deleted post

Right now I am seeing that imagination is not necessary to know that God exists.
Nice link.
Very useful.
Oh, wait...

Chris Langan understands this from the present through to his childhood memories.
And Chris Langan would be...?

Suppose we were to take the name of "God" and replaced it completely with something else (e.g. "object") at a critical moment in our own conception (and re-conception) of what is real, our concept of reality will fall apart or break up and we would lose our minds
Not really.
How does replacing the name of a fictitious object with another name make our reality fall apart?

since mind is reality and vice versa.
How so?
Proof?
Demonstration?
Evidence?

Your God is dead and no-one cares.
45 dancing Goth kids and Trent Reznor said so.
Q.E.D

deleted post

Your God is dead and no-one cares.
45 dancing Goth kids and Trent Reznor said so.
Q.E.D

That's fine.

A bouncer and cosmologist. Which doesn't really matter in this topic since he has no relation to this discussion except as a citation.[QUOTE]
So why bring him up?
And the citation would be....?

[quote]I said at a critical moment of conception where binary logic creates the "all" or "nothing". That "point above perception" where comes conception that I conceitedly discussed in another thread.
So you have multiple threads on the same topic?
Binary logic?
Who operates on that?

It is mistakenly believed by some that the "point above perception" that becomes conception is when the mind stops finding patterns in perception and where reality could literally break apart at its seams.
Some people being who. exactly?


I'm talking right before one's eyes (read any recent book on "visual construction") and it will become clear.
Suggest a title:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=toQ&q=%22visual+construction%22+book&btnG=Search&meta=


Apparently, in the process of reconditioning or re-constructing one's personal "picture" of reality,
Except that one does not reconstruct one's picture of reality that often.

it is not only the emotions that go
Go where?

but the momentary memories of each moment, in other words, the past perception defines the present perception.
If it did not we would need to constantly recreate each moment of perception which includes recreating each moment of conception. But since reality is held together at it's seems by an non-objective cognition that is not apparent in the matter we perceive, we never need to recreate each moment of conception..
Duh.

Yes.
And the proof would be...?

Sure, are you psychic?
Oh, sure.

Please refer to above.
In other words, no you have no proof.

deleted post.

Pure conception operates on a binary logic system that keeps reality together.
Assumption.

God is not invisible, but "nowhere absent".
Another assumption.

The objects we see are "invisible", because they are only perceptions. Pure cognition is reality. Reality is pure cognition. We cannot conceive reality by merely intellectualizing it into existence, we cannot even conceive our own computer screens, which are "supposed" to sit directly in front of us.
Speculation.
Unproven.

Atheists or "non-believers" as they prefer to be called.
Let me get this straight: you think atheists mistakenly believe[d by some] that the "point above perception" that becomes conception is when the mind stops finding patterns in perception and where reality could literally break apart at its seams.
Utter tosh.

They are more like believers.
More like believers than whom?

Title for what?
Umm, the books you suggested I read?

We never reconstruct reality. We mistake ourselves for reality sometimes. All we can ever do is reconstruct our perceptions of ourselves. Every individual perceives objects only, not matter. As already explained, any attempt to directly perceive matter can result in the loss of one's mind due to the overwhelming information. All we can conceive of is absolute randomness, or the loss of our own minds. Only the self-perceptual reality we name "God" can conceive.
You call yourself Cortex_Colossus and offer that?
Ho ho ho.
Evidence?
Proof?

Yes, are you psychic? Can you comprehend what I perceive to be a simple explanation?
Psychic?
Are you for real?
What you perceive to be a simple explanation is not self-evident to the rest of us.

You call yourself Cortex_Colossus and offer that?

Yes, I perceived a name for this forum as we cannot conceive anything. We can only give our own "spin" on things and nothing more.

Ho ho ho.
Evidence?
Proof?


We are equivalent to other things or objects in that we are perceptions of/from/by/etc ourselves and nothing more. The "more" being reality and the matter that exists beyond perception.

Yes, I perceived a name for this forum as we cannot conceive anything.
That's your claim, as yet unproven.

We are equivalent to other things or objects in that we are perception and nothing more. The "more" being reality and the matter that exists beyond perception.
Two more specimens of unsubstantiated speculation.
Are going to post anything concrete, or just meander witlessly the way you have been doing?
No wonder you feel you're wasting your time here, you post meaningless speculation without any supporting thought.

So, Cortex, wouldn't it make sense to call God, "the unknown"? And wouldn't the unknown have different properties and aspects than the traditional concept of God? The tradition is that God has certain known qualities such as the need to be obeyed and worshipped, the dictating of social norms, the dealing out of punishment and reward?

It is mistakenly believed that reality is consistent with strictly matter and energy. The third and lesser spoken of component is mind. That is, the mind of creatures A through Z, and the one of God as the only mind needed to conceive the coherent and non-randomly perceived reality in order for any level of perception to be even a remote possibility in existence.

Instead of speaking of matter, energy and mind, we speak of cognition (as in the coherent bond of reality, of/by/from/etc both God and the creatures or the "matters" capable of perception) and information (as in that of the overwhelming information of either the one reality or that of the perceptions of the creatures or the "matters" that also consist of mind). Reality, matter and energy is info-cognitive (the relationship between information and cognition which makes perception an even remote possibility within the universe at any moment) because of mind.

deleted post

It is mistakenly believed that reality is consistent with strictly matter and energy.
Can you prove reality is none of these things, or inconsistent with them?

The third and lesser spoken of component is mind. That is, the mind of creatures A through Z, and the one of God as the only mind needed to conceive the coherent and non-randomly perceived reality in order for any level of perception to be even a remote possibility in existence.
Again you quote speculation as fact.

Instead of speaking of matter, energy and mind, we speak of cognition (as in the coherent bond of reality, of/by/from/etc both God and the creatures or the "matters" capable of perception) and information (as in that of the overwhelming information of either the one reality or that of the perceptions of the creatures or the "matters" that also consist of mind).
No, you assume cognition comes from god - yet to be demonstrated.

Reality, matter and energy is info-cognitive (the relationship between information and cognition which makes perception an even remote possibility within the universe at any moment) because of mind.
Meaning what?
That what we see we accept as real?
If there was no mind there'd be nothing?

Are you going to answer any of my questions or just keep posting pyscho-babble?

...

Are you going to answer any of my questions or just keep posting pyscho-babble?

I expect it's going to be nothing but more psych-babble.

The most ineptly named CC has yet to provide any argument whatsoever in support of the thread Title, and continues to do nothing but spout unsupported claims of an entirely assumptive nature, all the while apparently unaware of this complete lack of logic.

Whatever happened to the Mods here???

Not always, because to equate God with a characteristic such as an "unknown" suggests that one can observe a characteristic of reality. Creatures/aliens/UFOs/Santa/etc can be unknown or unreal to us, not God.



The unknown can be unreal, so not always. One main thing that can be known about God is the uncharacteristic or inconceivable or non-objectifiable self-perceptual reality that bonds reality with it's cognition to make any level of perception a remote possibility within existence and/or at any given moment in the universe of reality. Hence, any search for God will leave one at best knowing of God, but not necessarily lead us to any knowable will.



Religion and dictatorship is where the confusion between ego/object/word/concept and God arises.

I have no idea what you just said. :crazy:

I'm a mod, glaucon.

deleted post