The Debate of God.

[Tiberius]

Duration as time is not real. What we call duration and time are actually velocity and speed, PERCEIVED as duration and time. See here:

"Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension

Velocity requires a direction. If what we perceive as time is a velocity, what direction is it going in?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm right here.

Who is that?

 

[godnotgod]

Actualy salinity levels are different even in th same body of water.

That's besides the point, and you know it.

Your prosy philosophy is tenuous at best, I am afraid. You are positing some beautiful unity with all or some other Eastern concept that has no useful [certainly to me] application nor representation. Dream a bout how beautiful Life is if it pleases you, but in the end your nasal cavity will be filled with munching worms just like all the rest of us. Perhaps that is the universal true nature of Man you are seeking.

This must rank with one of the most ignorant statements regarding Eastern wisdom I have ever seen. Very surprising, though, coming from someone as intelligent as you.

Our own true natures are anything but timeless, causeless and undivided. And I am already in touch with my true nature. Some people seem to think they aren't with their own; that is not my burden. Thus it is easily demonstrated that we are not one. We thoroughly disagree on our own natures, and such cannot be misconstrued as we being one. You are still seeking something. I am content existing as a changing creature who eventually faces death. My own true nature has an essential basis unique to myself, which the world will absolutely lack when I am gone. And, it will be worse off for losing me, but, since it has never shown an inkling of gratitude, well, it gets what it deserves.

All I can say to you is that you are so thickly immersed in Identification, that your true nature cannot be seen.

Oh. well, interestingly enough with this clarification my statement remains identical and true. Without a physical structure for my identity to coalesce in, I still had no self-identifying 'face'.

Exactly. As I stated, 'face' has to do with your social indoctrination into your identity as a separate ego called "I". Your 'face' before your mother (ie; a metaphor for socialization) is faceless; ie; without a personal identity; your true nature. But there is no "I" that is without a self-identifying face. There simply is no "I" at all. "I" is a total fabrication. It is, in fact, a total fraud.

You're right there. Show me the Adversary.

I'm right here.

This isn't rocket science. Asking facetious questions isn't making you seem profound. Demanding I show you you to yourself is just an empty exercise that you might imagine proves a point. It doesn't. You are the questioner. Look at your hands; there's my true answer. Your thoughts come from you and are transmitted to me via a public medium that works on electricity and later light waves. That's it. Seriously, this is beginning to smack of precociousness; it seems deliberately obtuse and it's rather tiring to try and place meaning on what you are trying to say.

I asked for you to show me the "I" you claim exists because you made the claim in the first place, in response to my initial statement that not one single thing exists.

So are you going to show me this "I" you claim is real is, or not?

 

[godnotgod]

Velocity requires a direction. If what we perceive as time is a velocity, what direction is it going in?

Any........

 

[godnotgod]

....but in the end your nasal cavity will be filled with munching worms just like all the rest of us. Perhaps that is the universal true nature of Man you are seeking.

Is that really who we are? Come now. You're smarter than this statement indicates.

I have pointed out to you several times that your true nature is unborn and deathless, so why do you persist in identifying it with the death-state, when you know it is beyond both life and death?

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed – that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Who is that?

In what sense are you asking?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That's besides the point, and you know it.

Absolutely not. It destroys your point by dissecting the metaphor. Your assertion of underlying homogeneity isn't true, in your metaphor, thus casting doubt on your point via extrapolation.

This must rank with one of the most ignorant statements regarding Eastern wisdom I have ever seen. Very surprising, though, coming from someone as intelligent as you.

How can a personal judgment of a subject be ignorant? It's an opinion, clearly stated as such, based on what you said.

All I can say to you is that you are so thickly immersed in Identification, that your true nature cannot be seen.

And yet, since that is de facto MY personal take on my own nature.. how can it be wrong? Does my true nature somehow need to be the same as yours? That's yet another self-defeating idea. Im telling you who I am; you're denying it and maintaining I have to be the same as you? It's preposterous.

Exactly. As I stated, 'face' has to do with your social indoctrination into your identity as a separate ego called "I". Your 'face' before your mother (ie; a metaphor for socialization) is faceless; ie; without a personal identity; your true nature. But there is no "I" that is without a self-identifying face. There simply is no "I" at all. "I" is a total fabrication. It is, in fact, a total fraud.

But it's not social. If i had been born or aware in some fashion without any social associates [as I would have been if i were somehow aware prebirth], how could my awareness possess a socially imposed label? 'Social' directly implies 'others'.

I asked for you to show me the "I" you claim exists because you made the claim in the first place, in response to my initial statement that not one single thing exists.

And how, precisely, can that claim be made manifest, if you are not making it??

So are you going to show me this "I" you claim is real is, or not?

Well, are you arguing with yourself? if you are, are you actually insulting yourself this way? if Im not here, why are you bothering to answer? The fact you are answering me proves the conflict is real and thus, there is more than one proponent here. You would simply cease speaking if it were only you. You would be in complete control. There'd be no need to continue; your ego would simply be content. But it isn't, because Im telling you how wrong you are.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Is that really who we are? Come now. You're smarter than this statement indicates.

I have pointed out to you several times that your true nature is unborn and deathless, so why do you persist in identifying it with the death-state, when you know it is beyond both life and death?

yah that really is who we are. That result is unstoppable by you. No philosophical realization will ever divert that result. Ever. Why do you fight fruitlessly against it. It's part of the experience. I'm not unborn. I know from whom I was born. And i expect to die. if I don't, I'll certainly be loud about it. You'll know. But if you also don't die.. you realize I'll have to cut off your head and absorb your Quickening? And I totally will.

There can be only One.

 

[Sadiya]

Can you see air?if no why do you believe it exists?
thus,our not being able to see god does not mean that he is non-existent.

 

[beenie]

Can you see air?if no why do you believe it exists?
thus,our not being able to see god does not mean that he is non-existent.

There are times you see air, and you feel it when the wind blows.

People of faith generally rely on signs and blind faith.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That's a poor analogy. Air can be measured. it can be contained; it has mass and a measurable set of characteristics.

 

[godnotgod]

In what sense are you asking?

With respect to your assertion that there is a 'you' that is 'right here'. I am saying that the allusion to any entity you think is 'you' is an illusory one.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

With respect to your assertion that there is a 'you' that is 'right here'. I am saying that the allusion to any entity you think is 'you' is an illusory one.

Again.. if you and I are one, why do i think your points are invalid? how can a single ego believe itself to be this wrong? Do you believe you are self-ridiculing? The entire universe is one entity, but, it's emo? Is that your proposition?

 

[idav]

The entire universe is one entity, but, it's emo?

What the...LOL!!!

The answer to your question is systems within systems. Yeah sometimes the systems get the impression that they are the center of the universe but it isn't so.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Heehee Idav. So, the ego of the entire universe is comparable to that of a prepubescent female. Interesting!

 

[idav]

Heehee Idav. So, the ego of the entire universe is comparable to that of a prepubescent female. Interesting!

Once the universe looks at itself in the mirror it's down hill from there.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

roffles
OMG look at how big my butt is!
/Big Crunch

 

[godnotgod]

Absolutely not. It destroys your point by dissecting the metaphor. Your assertion of underlying homogeneity isn't true, in your metaphor, thus casting doubt on your point via extrapolation.

There is no doubt that the saltiness of the sea is everywhere, in spite of the fact, as you pointed out, that variation in saltiness exists. Universality is the point, and variation of saltiness does not destroy the characteristic of universal saltiness, which you are attempting to use to unsuccessfully destroy the metaphor. Your problem is that you failed to see the validity of the metaphor initially, instead choosing to over-analyze it to find some insignificance that you think invalidates it.

How can a personal judgment of a subject be ignorant? It's an opinion, clearly stated as such, based on what you said.

But it is not based on what I said, but on your distorted views. If it were not, your comments would have been more informed. I can assure you they are not. Aren't ignorant statements always based on personal judgments and opinions, rather than reality?

And yet, since that is de facto MY personal take on my own nature.. how can it be wrong? Does my true nature somehow need to be the same as yours? That's yet another self-defeating idea. Im telling you who I am; you're denying it and maintaining I have to be the same as you? It's preposterous.

What is preposterous is that you are attempting to interpret the universal through the filter of the specific. Who you are as a conditioned, socialized entity is unique, but your true nature is none of that. Man's true nature is the same everywhere. You are clinging fiercely to your individual sense of "I", but that is not your true nature. There is no "I" component to your true nature.

I am not asking you who you are; I am asking you to show me that the "I" you claim is real actually exists. Since you cling so fiercely to it, that should be a walk in the park.

But it's not social. If i had been born or aware in some fashion without any social associates [as I would have been if i were somehow aware prebirth], how could my awareness possess a socially imposed label? 'Social' directly implies 'others'.

Hence, the question 'before your mother was born'. Birth alone implies 'social', but along with that comes the other part of the equation, which is heredity. True nature is transcendent of both. It is not who you have become via heredity and socialization.

And how, precisely, can that claim be made manifest, if you are not making it??

It can simply be made, without self-reflection on a 'maker'. There are times when we are involved in an activity in which we are not thinking "I am doing this", and yet, the action is being executed. We frequently and absent-mindedly perform many actions, such as reaching for a drink or food, without thinking "It is I who is reaching for this drink", etc.

Well, are you arguing with yourself? if you are, are you actually insulting yourself this way? if Im not here, why are you bothering to answer? The fact you are answering me proves the conflict is real and thus, there is more than one proponent here. You would simply cease speaking if it were only you. You would be in complete control. There'd be no need to continue; your ego would simply be content. But it isn't, because Im telling you how wrong you are.

Well, there is a presence of consciousness, without an agent of consciousness called "I", that is present. "I" is nothing more than a self-created and self-perpetuated illusion.

So. Are you now ready to answer my question, or do you still want to complicate your initial claim by getting in the way and putting up a fuss?

 

[godnotgod]

What the...LOL!!!

The answer to your question is systems within systems. Yeah sometimes the systems get the impression that they are the center of the universe but it isn't so.

Well, EVERY-THING is the center of the universe, but no-thing is THE center of the universe.

"God is a circle whose circumference is endless and whose center is everywhere"

 

[godnotgod]

Again.. if you and I are one, why do i think your points are invalid?

Because, you are still looking at the question from the point of view of a unique, individual ego.

how can a single ego believe itself to be this wrong?

Do you believe you are self-ridiculing?

The entire universe is one entity, but, it's emo? Is that your proposition?

I fail to understand any of this, and what is 'emo'?