Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

We shall see what Pachomius chooses,

if he dares.

I'm starting to think that everyone else spends more time on his thread than he does.

a reply to: pthena

It's quite pointless doing so. I know from spending time on this thread.

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO




Dear Tok, I like for us two to talk on the basis of honest intelligent productive thinking.


Please, just you and I now work together to answer the question:

"Ultimately, how many kinds of existence do you and I respectively know?"


When you reply, please go right away to your ultimately kinds of existence, and be concise, clean, and comprehensible.


Here are my only two - ultimately two kinds of existence:

1. Existence that is from itself, there is only one example of such existence, namely, God - God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
2. Existence that is from another, examples are you and I and everything that has a beginning, they owe their existence to God.


Remember, when you reply, please right away state your ultimately two kinds of existence, or even more than two if you will, okay?



Nota bene: If dear Tok you want me to talk on another basis of thinking, than the one I mention above, please be concise, clean, and comprehensible, with your basis of thinking.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius


[ . . . ]


I get the feeling you really do not want an intelligent conversation or reasoning.

I see your false dichotomy and raise you a scientific method, which translates thusly: Fact or hypothesis. The celestial creator force you describe is one of these things. I recommend you share your detailed process of testing and analysis so we can confirm your data and (if necessary) improve its accuracy. Or debunk it entirely. I assume you have an actual system?

as a brief aside, I don't know how the rest of these participants feel but I personally am done letting you tell us how to engage in these discussions. You don't decide the rules and you never did. Deal with it.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

That can't be. This is my favorite 92 page thread.

a reply to: Pachomius
1. Existence that is from itself, there is only one example of such existence, namely, the Universe - the Universe in concept as the creator cause of man and everything with a beginning.
2. Existence that is from another, examples are you and I and everything that has a beginning, they owe their existence to the Universe.

There i fixed it for you..."the thing that exist must be the thing that exist"
What currently exist? the Universe or God? If you say God Currently exist then you have to supply tangible proof of it/his/her existence.

a reply to: pthena

That's kind of exactly the problem with spiritual searches & everybody who does it: we all know what we want to find before we start.
Might not be peaceful, the possible after life. Might be like this world just with nuances changed and even more brutal. How'd we know?
There are people (like me) who had NDEs but the stories are unique & often speaking for our brain being a good servant giving us one last fancy trip before the lights are going out for good.
Nobody who's really really totally dead ever returned.

I've coined a phrase that didn't really stick, but I like it:
Clean your laboratory, get rid off your dirty socks.
Do you got a few weeks for an experiment?

a reply to: toktaylor

1. Existence that is from itself, there is only one example of such existence, namely, the Universe - the Universe in concept as the creator cause of man and everything with a beginning.

I saw a documentary once about how the universe started ( from nothing ) but I only understood it while watching the documentary. Can you explain this process simply ?

a reply to: Peeple

There are people (like me) who had NDEs

Me too! Let's start a club.

In real life my job was to care for the dying. So I've seen the afterlife many times.

Might be like this world

The afterlife is this World.

It goes like this:

Somebody dies.

The afterlife is:

that

the people who didn't die go about their business.

ETA

see this poem: Charon on Break

a reply to: pthena

That's the major anchor right, a lot of deaths and you get a lot of weird?
I mean that's also the main wish concerning God: a home after death.
The biggest appeal of Jesus: the resurection.
Ascended master: earning a higher state of being after death.
...
Instead of what Pacho here tries to argue God isn't as much about creation and source as about the end.

a reply to: Peeple

The beginning is way back there in time. Nothing you can do about it. No one gonna blame you for it.

The future though:

What if ... then maybe I won't die, or death will be a promotion.

I've got no reason to think beyond this short life.
Except for my kids.
And my grandkids.

ETA

But in the meantime:
If you wanna get with me you must meet the standards of all my wives.
My first wife has veto prerogative. Fair warning.

( I accidently stalked you on another thread, just to see that you were Okay, really )

a reply to: pthena

What if space-time is only relevant for matter? What if there's something transcending matter but above and beyond in its source? What if in a matterless experience of the spirit the beginning, the end and everything in between happen simultaneously?
But entirely without a hierarchy.
The lowest consciousness-carrier like a bacteria is just as much God as some super advanced alien. And nobody ever created anything except stories.

a reply to: Peeple

I've heard things like that.

What kind of experiments can we do ?

I posted something about singularities once but couldn't find it.

Something like the big bang, when gravity wasn't overcome yet, and time was just stretching without the matter.

And the big bang isn't even over yet, but there's this preview of coming events, and we're just in that preview phase. Then later it will all happen again for real. But we won't know it.

Wait! What if the preview is the source for deja vu, and we're in the real now ?

a reply to: pthena

The experiment I wanted to propose is maybe not as new, but because I had the thought that all spiritual search is done with a declared desired outcome, I thought maybe we mix things up a little.
Prayer without an adressee and only focused on "show me the truth"
Meditation without a mantra except "lift the veil"
Remote-writing or whatever you feel like without giving a # about the source and intention.
Main goal no bias no expectation. What would then be the outcome?

Meanwhile total freedom, you do you I do me and we compare notes in a thread we create.
But it's maybe a bad idea...

MONO



Dear Tzar, I am still waiting for Tok to reply to me, for I invited him and myself to engage on kinds of existence, ultimately kinds of, not any intermediaries.



There are posters here whom I have learned that they are not into honest intelligent productive exchange, so I don't read them at all from now onward.


What about you Tzar, would you be keen to for us two to talk, on anything at all which you are conversant with, on the basis of honest intelligent productive thinking.


When you reply, right away present to me your keen to talk about topic, of course in re God exists or not, which is the concern of my thread here.

And be concise, clean, and comprehensible, okay?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO




Dear Tok, I like for us two to talk on the basis of honest intelligent productive thinking.


Please, just you and I now work together to answer the question:

"Ultimately, how many kinds of existence do you and I respectively know?"


When you reply, please go right away to your ultimately kinds of existence, and be concise, clean, and comprehensible.


Here are my only two - ultimately two kinds of existence:

1. Existence that is from itself, there is only one example of such existence, namely, God - God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
2. Existence that is from another, examples are you and I and everything that has a beginning, they owe their existence to God.


Remember, when you reply, please right away state your ultimately two kinds of existence, or even more than two if you will, okay?



Nota bene: If dear Tok you want me to talk on another basis of thinking, than the one I mention above, please be concise, clean, and comprehensible, with your basis of thinking.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius


[ . . . ]


I get the feeling you really do not want an intelligent conversation or reasoning.

I see your false dichotomy and raise you a scientific method, which translates thusly: Fact or hypothesis. The celestial creator force you describe is one of these things. I recommend you share your detailed process of testing and analysis so we can confirm your data and (if necessary) improve its accuracy. Or debunk it entirely. I assume you have an actual system?

as a brief aside, I don't know how the rest of these participants feel but I personally am done letting you tell us how to engage in these discussions. You don't decide the rules and you never did. Deal with it.

a reply to: Peeple

I don't do prayer as an experiment.

That stream of consciousness thing:
My daughter brought this box over once with a bunch of my old writing. I recognized this one piece and started reading it. It was rubbish. And to think I actually sent a copy of it to someone once! Embarrassing!

As for a separate part of myself writing using my hands. Done that too.

For posters who feel that I am requiring you to follow my 'rules', please feel free from your part to tell me what 'rules' that are consistent with ATS forum, you want me to follow you on.


And I like to learn from you to just mention one rule that I compel posters starting with you anyone in particular, to follow me on - except posters that I have determined to not read anymore altogether, because they are to my observation unprofitable.



Nota bene: Please reproduce my words verbatim and the link, not just generally my past posts, otherwise you are also into unprofitable presence in this my thread here.



Of course you all can continue to write here, and no one can or will stop you.

.

a reply to: pthena

Why you think God would punish you for asking for the truth?

a reply to: Peeple

Do you mean the prayer ?

God doesn't punish me.
The people want more.
[ redacted ]

Dear Tok. forgive me, I just noticed your reply to me.



Okay, to be honest, intelligent, and productive from my part, I care to invite you to tell me Do you know science informs us that the universe had its beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?


That means that the universe owes its beginning in existence not to itself - which is nonsense altogether, but to an agent that is antecedent in existence to the universe.


From my proof on evidence, that agent is God, in concept the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


What is my proof from evidence that God exists, my evidence/proof of God existing are for examples: babies and roses in the neighborhood.



Now, I guess you will retort that I am into circular logic?

As usual when a poster brings up a technical term like circular logic, I invite him and me to work together to arrive at a mutually agreed on definition of the technical term he brings up, and I allow him to be first to produce his definition, and of course without citing authorities, but just from his stock knowledge and information.

If you claim that you don't have any definition of circular logic in your stock knowledge and information, then go and acquire a decent stock of knowledge and information, starting with what is to be your definition on, yes, circular logic.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius
1. Existence that is from itself, there is only one example of such existence, namely, the Universe - the Universe in concept as the creator cause of man and everything with a beginning.
2. Existence that is from another, examples are you and I and everything that has a beginning, they owe their existence to the Universe.

There i fixed it for you..."the thing that exist must be the thing that exist"
What currently exist? the Universe or God? If you say God Currently exist then you have to supply tangible proof of it/his/her existence.

a reply to: pthena

You know what I hate about prayers? The "Amen" at the end. On the rare occasion I pray I always feel compelled to add "if that fits in with your plan and you want to"
I mean wtf people? You talk to God and end it with "so be it"? Who the # do you think you are? The boss of God?

But I guess from a magicians point of view it makes sense.