Given that people already worship the bodies of famous movie stars (bodies that are composed of things not limited to raw sewage ... which is, after all, the source of such things) we have already arrived at such a state. People even go as far as to fantasize about the orifices of such people that deposit the said raw sewage :shrug:
I'm having trouble scanning this. What does "distinguish the experience" mean? Is it like being able to distinguish hearing from seeing? And do you mean if I'm unable to distinguish sounds from images, then I'm not experiencing either? I'll interpret this as implying that two different people can agree they saw or heard the same thing. Maybe the discussion could digress into the fascinating (not) aspects of the meaning of "shared" experience. Most people just share experiences, and don't bother with the ontology (whatever that is). This looks like a complete misunderstanding of what I've "claimed". I can change things in the world, just like anyone can. What I can see and hear is not "theoretical", nor is it "speculative". How about you? If you're reading this, what's the "theory of reading" you're using? Who decided God has a "standard definition"? Not you, surely? I don't want to say that. I haven't said anything like that. You seem to be reading what you expect to see. What is "dumb" about seeing or hearing? Can you expand on this "dumbing down" theme? Are you really sure you aren't doing the dumbing down? You seem to believe that someone claiming they are God should be able to walk on water. Why do you think that? Does anything else not gel with your "standard definition"? Plenty of experience in there to show what God is, without any "explanations". Well, I'm sorry if you're dissapointed about my apparent rejection of "standards". It's just that my "standard" is direct experience. Nor do I, mainly since I'm still having it. Your inability to see past your own restricted (from a book) definition of God, indicates that you're the deluded one--God isn't words in a book. You haven't been able to even define what your "standard" is. So I really don't understand the descent into an apparent defense of it, using tactics that clearly are meant to demean and belittle. I feel sorry for you.
Its like having a qualitative distinction between one thing and another. IOW if your previous "I -didn't-know-I was-god" state bears not qualitative distinction from "now-I know-I-am-god" state, you don't have any grounds for meaningful elaboration on the point we are not even there yet. You haven't even explained anything about your experience .. much less how it can be understood as obedient to the statement "I am god" If you can't change things any differently to how anyone else can, then your experience of "being god" is irrelevent what is theoretical and speculative is your idea that your experiences correspond to the idea of being god (since there are, at the very least, theoretical ideas surrounding the word "god" that run as anomalous to your experience/capacity) that I don't use words outside of their meaning for a start. So for instance, I don't use the word hexagon in matters where its plainly obvious I am talking about circles If it didn't have a standard definition, you wouldn't be trying to lever yourself some egotistical airs by using it. To say the least, if you put the phrase "I am god" on your resume, there is a very good chance you won't get the job (which I guess would enable us to add another frailty to your pseudo-divine status : namely unemployed) On the contrary, its the only substantial thing you have offered in the way of explaining exactly what this experience of being god entails nothing what is dumb about it is to (purposely) label what one is seeing/hearing in a manner thyat it plainly isn't. Sure You take a standard article, remove some or all of its defining qualities, and then use it in its redefined state as a core element in one's discussions. So for instance you take the idea of god ... but only after effectively removing the major distinctive qualities (namely those that elevate god above the status of the regular living entity) ... and then claim that you are god. In the same manner, a fool could also say that they are the president of the united states lol yes Positive. You seem to believe that someone who claims they are god simply requires to say the phrase "I am god" its the nature of standard definitions that they are not the property of any one particular person. Its your definition that is having the problems of a vested interest in the authorship of the term oh, you mean aside from shamanistic use of psychotropic drugs (which, for the record, usually involves them asserting they live in a ghostly sort of world of lesser and greater spirits they seek to kow tow favours/advice from ... as opposed to blind assertions that they are god)? What are they? your standard, as it stands at the moment, is circular. "I know I am god because I know I am god" You could just as easily (and foolishly) say you are the president of the united states, since you also don't require to be obedient to any standard definition of the term :shrug: neither is the president of the united states ... yet I guess if one insists on having no authority outside of one's imagination, it isn't really a problem that one can't influence the national powers of the nation :shrug: I have defined it several times (omnimax, cause of all causes, summum bonum etc etc). You, however, haven't defined your use of the word "god" in the slightest, except to vainly palm off the suggestion that the inability to fortify one's self against bowel movements, ignorance, disease or any one of the host of dilemmas that effect the "conditioned" of "conditioned life" in no way problematizes the suggestion that one is god. :shrug:
Defining a term by listing several mutually contradictory attributes of the entity it labels does not establish a meaning for the term. "Very large and universally comprehensive entity" would do as well, and have the advantage of not conflicting with itself.
Ok, but suppose I self-elaborate and tell myself that this previous state was some kind of "forgetfulness" of something I no longer question but, due to ongoing experience, I should accept? And that it doesn't matter what I call this experience, or even what I describe it as, it doesn't need explaining. So I was never ignorant of it, it was and is something I've always known, I just got distracted by "belief systems" maybe. I don't need to believe I can see if I see things--if say, my visual cortex is active and I'm in a state of consciousness most people call "awake". We need to get closer to what you think believing "I am God" means. Why do you believe in this 'elevation' above 'the regular living entity'? You mean your god with a small g, is something more than an entity? Well, it isn't really that simple, you first have to realise a few things before you can tell yourself, or anyone else, that you know it's true. The first realisation, or one of them, is that it's isn't "just you", there are other people, other things involved, like knowledge. Knowledge really is the only godlike capacity we have, apart from this experience I refer to. You say I haven't defined it in the slightest, but I say my slightest definition is me, or my experience (of "it"). What's the difference between consciousness and experience? Do you have a definition of that? I suggest the vanity is all yours: you say your god doesn't need to take a shit somewhere?
Explaining why they are contradictory is probably the first thing you need to establish before you can progress this point
Any description of God is contradictory if God can't be described. God can be a catchall for things we can't explain. We can't really put experience into words, even though we try. Hence, if God isn't describable, then knowledge of God is not some formula or rationalisation. There is no "standard definition", but there is experience. If I don't know how to explain who I am, then I must be God by default.
You don't undersatnd. the problem atm is that you can't discuss what it is you exactly remember since there is no qualitative difference from when you didn't. If there is no (elevating) distinction in this so-called thing you are remembering I can understand why you have nothing of relevance to say on the matter You are mistaken You have mentioned nothing of this experience Everytime you seem to get somewhere near the courage to explain your ideas (eg psychotropic drugs and how they can help one realize they are god) you back away hastily from them when it becomes apparent how stupid they sound. And there's your problem. You are a pretty ineffective prototype for the word "god" ... much like you also face the same issues if you try and tell people you are the president You don't understand. I am not saying you didnt have some sort of experience. I am saying that you have completely failed to justify how it can tie in with the phrase "I am god" (outside of your interior world where you can call an apple a giraffe or whatever) :shrug:
feel free to offer an example of a description that doesn't describe anything the irony is that this is even an attempted description of god Even imaginary experiences can be described.
Your description of what you think I was trying to describe is a different thing. Since if it's true that A can't be described, then a description of A must be a false description. On the other hand, a description that doesn't describe anything isn't a description, whether it's of something that has a description or doesn't have one. We can play games with this forever. You don't seem to be doing too well either. Your comparison fails anyway, if you suppose (that's all you need to do) that the president of the US also has realised what I have, and doesn't give the word "God" a context that equates it to having a job. I don't need to justify it, not to you, not to anyone. You're asking me to justify my belief in what I see and hear, for one thing. You believe that God must have a standatd definition, but you haven't justified this at all. I have asked you several times why you think it's true. Furthermore, do you also believe that I should think it's true?
My description is accurate. You say you are god. Its plain you are not and only continue to play this charade by dumbing down the term If a description of your previous "I didn't know I was god " state is identical to the one you have at the moment, its plainly obvious that the falsity is yours since you allude to a difference yet can't offer one. :shrug: a description of someone not knowing they are god is sufficient to show that you can't offer anything to distinguish it. sure, since teh only rules, as far as you are concerned, is your imagination. You might as well say you are the tooth fairy. :shrug: You still don't understand. You are just as much god as you are the president or the tooth fairy The strong points of solipsism no doubt ... If you want to argue that your belief in what you see and hear is what drives your statement "I am god", its a reasonable request. At least i have offered a definition. You haven't even done that much ... The fact that you can abide by the statement "I am god" without a definition and still think its true indicates you have more serious problems at home :shrug:
What you're really saying here is, my claims don't conform to your definition. Suppose God is omnipresent, then if I'm not God, God is not omnipresent, a contradiction. Suppose God is all-powerful, can do anything, then it isn't a contradiction that I am God. Or that someone's cat is. Suppose I'm really trying to demonstrate that whatever definition you apply, it will look ridiculous. Because "it" isn't about clinging to ideas, which on the face of it, is a ridiculous thing to do. I'm telling you I am God. I don't have to tell myself this because "something" is doing that, and it isn't you or what you've posted. You come across as a somewhat arrogant type who thinks they have all the right ideas. And you get upset when someonw doesn't agree with what you think is a definition. I'm just saying you can know what God is without being given any definitions. That you haven't understood what I've said indicates that you're fixated with definitions.
I am saying that its your definition that you choose to attribute to your so-called experiences that is unique. No more than saying suppose the president is an american, then if I (as an american) am not the president, we have a contradiction Given your complete inability to attribute any behaviour or power great or small attributed with being god, you have greater issues at hand Yet you still cling to the idea that you are god (despite the serious epistemological, ontological and even plain old etymological problems you can't even begin to address in a straight forward manner) Obviously I'm telling you that you are dumbing down the term in order to abide by that statement Its your imagination. Once again, if one is willing to suspend the qualitative distinctions that distinguish one word from another, you might as well be saying you are the tooth fairy or the president. You say your definition of god is new and different, but you can't even move a millimetre in the direction of explaining what it is. This probably wouldn't be a problem except that you get offended when no one takes you seriously when you say you are god. The closest you have come to explaining what this state of being god entails is that it can be handy to consume psychotropic drugs to generate the experience. When you attempt to philosophically explain yourself, you refuse to leave the confines of solipsism. To be fair, I am not disagreeing with you simply because you haven't even provided anything to explain your position. The extent of my disagreement is that solipsism and circular argument are useless and inappropriate platforms for expressing ideas. You accuse me of being arrogant yet you have no qualms about establishing your own self professed knowledge on the subject. ...which on even a cursory examination is nothing but an intellectual vacuum .... :shrug:
No it isn't, since you haven't claimed the president is omnipresent. Don't you believe that God, according to the "standard definition", is omnipresent? If so, do you think there's a problem? I think the problem is this: if I am not God then God is not omnipresent; on the other hand, if I am not omnipresent then I am not God (since God is omnipresent). You seem unable to see this. maybe you're too deluded. You haven't managed to attribute anything either, although you seem to think you have. I don't cling to an idea, an idea of experience isn't an experience. You aren't addressing any of the logical issues either, and I don't think you can. I haven't said any such thing, this is your imagination, in fact. I'm not offended, I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't take me seriously. I don't care if you think I haven't "explained what it is"; you haven't explained it either, although you obviouly think you can. So why haven't you? But that's your interpretation of what I actually said. What I said was that humans have been using drugs for a long time, and for that reason. You've interpreted this as meaning I've taken drugs to "generate the experience", but I didn't say that. Maybe God doesn't require a non-vacuum intellect? Or does that not fit with your definition?
obviously you didn't understand the analogy. Just as the president can be defined in a manner that incorporates your existence (ie he is american), your also partaking of that existence in no way undermines his position. There is no problem. If god is present in everything and you are not present in everything, there is no problem in the suggestion that you are not god or that god is not omnipresent. Infact you could say that the inability of persons to exhibit any comprehension/powers/behaviours above and beyond their own frail, limited and conditioned existence is something that is painfully absent in persons who foolishly claim they are god. Usually they attempt to surmount this obvious shortcoming by word jugglery. You are a fine example. :shrug: Your existence is expressed through the limitations of your body (and even then, in a very temporary, incomplete manner ... since there are many things going on in our body that we cannot control). God is attributed as having a scope of existence that permeates not only your own body but everything else too. The fact that you have no scope to witness such an existence, despite god partaking of yours and everyone and everything elses, is one of the many features that distinguishes the living entity from god. On the contrary, just like you "play" with the word "god", you also appear to do the same with "omnipresent" nonsense At the very onset I addressed attributes that you obviously don't display. You, however, have simply said you don't need to address those attributes without ever elucidating what one is required to address in order to be god (aside from a circular argument that has no bearing outside of one's imagination). I point out that you can't even float such bullshit if one wants to the president., what to speak of god. Being god is not such a cheap thing Lol more word jugglery If you are saying "I am god", then obviously you are tagging an idea to an experience ... and its one you are also obviously very attached to. IOW you didn't feel satisfied to leave it as "I have this experience and now I am more knowledgeable" (even though you have hinted you know more now but can't say what it is) or "I have this experience and now I am more equipoised" (even though you have hinted you are more balanced now but can't exemplify an example of the successful behaviour). Instead you said "I have had this experience and I am god" When pressed to explain why you choose to explain your experience in a such a manner (Ie why do you now think you are god when previously you didn't) you try to play it off as a question about the existential question of experience ....."how can one use words to explain what one sees and hears? ie "How would you define the smell of a rose?" and all the other standard philosophical equivocations on the subject) . I am not asking that. I am asking why you choose to now call yourself "god". IOW what *new* experiences did you have that granted you the inspiration to label yourself with the word "god" since you clearly stand outside any close approximation of the term You are putting the horse before the cart. You haven't actually established any logical outline for your statement aside from "I can call myself whatever I want to call myself" .... the hallmark of solipsism This is why I say you can just as easily call yourself the tooth fairy or the president :shrug: Incorrect If you reply that you have no requirement to explain how your usage of the term "god" comes anywhere near the standard usage of the term, you most certainly have. The consequence of such an attitude is that you have no philosophical framework for the ideas you repeatedly advocate On the contrary, at the onset I explained qualities of god ... all of which culminate in the obviously conclusion that you are not god ... outside of dumbing down the term of course With you however, a dozen posts later and you still have nothing to offer for the reason of what? Becoming god? So what parallel does taking psychotropic drugs have with your experience of being god? And I responded that they actually don't do it for that reason, since shamanistic practices usually revolve around gaining power/vision/favours from higher or at least more powerful entities What you require is to explain how all and any written material by all and any authors through out history on the subject of god is beneath your experience ... Its ironic that you accuse me of arrogance when you reduce all philosophical discussion to solipsism, a discipline that struggles to establish itself above psychopathy :shrug:
First you say there is no problem, then you say this non-problem is because if god is present in everything there can be a suggestion that god is not omnipresent. That's how I read it. So there is a problem. So now you're agreeing with me? You do have the scope to witness God's existence. God's existence and yours are in fact indistinguishable. You just think they aren't. Your "explained qualities" are the cart, now you need to find a horse.
No you don't understand. There are numerous things that contextualize your existence (even to the extent of controlling or limiting your existence). Your inability to partake of the same nature of these things that contextualize your existence in no way problematizes them. No i am suggesting you are playing word games with "omnipresent" just like you have with "god" Sure. You also have scope to witness the president's existence. Doesn't mean you can chair meetings at the white-house though, does it? And as a further detail, if you think that you can chair such meetings or that your inability to chair such meetings in no way problematizes your claim that you are the president, its good evidence that you haven't the foggiest about the president's existence at all :shrug: As I have said before, unless you are drastically dumbing down the word "god", obviously that isn't the case. It has already been noted that even you have extreme reluctance to offer any basis for such senseless remarks On the contrary, all you have shown is that you think they are. You have absolutely nothing to act as leverage for such comments except your imagination You simply have ideas that never leave the tired dark prison of solipsism :shrug:
But how do you know that? Can you explain how you know it's true? Can you do what you you keep telling me to do and explain why God has to be as you say? I think my version is better, because if I know it's true I can avoid all the problems with trying to explain my position and just stop caring about trying to explain it. You know, like I can think about trying to explain it to you, or just get on with my life instead. But: Is what you posted. It's a contradiction because it says there is no problem with the suggestion (which I take to mean "possibility") that god is not omnipresent despite god being "present in everything" (sic) in conjunction with me not being so which doesn't remove the contradiction. What you have is "if (A and B are true), then (B can be not A or A can be false). You haven't acknowledged this contradiction and you seem to think there isn't one. Your statement is not logical.
because you have not come even in a 10 mile radius of explaining anything that would warrant such a term. Nothing nada zero Here is a facsimile of your argument, with all your added details, played out on the nature of the president of the USA "I am the president of the USA and I know it" does that sound fishy to you? When a person reads your posts, one can't help but wonder whether you have indeed asked yourself this important question yourself. Already explained its not about what I say. Granted there is a bit of a controversy about what the word god does and does not imply ..... but as far as your comments go, you don't even show up on the long distance radar of such discussions. This is why i suggest you are dumbing down the term ... in what appears to be a vain effort to lend yourself some credibility in an arena where you plainly have none : "Hey guys, I'm god" You are not the first person to try and avoid problems by taking an epistemological detour into solipsism ... needless to say, it tends to be heralded as a trademark of the intellectually waylaid as opposed to the philosophically astute .... :shrug:
Ah I think I see what you're saying. Because I can't prove my existence and God's are indistinguishable, you can't prove what you've been saying either? So we're good here? You mean, when you read my posts. Or do you really believe you're speaking for some group, and if so, what group? Shouldn't you be more concerned about what you've asked yourself rather than what someone else may or may not have? Your contributions haven't exactly shaken the world either. You think the subject requires some understanding of words, I say understanding doesn't necessarily involve words, in fact, I say words aren't even necessary (at some point). But if you want to believe in words. who am I to tell you otherwise? Ha ha. That's pretty funny. That's from someone who can't put a valid proposition together (?)
