Looks like that one thread sunk into the bowels of Totse. Oh well, I wanted to start my own anyway. Heres the best explanation of my concept of God I could muster ... and no, I haven't been working on it this whole time I've been absent. I wrote the majority of this today.

Everyone, please feel free to present an argument. But for the sake of discussion, lets keep things in layman's terms ... this means you Hare.


* * * * *
God is the absolute truth, and the allness and oneness of 'reality'.
* * * * *


With few exceptions, the definitions of God used by atheists and most religious theists are not only incomplete and often misunderstood, but are also based solely upon assumptions. To atheists, the absence of 'known truth' is what makes these definitions seem so obviously false (or at least seem to lack logical reason for belief).

Some atheists see belief in these definitions as the keystones of the various religious elites ability's to manipulate society, and should be eliminated for the good of all. I agree with part of this, that organized religion is a tyrannic system used to manipulate society to the ends of selfish individuals. I too disagree with the authoritarian way most religions dictate 'truth' to the masses, as spirituality and an understanding of reality should be an individuals to discover and grow for themselves. Organized religions are corrupt and push us apart instead of uniting us.

All to obviously, however, I am not an atheist. I do not lack a belief in God. No, I do not believe in any one of the various definitions of God atheists also lack belief in, but in my opinion these definitions are not true representations of God. The God I write of is not based solely on assumptions, but is all that can be known to be true.

I believe that the God I write of is much more similar to the understanding of reality that individually spiritual people had thousands of years ago, then to the definitions used by the corrupt religions which such understandings have developed into over the ages by the manipulation of selfish individuals. Religion should unite us in peace and aid the individual in discovering an understanding of reality and the true meaning of God, but do quite the opposite.

Atheists lack a belief in God (the Christian God, for example) because they have not experienced any evidence of such a Gods existence. During a discussion, a Christian might claim the bible as being evidence of their definition of God. And an atheist would then state that the bible cannot be known to be true either, there is no logical reason to believe the bible, and therefore still no reason to believe in God.

Some atheists go so far as to call theists insane people for buying into a false reality without a logical reason. But is their really a solid line running between true and false? Reality, and illusion?

A man lives in an insane asylum. All day long he sits in a padded cell which, from his perspective, is always filled with 5 other people with different, unique personalities, and who never stop bothering him and never leave the room. There is a sixth person he knows of, who visits the room to give him medication everyday. From her perspective, she is the only other person in the room besides the man she gives medication to. She believes the man to be insane and experiencing illusions, a false reality. The nurse leaves the room and continues on her daily tasks, completely unaware that the insane man, her daily routine and every experience she has ... are all actually illusions, and she herself lives completely insane in a padded cell.

An atheist is right when making the claim that there is no reason to believe the Christian God is true, when they have had no experiences of such and no reason to believe the bible. They cannot know its real. But why stop there? They cannot know the theist they are arguing with actually exists, or is an illusion. Why not question the world which appears to be around them, the reality which appears to be true? What is the difference?

If asked this, the atheist may reply “...because I am experiencing this, I have memories and life lessons, I just know it.” They would feel much like the 'insane' man in the story above, or the nurse who thought he existed. Obviously, we cannot know if what we experience is reality or illusion, we just believe our experiences to be one or the other.

At this point, an individual realizing the actual extent of their knowledge may begin to wonder what they really do know to be reality, what they can know to be absolutely true. They cannot know experiences to be real or to be illusions to a true reality. But obviously, they know of their existence. They know that 'I AM' ... but not the validity of any experiences.

What is 'I AM'? 'I AM' is recognition of existence, of being. The experiences of this being can still not be known to be true or illusory, all that can be known to be true is the beings simple existence. Therefore simply 'being' is absolute truth.

When making the assumptions that certain experiences are true (such as the memories of living a life) how do we determine that other experiences are illusions? By comparing them with what we already know (or believe we know) is true. An example of this is the nurse assuming that the man in the padded cell had illusions, because she believed she knew what was real, and did not experience what he did. With this new understanding of the extent of knowledge and absolute truth, what happens when we use the same method of comparison to determine if any experience is reality or illusion?

As simply 'being' is absolute truth, all experiences would be compared to it. And as simply 'being' is without experience, all experiences become illusions to this absolute truth ... including the experience of knowing 'I AM'. Experience is the veil which surrounds the absolute truth of simply 'being'.

Now the reader may be asking themselves questions such as “If there is only one absolute truth and nothing else can be known, what is the point of all this? Why is Obbe blathering on and on to those he thinks of as illusions? Hell, if absolute truth is simply 'being' and experience is illusory to that truth, then why am I experiencing such a complex illusion in the first place?”

Because simply 'being' is also all. It is not only 'oneness' but also 'allness' ... or rather, the two mean the same thing. To experience is purpose of existence, and the experience of this existence is just one minuscule cog along the infinite wheel of all.

You experience. Without experience, existence would begin and end at simply 'being', with only awareness of nothing. So we experience out experiences, but often fail to see the oneness we share with such experiences. We make assumptions that what we experience is entirely separate from ourselves, our 'being'. But I believe what we experience are different perspectives of all, for this 'being' to have.

Under the assumption that separate things exist, one could also assume (using what is known to be true) that if these things were to have their own perspectives, all that they too could truly know is the same as what you do. Assuming that another person exists, although that cannot be known, it is logical that the absolute truth would be the same to them. That all they could possibly know to be true, is 'I AM'. They would not be able to know you exist, anymore then you know they do. Thats an assumption, an illusion to the absolute truth.

But you can imagine their perspective of reality, even if their existence is only an illusion to the absolute truth. How are you and the other 'one'? Because the absolute truth of your perspectives would be the same. Beneath all illusions, they are as you are; simply being. All they are is another perspective for this 'being' to have, just as you are (as in your ego). Things we define as being 'unaware', what is their ... "perspective"? Awareness of nothing, simply being.

All things you can imagine or assume to exist would share this 'being'. From each of their own perspectives, all is illusion compared with what is known. Each of these perspectives, in the heat of truth, boil down to simply being. As I have said before, all comes forth from and reverts back to the absolute truth. This is the allness that is simply 'being'. This is the oneness that is simply 'being'. This is God.

When assuming experiences to be true our oneness becomes allness. Assuming your body to be real, are you actually and individual, or a collection of individual cells? Are they actually individuals, or are they created by smaller things? Even planck length can be divided into 'half a planck', 'quarter planck' and so on. We are the infinite, and we collectively create the infinite as well ... one human is a very small part of all possible perspectives of this world-line, of all possible perspectives of all possible world-lines ... of all ad infinitum.

God is the absolute truth, the allness and oneness that is simply 'being'. Ultimately there are no 'illusions' and there is no 'truth' ... simply, all is all.

Though this "I am" view of reality has it's fair hold on what divinity is, it's lack of understanding illusion from reality holds it from attaining true knowledge.

I agree that everything is perpetuated from the omniscience and omnipotence of the source-- but to say all is all is a bit of an overstatement-- all is part of the source-- but being part of something does not mean that it is that something.

We are all part of a higher awareness: you can call it "god", the universe, the one, the creator; all different words for the same meaning. But we are not the source, we are not "god", we are not the creator. You seem to hold onto the illusion that you are "god", you are the all knowing all powerful awareness. Unfortunately we are not "god", we are all just integrals of "god"; for without the source we would not exist; you take away the universe and you take away reality.

Though this "I am" view of reality has it's fair hold on what divinity is, it's lack of understanding illusion from reality holds it from attaining true knowledge.

True knowledge? What is that?

But we are not the source, we are not "god", we are not the creator. You seem to hold onto the illusion that you are "god", you are the all knowing all powerful awareness. Unfortunately we are not "god", we are all just integrals of "god"; for without the source we would not exist; you take away the universe and you take away reality.

The personality, physical body and life experiences believed to be 'you' is not the 'being' I describe. That which experiences the above, is. It is also all.

Everything is contained within everything.

True knowledge? What is that?

Knowledge directed from within.

The personality, physical body and life experiences believed to be 'you' is not the 'being' I describe. That which experiences the above, is. It is also all.

I understand what you described-- you are describing the source. You are saying everything is the source, everything is "god". I'm implying everything is a part of the source, everything is derived from the source, but each being is not the source itself.


Everything is contained within

I agree somewhat, but theres also the need for exterior guidance to bring out what is within.

Everyone, please feel free to present an argument.

Does this mean that you're opting out of a 1-on-1 Kiko-moderated formal debate as outlined in this thread (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2074348)?

What is the criteria that must be satisfied to say that something exists and how did you learn of this criteria?

It seems to me that whether we accept all or part of your definition of God, it will always end up as either a hollow word or an entity whose existence is near impossible to prove. To begin with, if anyone accepts the strictest definition of knowledge, i.e. definite awareness that X is the case instead of Y, where Y is everything but X, which it seems to me that you do, then whether or not God is all and one in any meaningful sense cannot be known. For it is just as possible that those things perceived are really many and separate, rather than one object or process. With this being the case, ‘God’ becomes nothing but a nomenclature for everything that was, is or will be. In other words, it merely becomes the word ‘universe’ (a word that does not necessitate monism) dressed up and is hollow.

Now when one speaks of absolute truth, another element of your God, it is often in contrast to relative truth. In fact, it doesn’t really make sense to speak of absolute truth without also speaking of relative truth, when you can simply speak of truth-without-distinction instead. The two terms are really codependent on one another, for they are elements of a single distinction. With this being the case, the notion of absolute truth is paradoxically dependent upon the notion of relative truth and is therefore relative to relative truth. Your God, then, is relative to a paradoxical distinction and disappears if the distinction disappears, which it does instantaneously, leaving you with either relative truth or truth-without-distinction. You could say God is truth-without-distinction, but isn’t truth-without-distinction dependent upon truth-with-distinction and therefore relative? You can see how paradoxical things become when you begin to speak of absolute truth, can you not? And so your God is far from being unproblematic. Rather, it is a problematic element of a distinction found within the western philosophic tradition.

You do not seem to take into account how much baggage is carried along by the notion of truth, and in speaking of this baggage, I risk engaging in the relativist-paradox (I am sure BrokeProphet shall accuse me of deconstruction for my play on the slippage of binaries :p). Truth has traditionally been about correspondence, the matching of a concept with an ontological fact, the unveiling and acquisition of said fact’s being or essence. But where did such a notion as being come from? I would like to illustrate this with the Cartesian image of fire melting wax. To begin with, the wax is solid and smells of honey. But when it is placed near the fireplace, the wax becomes gooey and loses any scent of honey it ever had. Now the curiosity here is that we have two completely different entities - one has the qualities of solidity and scent, the other the qualities of being expandable and scentless - and yet we assume that there is some underlying ‘essence’, so to speak, which allows us to believe they are the same thing, as indicated by them both being subsumed under the term ‘wax’. I believe that this assumption of substance finds its origin in language: nouns necessitate continuities, enduring undercurrents, pauses and stops. These fixed concepts made possible the birth of substance, or being, that is, the fixed undercurrent of properties required before you can (A) say something is an entity, and (B) subsume it under a genus or species. The sign abstracts from its referents, ignoring all deemed ‘unimportant’ or an ‘accident’. The more referents it has, the more hollow it becomes. Being, then, being that which all existents supposedly have, is the hollowest of all signs. After all, saying ‘Jack kissed Alice’ will never give you the passion of the experience itself, let alone saying ‘a being kissed a being’, or ‘a being touched a being’.

In the strictest sense, it cannot be known whether this notion of truth is true, for it is possible that being is simply the mistaken projection of language onto experience. Yet whether or not being is real or a mere word, ‘changes’ and flows are very real, whether or not they are the mere flowing of your illusions. Of course, if they really are illusions, then you’re simply left with them and language (parole and langue), and you cannot say God is anything but a mere sign, a hollow linguistic unit. Of course, you can always accept that your definition of knowledge is self-denying (isn’t it possible that knowledge is something else altogether?), but then you would have to entirely reconstruct your ‘argument’ for God. Saying that, I’ve never seen you really give any argument but ‘all is being’, which no more proves all is one than saying ‘all is red’.

I am not saying that anything can be known other then 'I AM'. In may be possible that all perceived experiences are vast and separate, it may be possible that all is one, neither can be known. However, when comparing any experience to absolute truth, which is the simple existence of the observer of the experience, that experience becomes an illusion to what is already known to be true. For example if I perceive Henry, he may not actually exist. Compared with what I know is true reality, simple existence, my experience of Henry is an illusion to simply existing. If we assume the perspective of the experience, it too would not be able to know anything more to be absolutely true then its own existence ... and to it, you would be an illusion. For example, Henry would only known his own existence to be true, and would never be sure if I am an illusion or not. Again, I am not saying this can be known, but that it is a logical conclusion.

The infinite number of perspectives which make up 'reality' all boil down to simply being. As time and space are but mere illusory experiences to this absolute truth, thats all these different viewpoints on reality become; different perspectives for this simple 'being' to have, different possible perceptions of a limited portion of all. This concept of God is no more hollow then any word, but represents a very complex idea not justifiably summarized by the term 'universe'. “The Universe” represents the summation of all the galaxies you could possibly see by looking though a telescope in this world-line. God means 'oneness' in that it is the absolute truth, and allness in that it is also all possibilities. Even alternate world-lines and realities unimaginable from your current perspective. God is the oneness of all and the allness of one, because all things would need simply 'being' to be, and no experience can ever be known to be 'true'.

Knowing that 'I AM' is absolutely true is dependent on relative truths, but simply 'being' is absolutely true independent of experience. It is true that the sun will rise tomorrow, under the assumption that my past experiences are true. The statement 'the sun will rise' is only true in relation to those experiences and the experience of it rising. I cannot be sure those experiences are actually true or not, so the statement 'the sun will rise' is not absolutely true, it is relative. The observers own existence is all that the observer can be sure of, can actually know. The observers experience of knowing this, of recognizing it and simply 'knowing' it is relative to having experiences and realizing that the reality of them cannot be known. But what that knowledge is representing is the observers simple existence, the observers 'being' which is absolutely true without relation to anything, even the experience of self-recognition.

'Change' cannot be known to be more real than any other experience ... you cannot know if the experience of change is real or illusory. But under our logical assumption that all possible perspectives are one, based on absolute truth, it is logical to assume that 'change' is the end of one perspective and the beginning of another. Of course 'God' is just a word, a representation of an idea which can never be known to be true. But it is a concept always reflecting back on what is absolutely true, and the assumptions we can make based on that. All may be red, but that would mean you have to know you are red. You cannot know that. But you can know, 'I AM'.

You begin by saying that it cannot be known if other people cannot know anything but Cogito Ergo Sum, but that it can be logically deduced. Yet within the paradigm of knowing in the strictest sense, it cannot even be known if this is a “logical” argument. You demonstrate this yourself because you used induction to arrive at your conclusion, which is always circular to the deep-felt pang of the modern scientist. Furthermore, logic requires inferences from given premises. In the mind, it may be said that the movement from minor premise to the major premise to the conclusion is temporal. With no way of objectively measuring duration, of objectively knowing how much time has passed, you may have given the argument ten years ago, and since memory is so easily misled, you cannot know if you are remembering right or if the argument is invalid and you have not learned logic properly. There may even be a deceiving demon tricking you into thinking logic gives right inferences. This is why René Descartes made the Cogito an assertion without premises apparently self-evident to whoever hears it. And for reasons I have given, I do not believe Descartes gets beyond the Cogito: he himself admits that although things perceived clearly and distinctly are true, memory is fallible without God, yet he fails to realize that a moment may fall away so quick it becomes memory instantaneously. In short, with such a definition of knowledge, everything including the notion of knowledge itself is mere conjecture and one may only make mere assumptions. You realize this to an extent, but I do not believe you have carried it as far as it may go. I believe it can be applied to being and the Cogito itself.

If I may, I would like to point out again that your notions of being, of existence, of knowledge, of the self, of absolute truth, are all determined and, to an extent, preconditioned, both historically and linguistically. Certainly, within the paradigm of knowing in the strictest sense, this is mere conjecture but it is nevertheless a distinct possibility, unless you want us to say “prove it” to one another repetitively, and so it calls being and the Cogito into question. As I have said in my previous post, which I believe you failed to address, but then you did say “Of course 'God' is just a word, a representation of an idea which can never be known to be true”, making me wonder to what extent the point of your post is, since there we agree, the notion of absolute truth you are using is codependent on the notion of relative truth and is therefore itself relative, the notion of being can be seen as an illusion rising out of the linguistic unit, the notion of existence has historically been severed to being, reapplied to being, etc. etc., and is so downright complicated within the field of ontology that to assert such a conditioned notion with certainty within the definition of knowledge you are using is share absurdity, as absurd as denying the notion of existence, which I am admitting is a possibility within your definition of knowledge. Essentially, you notion of the Cogito may be dependent on the linguistic convention of “I”. All that may be are flows indistinguishable from “yourself”, flows which are perceived whether real or illusory, but to make the distinction between real and illusion is already radical within your definition. To even assert time is an illusion is radical. In short, you have not responded to my criticisms as such, you have merely regurgitated your opinions, but in doing so, you have barely admitted that within your definition of knowledge, they are mere conjectures, although you do say so to an extent, and I think you should shut up and stop talking about your dumb notion of God or reject your notion of knowledge, because within it you have no deep insight, you merely have ramblings. This post is evidence of that, is it not?

More than can be understood, managed, existent, followed, known, explained, or transferred by anything but itself?

This is why within the depths of a human being is the natural state of knowing One to be: we are incapable of understanding even ourselves, managing even ourselves, existing even by ourselves, following even ourselves, explaining even ourselves, or transferring even ourselves. We require the assistance of outside resources guiding us down paths we cannot imagine of our own power in order to understand, manage, exist, follow, know, explain, or transfer.

As a group, we do have some degree of power, but as an individual entity, we have no real power - we do not exist as individual entities. We are born and raised, not self creating and inerrant in our ways. Each one of us, both our physical and spiritual being, is being lead down a path by forces far greater than our individual comprehension - least of which being the totality of humanity. More than our own societies, we are lead about by godly traits: Compassion, Love, Forgiveness, Mercy, Tolerance, Equality, Freedom, Happiness.

Societies are not compassionate; they punish those that are not understood. They are not loving; they hate those that oppose them. They are not forgiving; their rivalries are endless. They are not merciful; law gives no break to he who seeks to change his ways. They are not tolerant; they segregate by innate and chosen differences. They are not equal; the rich are treated like gods, the poor like slaves. They are not free; everything has a price, be it material or emotional...but nothing is given without an expectation. They are not happy; society is a group struggle to overcome itself by its own power, bringing nothing but miserable failure.

The totality of humanity, being society, is selfish and destructive; full of desire, full of anguish, full of separation from the Spirit. This is the easiest of things to follow, as it brings the most instant relief from troubles. When you are angry, you strike out; when you are hurt, you seek vengeance; when you are sad, you seek pleasure; when you are glad, you seek self-destruction; when afraid, you seek shelter. You receive all there is to receive and throw it away because you see only that which others tell you is good.

Above this horrifying leader is a limitless consciousness that many call God - it GIVES our ability to break free from the mold society has pressed us into and be child-like once again. We do, not because we desire, but because This Is The Way Things Are.

The Lover loves not for the gain of pleasure, but for the love of Love; the Singer sings not for the gain of praise, but for the love of Song; the Writer writes not for the gain of intrigue, but for the love of Thought; the Painter paints not for the gain of mystique, but for the love of Art; the Cleaner cleans not for the gain of thanks, but for the love of Cleanliness; the Speaker speaks not for the gain of attention, but for the love of Tongue; the Student prays not for the gain of standing, but for the love of Fellowship; the Teacher meditates not for the gain of peace, but for the love of Hearing; the Philanthropist gives not for the gain of humility, but for the love of Compassion; the Judge pardons not for the gain of favor, but for the love of Forgiveness; the Law shows innocence not for the gain of friendship, but for the love of Mercy; the Accepting find commonality not for the gain of unity, but for the love of Tolerance; the Humble find humility not for the gain of companionship, but for the love of Equality; the Master sets free not for the gain of allies, but for the love of Freedom; the Satisfied share their heart not for the gain of envy, but for the love of Happiness.

Sadly though, even this is a pathetic understanding of 'God'...but this is what I've been shown.

.

Although your ignorance to objectivity seems to be prevalant ( which causes confusion and nonsensical rants ) you do hold onto a strain of truth. It's hard for most to understand you, because you don't speak in a language everyone can relate with.

I see where you're coming from, because both my mind and soul are now connected with being. I believe you have attained this state also, but your preachings are failing because your shining light into blind eyes.

Knowledge seperates the mind from the soul -- but it also unifies them.

I have said before that the oneness of all and allness of one cannot be known, only assumed based on what is known. Like you have pointed out, I cannot know if the assumption I have made really is logical or not, but where would you suggest we go from there? I have already admitted that such a thing never could be known. If one desires to experience 'reality', then this understanding of reality deduced using what they believe is logic, or any understanding of reality deduced using what they believe is logical, is the only understanding that can make sense. Of course it can never be known to be true as 'the understanding', whatever it be, is part of reality itself.

While I think I understand and agree with where you come from when saying the meaning of the words I use can be illusory, I do not understand how you can say the my notion of 'being' is illusory itself, rising out of the illusion of language. Sure the idea of existence and non-existence, 'knowing' that I exist are experiences which cannot be validated. But 'I' must exist, because I am experiencing. Even if doing so depends on experience, I can also imagine simply 'being' with an awareness of nothing at all.

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you are trying to say ... that is pretty tough to comprehend. Perhaps if you attempted to write it in a style which would make your point easier to understand, rather then tougher, I would have a much easier time getting it through my thick skull. But I think getting me to properly understand you might be something you are avoiding, what with how you complicate your argument by using ten comas in a single sentence which spanned ten lines of text, for example. I think you really just want to tire me out.

I have not 'barely admitted' that your connection with your experiences through God is an assumption, I have always stated so since the beginning. I still think that what I have assumed about God/reality is logical in accordance to what my notion of what logic is, and that is fine, because that notion of logic is the one which is a part of my experiences.

As much as you desire me to shut up about this and think that its dumb, you have not presented your argument of it in an understandable way, and so I can not understand what is so wrong with it. I also do not understand what your notions of reality/existence and knowledge/truth are. When you present your argument in a clearer way next post, please include that information as well.

If one desires to experience 'reality', then this understanding of reality deduced using what they believe is logic, or any understanding of reality deduced using what they believe is logical, is the only understanding that can make sense.

I've shown how you cannot prove that in your system. If you can't understand me, it's your fault.

I also do not understand what your notions of reality/existence and knowledge/truth are.

My notion of reality and knowledge are not relevant to the discussion.

I've shown how you cannot prove that in your system.

I understand that:

I still think that what I have assumed about God/reality is logical in accordance to what my notion of what logic is, and that is fine, because that notion of logic is the one which is a part of my experiences.

Relevant or not, I am interested in how you regard them.

It seems entirely clear to me now that you haven’t understood my central argument. For if you had, you wouldn’t be asking the questions you are, nor would you be presenting such abysmal responses (such as your repeat of Descartes argument for the Cogito), since I had already addressed them. This lack of comprehension is worrying to me, since my argument was a simple reductio ad absurdum: nothing can be known from within your definition of knowledge, not even that something makes sense to you, so your hollow conception of God and being are faith driven and as much of a guess as anything else. Therefore you have two options: either you resign yourself to nothingness or reject your definition of knowledge as too restrictive. If you choose the latter, you are without an argument for your God; if you choose the former, your God and conception of being are just guesses, perhaps hollow words even.

To warrant your comprehension, I shall give another brief overview and then go through each argument that calls into question your notions of ideas such as the self and existence. It must be kept in mind as you read my post, however, that to post any argument against my arguments is pointless, because from within your system it shall always be entirely possible that I am right and you are wrong (as I shall prove later) and that therefore your concepts are unknown. Furthermore, it does not matter that it is also possible that you are right and I am wrong, as this further proves my point that from within your system you can only resign to nothingness. Now I know that you have stated your God is a mere assumption, but I find it hard to believe that you actually believe this. That is why I am going to continue to argue against it as much as I am arguing against all of your other concepts in an attempt to show that your system is a complete shambles that collapses in on itself; not even what knowledge actually is can be known from within your definition of knowledge.

To begin with, then, I shall give my brief overview of my reductio ad absurdum. Essentially, the definition of knowledge I believe you are using is certitude X is the case instead of Y, where Y is everything other than X. An example of this is being sure the fluid in your cup is water and not poison or lemonade. This is the notion of knowledge in its strictest sense, then, where there cannot be any doubt, and there must be 100% certainty. Now often it is believed that the only knowable fact from within this system is Cogito Ergo Sum: I think, I am. But from within this conception of knowledge, it is entirely possible that I only think I am. Furthermore, all the notions you have used (the self, being, logic, sense, existence, experience, and absolute truth) may be fallacious and therefore cannot be known from within the system either. Therefore you are left with nothing but a restricting definition of knowledge, or else you reject the definition and lose the only argument you had for your God and idea of being.

I shall now critique your notion of God, which will then lead into critiques and refutations of your notions of absolute truth and being, which you seem to equate with him. Briefly I will say it makes no sense to equate God with being simply because you believe existence requires being. All you have done is give being a new name, one which has a history and connotation. Being itself has a long history and an abundance of connotations. Being has often been equated with ontological fact, and truth with its noetic acquisition. This notion of being is one of an undercurrent of enduring qualities and rules that make up an entities essential character. Comprehending it, then, is easy for minds that deal in fixed matters. But where did this idea of being come from? René Descartes’ image of fire melting wax can move us toward one possibility. At first the wax is solid and has a scent, but when it is placed next to the first, it loses its scent and becomes expandable. These are two completely different bundles, but nonetheless we an undercurrent that allows us to say they are the same thing, as indicated by subsuming them both under the term “wax”. It is entirely possible that this assumption is caused by language: signs necessitate pauses, stops and undercurrents. We think in a language, and so it is very hard to step outside of these conditions to try and grasp the world as it is in itself. It is entirely possible that there is no being, merely flows, and so either this is your conception of being and you are wrong, it isn’t your conception but it is right, it is and you are right, or it isn’t and you are right. All have a distinct possibility, meaning you cannot say you know what being is. There are three implications to this: (1) it demonstrated a conception of truth dependent on a notion of being which is possibly true and possible false, meaning you cannot say you know what truth is, let alone absolute truth; and (2) you cannot say whether being is a property or something else, but if it is a property, like redness, it does not follow that everything is a single entity merely because they all have the property of being, anymore so that all being one because each being is red; and (3) you cannot equate being with existence, which has historically both been made the equivalent of being and disparate to being, meaning you cannot say that you know what existence is.

As you can see, your notions of being, God, truth and existence have already collapsed. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the self is a linguistic construction and “you” are indistinguishable from what you are “experiencing”. The whole construction of the self and of experience may be called into question. This leaves me with your notion of logic and sense to critique, which will be very easy. After all, I merely need to invoke Descartes’ deceiving demon. But more than that, I can call into question your memory. People are always remembering things wrong and with no objective measurement of time, you do not know how much has actually passed. Further still, a moment can go by so fast that it instantaneously becomes a memory. With this being the case, you cannot know whether what you say makes sense or if you were in fact talking gibberish, but have forgotten. You cannot know whether your arguments are logically valid or if logic itself is correct because a deceiving demon may be altering your memories. So in effect, you only believe you are making sense to yourself. It is entirely possible that a split second ago, you were confused, disorientated, and unable to tell up from down.

I think that I have given enough possibilities that everything you have said is unknowable from within your system. Any repetition of the claims you have previously given will be unnecessary, and any claim you make about the absurdness of the possibilities I have listed is pointless, since it is possible that all the claims you make are in fact nonsense and that you haven’t understood a word I’ve said. In fact, I think that is an entirely distinct possibility.

Relevant or not, I am interested in how you regard them.

Your thirst shall never be quenched then.

I have said before that the oneness of all and allness of one cannot be known, only assumed based on what is known.

IMHO it's a fair assumption, if we take science as a basis. In the beginning there was a singularity then a 'big bang'. The 'singularity', 'one' thing existed and that 'one' thing expanded into all there is meaning all things have origin in the one thing. The Aspect experiment showed that quantum particles in close association, no matter how far they are seperated in future still exhibit a connection not explicable in time and space. Meaning, if one accepts the scientific model, all has come from one - and remains one, no matter the time and space seperation.

Namaste:)

, but your preachings are failing because your shining light into blind eyes.
.

Fuck you.