A short introduction. The Eternal One is Energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, ergo it is eternal. There is only enough time and space for one eternity to exist, thus the Eternal One is the physical energy that is existence.

I see myself as a universal psychiatrist for the planet.

True science (knowledge) originates from the OBJECTIVE, not the invisible subjective

The word told from an Eternally invisible deity can not be trusted because it is invisible and thus it Eternally will not be objectively observed or tested. Such a deity can not be omnipresent if it is not within and a part of the creation. Henceforth, any sentient creature deluded by the lies of the Eternally invisible deity becomes unbalanced and overpowered by the illusional subjective nature of reality that which can lead to symptoms of delusion and denial and can not be reached reasonably or truthfully within the lines of objective observation nor reached through purely objective reason and logic.

This is only for those who truly wish to experience what I will explain as the Nirvana of Heaven right now, for reasons of simplicity and comprehension. Those that understand that we are already in the Eternal Prison that we have mislabeled as the afterlife and resting place of our individual eternal soul, experiencing the nirvana of heaven and the sorrows of hell, it is our choice right now which things we wish to manifest for the future of our world, our children, and for our own individual lives; the eternal Nirvana of heaven, or the eternal sorrows of hell? The Nirvana of Heaven can not co-exist with nor can it cause the sorrows of hell, it will always be absolutely one or the other. Any person claiming to possess the word of the Eternal One and the Nirvana of Heaven that strikes fear into others, that murders others, that forces others to believe in lies, that is careless, unfair and unjust, that is inconsiderate and is not forgiveful, that seeks revenge when it is outdone instead of appreciating the efforts of others, that is in a position to stop needless suffering and injustice but doesn't: is a wolf in sheep's clothing and is instead creating and exponentializing the sorrows of hell in this world. If the illusional sorrows of hell, such that result from deception, existed in a world of Nirvana, one where every person that is capable of being sound of mind would be able to share the same understanding and knowledge of things at the same level of potential because we can only gather what we physically have therefore the same data would be available for everyone and it could be readily tested and reproduced for anyone and everyone to see and know then no one could make up lies about what they don't have, and all that would be at our dispense is what is real and can not be fabricated and no longer could anyone deceive because the truthful objective reality of the Eternal One would be the judge of all subjective convictions, faiths, religions and invisible contradictive deities.

Feel free to move it if it belongs elsewhere.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I again thank you for your thoughts.

You're welcome, and thank you.

I'm sorry that my explanation doesn't ring 'true'. But, as I said, the idea is no more or less mystical than we want it to be, whether we call it magic or physics.

But if the invisible and subjective are irrelevant, as per the OP, no thought has any real value at all, does it? Considering that thought is both invisible and subjective. Isn't it unfortunate then that there is only room enough for one 'fact-based' eternity? I always expected eternity to encompass both the known and unknown, the facts as well as the interpretations, since it is after all eternal. How can eternity be eternal if it doesn't encompass everything? And then am I, and all that I convey, not a part of that eternity?

But that's why I prefer to approach the cloud of fireflies rather than proclaim it from a distance. Because up close, beyond the labels of words is where I find god; a truth that is both eternal and of my making. In this way, I never know a lie as I'm never disappointed with what I find.

Best wishes.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I again thank you for your thoughts.

You're welcome, and thank you.

I'm sorry that my explanation doesn't ring 'true'. But, as I said, the idea is no more or less mystical than we want it to be, whether we call it magic or physics.

But if the invisible and subjective are irrelevant, as per the OP, no thought has any real value at all, does it? Considering that thought is both invisible and subjective. Isn't it unfortunate then that there is only room enough for one 'fact-based' eternity? I always expected eternity to encompass both the known and unknown, the facts as well as the interpretations, since it is after all eternal. How can eternity be eternal if it doesn't encompass everything? And then am I, and all that I convey, not a part of that eternity?

But that's why I prefer to approach the cloud of fireflies rather than proclaim it from a distance. Because up close, beyond the labels of words is where I find god; a truth that is both eternal and of my making. In this way, I never know a lie as I'm never disappointed with what I find.

Best wishes.

Traveler, thank you, I never said it didn't ring true. What you said made sense. I was more so saying that when "it makes sense to you" first, not because of conjecture, but true understanding, then you are confirmed.

I say we need to be thinking at all levels in perspective. Think from your molecules all the way up, they are all intelligent, in perspective and yet you are the God experiencing you. If we are "awakining" so to speak, we are awakening to ourselves first, not others, just ourselves alone. If we want to know "God", we must become "God"s as Life is always giving Life and knows it by such, in such we must awake to now.

Thank you again...sincerely

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Traveler, thank you, I never said it didn't ring true.

You didn't, and I apologize for sounding defensive.

I say we need to be thinking at all levels in perspective.

Absolutely. You have said what I meant by my second response in a much more concise way. I appreciate you showing me the common ground we stand on. It can be all too easy to lose sight of.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
But if the invisible and subjective are irrelevant, as per the OP, no thought has any real value at all, does it?

This is true. Mental imagination has no real substance to material reality and can not manifest wholly in material reality if it is not consistent with the foundation that the Eternal One of material substance and logic has provided, but once the mental imagination becomes consistent with the material reality of the Eternal One then the subjective renders itself to be true with objective permittivity. The belief in invisibilities is a waste of life until someone can bring me a cup of nothing, then I'll pray to that cup and ask it for forgiveness. 'Less that time comes shortly, my Eternal One (the universe, existence, energy) is here and now.

Considering that thought is both invisible and subjective.

I have considered this. It can only go as far as speculation, it can not be tested, it requires blind faith. If thought, as considered by you, is invisible and subjective then there is not even a way to prove that it exists to begin with because it can never be detected by objective reality, logically we can only then conclude that whatever it is, in the consideration that you have presented that it is only non-existent. We challenge every case with the objective reality, do we not?

If thought is considered to be immaterial then it can not interact with nor can it be detected by a material reality. Material only interacts with material, and subjective mal psychologies and personality disorders do interact with the material world and have an effect on it because the creatures are material creatures. When creatures forget that they are material creatures and that the Eternal One is here and now then they act erratic, illogically, murderously and distraught and they become impatient because they know that deep down they are being deceived, lied to or are lost and unaware of where they really are, in being lost they sometimes create bigger problems by clutching to emotional comforts in the form of fallacies such as the invisible and unknowable through faith instead of knowing it and seeing it.

Isn't it unfortunate then that there is only room enough for one 'fact-based' eternity?

No, not at all. It unites us all, from Earth to extra-terrestrial planets. It's a brilliant design and a brilliant evolution.

I always expected eternity to encompass both the known and unknown, the facts as well as the interpretations, since it is after all eternal.

It does. However, the logic and knowledge gathered of and from the Eternal One dispute and eradicate illusions such as invisible subjective convictions.

How can eternity be eternal if it doesn't encompass everything? And then am I, and all that I convey, not a part of that eternity?

Yes you are and yes it does. We all are, here and now, existing of the eternal one, of the energy that can neither be created or destroyed, therefore had no beginning and has no end. It does encompass everything, there are just some things that it allows to exist as mental illusions and sickness so that we may heal ourselves together all at one time when and as this knowledge is returned and given to the people once again, as it is being given to you now and as it will be given to and known by everyone on this planet.

I never know a lie as I'm never disappointed with what I find.
Best wishes.

You can know a lie without being disappointed upon knowing it, rather excited upon discovering truth, or simultaneously both. It's possible, I know from experience. You can make room for the good if you want to, it's always on the other side of the coin, but the coin is what is truth in its entirety, allowing you to see both sides and both reactions either one of the two individually or simultaneously both at once.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Perhaps one of us is missing the point. What I'm saying, as simply as possible, is that you seem to be espousing the idea that nothing matters without visible, objective form, yet you project this through invisible, subjective thought. I see this as a conflict of interest.

My thoughts are not invisible and who lied to you and told you that they were? My thoughts are visible and material. My "thought" is a result of eternal interconnected interaction in both space and time. Everything that happened eternally before me led up to the event of my birth and everything from there to the eventuality of the death of my finite life as this creature. I am simultaneously the cause and result of everything happening. My actions cause reactions, but my actions are only reactions of other actions that are causing me to act, which in effect is simply only the Being and the Happening of the physical universe. I have no free will. I am a creature in the eternal prison paradise of energetic existence and a slave of curiosity to the knowledge of the Eternal One.

If I'm mistaken, perhaps you could take a different approach to simplifying what you mean.

My thoughts are not invisible, nor do they have invisible origins. I am a self of sense awareness and I have sensed my self awareness through my self of sense awareness, through doing such I have become the Being and I know the Being, and I am sharing this with you. Everything is physical, even my thoughts as you can see them here. My thoughts have no origin, they are only projected reflections of what I have experienced and know to be universally true.

Unless you can provide something equally concrete and inflexible to illustrate exactly everything that falls in and out of that foundation, it is a meaningless assertion.

You can not imagine something that is eternally invisible. Anything you imagine that you then begin to explain has funda-mental roots in the eternally physical 3 dimensional energetic reality of which all things EXIST and can only be explained from, of and as.

Again, if I'm misinterpreting, perhaps a simpler explanation would be beneficial to both of us.

No problem at all. I enjoy the your interest in the topic, after all, when it is finished it will go down as the greatest knowledge ever revealed and you are taking part in manifesting its subjective evolution into material perfection.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You can not imagine something that is eternally invisible.

Yes, thank you. This was my point all along. And so I ask, what can be a lie that pertains to the existence of anything? Certainly, I could lie by telling you my skin is purple, but that only illustrates my point. Lies can only be told about states of existence, not existence itself. To illustrate conversely, I could say that Bigfoot exists. It isn't a lie, merely a supposition without proof, one that might never be proven. If I say that Bigfoot exists in the Pacific Northwest, this could be proven a lie as it claims not only existence, but the state of existence in a specific space and time.

My point being that lies, falsehoods and illusions exist only through the narrowing of definitions. Until we can see the whole universe, we can never know the whole truth, but only the pieces of it we experience.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
And so I ask, what can be a lie that pertains to the existence of anything?

Religion: To say that the Eternal One is invisible and can not be known, to say that we have eternal souls when there is only time and space for one eternity that we all share. Those are some lies, some big ones to start off with. When a congregation of peoples take a false idea and annex it into a societal, systematic, delusional and economic global or national conglomerate and keep those people in line through the perpetuated lies and emotional reliance that the fallacy permeates and have no intention of ever telling the truth and would kill, dismiss as crazy and disdain anyone that does is the biggest group of liars, the biggest lie, and the saddest thing to ever happen to this planet.

Certainly, I could lie by telling you my skin is purple, but that only illustrates my point. Lies can only be told about states of existence, not existence itself.

The states of existence define existence itself. To lie about a state of existence is to simultaneously lie about existence itself. Existence is a person, if you lie about something a person does and is, but not all things, you are still lying about that person and someone wanting to know that person will not truly know that person because of that one lie until they actually meet that person, at which they realize that they have been lied to about who and what that person was. This is why people leave religion. This is why the people of the world are divided. This is why we fight. Think of the Eternal One (existence, universe) as a person. If you lie about it then people can't get to truly know it for what it is and that's what religion is doing.

How can you separate and differentiate between these two? Are they not co-dependent? If you truly do not have purple skin and you are telling me that you do and you know and are ergo aware of what color purple is and what color your skin is, then you are lying about existence itself and you are now existence lying about itself.

Energy, that which is existence itself is in differing states of form, therefore existence IS always in different states of its own existence. Existence is always in differing states, we know this, to observe a state of existence or the existence and then not be honest about it is a lie.

To illustrate conversely, I could say that Bigfoot exists. It isn't a lie, merely a supposition without proof, one that might never be proven.

Yes, it is a lie. If there is no proof to provide that bigfoots exist or don't exist, then by default we don't say that they do exist. So, by saying that bigfoots exist you are now lying. You could avoid this by saying that you do not know whether bigfoots exist or not, yet that you believe that they do.

Again, a "supposition without proof, one that might never be proven". is synonymous with saying that the eternally invisible thing exists if we concede that it can never be proven. A supposition about a thing that is not known to exist or may never be known to exist does not merit it exemption from lies and does not accredit it with being allowed to be touted around as if there is objective and absolute proof of its existence when there isn't.

You can not, just because you suppose that a thing exists without proof, then go on to say that it exists. You are now knowingly lying since you know that it is only a supposition that the thing exists, not an actual reality.

If I say that Bigfoot exists in the Pacific Northwest, this could be proven a lie as it claims not only existence, but the state of existence in a specific space and time.

It doesn't matter: to state that it exists devoid of the mentioning the notion that it is only a supposition and not yet real and may never be real, is then a lie.

My point being that lies, falsehoods and illusions exist only through the narrowing of definitions. Until we can see the whole universe, we can never know the whole truth, but only the pieces of it we experience.

The objective universe can never be seen truly as whole, only as eternal, interconnected, interdependent and interactive (eternal action and reaction) because that is what it is, anything else is a perception that is ignorant of this knowledge and of the knowledge of itself.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
And so I ask, what can be a lie that pertains to the existence of anything?

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternalReligion: To say that the Eternal One is invisible and can not be known, to say that we have eternal souls when there is only time and space for one eternity that we all share. Those are some lies, some big ones to start off with.

The lie is in the state of existence, whether it can be known or not; whether they are eternal or not. There is no question of existence.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDarkCertainly, I could lie by telling you my skin is purple, but that only illustrates my point. Lies can only be told about states of existence, not existence itself.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternalHow can you separate and differentiate between these two? Are they not co-dependent? If you truly do not have purple skin and you are telling me that you do and you know and are ergo aware of what color purple is and what color your skin is, then you are lying about existence itself and you are now existence lying about itself.

Again, the lie is in the state of existence. That is that my skin exists colored purple. That doesn't mean I don't have skin, so, no, they are not co-dependent or inter-dependent.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDarkTo illustrate conversely, I could say that Bigfoot exists. It isn't a lie, merely a supposition without proof, one that might never be proven.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternalYes, it is a lie. If there is no proof to provide that bigfoots exist or don't exist, then by default we don't say that they do exist. So, by saying that bigfoots exist you are now lying.

You assume you understand my definition of Bigfoot, and by that reasoning, it does not exist. Suppose I were to say large, hairy mammals with big feet exist? That certainly fits the broad description of Bigfoot, as well as some other things. Is it not true?

Lacking proof of existence does not prove non-existence. And by all reasoning something will either exist or not. Those are the only choices. There is no lie either way, only a lack of knowledge/evidence.

My point in all of this is that you proclaim infinity by defining it. That is an impossibility. Infinity is outside your grasp and mine because it will always not only include what we know, but everything we don't, and therefore always defy definition. If you shut out even one possibility you attempt to limit infinity. Again, it simply can't be done.

Now, I submit that all of this is smoke simply because we live within a definition called reality. A finite slice of infinity. But that doesn't preclude the existence of anything, only whether or not we can know it physically. Myself, I prefer to remember that as it keeps me humble in my travels.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
The lie is in the state of existence, whether it can be known or not; whether they are eternal or not. There is no question of existence.

No, the lie is saying that it is invisible, the lie is saying that the Eternal One created the universe. Those are lies and they are untrue because I can see the eternal one right now and it had no beginning and no end.

Again, the lie is in the state of existence. That is that my skin exists colored purple. That doesn't mean I don't have skin, so, no, they are not co-dependent or inter-dependent.

I don't understand what point you're getting at here, maybe if you explained it differently or used different words and analogies, or no analogies I might comprehend it better. There is a lie here either way. You and I never questioned whether or not you had skin or didn't have skin in the hypothesis, only that you would have lied about its color, since the scenario we were given was that you already had skin. I had to make some assumptions that your skin wasn't really purple since the hypothesis you presented me was incomplete and did not elucidate such.

Skin is also a state of existence, and as I stated earlier, all things are states of existence because that is what existence itself is. Either way this is still a lie. There's no way to explain ones self out of willful lies and lies/ignorance do exist.

You assume you understand my definition of Bigfoot, and by that reasoning, it does not exist. Suppose I were to say large, hairy mammals with big feet exist? That certainly fits the broad description of Bigfoot, as well as some other things. Is it not true?

If you're speaking the English language and using the same common figures of speech as everyone else that speaks English then I know what you mean by bigfoot, if you don't mean "bigfoot" then you need to find another word and another definition to use to explain what you mean. No, I did not assume, you're just playing word semantics. If I ask you what 2+2 is you're going to tell me it is 4, I'm not going to then turn around on you and say... "ah-ha!, but you never asked me the numerical value of the symbol 2, which is really 6! So the answer is 12!" That's ridiculous and I don't like to do that. I tend to be straightforward and honest and as understandable as possible, so I consider the language of the culture that I am using and the consequences of the words that I choose to convey to others and how they will interpret it. I don't do chicanery.

Lacking proof of existence does not prove non-existence. And by all reasoning something will either exist or not. Those are the only choices. There is no lie either way, only a lack of knowledge/evidence.

You're correct, it does not. So as I said, we neither know if the thing exists or not and it would be a lie or at least improper for you to state that it is okay to say that "bigfoot exists" based only on unevidential suppositions.

My point in all of this is that you proclaim infinity by defining it. That is an impossibility.

Okay, you say I can not define it, now pay attention to what you do in the next quote.

Infinity is outside your grasp and mine because it will always not only include what we know, but everything we don't, and therefore always defy definition.

Seems like you just defined it quite well. So, tell me, why is it that you are allowed to define it and I am not? I am banished to impossibilities by you whereas the second after you do so you turn around and attempt to do what you just told me that I can not. Hmmm... hm.... hm... watch yourself.

Now, I submit that all of this is smoke simply because we live within a definition called reality. A finite slice of infinity. But that doesn't preclude the existence of anything, only whether or not we can know it physically. Myself, I prefer to remember that as it keeps me humble in my travels.

Our conscious life is the finite slice of eternity, but we still exist of it.

Like I said, when you can bring me a glass of "nothing" then I'll begin having faith in the unknown, until then I will only know what I am capable of objectively observing, replicating and knowing and I will not know what I am not capable of knowing, observing or replicating(eternal invisibilities), and I will know those things that can neither be proven or disproved as suppositions, theories and hypothesis, which explain theirselves as such.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Seems like you just defined it quite well. So, tell me, why is it that you are allowed to define it and I am not? I am banished to impossibilities by you whereas the second after you do so you turn around and attempt to do what you just told me that I can not. Hmmm... hm.... hm... watch yourself.

I didn't deny you permission, or disallow you, to define reality. I stated that it is an impossibility for either of us. Which I think I illustrated again in my last paragraph by stating that this is all 'smoke', meaning what I had previously written. I was aware of the contradiction. I'm no more capable than you, and didn't imply such.

As for the Bigfoot analogy, I apologize if it seemed deceptive. I wasn't attempting to trip you up, just illustrate that common understandings aren't universal.

From here, I'll respectfully bow out. My last post was a mistake. This one is to hopefully correct that mistake.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
I didn't deny you permission, or disallow you, to define reality.

My point in all of this is that you proclaim infinity by defining it. That is an impossibility. Infinity is outside your grasp and mine because it will always not only include what we know, but everything we don't, and therefore always defy definition. If you shut out even one possibility you attempt to limit infinity. Again, it simply can't be done.

Now, I do understand what you're getting at. You're saying that no individual creature can know every single thing at one time, that's true and I agree with that. However that was not the intent of my O.P.

The intent of my O.P. was to explain logically the "Eternal One" and what it really means, but not that I knew every aspect of what it is. I can not know every star in the eternal sky by name, or every planet in the infinite space by name, but I can know what the Eternal One is and what it means for all of us.

Like always, I enjoyed our conversations.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]