New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[Synchronicity]

9 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

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 reality Is 

8) What Is can evolve eternally

9) there is no inherent limit on what types of experiences can be had

10) you can experience God, but you also are God because of the immaterial and solipsistic nature of your being 

 

Contemplating the nature of space deeply. 

I like the first 3 

But I have an issue with #4… 

Immaterial means nothing? Can you show me that immaterial things are impossible? 
 

The reason I bring up “impossibility,” is cause you’d need to show that it’s impossible, in order for what you’re saying to be a tautology 

But how are immaterial things impossible? 
 

For example, energy - even in academic physics - is considered immaterial. It’s physical, but not material (yes, those are two different things. Material means “made of matter.” Physical means “physically forceful & measurable.” Energy has the latter, but not the former) 

So right there, we have an example of something that’s not only an immaterial thing, but an immaterial physical thing 

How then, are immaterial things impossible? Why must immateriality always be nothing? 

Edited Wednesday at 02:41 AM by Synchronicity

[Mu_]

2 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

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 

Just to clarify I don’t generally use the word infinite to prove infinity, but rather to prove eternal.  Leo’s about infinity. 
 
Ok so why eternal.  Well according your own premise it’s the only finite whatever thing or energy.  It didn’t come into being from something, it always existed/existing?  I’m not sure how that is not eternal.  Where would something go in a supposed death, there’s no where else to exist according to this finite thing being the only place.  
 

there would also be no time since nothing has a starting point, it’s always been.  And there for now is this moment, and always this moment, sure there may be mind experiences of change and body aging experience of change but, the reality is there is no actual ticking time.  

 

[Synchronicity]

Just now, Mu_ said:

Just to clarify I don’t generally use the word infinite to prove infinity, but rather to prove eternal.  Leo’s about infinity. 
 
Ok so why eternal.  Well according your own premise it’s the only finite whatever thing or energy.  It didn’t come into being from something, it always existed/existing?  I’m not sure how that is not eternal.  Where would something go in a supposed death, there’s no where else to exist according to this finite thing being the only place.  
 

there would also be no time since nothing has a starting point, it’s always been.  And there for now is this moment, and always this moment, sure there may be mind experiences of change and body aging experience of change but, the reality is there is no actual ticking time.  

 

That’s better, but not quite there yet… at least if your goal is to show a logically conclusive proof 

Yeah, you summarized my point correctly by saying this finite whatever didn’t come into being from something. But… 

that would only make it similar to an eternal thing in the sense that it’d be a-mechanistic (like what I said in one of my comments to Leo) 

But a-mechanistic doesn’t automatically mean eternal. It just means uncaused. Meaning, it’s there without something putting it there 

Which yeah, is odd. Very odd. We can grant that 

But an eternal reality would also be there without being put there. It’d simply be a different flavor of that 

Think of it this way, cause this is kinda cool & trippy: 

An eternal reality (with its whole eternal chain of stuff, like you’re talking about) would have all its content there, without ever being placed there. No cause 

Yeah, each thing in the chain would be caused. But the chain itself wouldn’t be, because it’d have nothing prior to it 

There’s one of those cool Alan Watts type deals you’re talking about. The chain would be there… but without having ever been placed 

Now, if we’re willing to accept the weirdness of an entire eternal chain being there, but without any placement, then whatmore to stomach is there in the notion of a starting point just being there, without any cause or placement? 

Again, yes, it’s weird. I acknowledge that. But my point is, that an eternal reality has the same bizarre feature. We don’t get rid of the a-mechanistic weirdness by switching from a finite reality to an eternal one 

Both would have their full contents, without that content having ever been placed. One would simply have a starting point as part of that unplaced content 

 

[Leo Gura]

55 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

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 

Infinity still operates by a certain logic. The logic of Oneness.

This is just an empirical matter. You can doubt whether logic is needed or not, but it just turns out existence has logic to it.

A = A. There's just no getting around that.

An amechanical finite thing doesn't work. An amechanical infinite thing does work. Why? Because Infinity is unlimited and finite things are not. Again, a tautology.

Quote

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 

Yes. Because that's how reality is. I didn't make up the rules.

Quote

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

Yes, that's fine.

Quote

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

Yup. Not fine.

Sorry, that's just how the cookie crumbles.

3 sided triangles are fine and 4 sided ones are not fine.

If you don't like it you can file a complaint with God.

Edited Wednesday at 03:14 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Infinitt still operates by a certain logic. The logic of Oneness.

This is just an empirical matter. You can doubt whether logic is needed or not, but it just turns out existence has logic to it.

A = A. There's just no getting around that.

An amechanical finite thing doesn't work.

Yes. Because that's how reality is. I didn't make up the rules.

Yes, that's fine.

Yup. Not fine.

Sorry, that's just how the cookie crumble.

3 sided triangles are fine and 4 sided ones are not fine.

This is where you start to turn circular. You’re just saying “this is how it is” without showing that it’s necessarily how it is 

I get that you’re saying all these insights come from Awakening. And that’s all well & good. But it’s clearly not a logical proof, if you’re now crumbling at the knees & saying “sorry, I’m just right. Tough luck” 

So Awakening experience? Yes. But logical? No 

Also, you keep citing A = A, but people can actually show when something is tautological like A = A

It happens when something holds in all hypotheticals

But there’s certain hypotheticals that your worldview doesn’t hold in. For example, you just said that a finite a-mechanistic reality isn’t fine 

So your worldview would fail to be true, if reality turned out to be finite & a-mechanical. But A = A would still be true, even in a finite a-mechanical reality. Therefore, it’d be true in both your worldview & in that one 

If A = A holds in both, while yours only holds in one of them, then your insights aren’t tautologies 

Edited Wednesday at 03:17 AM by Synchronicity

[Mu_]

21 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

That’s better, but not quite there yet… at least if your goal is to show a logically conclusive proof 

Yeah, you summarized my point correctly by saying this finite whatever didn’t come into being from something. But… 

that would only make it similar to an eternal thing in the sense that it’d be a-mechanistic (like what I said in one of my comments to Leo) 

But a-mechanistic doesn’t automatically mean eternal. It just means uncaused. Meaning, it’s there without something putting it there 

Which yeah, is odd. Very odd. We can grant that 

But an eternal reality would also be there without being put there. It’d simply be a different flavor of that 

Think of it this way, cause this is kinda cool & trippy: 

An eternal reality (with its whole eternal chain of stuff, like you’re talking about) would have all its content there, without ever being placed there. No cause 

Yeah, each thing in the chain would be caused. But the chain itself wouldn’t be, because it’d have nothing prior to it 

There’s one of those cool Alan Watts type deals you’re talking about. The chain would be there… but without having ever been placed 

Now, if we’re willing to accept the weirdness of an entire eternal chain being there, but without any placement, then whatmore to stomach is there in the notion of a starting point just being there, without any cause or placement? 

Again, yes, it’s weird. I acknowledge that. But my point is, that an eternal reality has the same bizarre feature. We don’t get rid of the a-mechanistic weirdness by switching from a finite reality to an eternal one 

Both would have their full contents, without that content having ever been placed. One would simply have a starting point as part of that unplaced content 

 

What do you mean a starting point without placed content. 
 

Your saying eternal has no starting point per its definition and Hawkins is saying unplaced content but a starting point as in time starts?

 

stars when is the first thought that comes to mind, when the content ther wasn’t placed was placed???  But it doesn’t have a moment when it was so it’s always been there. Something’s not adding up. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:20 AM by Mu_

[Synchronicity]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you don't like it you can file a complaint with God.

But… you’re the one citing A = A 

And your points don’t hold in the way that A = A does 

A = A is only circularly accepted as an axiom, because it holds across all hypotheticals (at least in classical self-evident logic) 

Your points don’t hold in all of them. It doesn’t hold in a finite a-mechanic reality. But A = A does 

This is just how logic… works 

It’s how tautologies & necessities work 

Edited Wednesday at 03:21 AM by Synchronicity

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

What do you mean a starting point without placed content. 
 

Your saying eternal has no starting point per its definition and Hawkins is saying unplaced content but a starting point as in time starts?

 

stars when is the first thought that comes to mind, when the content ther wasn’t placed was placed???  But it doesn’t have a moment when it was so it’s always been there. Something’s not adding up. 

It means, you accept unplaced content, by accepting an eternal chain (which would, by definition, be unplaced) 

So now, picture if reality’s content simply had a starting point. So it could still be unplaced content, but it’d have a starting point 

Which would mean that reality started, with no cause before it 

I’m not saying that this is how reality is & I’m not saying that a finite uncaused reality is a tautology 

I’m saying it’s an option & that - because it’s an option - an eternal reality isn’t a tautology 

[Mu_]

4 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

It means, you accept unplaced content, by accepting an eternal chain (which would, by definition, be unplaced) 

So now, picture if reality’s content simply had a starting point. So it could still be unplaced content, but it’d have a starting point 

Which would mean that reality started, with no cause before it 

I’m not saying that this is how reality is & I’m not saying that a finite uncaused reality is a tautology 

I’m saying it’s an option & that - because it’s an option - an eternal reality isn’t a tautology 

Now I don’t know the difference between your idea of eternal and this Hawkins thing. 
 

For me eternal doesn’t mean an infinite chain behind it, it’s just there as the only thing, no before, no after. 
 

your saying pretty much the same thing no?  But a starting point is the result with afterwards? 
 

if so I’d ask what do you mean start and after. It’s self contained going-onness no?  There’s no time in this, it’s just itself happening 

[Terell Kirby]

@Leo Gura would you argue that reality is constantly moving towards something greater Unity and Wholeness? Seems all movement in the Universe is orchestrated with divine intelligence, which grounds logic .. this of logic transcends laws of physics or any other material system, which is an offshoot or subsegment of divine intelligence.

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A = A. There's just no getting around that.

I find this is fundamental to most of your proofs. 'A' being Existence itself, in all of its forms.

Question for me to contemplate: what is Existence up to? Like .. really, what is it up to? If it's not bound by the laws of physics, its self determining-doing whatever the hell it wants, when it wants -- Existence creates logic serves to serve its agenda.

Edited Wednesday at 03:36 AM by Terell Kirby

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

This is where you start to turn circular. You’re just saying “this is how it is” without showing that it’s necessarily how it is 

I get that you’re saying all these insights come from Awakening. And that’s all well & good. But it’s clearly not a logical proof, if you’re now crumbling at the knees & saying “sorry, I’m just right. Tough luck” 

Because what you want is impossible. Mind has infinite capacity to imagine endless doubt and incoherent nonsense. Any proof can always be doubted. You cannot even prove A = A because I could create the doubt that your brain is malfunctioning and actually A != A. Or that in alternative universe A != A. This limit is inherent to human sensemaking.

There is no line of reasoning that can assuage all imaginable doubts.

Quote

So Awakening experience? Yes. But logical? No 

It is logical but whether logic applies to God can only be know through empirical exploration of God.

You technically cannot know that the world is logical until you empirically explore it. Logic is not as a priori as people want to belive. A baby does not know if logic is true.

Quote

Also, you keep citing A = A,

That's just to say that existence is logical.

Quote

but people can actually show when something is tautological like A = A

Actually they can't. You can imagine a reality where A != A. The only reason A = A is accepted as true is simply because of social convention and laying down doubt.

At some point you just have to stop doubting, or if you don't you turn into a buffoon.

All logic depends on accepting certain things as fundamental and beyond further explanation. A = A is one of those things. The notion that everything logical can be derived through air-tight logic is simply a very bad human idea. Which is why I told you to present your own better proof. Because you will see that the very notion of proof is quite a flimsy thing that requires many assumptions no matter how good your proof is. No proof can withstand an absolute skeptic. Proof is just inherently limited. This needs to be kept in mind when creating or criticizing any proof of anything.

Quote

If A = A holds in both, while yours only holds in one of them, then your insights aren’t tautologies 

God is a tautology. But that doesn't mean the human mind will see it that way prior to Awakening.

Edited Wednesday at 03:42 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Mu_ said:

Now I don’t know the difference between your idea of eternal and this Hawkins thing. 
 

For me eternal doesn’t mean an infinite chain behind it, it’s just there as the only thing, no before, no after. 
 

your saying pretty much the same thing no?  But a starting point is the result with afterwards? 
 

if so I’d ask what do you mean start and after. It’s self contained going-onness no?  There’s no time in this, it’s just itself happening 

If that’s your definition of eternal, then all of reality could’ve started 13.8 billion years ago & - as long as there’s no before - you’d consider reality eternal regardless 

If that’s your definition of eternal, I won’t debate it, because I know how annoying semantic debates can get. All I can say is that it’s not the typical definition. But hey, we don’t all need to be typical! Thinking for yourself can be good of course 

[Mu_]

4 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

If that’s your definition of eternal, then all of reality could’ve started 13.8 billion years ago & - as long as there’s no before - you’d consider reality eternal regardless 

If that’s your definition of eternal, I won’t debate it, because I know how annoying semantic debates can get. All I can say is that it’s not the typical definition. But hey, we don’t all need to be typical! Thinking for yourself can be good of course 

So your saying time starts at what point then, when the unplaced finite objects start existing?  But again your saying they don’t start they are unplaced.  So when does time start in this theoretical idea then? 

[Leo Gura]

Eternity and Infinity are the same thing.

Time doesn't ever start. Time is imaginary. You are imagining its start. Beginning and end are imaginary. Reality/God has no beginning or end. Every point within God is both beginning and end at once, since all difference is imaginary.

God is a circle where every point is its beginning and end.

Edited Wednesday at 03:49 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Because what you want is impossible. Mind is infinite capacity to imagine endless doubt and incoherent nonsense. Any proof cam always be doubted. You cannot even prove A = A because I could create the doubt that your brain is malfunctioning and actually A != A. Or that in alternative universe A != A. This is limit is inherent to human sensemaking.

 

I’m sorry, but this is wrong. Why not educate your forum members on how logic works? 
 

Here’s how it works. The reason that A = A cannot be proven & is usually accepted without proof, is because A = A holds in all classical hypotheticals. This means that - in all hypotheticals where self-evidence holds - A is always A 

What this means, is that we’d need to imagine a hypothetical which breaks self-evidence, in order for A != A 

On the other hand, we can imagine a hypothetical that defies your whole video, without even breaking self-evidence 

That’s because, our example of a finite a-mechanic reality has 

1. No identity-breaks (because that reality would still be itself) 

2. No contradictions (because it’d just be its finite self. It wouldn’t be both itself & not-itself) 

3. No non-binary truth values (because it’d simply be true that the reality is finite & false that it’s - let’s say - infinite. So we wouldn’t have any cases of something being “both true & false” or “neither true nor false”) 

This means that the finite reality wouldn’t violate any of the 3 things that break self-evidence 

Therefore, it’s a hypothetical that doesn’t defy logic 

Which means, it’s not just the case that we can imagine some nonsensical hypothetical to doubt your insights 

Instead, it means we can doubt your insights, without even leaving the arena of classical logic 

In other words, even classical self-evident logic includes hypotheticals in which your worldview would be false 

But if instead, we wanted to find hypotheticals in which A = A is false? Yes, we’d have to defy self-evidence & do the 4-sided triangle thing you mentioned

We’d have to do it for A = A. But not for your video 

[Princess Arabia]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

God is a circle where every point is its beginning and end

 

[Synchronicity]

11 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

So you’re saying time starts at what point then, when the unplaced finite objects start existing?  But again you’re saying they don’t start they are unplaced.  So when does time start in this theoretical idea then? 

Almost what I said, yes. I said it’d start, but not be caused 

Believe it or not, that’s not a contradiction. Even in physics, there are examples of things that can start without a cause. Look into some quantum field theory for examples like fluctuations & excitations 

I won’t say that quantum mechanics has a full picture of reality. I don’t think it’s even remotely close. But that only strengthens my point. If even a super-limited framework like quantum mechanics can have uncaused starting points, then we can’t rule it out quite yet 

Like how the contents of a beginningless reality would have no prior cause, same with the finite one 

The finite one would simply have a starting point within its uncaused package 

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:56 AM by Synchronicity

[Mu_]

2 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Almost what I said, yes. I said it’d start, but not be caused 

Believe it or not, that’s not a contradiction. Even in physics, there are examples of things that can start without a cause. Look into some quantum field theory for examples like fluctuations & excitations 

I won’t say that quantum mechanics has a full picture of reality. I don’t think it’s even remotely close. But that only strengthens my point. If even a super-limited framework like quantum mechanics can have uncaused starting points, then we can’t rule it out quite yet 

Like how the contents of a beginningless reality would have no prior cause, same with the finite one 

The finite one would simply have a starting point within its uncaused package 

 

But I feel like your being illogical and unable to concisely mean something real. Like a 4 sided triangle. 
 

when does the start start, if the unplaced objects are never placed. 

[Synchronicity]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually they can't. You can imagine a reality where A != A. The only reason A = A is accepted as true is simply because of social convention and laying down doubt.

It’s more than simply social convention. It’s accepted as true - rather than being doubted - because it holds in all classical hypotheticals 

It doesn’t need to hold in absolutely all of them, because yeah, like you’re saying, we could doubt anything at that point 

But A = A at least holds within all classical ones, which makes it a classical certainty, even if not an absolute certainty 

So we accept it, because it’s classically certain & classically unbeatable 

Not merely because of social convention 

And we can show when something is classically unbeatable. So I’m not sure why you say we can’t… 

We can. We just show that something cannot be violated without identity breaks, contradictions, or non-binary truth values. That’s the history of self-evident logic 

It’s been accepted due to its classical certainty 

Edited Wednesday at 04:02 AM by Synchronicity

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

This means that the finite reality wouldn’t violate any of the 3 things that break self-evidence 

Therefore, it’s a hypothetical that doesn’t defy logic 

It does not defy materialist human logic. But human logic is woefully inadequate and means nothing other than human social norms.

Understanding the logic of God requires making new logical connections that standard logicians do not make. So a finite material reality is incoherent not from the POV of coventional logic but from the POV of God. From a human POV atheism is coherent, but this is meaningless. From an idiot's POV Nazism or MAGA is coherent. So what?

A child could think that 4 sided triangles are coherent. That's not by problem, that's the child's problem. Whether one sees coherence or incoherence very much depends on the intelligence of one's mind. It's not a singular canonical conclusion of all minds. What is incoherent to me might look coherent to you. The mind is a master at making incoherent things seem coherent but simply being blind to things.

A finite material reality is incoherent once one understands that finite things can never be self-created, nor can they be eternal because eternity necessitates Infinity. The missing piece of conventional logic is that it does not understand that if any part of reality is eternal or infinite, all of reality must be. And then there is a further failure to understand what infinity entails. Conventional logicians simply have no idea how serious infinite anything is. And nothing can help them other than Awakening.

My proofs only work for a mind that has a profound grasp of the significance of Infinity. And that's as it should be, because I am describing the logic of how anything at all can exist. This should be expected to be an advanced thing, like trying to understand an advanced mathematical theorem. This requires deep intelligence to connect important dots. If those dots are not connected then the logical entailments will not be visible. It takes an advanced mind to see logical entailments of the kind we are talking about.

Edited Wednesday at 04:12 AM by Leo Gura