New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I exist. 

Cute.

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Synchronicity That is what I said. Why repeat it? Just state your objections.

I like to double-check just in case 

So the thing is, this unified-realness would also be true of - for example - a finite physical reality 

I’m not saying I believe that reality is finite & physical. But if it were, then it’d still be true that all things are unified in their realness 

A finite reality in which that finitude is all there is would still lack any other realities outside of itself, precisely because it’d be all of reality 

Therefore, unified-realness isn’t exclusive to an infinite reality 

And your objection to this may be “but a finite reality would lack things” 

Okay… yeah. But your picture of reality excludes things too. For example, according to you, there’s no such thing as 

* materialistic realities that weren’t imagined by Infinite Consciousness 

* atheistic realities in which God is absolutely absent (not just imagined absence, but unimagined absence) 

* Stuff outside of Infinite Consciousness 

Etc. 

My point isn’t that these examples are real. Nor that they debunk your view of reality 

Instead, my point is simply that you exclude certain things from your worldview too 

So you can’t claim that the finite reality does that while you don’t. You both do it, despite how vastly different you are 

This means 

1. Your worldview can’t claim a lack of lack. It still lacks certain things. So your worldview can’t claim this specific kind Oneness

2. But, it can still claim the type of Oneness we talked about earlier, which was the unified-realness. However, your worldview doesn’t have a monopoly on unified-realness. Therefore, it doesn’t separate yours from the others 

If it doesn’t separate yours from the others, then it doesn’t count as a proof, because it’d need to defeat the others while pedestaling yours 

[integral]

@Leo Gura this is an infinite game were I must break a infinite number of limits which I set on to myself

[Natasha Tori Maru]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Cute.

Shit my apologies if my response came across as sarcastic or trolling. Tone was lost there

I do mean it in all seriousness. As I think this is the ultimate proof of God.

[Mu_]

@Leo Gura @Synchronicity

If you have the time, Tell me what you guys think of my proof. I’ve made a few videos a number of years ago on the proof and taught this to a few people as well. 
 

it’s a proof for eternity and is oddly similar to Leo’s video and is one reason I brought up some objections. 
 

the first part of the proof is experience proves existence, it basically counters ideas that all this could be fundamentally illusion or nothing. True nothings would mean no experience would exist, and experiencing proves absolute nothing could not be true. 
 

the next part is basically opening the question, if there is “something” in which having experience proves is there, could it come from somewhere else.  If you believe yes, then you have to ask could that come from somewhere else, eventually either encountering a never ending chain of possible starting points or you accept it could not  

like Leo pointed out in one of his proofs, if it’s a infinite regress, then that is a infinity or as I would call it eternal, it’s forever with no beginning, and I’d argue if you  believe this infinite regress idea you’d have to acknowledge this would be happening in “something” eternal, because the regress would need a container to happen in.  

The last part of the proof is if eternal or infinite regress is true then what would be the case right now with what appears to be you and I. It would have to be you and I and anything else appearing, It couldn’t be anything other. 

there is nothing that is not one’s self. 

 

[Mu_]

14 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

I like to double-check just in case 

So the thing is, this unified-realness would also be true of - for example - a finite physical reality 

I’m not saying I believe that reality is finite & physical. But if it were, then it’d still be true that all things are unified in their realness 

A finite reality in which that finitude is all there is would still lack any other realities outside of itself, precisely because it’d be all of reality 

Therefore, unified-realness isn’t exclusive to an infinite reality 

And your objection to this may be “but a finite reality would lack things” 

Okay… yeah. But your picture of reality excludes things too. For example, according to you, there’s no such thing as 

* materialistic realities that weren’t imagined by Infinite Consciousness 

* atheistic realities in which God is absolutely absent (not just imagined absence, but unimagined absence) 

* Stuff outside of Infinite Consciousness 

Etc. 

My point isn’t that these examples are real. Nor that they debunk your view of reality 

Instead, my point is simply that you exclude certain things from your worldview too 

So you can’t claim that the finite reality does that while you don’t. You both do it, despite how vastly different you are 

This means 

1. Your worldview can’t claim a lack of lack. It still lacks certain things. So your worldview can’t claim this specific kind Oneness

2. But, it can still claim the type of Oneness we talked about earlier, which was the unified-realness. However, your worldview doesn’t have a monopoly on unified-realness. Therefore, it doesn’t separate yours from the others 

If it doesn’t separate yours from the others, then it doesn’t count as a proof, because it’d need to defeat the others while pedestaling yours 

But what do you mean by a finite physical reality?

a set number of things, with boarders?  

If so that’s easily debunked. 

 

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

@Leo Gura @Synchronicity

If you have the time, Tell me what you guys think of my proof. I’ve made a few videos a number of years ago on the proof and taught this to a few people as well. 
 

it’s a proof for eternity and is oddly similar to Leo’s video and is one reason I brought up some objections. 
 

the first part of the proof is experience proves existence, it basically counters ideas that all this could be fundamentally illusion or nothing. True nothings would mean no experience would exist, and experiencing proves absolute nothing could not be true. 
 

the next part is basically opening the question, if there is “something” in which having experience proves is there, could it come from somewhere else.  If you believe yes, then you have to ask could that come from somewhere else, eventually either encountering a never ending chain of possible starting points or you accept it could not  

like Leo pointed out in one of his proofs, if it’s a infinite regress, then that is a infinity or as I would call it eternal, it’s forever with no beginning, and I’d argue if you  believe this infinite regress idea you’d have to acknowledge this would be happening in “something” eternal, because the regress would need a container to happen in.  

The last part of the proof is if eternal or infinite regress is true then what would be the case right now with what appears to be you and I. It would have to be you and I and anything else appearing, It couldn’t be anything other. 

there is nothing that is not one’s self. 

 

The first part’s solid 

Btw I hope you’ve been doing well! 
 

Anyways, to continue… 

I’m not saying this is what I believe, but there’s some options that your proof overlooks. For example, reality could have a beginning without just having a creation from nothing before that 

It’s not as crazy as it initially sounds. Believe it or not, there’s some models like this, even in academic physics. That’s how “uncrazy” it is 

But let’s explore what that it would even… mean for reality to have a beginning without nothing before it. Cause obviously, that sounds really weird & illogical. But actually, it’s not 

Stephen Hawking once said “asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what’s North of the North Pole” 

Now yeah, there’s things above the North Pole, but not North of it because going further North would just end up going back South 

And that was Hawking’s idea. That maybe the Universe could be finite… but curved. Curved in such a way that - like an eternal reality - it’d have no beginning point before it (no North of the North Pole) but without necessarily extending on forever 

Again, I’m not saying I believe this nor that I’m adopting a worldview just because Hawking said it. I’m simply pointing out an alternative option that your proof would have to contend with & beat, to prove itself 

[Synchronicity]

3 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

But what do you mean by a finite physical reality?

a set number of things, with boarders?  

If so that’s easily debunked. 

 

Is it? Show me how you’ve debunked it 

I’m open to it 

[Leo Gura]

37 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

So the thing is, this unified-realness would also be true of - for example - a finite physical reality

A finite reality in which that finitude is all there is would still lack any other realities outside of itself, precisely because it’d be all of reality 

Therefore, unified-realness isn’t exclusive to an infinite reality

Yes, but Oneness/Unity is just one part of my proof. First we realize that Oneness must be true of reality. Then we must one go step further to realize that Oneness/Unity means Absolute Power/Omnipotence since Oneness logically necessitates that all limits be contained inside of Oneness. The power of Oneness is that it means all limits are interior to it. There is no "other" to control or limit it. All its limits are self-limits, which can be undone.

The key to the proof is realizing that Oneness/Unity has the magical property of being all-powerful.

The point is, anything that is absolutely ONE must be God.

So that's how it's different from just a unified material reality. Materialism does not grasp the power of Oneness.

Oneness logically means unlimitedness. Unlimitedness is God.

Quote

Instead, my point is simply that you exclude certain things from your worldview too 

So you can’t claim that the finite reality does that while you don’t. You both do it, despite how vastly different you are 

Just because I -- Leo -- exclude things from my worldview or even my conception of Infinity does not mean that Infinity excludes those things. Leo's personal understanding of Infinity can be limited, but Infinity itself is not limited by Leo's understanding of it. My proof is not that my worldview is perfect but simply that reality is Infinity and Infinity is God. We can debate about what exactly Infinity includes or excludes or entails. That part is up for debate and I am open to your ideas about it. My notion of Infinity does not exclude Infinity severely limiting itself.

Quote

This means 

1. Your worldview can’t claim a lack of lack. It still lacks certain things. So your worldview can’t claim this specific kind Oneness

It's important to distinguish my personal worldview -- which is always evolving and fallible -- with Infinity itself. Infinity itself is true. The rest is details, which are beyond the scope of my proofs.

Edited Wednesday at 01:56 AM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Shit my apologies if my response came across as sarcastic or trolling. Tone was lost there

I do mean it in all seriousness. As I think this is the ultimate proof of God.

Why do you exist?

What is the logic of your existence?

And if you claim to be unlimited, why are you unlimited? What is the logic of your unlimitedness?

Edited Wednesday at 01:54 AM by Leo Gura

[ExploringReality]

@Leo Gura this hurts my brain. Lol

[Synchronicity]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

 

Just because I -- Leo -- exclude things from my worldview or even my conception of Infinity does not mean that Infinity excludes those things. Leo's personal understanding of Infinity can be limited, but Infinity itself is not limited by Leo's understanding of it. My point is not that my worldview is perfect but simply that reality is Infinity and Infinity is God. We can debate about what exactly Infinity includes or excludes or entails. That part is up for debate.

It's important to distinguish my personal worldview -- which is always evolving and fallible -- with Infinity itself. Infinity itself is true. The rest is details.

I can accept this part. I don’t have anything to debate here. I know you value growth & always updating your worldview. So that’s something I can leave be 

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, but Oneness/Unity is just one part of my proof. First we realize that Oneness must be true of reality. Then we must one go step further to realize that Oneness/Unity means Absolute Power/Omnipotence since Oneness logically necessitates that all limits be contained inside of Oneness.

The key to the proof is realizing that Oneness/Unity has the magical property of being all-powerful.

The point is, anything that is absolutely ONE must be God.

So that's how it's different from just a unified material reality. Materialism does not grasp the power of Oneness.

I see what you’re saying, but there’s a third option you’re overlooking in this part 

So what you were saying in this part of the vid is that either 

1. The constraints on reality (if there were any) are real 

2. They’re unreal 

If #2, then the constraints don’t exist & voila: there’s nothing constraining reality 

And if #1, well then… the constraints are merely another thing that reality contains & dictates 

Both those options are fine & I can grant that they’d lead to an unconstrained reality like you say (but ironically, they’d lead to the insane lack of lack reality instead, cause we could say it of all constraints) 

However, if the constraints were instead equivalent to reality, rather than either being something inside of it or outside of it, then it gets trickier 

And this isn’t just semantics. This really is a concrete third option 

The constraints wouldn’t be outside of reality (& therefore, they wouldn’t be unreal), but they also wouldn’t be inside of reality (& therefore, reality wouldn’t have control over them) 

In this third option, the constraints would be both genuine & uncontrolled 

Meaning that, if reality were finite, then it’d be genuinely finite & unable to get behind its own finitude to change it 

It’d just be stuck at a finite level 

I’m open to this third option being shown to be false. So if you have a way to show that, then that would strengthen your argument about Unity necessarily implying Omnipotence 

[Mu_]

29 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

The first part’s solid 

Btw I hope you’ve been doing well! 
 

Anyways, to continue… 

I’m not saying this is what I believe, but there’s some options that your proof overlooks. For example, reality could have a beginning without just having a creation from nothing before that 

It’s not as crazy as it initially sounds. Believe it or not, there’s some models like this, even in academic physics. That’s how “uncrazy” it is 

But let’s explore what that it would even… mean for reality to have a beginning without nothing before it. Cause obviously, that sounds really weird & illogical. But actually, it’s not 

Stephen Hawking once said “asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what’s North of the North Pole” 

Now yeah, there’s things above the North Pole, but not North of it because going further North would just end up going back South 

And that was Hawking’s idea. That maybe the Universe could be finite… but curved. Curved in such a way that - like an eternal reality - it’d have no beginning point before it (no North of the North Pole) but without necessarily extending on forever 

Again, I’m not saying I believe this nor that I’m adopting a worldview just because Hawking said it. I’m simply pointing out an alternative option that your proof would have to contend with & beat, to prove itself 

 

27 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Is it? Show me how you’ve debunked it 

I’m open to it 

The debunk I believe solves both of these and a number of Indian spiritual traditions have grappled with this, including Alan watts as well which highly informed some of my thinking and eventual realizations directly. Also Leo tackled this in one of his proofs as well. 
 

Howeber I’m still not 100% I know exactly what you mean so if I’m off in these ideas of yours let me know. 

if you have physical things you call different from another, there’s this notion of space or something or mind separating them.  For now let’s leave mind out of it, but if it’s space separating them, then you’d have to acknowledge that it’s possible that it’s space that connects them actually creating or originally being a single object:thing .  
 The idea hawkenings mentioned while clever still leaves out the fact that this is either contained in something or it itself is the container and if it is the only existing container, it is One and everything in it is IT and all space they supposedly separates things in IT, is connected and is ALL IT. 
 
also this self enveloped whatchamacallit would also be eternal since it never started or has anywhere to disappear or die to.  

Also time would be seen as a illusion in this understanding as well since what reality fundamentally is would have no starting point for time to start and thus continue, it would always be this moment in which reality is always since it’s always been and remains. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:10 AM by Mu_

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

 if reality were finite, then it’d be genuinely finite & unable to get behind its own finitude to change it

But a finite thing is logically incoherent for many reasons which I discussed in the video.

A finite thing cannot technically come into being without an infinite thing. Finite things are just off-shoots of Infinity.

Many of my proofs covered this point. All limits are finite and require other limits to enforce them, leading to an infinite chain of limits which ends in Infinity.

If a triangle could have 4 sides then it would genuinely break geometry. But a triangle cannot have 4 sides. So you are positing a scenario which seems like it is possible but upon deeper logical scrutiny is not possible.

The problem is that the mind can indeed imagine all sorts of absurd things which seem like they could be possible, like 4 sided triangles, square circles, and a genuinely finite reality.

"Genuinely finite reality" is an oxymoron. There cannot be such a thing. But it sure seems to a materialist that there can.

If someone insists that 4 sided triangles are possible, I can't really convince them otherwise. That is their own self-deception. Logic only works up to the point where one is willing to stick to it. And if one just wants to say anything goes. Well, that just proves Infinity. If anything goes, Infinity. And why wouldn't anything go? What would stop it?

Edited Wednesday at 02:18 AM by Leo Gura

[ExploringReality]

I exist by the fact of being conscious. Not conscious as something, but just conscious. How can I know I am consciousness, because there is an experience I am conscious of, wether it's inside or outside, dream, delusions, deepsleep, psychedelic state, or any state I have experienced, but all those experiences come and go but this consciousness is ever present. Everything that I have experienced has changed, but this Consciousness is ever present no matter what state I've been in. I am unlimited because every limit that I conceive of is only a thought within this field of consciousness, since Consciousness is not a thing it cannot be limited because the limit is a thing.What is consciousness, well I can't say because it's not a thing but I am being it right now.  

Edited Wednesday at 02:29 AM by ExploringReality

[Oppositionless]

2 hours ago, Synchronicity said:

If being non-spatial is the single deciding factor in what makes God, God, then that seems like a very powerless idea of God 

Consciousness is nothing, because it lacks all physical attributes . Numbers are also nothing. Anything that is nothing is consciousness. And for reality to contain Nothing it must also be Nothing. Nothing is unlimited and can evolve through cause and effect forever.

You could argue for god from math too. Math is nothing and contained by reality, so reality is nothing. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:19 AM by Oppositionless

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

But a finite thing is logically incoherent for many reasons which I discussed in the video.

A finite thing cannot technically come into being without an infinite thing. Finite things are just off-shoots of Infinity.

Many of my proofs covered this point. All limits are finite and require other limits to enforce them, leading to an infinite chain of limits which ends in Infinity.

Not successfully, no 

The “incoherence” you’re noticing with a finite thing being there on its own, shares something identical to infinity 

That identical thing is that both would be “a-mechanistic” 

You’ve used that word “a-mechanistic” in past videos as well. But you didn’t really address it as much as you could’ve with your proofs in this new video (or the past videos either) 

Infinity would be beginningless (or at least, could be, since it’s unconstrained). Meaning, it wouldn’t need anything to come into existence 

This part isn’t new to you. You know this already. But… 

What you don’t realize is that you’re willing to accept a-mechanism as “fine” when it comes to infinity. But then as “incoherent” when it comes to something finite 

Meaning, there’s a bit of a double standard going on 

1. a beginningless infinite reality that doesn’t come from anywhere? That’s fine 

2. but a finite reality that doesn’t come from anywhere? This is incoherent 

Neither would come from anywhere. They’re both odd. And odd is fine

But you use the oddness of one to fault it, while accepting the oddity of the other… 

[Synchronicity]

13 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

Consciousness is nothing, because it lacks all physical attributes . Numbers are also nothing. Anything that is nothing is consciousness. And for reality to contain Nothing it must also be Nothing. Nothing is unlimited and can evolve through cause and effect forever.

I’m guessing this is a new proof you’re coming up with right? We can look at this 

So tell me what method led you to conclude that numbers are nothing. And also, couldn’t nothing be a complete lack of experience as well? So is consciousness the only type of “nothing”? 
 

What led you to conclude that consciousness is the only viable kind of nothing? 
 

And again, if you’ve had an Awakening into something like that, I’ll leave it be. But I’m just asking about the pure logics & epistemics you’re using here…

what led you to these conclusions you’re giving? 

Edited Wednesday at 02:24 AM by Synchronicity

[Oppositionless]

11 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

what led you to these conclusions you’re giving? 

Contemplating the nature of space deeply. 
it's the same proof but that was a very weak formulation of it 

1) consciousness does not occupy space

2) consciousness is not divisible

3) therefore consciousness is immaterial

4) immaterial means it is not a thing, because it is not a thing it could equally be called nothing as something 

5) reality contains consciousness, which is a real thing, but also nothing

6) therefore reality is nothing

7) reality is also something. It exists, it has substance. Reality is simply Existence. Nothing cannot exist, therefore everything exists, because everything exists consciousness is unlimited .

 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:36 AM by Oppositionless

[Synchronicity]

23 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

 

The debunk I believe solves both of these and a number of Indian spiritual traditions have grappled with this, including Alan watts as well which highly informed some of my thinking and eventual realizations directly. Also Leo tackled this in one of his proofs as well. 
 

Howeber I’m still not 100% I know exactly what you mean so if I’m off in these ideas of yours let me know. 

if you have physical things you call different from another, there’s this notion of space or something or mind separating them.  For now let’s leave mind out of it, but if it’s space separating them, then you’d have to acknowledge that it’s possible that it’s space that connects them actually creating or originally being single object:thing .  
 The idea hawkenings mentioned while clever still leaves out the fact that this is either contained in something or it itself is the container and if it is the only existing container, it is One and everything in it is IT and all space they supposedly separates things in IT, is connected and is ALL IT. 
 
also this self enveloped whatchamacallit would also be eternal since it never started or has anywhere to disappear or die to.  

 

The connection part is fine. Sure yeah, all stuff in this hypothetical finite reality would be connected with each other 

But where are you transitioning from that fact into “therefore, it’d have to be eternal”? 
 

If you already answered that question in your post, then you’ll need to clarify, because I didn’t see a clear transition. But you can show me where you made it, if I missed it 

Basically, what I’m interested in is: 

Can you show me that all things being connected & part of the same “IT” (even in a finite reality) would debunk its finitude & prove that it’s instead, infinite? 
 

Cause in my mind, it’d certainly be possible for all things in that finite reality to be unified, while still just being a finite collection of unified things 

A finite IT, if you will 

If you can show that that’s impossible, then that’d strengthen your point