Philosophy Now Forum

Asking who created God is a category fallacy.

It would be like asking who created the very first human being.

There are no answers only questions.

And the reason there are only questions is because questions cannot arise without an answer, so we already have all the answers. We are the answer.

The totality of all that is - does not need to inquire. For it already IS complete and whole in every instant.

Inquiries are within the illusory dream of separation, the forgetting and remembering of what is already known. It's the play of the one, pretending to be the many.

- where every opening is simultaneously a closing, and every beginning is an ending; all is clear, and at the same time opaque...

Any questions?

Thrones are built for assholes.

There is only the Beloved. Bum on seat = Beloved.
Be silent, be still, and know that I am God.



A lesson in self-governing self-sufficiency..

The Lion wants courage, yet routinely conquers fear. The Scarecrow wants a brain, yet is cleverest of them all. The Woodman wants a heart, and is already the most caring. And Dorothy already has the means to get home right there on her feet. The Wizard, the savior, is a fraud; he was unnecessary all along. No further inquiry nescessary. No need to put the 'word' in ''word of mouth''.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:20 pm Asking who created God is a category fallacy.

This is because the answer is not a 'who' but rather a 'what'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:20 pm It would be like asking who created the very first human being.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:31 am

This is because the answer is not a 'who' but rather a 'what'.

A creator implies a 'thing' a 'causer thing'

There's simply no knowledge of such a thing.

There's simply 'what is' ...is 'what is'

Thoughts weave 'what is' into time,and a story.

Any conceptualising of it is simply the story of it.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:08 am

What do you think is better? No answers/arguments; or wrong answers/arguments?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:53 am What do you think is better? No answers/arguments; or wrong answers/arguments?

I don't mind. Nothing is excluded from the noise that is heard as words.. As far as I am aware, only ignorance is original.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:37 am I don't mind. Nothing is excluded from the noise that is heard as words.. As far as I am aware, only ignorance is original.

Well, duh! Originally all we had was ignorance.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:39 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:37 am I don't mind. Nothing is excluded from the noise that is heard as words.. As far as I am aware, only ignorance is original.

Well, duh! Originally all we had was ignorance.

If we had it, then we would have known. So we couldn't have had it and been ignorant that we had it.

Because only ignorance is original. There is no copyright on ignorance.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:31 am

This is because the answer is not a 'who' but rather a 'what'.

A creator implies a 'thing' a 'causer thing'

Agreed.

And that 'thing/causer' of God, as I was saying and pointing out, is a 'what' and not a 'who'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:52 amThere's simply no knowledge of such a thing.

Well how do I ALREADY KNOW such a thing?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:52 amThere's simply 'what is' ...is 'what is'

Again, OBVIOUSLY.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:52 amThoughts weave 'what is' into time,and a story.

So why 'think' then?

I prefer to, just, KNOW, instead.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:52 amAny conceptualising of it is simply the story of it.

If you say and 'think' so.

By the way, what, EXACTLY, is the 'it' here, which you are referring to and talking about?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:34 am
By the way, what, EXACTLY, is the 'it' here, which you are referring to and talking about?

A word.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:34 am
By the way, what, EXACTLY, is the 'it' here, which you are referring to and talking about?

A word.

So, to you, any conceptualising of 'a word' is simply the story of 'a word', correct?

Also, were you really expecting ANY one to guess what, exactly, you were referring to and talking about here?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:04 pm

So, to you, any conceptualising of 'a word' is simply the story of 'a word', correct?

Yes, words are a form of language, which is like a knowledge, which is like a story. A word, any word is just an 'idea' that becomes materialised within the unknowable, in other words, a 'word' is a known image of the imageless.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:04 pmAlso, were you really expecting ANY one to guess what, exactly, you were referring to and talking about here?

No, I do not expect -

Readers here, are free to make up their own mind about what they read and how they choose to interpret what they are reading.

.