New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[kbone]

@Someone here

Sure, it's non-duality 101 stuff.

[kbone]

@ExploringReality

Interesting.

Noted.

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, kbone said:

@Someone here

Sure, it's non-duality 101 stuff.

Leo doesn't buy nonduality with a can of tuna lol. Catch up please .Leo is solipsist not sure why he is calling it idealism here .he is saying existence is pitch black nothing and only because your all seeing eye is open since forever that it projects all of reality outwards and gives you your movie (life). Like Hojo's pfp. Stay away from hojo BTW such a scary dude lol.

.

[kbone]

@Someone here

Welp, to be honest, I don't know anyone here that well. When someone starts going into idealism as the only/best term to use, I listen to see what they have to say out of curiosity. I didn't watch the video, but based on what the title was, I assume he's just using the 'Mind of God' dealio with respect to idealism. Could be wrong, doesn't matter.

Sure, I've heard and used lots of metaphors, analogies, etc in attempts to point to what cannot be described. Many folks use different terms for the same dealio, and folks end up talking past each other based on an assumption or a misunderstanding. I'm well aware of the fact that the failure rate is uniquely high, hehe, so I tend toward different unique ways of expression at times. Every now and then, it might help, who knows. Most peeps are generally averse to futility.

I don't mind getting into the extreme expressions to perhaps jolt a mind, but I'm also generally purddy good at spotting when the mind has taken over and it is driving the convo unawares. It's kinda like God has fallen into its own dream. People have all kinds of 'experiences' and make all kinds of assumptions based on those experiences...happens all the time. Truth is much simpler. 

[gengar]

On 5/17/2025 at 8:51 PM, Leo Gura said:

Isn't it obvious that infinite imagination must include infinite horror?

Have you never had a nightmare? What do you think that is? Where do you think that came from? Where do you think that leads when taken to the Nth degree?

Just look at all the horror films created by mankind. Where do you think all that creativity came from?

God.

But human creativity is just a grain of sand next to God's.

so what happens to horror to the Infinityth degree?

Does it get defeated by the infinity of God's love?

Does a limited bias (such as "horror" or "pleasure") even get to have an infinite degree, or is the infinite degree only reserved for the totality itself?

Think about it logically, if "evil" for example were to stretch itself into the infinityth degree, it would find a way to destroy all good.

It also goes against neoplatonic logic of "ever-returning".

What are your thoughts on this?

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, gengar said:

so what happens to horror to the Infinityth degree?

Does it get defeated by the infinity of God's love?

It doesn't need to get defeated.

You don't defeat evil. You just realize that everything is part of LOVE.

Think about it logically. If everything is LOVE then evil can go infinitely high and there is no problem.

Edited May 20 by Leo Gura

[gengar]

2 hours ago, kbone said:

No other word for what?

What is pointed to is trans-rationally simple, and not confusing at all. What typically makes it difficult or confusing is that most will use their minds to search for it.

That's why a term like 'idealism' can be misconstrued in convos, depending on interlocutors' understanding of the terminology.

no, because dualism is untrue, and material monism is saying that falsehood (namely a non-existing conceptual reality of material reality, a set of quantifiers) is true, while stating that truth (consciousness, current experience, field of perception) is false and doesn't exist.

So the only thing that remains is idealism, because that is monism of what is true and states that conceptual realities are not true fundamental realities.

In the end, Idealism doesn't even deny the existence of object in favor of a subject, it unifies them, since object and subject are the same; objects exist, but only as consciousness. the rock in my hand exists and is absolute truth but it is not separate from subjectivity.

At first glance, it might seem that Idealism denies material reality, when in fact it doesn't, it actually supports it because it turns out material objects can only ever be conceived of in idealistic sense. Idealism supports both objects and subjects, although they are of the same substance in the end. While materalism (materliastic monism) denies both and plays vague mind games to come up with a set of quantifiers which ultimately make up reality without any quality.

Materialists HATE qualia and the fundamental problem they propose for formal materialism, so they MUST deny their existence in some way or another. Some muffle them away and don't spend much thought on the problem, while the more hardcore materialists realize the problem of qualia and don't shy away from it, leading them to the inevitable conclusion that consciousness and qualia MUST be illusions (this is called "Illusionism", propagated by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" and Daniel C Dennett in "Consciousness explained" (wish i could put another set of quotation marks around that).

The ironic part is of course that qualifying something as an "illusion" by definition invokes qualia, which they deny by calling it an illusion. It's funny how materialism taken to its ultimate conclusion ends up in a mystical strange loop. The Illusionists do actually arrive at a conclusion that reality is an illusion, but in a twisted way to cope with their own biases.

[ExploringReality]

@Leo Gura

Love is the Pinnacle of The Absolute. All of infinity boils down to Absolute Love. It's absolutely perfect, gorgeous, insanely Good and Absolutely True.

Love is not a human or animal emotion, love is sentient, alive and infinitely interconnected to everything in the universe, in creation. God is a self aware field of infinity which embraces itself without Judgment, denial and blame. 

Edited May 20 by ExploringReality

[kbone]

41 minutes ago, gengar said:

so what happens to horror to the Infinityth degree?

Does it get defeated by the infinity of God's love?

Does a limited bias (such as "horror" or "pleasure") even get to have an infinite degree, or is the infinite degree only reserved for the totality itself?

Think about it logically, if "evil" for example were to stretch itself into the infinityth degree, it would find a way to destroy all good.

It also goes against neoplatonic logic of "ever-returning".

What are your thoughts on this?

You're juggling a lot of conceptualizations there.

What do the concepts of Infinity, God, God's love, good, and evil mean in your mind? At present, you are working with a paradox, all of which only exist within the mind via its conceptions and their apparent conflict with each other.

Have you ever read that famous Nisargadatta quote about Love and Wisdom? It might help if you were to contemplate it during a walk in nature.

"Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two, my life flows."

Edited May 20 by kbone

[gengar]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It doesn't need to get defeated.

You don't defeat evil. You just realize that everything is part of LOVE.

Think about it logically. If everything is LOVE then evil can go infinitely high and there is no problem.

My logic tells me different. Nothing that is biased in essence (like evil) , can go infinitely high, because it blocks the other biased things in God's Infinity to ever sprout again, like a cancer growing infinitely.

Imagine an Infinite, selfish being, and an Infinite selfless being, both imagined in Gods mind.

The selfish being will try to destroy the selfless being, and will try with infinite power, because it is infinite.

The selfless being will not try to stop it, because it is selfless.

In the end this means Gods mind would be colonized by selfishness and no selflessness would remain. And thus the unbiased nature of God would be corrupted, and God would no longer be infinite, because his Infinity requires all biases to exist, including selflessness and selfishness. The only way for this to happen is for all evil and all other biased things to be of finite nature. An infinite selfish being does not exist.

----

Apart from the logical argument, take a look at this from a moral perspective, do you really propose the cosmos, the All, Gods mind, however you want to call it, to be something that can spawn infinitely evil things? How do you even come up with that being a possibility? Sure, the cosmos seems to be a constant duality of attraction and repulsion, an eternal conflict of evil and good. But Gods unbiased nature requires every ripple to be finite. Apart from the IMO clearly apparent logical truth of this, why do you entertain such moral evils to your followers? clearly it's not true, like I've just deducted to you using absolute logic which you also use. Why do you entertain such radical disinformation to your followers without thinking it through at first? What we're sharing here is no joke, but absolute seriousness.

[kbone]

@gengar

That's purddy complicated, so I'll read it later with a fresher mind. My point wasn't about what idealism says or doesn't say; it was about how words/ideas are conceptualized in one mind versus another in a convo about Truth (knowing it cannot be conveyed from one mind to another via the conceptualization). My original post in this thread was in reply to @Bjorn K Holmstrom and it was with respect to how nuanced the concept of idealism can be and the apparent skepticism that might arise from a convo about it and its pertinence to potentially realizing Truth.

Edited May 20 by kbone

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, gengar said:

The only way for this to happen is for all evil and all other biased things to be of finite nature.

Well, yes. Evil is a finite thing in that sense, in that evil isn't all-encompassing because it excludes good. So it cannot be absolutely infinite.

What I meant earlier was just that horror can have infinite variety or degree, so in this lesser sense horror is infinite. But horror is just a small part of Absolute Infinity.

Horror is a sub-infinity, like how music is a sub-infinity. So it all works out. Horror cannot go beyond itself, otherwise it stops being horror. This is what ensures that God is not pure horror and nothing else, as in some kind of Devil.

Edited May 20 by Leo Gura

[gengar]

9 minutes ago, kbone said:

You're juggling a lot of conceptualizations there.

What do the concepts of Infinity, God, God's love, good, and evil mean in your mind? At present, you are working with a paradox, all of which only exist within the mind via its conceptions and their apparent conflict with each other.

Have you ever read that famous Nisargadatta quote about Love and Wisdom? It might help if you were to contemplate it during a walk in nature.

"Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two, my life flows."

They're not concepts at all, at least not in the way you're denouncing them as.

I'm using them as operators in absolute logic, which is the entire point of absolute logic.

We're talking about the fundamental things of logic and reality here. all the operators i used are the bedrock operators of language.

And you're basically telling me to touch grass lol.

Logic is not in conflict with feeling and intuition. The closer you get to the absolute, they are the same.

"Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two, my life flows."

I also don't see Wisdom as being fundamental just as Love, so the quote doesn't answer much for me. Love is the the attraction and repulsing of atoms, planets, people, EVERYTHING. it is the fundamental coming and going of the universe.

Maybe Wisdom is as fundamental, but I don't see it now. Maybe you have more insight than me about it though.

"all of which only exist within the mind via its conceptions and their apparent conflict with each other."

Actually, I'm trying to point out that Leo's point leads to contradiction, while what I propose, namely that no infinity truly exists except for Absolute Infinity (so all "lesser infinities" are illusions and concepts and don't actually exist) , actually resolves all contradiction.

 

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, yes. Evil is a finite thing in that sense, in that evil isn't all-encompassing because it excludes good. So it cannot be fully infinite.

What I meant earlier was just that horror can have infinite variety or degree, so in this lesser sense horror is infinite. But horror is just a small part of Absolute Infinity.

Horror is a sub-infinity, like how music is a sub-infinity.

Ah yes. However I would add that a sub-infinity doesn't actually exist. The only infinity that actually exists and can actually exist is Absolute Infinity.

the sub-infinities may seem to exist, however they never actually do; in the same sense that you can never count up all the natural numbers. In theory and concept it exists, but never actualized. Absolute Infinity is the only Infinity in Actuality.

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

23 minutes ago, gengar said:

My logic tells me different. Nothing that is biased in essence (like evil) , can go infinitely high, because it blocks the other biased things in God's Infinity to ever sprout again, like a cancer growing infinitely.

Imagine an Infinite, selfish being, and an Infinite selfless being, both imagined in Gods mind.

The selfish being will try to destroy the selfless being, and will try with infinite power, because it is infinite.

The selfless being will not try to stop it, because it is selfless.

In the end this means Gods mind would be colonized by selfishness and no selflessness would remain. And thus the unbiased nature of God would be corrupted, and God would no longer be infinite, because his Infinity requires all biases to exist, including selflessness and selfishness. The only way for this to happen is for all evil and all other biased things to be of finite nature. An infinite selfish being does not exist.

----

Apart from the logical argument, take a look at this from a moral perspective, do you really propose the cosmos, the All, Gods mind, however you want to call it, to be something that can spawn infinitely evil things? How do you even come up with that being a possibility? Sure, the cosmos seems to be a constant duality of attraction and repulsion, an eternal conflict of evil and good. But Gods unbiased nature requires every ripple to be finite. Apart from the IMO clearly apparent logical truth of this, why do you entertain such moral evils to your followers? clearly it's not true, like I've just deducted to you using absolute logic which you also use. Why do you entertain such radical disinformation to your followers without thinking it through at first? What we're sharing here is no joke, but absolute seriousness.

I really like your argument actually! But there are a couple of assumptions to think about...

1. Assumption: Evil/selfishness is inherently infinite if left unchecked.
Selfishness, by its nature, is self-consuming. An infinitely selfish being would, paradoxically, collapse under its contradiction - selfishness seeks to preserve the self, yet in doing so, it must eventually destroy everything else, including the conditions that make its own existence possible. It's like a fire trying to burn infinitely - it eventually runs out of fuel. So, rather than being infinite, selfishness is inherently self-limiting.

Think of a game where everyone plays fair, then one player finds a cheat like aim assist. At first, it feels powerful - they win easily. But soon, all the real players quit, and they're left alone with bots. No challenge, no meaning. Or worse, everyone starts cheating, too, and the game becomes a mess. The system breaks, and nobody enjoys it. That’s how selfishness works - it might win short term, but it destroys the environment it needs to keep going.

Even visually, imagine cutting a circle in two, one part bigger. The bigger half might feel superior, but if it keeps absorbing the smaller half, eventually there's nothing left to feel "bigger" than. It collapses into meaninglessness.

In both cases, selfishness backfires. It relies on others to define itself - to feel "greater," there has to be someone "lesser." But when selfishness takes over completely, that contrast vanishes. It’s like a parasite that kills its host, only to starve afterward. By nature, selfishness is a dualistic concept - it defines itself against the other, not with it. Because it can’t recognize the other as part of itself, it’s ultimately self-defeating and bound to collapse.

2. Assumption: The selfless being wouldn't act to stop destruction.
Selflessness doesn’t mean inaction. It can mean compassion, protection, and defense without personal gain. A truly selfless being might actively oppose harm, not for itself, but for the good of others. So the idea that selflessness must be passive isn't necessarily accurate. A truly selfless being can embrace and embody evil and selfishness when necessary, not out of desire, but out of understanding. It can take on darkness to protect the light. That’s why we admire heroes: not because they’re perfect, but because they’re willing to be fierce, even destructive, when the cause is just. True selflessness isn’t weakness - it’s the strength to become what’s needed, even if that means facing or becoming the very thing it stands against.

-

This is also why, for example, Stage Red in Spiral Dynamics doesn’t function better than Stage Orange. In Stage Red, power dominates - it's all about strength, selfishness, control, and survival of the strongest. But in that environment, the biggest "dogs" end up consuming each other, and everyone else is left at the mercy of whoever holds the most power. The weaker or less aggressive individuals, who might actually have better ideas, systems, or caretaking abilities, get pushed out or silenced.

In contrast, societies that balance both selfishness and selflessness tend to thrive over time. They make room for competition and innovation and for cooperation and care. Without that balance, all you get is short-term dominance and gains that eventually collapse or burn out. In other words, it’s a system built for collapse. It may deliver quick results through force or dominance, but it lacks the stability and inclusiveness needed to endure over time. Without balance, it can’t sustain itself or dominate over anything long-term.

 

Edited May 20 by Xonas Pitfall

[Leo Gura]

Sub-infinities are as real as Absolute Infinity, as parts of a fractal are as real as the whole fractal.

It's all one thing, with various levels of zoom, so to speak.

Edited May 20 by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

@Leo Gura So Why do you believe in logic? There is no logic for being . Logic arises within consciousness but it cannot map out consciousness completely so whats the point here in these kinds of futile discussions about mere abstractions and words ?

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

So Why do you believe in logic?

Logic is not a belief.

Notice that even your questions and criticisms of anything I say cannot work without logic. You need logic to criticize.

Quote

There is no logic for being .

Yes there is. There must be. For a thing to just be it cannot not-be.

Notice that nothing in the world happens for no reason. There is always some reason for how things are. This reason is not necessarily of the human sort.

Edited May 20 by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Logic is not a belief.

Notice that even your questions and criticisms of anything I say cannot work without logic. You need logic to criticize.

Yes there is. There must be. For a thing to just be it cannot not-be.

Notice that nothing in the world happens for no reason. There is always some reason for how things are. This reason is not necessarily of the human sort.

What is logic in your direct experience right now ?

Yes you and those dudes believe that logic leads to truth .if this is abc then that Is 123. Etc

 logic is not absolute. Its limited and relative .like  how the liar's paradox shows that ordinary language is limited by self-reference.

I wish I knew more about formal logic so I could understand better.. but it seems to me that arguing  if premise A is this  then  B is true..if conclusion then false must be self-referential in order get the argument A..therefore B ...right? So doesn't this only show that self-referential language can lead to paradox? And isn't that obvious?   logic is only a language used to symbolize objects and  and symbols cannot  symbolize themselves (like how a map can't map itself infinitetely)? 

And what's that you say nothing happened for no reason?  Where do you find a reason for this present moment?  The reason has to be in the past but I find no past here.

[kbone]

10 minutes ago, gengar said:

They're not concepts at all, at least not in the way you're denouncing them as.

I'm using them as operators in absolute logic, which is the entire point of absolute logic.

We're talking about the fundamental things of logic and reality here. all the operators i used are the bedrock operators of language.

And you're basically telling me to touch grass lol.

Logic is not in conflict with feeling and intuition. The closer you get to the absolute, they are the same.

"Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two, my life flows."

I also don't see Wisdom as being fundamental just as Love, so the quote doesn't answer much for me. Love is the the attraction and repulsing of atoms, planets, people, EVERYTHING. it is the fundamental coming and going of the universe.

Maybe Wisdom is as fundamental, but I don't see it now. Maybe you have more insight than me about it though.

"all of which only exist within the mind via its conceptions and their apparent conflict with each other."

Actually, I'm trying to point out that Leo's point leads to contradiction, while what I propose, namely that no infinity truly exists except for Absolute Infinity (so all "lesser infinities" are illusions and concepts and don't actually exist) , actually resolves all contradiction.

 

Welp, maybe we conceptualize what concepts are differently!  Pretty much any "thing" conveyed via language is a concept about the thingy being referred to. The menu ain't the meal. I did not tell you to touch grass; it was a lot of concepts, many of which were newly contextualized and/or presented with lines of reasoning/logic holding them together in your novel way.

My point about the Absolute is that it is ALWAYS immediately 'available'. prior to and inclusive of mind's conceptions about it.

Yeah, not sure if I've ever seen the words infinite/infinity bandied about so much, either. Not really necessary, but I guess some people like the expression for various reasons. I mean, it just seems that if there are 'more' infinities, then the previous one was not IT, basically. Can one get new insights within Infinity? Sure, but insights are mind stuff, too.

I totally get the juxtaposition of NOTHING/EVERYTHING, as it was the most simplified expression after the cataclysmic event that brought down my existential house of cards.