New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[Leo Gura]

@Synchronicity Here is a dead simple logical proof of Oneness:

Take the notion of Everything. Everything must be One. Why? Because any thing whatsoever must be included in Everything. If you can think of or imagine a thing which isn't part of Everything, that means you didn't have Everything, so just include that thing into Everything.

So by absolute logic Everything must be One. There can only be one Everything. Everything must also be infinite since Everything can hold an infinite number of things. Since numbers are things, we can see that Everything must at least contain all the numbers, which means Everything is infinite. It is impossible to imagine anything that is not a "thing" since I define "thing" as anything whatsoever, including "non-things".

So Everything is God.

Classical logic.

Doubt it all you like, but it is true.

Edited Wednesday at 05:33 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

11 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

 

I’m not sure if we need to prove time but your theory depends on it since your saying time which hasn’t been qualified yet can extend for a length and stop in this uncaused finite reality. 
 

It’s not my theory. It’s a theory 

One of many. It only states that time is finite. Finite time is a general category of theory. There’s many smaller potential theories within it (many possible ways for time to be finite). We don’t need to pick a specific sub-category for our purposes here 

That’s like if we had a conversation about dogs & you asked me to pick a specific breed. Why ya doing that? Dogs are a general category 

 

11 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

 

in fact this theory depends on time being real in it to be a grounds for the disproval of the other proof I started with. And yet you or I don’t know what time is to begin with.  Your now saying you could theorize ways in which time could be to work in this fictitious idea when you or I don’t know what any of it is to begin with or if it’s even real to start. 

I’m sorry to be brutally honest, but I encourage you to study logic more. You seem to confuse logic with science 

We don’t need to pick a specific theory of time in order to say that there’s many potential theories of time, which are both finite & conventionally logical 

Even if we say “time is real in our example,” there’s still many many many different theories (logically valid theories) under which time is real 

Why do we need to pick a specific dog-breed to talk about dogs? Why can’t we discuss dogs in general. That’s a perfectly coherent discussion that many people have had before 

11 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

 

 

Leo is right, logic’ can come up with all sorts of ways to believe something. 

I didn’t say I believe this theory of time… 

I’ve merely been presenting it, to show you that you haven’t found a conventional tautology, because you haven’t addressed all conventional possibilities 

Edited Wednesday at 05:30 AM by Synchronicity

[Mu_]

@Synchronicity ya I don’t know what to say. There’s always “something”. There is no possibility for nothing. If there was ever nothing, there would never be anything again, for there would be no way for something to exist.
 

to say reality could just happen when there is absolutely nothing at all is illogical.
 

so the fact there is @something” means it could not come from something else for if it did it would be connected and this the same thing. 

[Synchronicity]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Synchronicity Here is a dead simple logical proof of Oneness:

Take the notion of Everything. Everything must be One.

Nope. You already failed at this step 

Everything would also be non-Oneness, Absolute Duality, Absolute Division, Absolute Materialism, Unconsciousness, etc. because it’s everything 

It doesn’t matter if you think those things are impossible. Everything would be Everything 

You don’t believe in Everything, because there’s many things you don’t believe in 

 

[Synchronicity]

4 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

@Synchronicity ya I don’t know what to say. There’s always “something”. There is no possibility for nothing. If there was ever nothing, there would never be anything again, for there would be no way for something to exist.
 

to say reality could just happen when there is absolutely nothing at all is illogical.
 

so the fact there is @something” means it could not come from something else for if it did it would be connected and this the same thing. 

But there wouldn’t be nothing… there’d be a finite reality 

There wouldn’t be only nothing. A finite something plus nothing, is still a finite something 

3 + 0 is 3 

Not 0

Adding nothing to a finite thing, doesn’t make it nothing 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Everything would also be non-Oneness, Absolute Duality, Absolute Division, Absolute Materialism, Unconsciousness, etc. because it’s everything 

Sure, include all those things. Everything is still One.

One is an absolute. It's not different from many.

Oneness contains manyness within it.

Edited Wednesday at 05:36 AM by Leo Gura

[Mu_]

@Synchronicity also in a finite uncaised reality there would be no outside of it and no inside of it, it would be a unified unseperable self contained self knowing self defining phenomenon. It would only be able to measure itself by creating its own imposed separation to say this is a length and this is a space. Same would go with supposed time , it would define what constitutes a thing called time or not. 

[Synchronicity]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Sure, include all those things. Everything is still One.

One is an absolute. It's not different from many.

Oneness contains manyness within it.

It’d be Absolutely Two, because it’d be Everything 

And it’d be Absolutely Two just as much as it’s Absolutely One, because it’d be Everything 

It’d even be Absolutely 300, because it’d be Everything 

You don’t believe in Everything, because you believe Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Mu_ said:

@Synchronicity also in a finite uncaised reality there would be no outside of it and no inside of it

There’d be an inside. Just no outside 

You’re using your own Nondual presuppositions, instead of using classical logic 

Just because Alan Watts says an inside with no outside is impossible, doesn’t make it true 

Study logic for yourself, instead of taking Alan Watts’ philosophy at his word 

A finite reality would - by definition - still have an inside 

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Synchronicity said:

You don’t believe in Everything, because you believe Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness

I don't need to believe in it. I became directly conscious that God is Everything.

Yes, Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness. But Oneness still allows 300-ness to exist.

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

 

Yes, Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness.

Therefore, reality isn’t Everything, under your findings 

Just say “I Awakened to the Truth & the Truth is that not-everything is real” 

This is precisely what you’re claiming. Please be honest with yourself 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Therefore, reality isn’t Everything, under your findings 

Just say “I Awakened to the Truth & the Truth is that not-everything is real” 

This is precisely what you’re claiming. Please be honest with yourself 

Everything just has a Meta-Unity.

Language and thought simply breaks down at this ultimate level.

If everything is real, that's a Unity.

Edited Wednesday at 05:52 AM by Leo Gura

[Mu_]

9 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

There’d be an inside. Just no outside 

You’re using your own Nondual presuppositions, instead of using classical logic 

Just because Alan Watts says an inside with no outside is impossible, doesn’t make it true 

Study logic for yourself, instead of taking Alan Watts’ philosophy at his word 

A finite reality would - by definition - still have an inside 

What would it be inside to if it’s the only one event, your looking at it as though it’s a human inside the space looking around so there is an inside, but the whole thing itself. There is no outside it or inside it, just IT.  This is a none measurable event. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:52 AM by Mu_

[Synchronicity]

Just now, Mu_ said:

What would it be inside to if it’s the only one event, your looking at it as though it’s a human inside the space looking around so there is an inside, but the whole thing itself. There is no outside it or inside it, just IT.  This is a nine measurable event. 

It’d be inside that one event 

The event would have its finite boundaries & there’d be nothing past those boundaries 

The boundaries would have an inside with no outside 

Are you thinking that such a one-sided boundary would be illogical? Is that where you’re feeling confused by the idea? 
 

Help me understand what about this feels confusing or oddball-ish to you 

[Nemra]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness. But Oneness still allows 300-ness to exist.

You could say that if you imagine 300-ness, then you cannot include not-300-ness within 300-ness because 300-ness isn't everything. But oneness can, because when we account for everything, then the everything can be viewed as one.

Edited Wednesday at 06:00 AM by Nemra

[Mu_]

2 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

It’d be inside that one event 

The event would have its finite boundaries & there’d be nothing past those boundaries 

The boundaries would have an inside with no outside 

Are you thinking that such a one-sided boundary would be illogical? Is that where you’re feeling confused by the idea? 
 

Help me understand what about this feels confusing or oddball-ish to you 

But the inside is all connected like a solid ball. If your just a solid ball with no outside, there is no inside the ball 🏀 it’s just ball ball ball ball. 
 

likewise. There is no objective front of a tree. And no top of a lake. These require other separate things and definitions to create. 

[Synchronicity]

Just now, Mu_ said:

But the inside is all connected like a solid ball. If your just a solid ball with no outside, there is no inside the ball 🏀 it’s just ball ball ball ball. 

You’re continuing to say that no outside = no inside, but you haven’t yet logically proved that point 

Re-statements aren’t proofs 

A thing with an inside but no outside would still 

1. be itself 

2. not be both itself & not-itself 

3. It’d also be true to say of it, that it is what it is & false to say that it is what it’s not 

So it doesn’t violate any of the 3 axioms of classical logic 

Therefore, it’s not classically impossible 

This isn’t up for debate, unfortunately. This is how classical logic works. If you want to claim like Leo is, that you’ve Awakened to a different logic, then by all means, we can discuss that. But this stuff here isn’t presenting anything so far that adheres to Classical Logic 

 

[Mu_]

@Synchronicity likewise there is no inside of your body, there is just a body, and you define the head as on top and the feet at the bottom but it’s one connected unit with no inside or outside of it.  It’s only through language and terminology that you’ve sectioned it into pieces and feel it in pieces. 

[Leo Gura]

Inside and outside is a duality. They are co-defined. You can't have an inside without an outside unless you have an Absolute or Infinity. Infinity can have only "inside". But every finite thing must have an inside and an outside. If there is only inside or only outside the thing is either infinitely large or infinitely small.

Every slice has two sides.

You can't have an up without a down, since up and down are relative to each other.

This is actually a great proof of the Oneness of Absolutes. The only thing that can have a One is an Absolute. Oness is a property of an Absolute. Absolute is God.

Edited Wednesday at 06:13 AM by Leo Gura

[Bufo Alvarius]

@Synchronicity Great to see you're visiting, Ethan, always fun to read your perspectives. 

Hope you're doing well, bud