|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 17, 2020 4:39:52 GMT
A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 17, 2020 7:47:01 GMT
Well a hallucination doesn't actually exist right so it is separate from God and things that do exist. Unless you mean someone having a hallucination that doesn't exist then just the action of having a hallucination exists but not what the actual hallucination consists of that doesn't exist.
Gosh hope that makes sense.
Someone hallucinating=a real action
What happens in it or the hallucination itself=fake/doesn't exist/imaginary
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 17, 2020 16:16:37 GMT
Well a hallucination doesn't actually exist right so it is separate from God and things that do exist. Unless you mean someone having a hallucination that doesn't exist then just the action of having a hallucination exists but not what the actual hallucination consists of that doesn't exist. Gosh hope that makes sense. Someone hallucinating=a real action What happens in it or the hallucination itself=fake/doesn't exist/imaginary If God is a hallucination, and God is all that there is (existence), then all that there is (existence) is a hallucination. Basically it is proving God is not a hallucination. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 17, 2020 22:11:14 GMT
That doesn't make any sense. If God is a hallucination then he's not all of existence or he's all of existence and not a hallucination I don't see why you're making it both at the same time in order to prove one of them can't be true? It's like a verbal version of keep your eye on the card
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 18, 2020 3:57:57 GMT
That doesn't make any sense. If God is a hallucination then he's not all of existence or he's all of existence and not a hallucination I don't see why you're making it both at the same time in order to prove one of them can't be true? It's like a verbal version of keep your eye on the card If God is a hallucination and the definition of God is "all that there is" then "all that there is" is a hallucination. "All that there is" is not a hallucination, therefore God is not an hallucination. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 18, 2020 4:12:07 GMT
? A person can have a hallucination about something and that something be real and yet that person's hallucination was fake and so the thing is still real yet the hallucination was fake likewise a person can have an hallucination about something that's not real like a solid pink unicorn and in this instance it is a hallucination and is not real but I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion the God has to be real and not a hallucination? And why are you stuck on the notion that God is everything?
|
|
|
|
Post by nobeernolife on Dec 18, 2020 8:56:35 GMT
Isn´t "hallucination" here just another word for "simulation"? Afaik, it is quite likely that we are all living in one.
Which of course immediately makes religion sort of make sense.... of course there is a creator, and of course we don´t need any theory of evolution.
Actually, the logical evidence for the simulation is quite overwhelming.
Of course, this raises the question, why cant god himnself be a simulation, one step further in abstraction? And so on.
Mind you, with infinity as time limit, there is no restriction.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 18, 2020 16:34:28 GMT
? A person can have a hallucination about something and that something be real and yet that person's hallucination was fake and so the thing is still real yet the hallucination was fake likewise a person can have an hallucination about something that's not real like a solid pink unicorn and in this instance it is a hallucination and is not real but I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion the God has to be real and not a hallucination? And why are you stuck on the notion that God is everything? A hallucination is an illusion, if God is an hallucination and God is defined as "all being" then "all being" is an hallucination. "All being" is not an hallucination as it exists. An illusion is that which is seperate from the source, ie hallucination of water is seperate from actual water. All being as a hallucination would necessitate all being as seperate from being thus a contradiction occurs. God as all being is not an hallucination as all being is not an hallucination. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 18, 2020 16:36:31 GMT
Isn´t "hallucination" here just another word for "simulation"? Afaik, it is quite likely that we are all living in one. Which of course immediately makes religion sort of make sense.... of course there is a creator, and of course we don´t need any theory of evolution. Actually, the logical evidence for the simulation is quite overwhelming. Of course, this raises the question, why cant god himnself be a simulation, one step further in abstraction? And so on. Mind you, with infinity as time limit, there is no restriction. Because God as a simulation would require something beyond that simulation, which is not a simulation, thus necessitating a definition of God as the thing which is not a simulation. A series of infinite simulations would necessitate the simulation as progressive change. Infinity would be the phenomenon which does not change. The infinite, as unchanging would be the defintion of God, ie God is infinite. Thus God Would Exist As A Phenomenon Not Subject To The Simulation. God as all being would necessitate God as both a simulation and not a simulation. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 18, 2020 23:15:16 GMT
? A person can have a hallucination about something and that something be real and yet that person's hallucination was fake and so the thing is still real yet the hallucination was fake likewise a person can have an hallucination about something that's not real like a solid pink unicorn and in this instance it is a hallucination and is not real but I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion the God has to be real and not a hallucination? And why are you stuck on the notion that God is everything? A hallucination is an illusion, if God is an hallucination and God is defined as "all being" then "all being" is an hallucination. "All being" is not an hallucination as it exists. An illusion is that which is seperate from the source, ie hallucination of water is seperate from actual water. All being as a hallucination would necessitate all being as seperate from being thus a contradiction occurs. God as all being is not an hallucination as all being is not an hallucination. But YOU are defining god as "everything" And not everyone agrees with that definition Some say that God made this reality BUT is outside of this reality/realm and time and space/Tec Others say you me and everything in thos reality IS God and nothing that exists isn't somehow part of /is God Clearly those are 2 very different views on God And there is no 1 definition that beats all So it's basically just perusal opinion when defining god. AND that's IF there even IS a God which is a different bucket of fertilizer |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 19, 2020 3:56:01 GMT
A hallucination is an illusion, if God is an hallucination and God is defined as "all being" then "all being" is an hallucination. "All being" is not an hallucination as it exists. An illusion is that which is seperate from the source, ie hallucination of water is seperate from actual water. All being as a hallucination would necessitate all being as seperate from being thus a contradiction occurs. God as all being is not an hallucination as all being is not an hallucination. But YOU are defining god as "everything" And not everyone agrees with that definition Some say that God made this reality BUT is outside of this reality/realm and time and space/Tec Others say you me and everything in thos reality IS God and nothing that exists isn't somehow part of /is God Clearly those are 2 very different views on God And there is no 1 definition that beats all So it's basically just perusal opinion when defining god. AND that's IF there even IS a God which is a different bucket of fertilizer God as omnipresent is God observing all of being. This observation connects God to said being thus causing him to exist through it given we are what we percieve. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 19, 2020 9:50:20 GMT
And where did you learn this concept?
|
|
|
|
Post by nobeernolife on Dec 19, 2020 9:54:00 GMT
Isn´t "hallucination" here just another word for "simulation"? Afaik, it is quite likely that we are all living in one. Which of course immediately makes religion sort of make sense.... of course there is a creator, and of course we don´t need any theory of evolution. Actually, the logical evidence for the simulation is quite overwhelming. Of course, this raises the question, why cant god himnself be a simulation, one step further in abstraction? And so on. Mind you, with infinity as time limit, there is no restriction. Because God as a simulation would require something beyond that simulation, which is not a simulation, thus necessitating a definition of God as the thing which is not a simulation. A series of infinite simulations would necessitate the simulation as progressive change. Infinity would be the phenomenon which does not change. The infinite, as unchanging would be the defintion of God, ie God is infinite. Thus God Would Exist As A Phenomenon Not Subject To The Simulation. God as all being would necessitate God as both a simulation and not a simulation.
Well yes, you could then define "infinity" as god. But since obviously infinity exists, then obviously god exists, so you are yourself in the foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 20, 2020 0:56:39 GMT
Because God as a simulation would require something beyond that simulation, which is not a simulation, thus necessitating a definition of God as the thing which is not a simulation. A series of infinite simulations would necessitate the simulation as progressive change. Infinity would be the phenomenon which does not change. The infinite, as unchanging would be the defintion of God, ie God is infinite. Thus God Would Exist As A Phenomenon Not Subject To The Simulation. God as all being would necessitate God as both a simulation and not a simulation.
Well yes, you could then define "infinity" as god. But since obviously infinity exists, then obviously god exists, so you are yourself in the foot.
How am I "in the foot" if I am saying God exists? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 20, 2020 0:57:23 GMT
And where did you learn this concept? Where does one learn the number 1? |
|
