothing more to say.

Okay, but 'which answer' is the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct answer?

Who will answer. What will answer?

God, or you human beings. through human bodies or matter.

Also, not how I answer questions, whereas you do not.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:45 pm Philosophy is about how we think about questions like this. Not about finding THE answer.

Is 'this' and irrefutable Fact? Or, just your opinion?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:45 pm We can document about the last 4000 years of pondering this question. Don't you think if there was AN answer we would have cone up with it by now?

'We', or 'I', have.

Did you not see THE answer above, here?

God is the Universe, Itself.

God is the Mind, Itself.

And, THIS answer is irrefutable.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:45 pm The best we can hope for is OUR answer, and more important, understanding the assumptions we have made to get there.

Once more for the slow of learning, remove the assumptions and beliefs, become and remain Truly open, and then you can and will find and see the actual irrefutable Truth of things.

And, to prove if AN answer is THE Fact, and thus irrefutably True, or not, just takes people challenging and questioning 'the one' claiming it has THE answer.

Now, I claim I have THE answer, here, to who and what God is, exactly. Does absolutely any poster, here, have the ability, and courage, to challenge and question me over my claim, and answer, here?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:45 pm If you think you have a solution by logical argument from assumptions youn expect all to accept,I have a bridge to sell you.

If any one thinks that they have a so-called 'solution', or proof, which comes from 'assumptions', then that one has obviously missed 'the mark', completely.

Why would any one even begin that they could find irrefutable Truths, properly and Correctly, by starting from 'assumptions', of all things.

you can only find what is actually irrefutably True, and know that It is irrefutably so, by starting from what is actually irrefutably True, only, and only 'looking at' what is actually irrefutably True, alone.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 2:51 pm

Also, not how I answer questions, whereas you do not.

Wot

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 2:59 pm you can only find what is actually irrefutably True, and know that It is irrefutably so, by starting from what is actually irrefutably True, only, and only 'looking at' what is actually irrefutably True, alone.

LOL --- even logic itself has "assumptions". If you had ever taken "symbolic logic" you would realize that even it had "axioms"

Once upon a time (pre 19th Century) it was assumed that the axioms of the formal systems in use (geometry, numbers, etc.) were self evident truths. Only then did people begin trying to prove that. The method was replace one or more axioms with a "silly" alternative, hoping to prove the result would be nonsense. Surprise, the result was simply a different formal system, otherwise consistent (and in some cases useful).

So what I am saying is with a question like this the project is to IDENTIFY what you call "irrefutably True, and know that It is irrefutably so, by starting from what is actually irrefutably True, only, and only 'looking at' what is actually irrefutably True, alone. I am calling these your axioms. Might I humbly suggest if they really were "irrefutably true" you should easily be able to convince me of that. Or shouldn't really ave to.

But if you mean "irrefutably true" because you believe them so and when challenged I can't DISPROVE them, that's another kettle of fish. Sorry, the burden of proof is the other way round. With your idea of where burden of proof lies, way, I could disprove JUST by stating the contrary as "irrefutable truth", yours then not true by contradiction, and because now me making the truth claim, you'd have to try to mine.