God.

[Eodnhoj7]

The deepest God people know is the experience(s) which drive them to act or reflect for experience is the power over all consciousness. The deepest experience one can have is an awareness for by awareness do we know. And this knowledge? It is distinction for all things are by being distinct. Maybe in these respects God is unknowable, but if one makes the distinction of God being unknowable than there is a distinction of God "being unknowable" thus relegating God as not fully beyond grasp for "the unknowable" is a distinction by nature of the limits of knowing.


But to experience...

Can we really fully grasp our experiences? No, and yet their power cannot be doubted without relegating the doubt to the deepest experience of what we know, what we are. Thus what we know is paradox within paradox and from this reality becomes less of a thing in the traditional static sense and more of a process as the thing. If God truly "is" than God is process of transformation, an ineffable reality that makes sense only in accords to appearance and yet of depths so subtle little if anything can be grasped for to simply define God as "He who is" would be to look into and observe "isness" and by "isness" process or transformation becomes evident. Conceptions of God would thus be equivalent to a tool, a raft, by which to transform or traverse reality and upon the transformation or completion of travel effectively be put away or left behind for if knowledge is simply attributed to distinctions, and a distinction "just is", than even knowledge itself becomes a process within the experience of "God".

Given reality is governed by change does God evidence as everpresent through reality where distinctions become images relative to eachother.

[Age]

The deepest God people know is the experience(s) which drive them to act or reflect for experience is the power over all consciousness.

1. There is only One God. There is not a so-called 'deeper God' nor 'shallower God'.

2. Experiences create 'you', 'the person', or 'personality', within a human body, continuously, while the body is breathing, pumping blood, et cetera. Experiences do not 'drive' you people to act or reflect. you are 'driven' by 'the desire to keep living'.

3. Experiences are not some so-called 'power' over all consciousness. Consciousness, Itself, is just aware of all experiences. And, human consciousness is just the awareness in, and from, human bodies.

The deepest experience one can have is an awareness for by awareness do we know.

But, the difference between 'awareness', and, 'Awareness', is already known, but obviously not by 'you', 'the one', here, known as "eodnhoh7".

And this knowledge?

Seemingly absurd statement, and with a question mark at the end of it.

It is distinction for all things are by being distinct. Maybe in these respects God is unknowable, but if one makes the distinction of God being unknowable than there is a distinction of God "being unknowable" thus relegating God as not fully beyond grasp for "the unknowable" is a distinction by nature of the limits of knowing.

Imagine a human 'ego' which has only 'been around' for less than 100 years, compared with an eternal Universe, and the human 'ego' is so blind and stupid that it would actually conclude that some things, like God, for example, are so-called 'unknowable'.

But to experience...

Can we really fully grasp our experiences?

Yes, and very easily so. Quite simply through any or all of the five senses of the human body some 'experiences' are 'gathered', 'collected', and 'stored'.

No, and yet their power cannot be doubted without relegating the doubt to the deepest experience of what we know, what we are.

'you', still, do not yet know what 'we' are. As can be very easily and simply proved True by just asking 'you', 'What are 'we', exactly?'

Thus what we know is paradox within paradox

'you' are, still, not yet even aware of what the word, 'paradox', even means or is even referring to, exactly. And, this is proved True by 'the way' you' use 'that word'.

and from this reality becomes less of a thing in the traditional static sense and more of a process as the thing. If God truly "is" than God is process of transformation, an ineffable reality that makes sense only in accords to appearance and yet of depths so subtle little if anything can be grasped for to simply define God as "He who is" would be to look into and observe "isness" and by "isness" process or transformation becomes evident.

Once again 'we', here, have 'another one' who, laughably, believes that because it has yet to come to know some thing, then 'that thing' is so-called 'unknowable'. 'egos' can, literally, be absolutely blind and closed.

Conceptions of God would thus be equivalent to a tool, a raft, by which to transform or traverse reality and upon the transformation or completion of travel effectively be put away or left behind for if knowledge is simply attributed to distinctions, and a distinction "just is", than even knowledge itself becomes a process within the experience of "God".

Given reality is governed by change does God evidence as everpresent through reality where distinctions become images relative to eachother.

What even is so-called, 'God evidence', exactly?

[Fairy]

There are infinite Gods.

[LuckyR]

There are infinite Gods.

Actually the number of possible gods is determined by the number of believers in gods.

[Fairy]

There are infinite Gods.

Actually the number of possible gods is determined by the number of believers in gods.

Infinity (∞) is not a number in the same way that 1, 2, or 3 are numbers. It represents the concept of something being boundless or without limit, rather than a specific quantity.

Infinite doesn’t mean numerical.

[Age]

There are infinite Gods.

Actually the number of possible gods is determined by the number of believers in gods.

Why?

Does some thing only exist if there is some one believing in 'it'?

[LuckyR]

There are infinite Gods.

Actually the number of possible gods is determined by the number of believers in gods.

Why?

Does some thing only exist if there is some one believing in 'it'?

It does for entities that exist inter-subjectively.

[Age]

Actually the number of possible gods is determined by the number of believers in gods.

Why?

Does some thing only exist if there is some one believing in 'it'?

It does for entities that exist inter-subjectively.

Well considering you are not answering the actual question I posed, and asked you, you are revealing, maybe accidentally, what the actual Truth is, here.

[Fairy]

Gods Immortal Love.

“ What can you say about leaving a place you loved? All the memories. All the experiences. It can be heartbreaking until the excitement takes over. Because you soon realize you get to make new memories, have new experiences, and best of all, fall in love all over again.” Lois Lane

[Fairy]

“The reason I know how much Superman loves humanity is that he’s not just someone I report on, he’s everything to me, he’s the love of my life, the father of my sons. John, Superman is my husband.” — Lois Lane

“A good marriage isn't something you find; it's something you make.”

My father and I are one.

[Eodnhoj7]

There are infinite Gods.

Infinity is the God that allows all others.

[Eodnhoj7]

There are infinite Gods.

Actually the number of possible gods is determined by the number of believers in gods.

Infinity (∞) is not a number in the same way that 1, 2, or 3 are numbers. It represents the concept of something being boundless or without limit, rather than a specific quantity.

Infinite doesn’t mean numerical.

Actually is can be argued that all numbers are infinite sequences as they reappear in other numbers.

Dually all mountable numbers are merely 1 recursively occuring as sets that allow the other numbers, 2 or 3 or 342 to occur.

Dually the space between each number is infinite: 1.1, 1.11, 1.111., etc. with all fractions being fractals of 1.

[Fairy]

There are infinite Gods.

Infinity is the God that allows all others.

Yes.

Let’s just assume you are God, and so are you and you and you etc…

[Fairy]

Actually the number of possible gods is determined by the number of believers in gods.

Infinity (∞) is not a number in the same way that 1, 2, or 3 are numbers. It represents the concept of something being boundless or without limit, rather than a specific quantity.

Infinite doesn’t mean numerical.

Actually is can be argued that all numbers are infinite sequences as they reappear in other numbers.

Dually all mountable numbers are merely 1 recursively occuring as sets that allow the other numbers, 2 or 3 or 342 to occur.

Dually the space between each number is infinite: 1.1, 1.11, 1.111., etc. with all fractions being fractals of 1.

If that’s how you see it, then okay.

For me, numbers are imagined. Sequences are projected movements within perfect stillness.

[Eodnhoj7]

Infinity (∞) is not a number in the same way that 1, 2, or 3 are numbers. It represents the concept of something being boundless or without limit, rather than a specific quantity.

Infinite doesn’t mean numerical.

Actually is can be argued that all numbers are infinite sequences as they reappear in other numbers.

Dually all mountable numbers are merely 1 recursively occuring as sets that allow the other numbers, 2 or 3 or 342 to occur.

Dually the space between each number is infinite: 1.1, 1.11, 1.111., etc. with all fractions being fractals of 1.

If that’s how you see it, then okay.

For me, numbers are imagined. Sequences are projected movements within perfect stillness.

All is imagined for the reality of you touching a table is but a past image within your mind. The everpresent now is but a flow, illusory by degree of imperananence, what we considering real experience results in thought by which to transcribe it for thought is how the flow of now is transforms.