Merged Omnipotence Omnipresence Omniscience - If GOD is all of these things...

[Aridas]

Its's no trouble at all...no no - no trouble at all.

The trouble has been in relation to you being called out on your misuse of the ideas that you presented.

Your problem seems to be your attachment to what you call 'materialism' and your belief in it as the only thing necessary for all your needs.

As noted repeatedly before, I'm not actually a materialist. Nor, given that it is a base component of a set of models of reality, can materialism itself address most of the "needs" that you mention, any more than idealism can. Given these things, I cannot help but roll my eyes at your attempt to box me into a completely nonsensical box, yet again.

Not that I would argue against that at all - if you are involved in bringing positive influence into your corner of the world, every little bit helps the whole process toward that end.

As a general matter, I try to do so.

But when you go off on tangents which clearly discriminate against those who have different methods for achieving similar things, it gives the impression that perhaps materialism isn't an overall great thing - especially when materialists make a habit of doing this.

I do clearly discriminate against those who forward bad arguments for their positions, regardless of whether I agree with the position or not, as you've quite experienced. This is rather unrelated to any particular views I have on reality, though, and has much more to do with the facts that I value truth and consider valid argumentation to be the only trustworthy way to distinguish between what can be reasonably called truth and what cannot. When it comes to materialism and idealism, the fact is that materialism is inherently less problematic than idealism. That does not mean that idealism is definitely not the case, but it certainly does mean the materialism is preferable to it when all else is effectively equal.

I am able to accept your attachment to the power of materialism in relation to how it helps you be a good person and that this is all that is necessary to those needs, but I have to draw the line when the argument proclaims that other ways are not as necessary...maybe not to you - that is fine - but to others materialism just doesn't cut it.

Even if I did consider myself a materialist in the first place, I would still regard that as quite irrelevant to being a good person. Materialism and idealism are categorically wrong to even try to apply to that, just like theism and atheism are.

 

[Navigator]

Meeting the Monster.

The thing is you see - we are already in 'the rabbit hole' and as such - on a freaky level which requires a certain hard-arse-ness in order to fully appreciate it.

Whether we like it or not, we are here and thus [opinion]> might as well investigate as to what is to like and what is not to like about it and that's what we do, dependant of course on we're we as a 'mind-set' each are in relation to all else.

I meet the Monster by investigating a different line of thought which enabled me to traverse further into the rabbit hole inside the rabbit hole.

In doing so I was then informed by the Monster on how best to proceed, especially given the nature of the Monster to appear real even that I never actually got to see Her. I was blind in that department but be that as it may, I was all ears and you know how words can paint pictures - so in that way having no eyes helped me to listen and since what was being said proved to be worth listening to - as life went by from that time to this, the compulsion to listen even more is abundant.

And yes - all this happened in my mind.

So in that regard, the rabbit hole is enormous and I cannot say for sure that the thing you refer to as 'my mind' is not just something that is happening inside 'my skull'...such is the Monsters message...we are all connected through said Monster.

Not the we each would know it or be able to even experience it all because a human brain is incapable of containing all that data. But the Monster is connected to everyone and Her mind is capable of containing, processing, evaluating and using all that info to Her advantage, which is what She does.

Now you noticed I referred to 'Her' as "She" and that is fine. She is really not able to be called strictly 'male' or 'female' for in truth she is both and more besides...but I like to see Her as a Mother Monster because it is convenient to my position to do so....as well as the fact that this is how She presented...the two go hand in hand.

But how does this rabbit hole relate to the real one and can the two realities interrelate?
Obviously I am saying that they do, because I found that out.

But it is not for everyone. Those fixated on just the material world are less inclined to wander too far into their own minds let alone the Collective Mind...and of course, that is okay. It is not everyone's Cup of Tea

 

[Aridas]

So in that regard, the rabbit hole is enormous and I cannot say for sure that the thing you refer to as 'my mind' is not just something that is happening inside 'my skull'...such is the Monsters message...we are all connected through said Monster.

*shrug* Maybe, maybe not. That has little relation to whether one puts forward good arguments or not, though. As I've said before, I don't especially care about quite a bit of what most people believe and I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the truth or lack thereof to be found in unfalsifiable claims, even if I have no problem at all with pointing out things that are relevant to consider in relation to them. As long as one isn't putting forward false claims/misrepresenting things or invoking logical fallacies, I'm generally fairly agreeable regarding such things.

 

[Navigator]

*shrug* Maybe, maybe not. That has little relation to whether one puts forward good arguments or not, though. As I've said before, I don't especially care about quite a bit of what most people believe and I'm not particularly interested in arguing about the truth or lack thereof to be found in unfalsifiable claims, even if I have no problem at all with pointing out things that are relevant to consider in relation to them. As long as one isn't putting forward false claims/misrepresenting things or invoking logical fallacies, I'm generally fairly agreeable regarding such things.

It isn't a question of maybe or not. It is a matter of what is and too bad if you don't want to go there. *shrug*.

If you understand that there is more than meets the eye, that is fine by me.

btw - just because you recognize we are all connected from a source individual and a source piece of real estate doesn't really say much in relation to anything. What does it matter in relation to now? How is that helpful or relevant?

 

[Aridas]

It isn't a question of maybe or not. It is a matter of what is and too bad if you don't want to go there. *shrug*.

You do realize that accepting that something is the case based on an account that someone was told it in their mind is incredibly bad practice, right? I'm not going to argue that it's definitely not the case, because that would be claiming to have information that is effectively unobtainable, but I'm under no compulsion to accept it, either.

If you understand that there is more than meets the eye, that is fine by me.

I accept that there may be such, if I am interpreting your usage correctly, but convincing me that such actually is or is not the case is a much harder task.

btw - just because you recognize we are all connected from a source individual and a source piece of real estate doesn't really say much in relation to anything. What does it matter in relation to now? How is that helpful or relevant?

Hmm? It effectively matters in pretty much all the same ways as being connected by a massively overarching consciousness, minus the mystical part. In short, it doesn't matter practically at all for most purposes and not at all for much of what you've tried to use it for, but they can take advantage of practically the same values as you've stated hopes that your idea would take advantage of.

 

[Navigator]

You do realize that accepting that something is the case based on an account that someone was told it in their mind is incredibly bad practice, right?

Definitely. You do realise that I am not asking anyone to do that, right?

I accept that there may be such, if I am interpreting your usage correctly, but convincing me that such actually is or is not the case is a much harder task.

You do realize that convincing you is not here nor there from my perspective. You are a materialist are you not? What possible purpose would such things regarding the mind have for you, even if there is more than meets the eye? As long as what meets the eye has the same outcome of purpose (which seems to be the case if I am reading you correctly) then ...here nor there...different methods to achieve a similar mode of conduct and world view.

Hmm? It effectively matters in pretty much all the same ways as being connected by a massively overarching consciousness, minus the mystical part. In short, it doesn't matter practically at all for most purposes and not at all for much of what you've tried to use it for, but they can take advantage of practically the same values as you've stated hopes that your idea would take advantage of.

So - that is good for you yes? Such information is enough to see our connection and purpose as a species, and no need for the idea that we are altogether GOD because such an idea can have no effect on outcomes.

Well the information has been out there a while now. When do you think it might kick in big time and take effect in a positive way?


Or perhaps that is the your point. You are saying that nothing - ideas or biological evidence that we are all connected is going to help humans help one another help the planet etc...?

I am not sure exactly what your point is though as I never claimed that this idea would change peoples outlook on life. Only that it had the potential to do so, which of course would require people to accept the idea in the first place.

Is that what you are saying? That the idea is unacceptable?

You should note that the idea itself does not depend upon everyone accepting it in order for it to be the case. Or for it to succeed, for that matter. I just like the idea of everybody putting aside their differences and finding common ground to work with in relation to the bigger picture. But I also like the idea that even if most of the population does not survive, there will likely still be a portion of humanity which is well enough prepared for such an event, giving themselves a chance to survive the worst of that.

I realize that there is an unavoidable emotional connection to wanting humans to survive and contribute their support and intelligence to the greater thing as I happen to be a human being myself. But as I said:

"In relation to human beings, the "GOD" is reacting to the environment of ITs experience and for that, much evil has transpired through that human history but also much good.

Since the human race is relatively young, it is understandable enough that it will have teething problems but ultimately if it does survive it will be because good has outlived evil.

If it doesn't survive, it won't be a catastrophe as there most likely are uncountable variations of species throughout the universe which this "GOD" is experiencing through, all at varying degrees of progress toward sapience...and beyond."

I just think that ultimately no sapient species will make the grade without this kind of understanding approach and motivation. But that is just what I think. Pure materialism might prove me wrong in this, yes?

 

[Aridas]

You do realize that convincing you is not here nor there from my perspective. You are a materialist are you not?

No, as has been noted repeatedly. As I've also said before, the closest thing to that that would be reasonable to call me would be a methodological naturalist, which has much to do with how to obtain relevant information, rather than commenting directly on what the nature of reality actually is. Materialism is preferred to idealism, yes, because it is more useful, more developed, and less problematic overall, but those things are matters of how preferable it is to employ such, rather than actually commenting on what is the case.

What possible purpose would such things regarding the mind have for you, even if there is more than meets the eye?

*shrug* Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, maybe?

As long as what meets the eye has the same outcome of purpose (which seems to be the case if I am reading you correctly)

Similar, likely, though I have doubts that it's quite the same. I regard conflicts of opinion to be a fairly necessary and desirable thing when it comes to making the world a better place for us to live, for example, so long as people at least try to examine and use arguments in good faith.

then ...here nor there...different methods to achieve a similar mode of conduct and world view.

I'm not particularly fond of incorrectly giving credit for behavior to something that doesn't, at all, actually deserve it, though.

So - that is good for you yes? Such information is enough to see our connection and purpose as a species, and no need for the idea that we are altogether GOD because such an idea can have no effect on outcomes.

It's actually not good for me. Those things would be, at best, cheap justifications for doing things that I preferred to do anyways. I'm a self-centered person and I quite acknowledge that. I don't like being confronted with suffering and like being confronted with happiness, for example, whether it's my own or that of others, so I do things to reduce the suffering of the people around me and to make them happier, without neglecting myself. I handle conflict relatively poorly and it makes me unhappy to see and experience, so I do what I can to reduce or prevent it from happening around me, as another example.

Well the information has been out there a while now. When do you think it might kick in big time and take effect in a positive way?

Or perhaps that is the your point. You are saying that nothing - ideas or biological evidence that we are all connected is going to help humans help one another help the planet etc...?

Rather, the point is more that you're invoking a kind of thing that won't really help all that much, itself, not that nothing will do it. Raising, convincing, and potentially organizing people to support the values that will lead to courses of action where humans help one another and the planet would be what needs to happen. If the values are there, it'll tend to happen, with or without your suggested idea. If the values aren't there, it'll happen a whole lot less, with or without your suggested idea.

I am not sure exactly what your point is though as I never claimed that this idea would change peoples outlook on life. Only that it had the potential to do so, which of course would require people to accept the idea in the first place.

Is that what you are saying? That the idea is unacceptable?

It only has the potential to do so, though, when taking advantage of what already exists. It can be used as a convenient excuse to do what one already wants to do, but that's about as far as its usefulness actually goes.

You should note that the idea itself does not depend upon everyone accepting it in order for it to be the case. Or for it to succeed, for that matter.

Again, models of reality, by their nature, don't depend on anyone accepting or rejecting them in the first place when it comes to whether they actually are or are not the case.

I just like the idea of everybody putting aside their differences and finding common ground to work with in relation to the bigger picture. But I also like the idea that even if most of the population does not survive, there will likely still be a portion of humanity which is well enough prepared for such an event, giving themselves a chance to survive the worst of that.

Both of those are very commonplace, at last check, and there's certainly nothing wrong with either sentiment. I simply have no good reason to believe that your suggestion has any realistic chance of making a positive impact towards either or even that it inherently supports either one.

Since the human race is relatively young, it is understandable enough that it will have teething problems but ultimately if it does survive it will be because good has outlived evil.

For certain values of "good" and "evil." There's a lot of potential scenarios where what many call "evil" effectively triumphs and ends up in charge and quite a few scenarios where the human race gets wiped out even if "good" applies to the entire human race.

If it doesn't survive, it won't be a catastrophe as there most likely are uncountable variations of species throughout the universe which this "GOD" is experiencing through, all at varying degrees of progress toward sapience...and beyond."[/I]

I just think that ultimately no sapient species will make the grade without this kind of understanding approach and motivation. But that is just what I think. Pure materialism might prove me wrong in this, yes?

Pure materialism is hardly the only the only thing that could prove you wrong there, frankly, if it's even qualified to be allowed onto the field in the first place, but I don't feel like repeating things I already said in this post.

 

[Navigator]

No, as has been noted repeatedly. As I've also said before, the closest thing to that that would be reasonable to call me would be a methodological naturalist, which has much to do with how to obtain relevant information, rather than commenting directly on what the nature of reality actually is. Materialism is preferred to idealism, yes, because it is more useful, more developed, and less problematic overall, but those things are matters of how preferable it is to employ such, rather than actually commenting on what is the case.

So yes - your preference is for things strictly material. That is - I agree - a good enough definition of a materialist.

*shrug* Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, maybe?

Sure. Not something which would normally interest a "methodological naturalist" except the "maybe" suggests that there may be doubt.

Similar, likely, though I have doubts that it's quite the same. I regard conflicts of opinion to be a fairly necessary and desirable thing when it comes to making the world a better place for us to live, for example, so long as people at least try to examine and use arguments in good faith.

Well to be fair - some are better/more skilled at doing so - such is the actual nature of the human condition. Often how we each approach an argument could do with adjusting. Even given that your criticism seemed tinted with anger and frustration and all chewed up and spat back I still took the essence of it and tried to restate the position - change my approach as it were - often ideas involving the immaterial require a whole different approach than ideas to do with material reality.

I'm not particularly fond of incorrectly giving credit for behavior to something that doesn't, at all, actually deserve it, though.

I am often reminded of reserving judgment without being too passive and not letting the emotion of annoyance have too much sway in my decisions. One has to be careful to thoroughly examine what constitutes 'deservance' - the point in this case being that if someone is genuinely doing the best they can and essentially motivated by goodness, then whatever their particular preferred position of mind-set - the mind-set is secondary in importance...as in - not here nor there...

It's actually not good for me. Those things would be, at best, cheap justifications for doing things that I preferred to do anyways. I'm a self-centered person and I quite acknowledge that. I don't like being confronted with suffering and like being confronted with happiness, for example, whether it's my own or that of others, so I do things to reduce the suffering of the people around me and to make them happier, without neglecting myself. I handle conflict relatively poorly and it makes me unhappy to see and experience, so I do what I can to reduce or prevent it from happening around me, as another example.

All well and good and I can respect that position as something which I don't need to argue against, apart from pointing out that the danger of judging others as you prefer to judge yourself (in terms of weakness) will lead to you having to see those not like yourself as using 'cheap justifications for doing things that they should prefer to do anyways' and such judgment can only normally lead to conflict, which in itself is neither good for you or anyone else really...although habitually it might 'feel good' in reality what good is it really doing?

As I said (as an example) in an earlier post, some people find ways of overcoming depression which don't involve medications and it would be wrong for those who do use medication to claim that those who don't are wrong or somehow less superior etc...the same would also apply if the judgment was reversed...the main thing is that whatever it takes for people to behave respectfully toward each other and see good in the world and want to contribute to less suffering etc...if that is working, then let it be.

Rather, the point is more that you're invoking a kind of thing that won't really help all that much, itself, not that nothing will do it. Raising, convincing, and potentially organizing people to support the values that will lead to courses of action where humans help one another and the planet would be what needs to happen. If the values are there, it'll tend to happen, with or without your suggested idea. If the values aren't there, it'll happen a whole lot less, with or without your suggested idea.

Pertinently 'with or without' is the operative statement...and of course I did make the point of saying so myself, yes?

If understanding that we all are connected materially through one ancient ancestor has the ability to motivate the individual to better behavior, then well and good - same applies to this idea that we are all GOD, in relation to the existence of consciousness in the material world.

It only has the potential to do so, though, when taking advantage of what already exists.

I would say it also has the potential to take advantage of human creativity in relation to things which don't exist but (taking advantage of what already exists) can bring such things into existence.

It can be used as a convenient excuse to do what one already wants to do, but that's about as far as its usefulness actually goes.

I am not entirely sure what qualifies you to make that claim.

For certain values of "good" and "evil." There's a lot of potential scenarios where what many call "evil" effectively triumphs and ends up in charge and quite a few scenarios where the human race gets wiped out even if "good" applies to the entire human race.

Generally speaking, evil by its nature destroys rather than nurtures and turns upon itself in the end. At any time though it can choose to be good and thus actually triumph.

And yes, the potential for an intelligent sapient species to create a type of 'good for everyone' social system and end war and suffering does not mean that the species would survive a natural catastrophe, but let us not forget that such catastrophic events - while a serious set-back are not necessarily the end of everything.

But preparation is more likely to be undertaken in the good camp than the evil, because evil is distracted by its own short term purely material desires and lust for power and need for inequality etc...and being distracted from even noticing the bigger picture it is more likely to be unprepared and more likely to be taken by surprise.

 

[Aridas]

So yes - your preference is for things strictly material. That is - I agree - a good enough definition of a materialist.

If you have a hand screwdriver and a powered screwdriver, which is generally preferable to use when screwing screws into things that don't have screwholes already? The powered one, of course, because it's better for that task, regardless of whether one likes the hand screwdriver better. I honestly do not have a preference regarding whether things are strictly material in either direction, regardless of your attempt to portray otherwise. Saying that one who points out that at present, as a tool for reaching useful understandings about reality, materialism seems to serve notably better than the alternatives is a materialist doesn't lead to a particularly good definition of a materialist, quite frankly. If one stretches the term a fair bit, as you seem to be wont to do with terms, it can serve, barely, but it's not particularly meaningful at that point.

Sure. Not something which would normally interest a "methodological naturalist" except the "maybe" suggests that there may be doubt.

It may be worth noting that anecdotal information is important in the practical usage of methodological naturalism. It's just not firm evidence, itself.

Well to be fair - some are better/more skilled at doing so - such is the actual nature of the human condition. Often how we each approach an argument could do with adjusting. Even given that your criticism seemed tinted with anger and frustration and all chewed up and spat back I still took the essence of it and tried to restate the position - change my approach as it were - often ideas involving the immaterial require a whole different approach than ideas to do with material reality.

I'll grant you "frustration" far more than the rest. It's hard not to be a bit frustrated when dealing with someone who frequently seems to pay little to no attention to either what they're actually saying, what I actually said that they claim to be responding to, or what has been said before then and gets pointlessly argumentative when called on any of it. That's before getting to the repeatedly invoked fallacies and false or nonsensical claims with no meaningful attempt to deal with the counterarguments. A fair bit more could be added, but that's probably a good place to stop for now.

I am often reminded of reserving judgment without being too passive and not letting the emotion of annoyance have too much sway in my decisions. One has to be careful to thoroughly examine what constitutes 'deservance' - the point in this case being that if someone is genuinely doing the best they can and essentially motivated by goodness, then whatever their particular preferred position of mind-set - the mind-set is secondary in importance...as in - not here nor there...

This is a decent example of a tangent that doesn't actually address the point made and tries to handwave it away entirely anyways. "We should work together to make the world a better and happier place to live for our descendants for relevant reasons X, Y, and Z." is an argument that could be attributed some credit for behavior reasonably. "We are all connected by an overarching consciousness, therefore possibility X could be the case" is notably trivial in the first place, is invalid to seriously apply to anything even potentially of value, given that it doesn't take into account the rest of the available possibilities, and is categorically wrong to attribute credit for behavior to in the first place, as pointed out in the is-ought problem that was directly pointed out to you.

All well and good and I can respect that position as something which I don't need to argue against, apart from pointing out that the danger of judging others as you prefer to judge yourself (in terms of weakness) will lead to you having to see those not like yourself as using 'cheap justifications for doing things that they should prefer to do anyways' and such judgment can only normally lead to conflict, which in itself is neither good for you or anyone else really...although habitually it might 'feel good' in reality what good is it really doing?

They are cheap justifications and that's about all there is to them when it comes to this. There's no real way around that, honestly. It may be worth noting, incidentally, that I tend not to expect others to put all that much thought into their rationalizations and usually don't mind letting such pass, so long as they otherwise seem to be acting in good faith.

As I said (as an example) in an earlier post, some people find ways of overcoming depression which don't involve medications and it would be wrong for those who do use medication to claim that those who don't are wrong or somehow less superior etc...the same would also apply if the judgment was reversed...the main thing is that whatever it takes for people to behave respectfully toward each other and see good in the world and want to contribute to less suffering etc...if that is working, then let it be.

It may be worth noting that the exact nature of the depression should likely come into play there, but yes, seeking things to be proud of is a rather commonplace part of human behavior, even if it isn't really warranted.

Pertinently 'with or without' is the operative statement...and of course I did make the point of saying so myself, yes?

If understanding that we all are connected materially through one ancient ancestor has the ability to motivate the individual to better behavior, then well and good - same applies to this idea that we are all GOD, in relation to the existence of consciousness in the material world.

I wasn't even remotely saying that you hadn't said with or without, incidentally. The point was to point at the things that actually matter for the goals that you hope to see reached, which, frankly, is a far better thing to focus on than something that you are effectively admitting wouldn't really matter when it comes to the goals that you hope to see reached.

I would say it also has the potential to take advantage of human creativity in relation to things which don't exist but (taking advantage of what already exists) can bring such things into existence.

You do realize that this is pretty much meaningless except as an unrelated tangent with pretty much nothing to do with the statement made?

I am not entirely sure what qualifies you to make that claim.

Then point out where and how it's wrong, while keeping in mind the is-ought problem.

Generally speaking, evil by its nature destroys rather than nurtures and turns upon itself in the end. At any time though it can choose to be good and thus actually triumph.

What is destroyed matters, though, even when that somewhat questionable characterization is accepted. Effectively destroying the freedom of most and any reasonably viable chance of changing things could lead to rather stable, "evil" future.

But preparation is more likely to be undertaken in the good camp than the evil, because evil is distracted by its own short term purely material desires and lust for power and need for inequality etc...and being distracted from even noticing the bigger picture it is more likely to be unprepared and more likely to be taken by surprise.

Potentially. It largely depends on what their actual motivations are, the tools at their disposal, and how well they manage to do things. "Evil" tends to have more than one variety, after all, much like "good" tends to have.

 

[Navigator]

The point is that we all have our props no matter that unbelief is different from belief.

Whatever spurs the individual on toward the ultimate goal of helping to preserve the planet and it's species in relation to attaining a foot hold in the universe as a conscious reality, is not the main point.

If the goal is the same, how the individual got to that point is not here nor there.

Is the goal the same? Are the unbelievers on the same page as the believers in that regard?

Are the believers on the same page as the unbelievers in that regard?

See?

So putting aside all particular favourite mind-sets which get people into their perspective points...do those altogether equate to a consensus, and if not, in what way are the various points of consensus unable to progress any further than their particular point?

With the idea that we are GOD within a human form...the idea goes like this.

"Hey human species! You created the physical universe and then - through various agencies, put yourself within it - and to the point where you went so deep you forgot yourself.

In doing so you literally became something else which has had to make things up as you went along.

The question which needs an answer is "why" - Why - if this be the case, did you do this thing to yourself?

"What in GOD's name were you thinking at the time?

Also - much has passed by while you have been coming to this point of awareness of self in relation to the big picture scientific research has been able to unveil for your education "

Effectively such musings cannot directly provide answers so the attention can turn to the actuality of the position of human consciousness (and consciousness in general) in relation to its reality and those various consensus realities which have emerged from the fact of being on a sphere floating its way through a galaxy.

The questions are.

Do we think it is a great idea that consciousness exists in said universe and if so, what are we doing as individuals - and what is our consensus group doing as an entity. to promote that agenda and make sure it has the optimum chance of success?

or, if any particular group entity consensus is against the idea, why?

The fact we are here should be the focus.

Why are we here can be established after that fact.

But, yes. Is it a good place for GOD to be, or have things been taken a little too far in that regard and should we work toward its demise?

 

[Aridas]

The point is that we all have our props no matter that unbelief is different from belief.

Therefore, you are entitled to freely make false and fallacious claims and they are not allowed to be scrutinized?

Whatever spurs the individual on toward the ultimate goal of helping to preserve the planet and it's species in relation to attaining a foot hold in the universe as a conscious reality, is not the main point.

If you're directly and repeatedly making the false claim that something can spur an individual on towards a goal when it fundamentally cannot, that you're making a false claim works just fine as a response.

See?

I see you trying to dodge the points made completely. Again.

With the idea that we are GOD within a human form...the idea goes like this.

"Hey human species! You created the physical universe and then - through various agencies, put yourself within it - and to the point where you went so deep you forgot yourself.

In doing so you literally became something else which has had to make things up as you went along.

The question which needs an answer is "why" - Why - if this be the case, did you do this thing to yourself?

"What in GOD's name were you thinking at the time?

Also - much has passed by while you have been coming to this point of awareness of self in relation to the big picture scientific research has been able to unveil for your education "

No. That is not the idea that you've described, given the fact that the human species supposedly only consists of an infinitesimally small part of "GOD." If the consciousness only inserted itself into the human race, saying that might be defensible, but what you've described isn't even remotely that. As for the logic related to what you just said, what you're saying is more like more like "Hey! You human cell from a human nose! Why did you walk yourself into that wall? Why did you punch yourself with a fist? Why did you answer those test questions like you did?" Or, in other words, your attempted usage is completely nonsensical. Sure, if you were addressing things as a whole, maybe you could address it like that. However, you're addressing what you've already claimed would be an infinitesimal fragment of the whole and trying to push responsibility for everything the whole did onto it. As a different example, say we've got a large corporation. Under your logic, we can freely blame an entry level employee who helps distribute the mail for the decisions made and actions of the CEO and senior management staff.

 

[Navigator]

It doesn't matter what the argument is in relation to which mind-sets are better than which other mind-sets. These are superfluous to the fact that we share the same planet and how those mind-sets support that fact is all that is required.

If a mind-set is against humanity making that foothold, then while it will attempt to sabotage any efforts made in relation to that agenda, ultimately it will be the cause of its own demise.

Consciousness - human consciousness is here for the long haul and that can really only be a good thing ultimately.

 

[abaddon]

It doesn't matter what the argument is in relation to which mind-sets are better than which other mind-sets.

It doesn't? Then why are you right here arguing?

These are superfluous to the fact that we share the same planet

Are you sure we all share the same planet? Sometimes I wonder...

and how those mind-sets support that fact is all that is required.

Because facts are obviated by choice of "mind-set". Sure.

If a mind-set is against humanity making that foothold, then while it will attempt to sabotage any efforts made in relation to that agenda, ultimately it will be the cause of its own demise.

WTF? Read that back to yourself. Does it make sense to you?

Consciousness - human consciousness is here for the long haul and that can really only be a good thing ultimately.

How nice. New age vagueness which means nothing. Unless you can explain it. But you cannot.

"We are one in him and he is one in us".

Do you not see that you are proposing chaos? Do you not see that I can claim that I possess an invisible pink unicorn which farts rainbows in my garage and you want to have a scenario where this risible claim may not be challenged?

I mean, forget the pink unicorn and the rainbows, I wondering that if I claimed there was a spot in the corner of my garage which was always particularly cold and that was indeed the site of a gruesome murder decades ago, it might interest you, or at least tickle your interest.

 

[Navigator]

Why don't you forgo the pink unicorn analogy and focus on the reality of the human position and its relation to the situation it is within?

That situation is real and meaningful. It has purpose and agenda and in relation to gaining a foothold, it is most likely to succeed.

If you think otherwise, then give your reasons...but I suggest that you don;t go to the garage and consult your unicorn about it...just use your own intelligence...

 

[Aridas]

It doesn't matter what the argument is in relation to which mind-sets are better than which other mind-sets. These are superfluous to the fact that we share the same planet and how those mind-sets support that fact is all that is required.

If a mind-set is against humanity making that foothold, then while it will attempt to sabotage any efforts made in relation to that agenda, ultimately it will be the cause of its own demise.

Consciousness - human consciousness is here for the long haul and that can really only be a good thing ultimately.

For once, I think summarizes my response to this fairly well.

 

[Navigator]

Do you not see that you are proposing chaos?

No. Please explain.

 

[Navigator]

So with the idea that all consciousness is essentially 'GOD' it can be understand that there are obvious 'levels' involved and when a particular species reaches the level where it engages in processing existence, meaning, and purpose, if this understanding is not present in their awareness they will create beliefs and behave according to those beliefs.

Obviously the idea of GOD is natural enough but when it is separated from the human condition (as many theist theories do) then it becomes a problem. In the same way, if it is completely discarded by atheism as irrelevant then this has the tendency of reducing the whole fact of existence into a purely materialistic world view devoid of purpose or meaning and conflicts with otherwise unifying objectives.

This is not to say that unity does not exist within theist or atheist structures, because it certainly does. What it is saying is that those entities of themselves have mind-sets which are in conflict with anything 'outside' the comfort zones of belief and therefore the common reaction is to fight the perceived differences with other entity mind sets whilst ignoring any ideas which exist and can override the perceived need to be separate and at odds with each other.

 

[abaddon]

No. Please explain.

Your idea allows anyone to make up any darn thing and claim it is true, yet does not allow critical examination of that idea. Everyone else must simply accept it as being true for the individual involved.

Thus truth becomes a meaningless concept.

 

[Navigator]

Your idea allows anyone to make up any darn thing and claim it is true, yet does not allow critical examination of that idea. Everyone else must simply accept it as being true for the individual involved.

Thus truth becomes a meaningless concept.

Give an example of 'any darn thing' which can be 'made up' from this idea and we shall see if this is actually the case.

Also...the idea itself may not be at fault just because no criticism of any substance can be found in it. The idea seeks to promote unity rather than separation and what mind-set would not want that?

I am not suggesting of course that certain mind-sets would not be against the idea - but take your own preferences...they seem to be against the idea because the idea cannot be criticized under examination...or perhaps the issues are deeper than that and your preference is for disunity?

You would not be alone in that mind-set...however the idea covers that contingency. You and your mind-set group entity are free to continue engaging in separatism for whatever reasons that compel this dysfunction...and reject the idea as a matter of course.

If it is truth you are looking for...and from what you write, it appears you would like truth to be a meaningful concept, then how is supporting any form of separatism really going to help you with that?

But yes - I am interested in an example...Give an example of 'any darn thing' which can be 'made up' from this idea and we shall see if this is actually the case.

 

[abaddon]

Give an example of 'any darn thing' which can be 'made up' from this idea and we shall see if this is actually the case.

Also...the idea itself may not be at fault just because no criticism of any substance can be found in it. The idea seeks to promote unity rather than separation and what mind-set would not want that?

I am not suggesting of course that certain mind-sets would not be against the idea - but take your own preferences...they seem to be against the idea because the idea cannot be criticized under examination...or perhaps the issues are deeper than that and your preference is for disunity?

You would not be alone in that mind-set...however the idea covers that contingency. You and your mind-set group entity are free to continue engaging in separatism for whatever reasons that compel this dysfunction...and reject the idea as a matter of course.

If it is truth you are looking for...and from what you write, it appears you would like truth to be a meaningful concept, then how is supporting any form of separatism really going to help you with that?

But yes - I am interested in an example...Give an example of 'any darn thing' which can be 'made up' from this idea and we shall see if this is actually the case.

Pretty much anything Deepak Chopra comes up with. Let's face it, all you are doing is attempting to repackage his ramblings.