New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[gengar]

44 minutes ago, Someone here said:

You know exactly what I mean .I wrote it in plain English.  Why  does the universe not disappear completely from existing right now ?

Nevermind I do know the answer which is that the universe is infinite so it has no where to go. Seems like we are stuck forever. you can suicide yourself a million times but this is not super Mario this is infinite Mario. 

The question about masturbation is more confusing 😂. 

By stating this you've already answered the question why some form of logic is baked in to reality.

Edited Tuesday at 10:58 PM by gengar

[Xonas Pitfall]

49 minutes ago, gengar said:

That's true, but my argument was also talking from that level. How can you point a philosophical, rationalist person towards the Truth? by saying Idealism is true. Because from the philosophical standpoint it is, because all Idealism says is that THIS is true, and no conceptualisations are like materialism.

Idealism is the turning philosophy in on itself by "escaping" the conceptualisation, if you get what I mean.

If you want to get a person lost in concepts out of their game you have to defeat them at their own game, so therefore, argue for Idealism.

Which is always possible because God is infinitely real and thus all logical reasoning leads to it.

I think this is one of the clearest breakdowns of materialism, physicalism, and rationalism I’ve come across. He still refers to it as analytical idealism, so he’s not avoiding the label – and that’s important. There’s nothing inherently wrong with calling it idealism, as long as the approach is grounded in rational analysis and argumentation.

[Someone here]

48 minutes ago, gengar said:

By stating this you've already answered the question why some form of logic is baked in to reality.

No there is no logic baked into reality .logic is something a human mind does. How can that be a fundamental engine in reality?  The only reason you can understand what you are reading right now is because of some chemical soup in your prefrontal cortex in the mushy imaginary brain inside your skull . Smoke some DMT and all that flies out the window . If something is relative to something else then it's not absolute. But I don't want to get into the whole "the relative is the absolute " thingy to not get lost in this conversation more than it is already lost .

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Why these extremes??

Kinda "accepting the challenge ".To see what the fuss is about . People are saying these are your best releases yet..so let's see.

[Leo Gura]

@Someone here Just start with the last one.

That will be plenty for you to chew on.

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Someone here Just start with the last one.

That will be plenty for you to chew on.

Cool. Watching now 🍿

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 hour ago, gengar said:

This is incorrect. We're talking about what is actually real and fully actualized. A part of a fractal doesn't exist - where do you pinpoint where one part begins and ends? You're missing the subtlety of what's being said here.

God has never counted up the natural numbers till infinity. because if he would, he would still be doing it right now and not created this experience right here.

You're making the mistake of projecting time onto God. God doesn't "become" or "choose" - God just is. As an infinite being, God already contains all possible expressions - every "sub-infinity" is already fully realized within the absolute.

Think of it like this: imagine an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1. Let's say, as a human ego, you’re the number 0.896532 and asking, “Why is God biased toward 0.8 and 0.9? If he is so 'unbiased' and infinite, shouldn't we see all numbers?” But that question only makes sense from your limited position. From the perspective of infinity, God is the entire interval 0 - 1, and everything in between. The bias you're perceiving is just a reflection of your temporary vantage point. Does this make sense?

1 hour ago, gengar said:

In a sense, Cantor's critics were correct in saying infinities are mere conceptualisations, except about one thing: Absolute Infinity. (nothing against Cantor he was genius but we're talking about what is ultimately real here)

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, and we agree. Infinite absolute is pure, undifferentiated noise or unlimited possibility. For infinity to be truly infinite, it has to include the finite, too. The infinite is only made complete when experienced through limitation. When you limit infinity, you divide it. When you divide infinity, you get two sub-infinities. Now you’ve got two infinite branches, each waiting to be fully explored.

Every sub-infinity must be realized.

If every sub-infinity isn’t realized, then something is left out.
If something is left out, then God isn’t truly infinite.
If God isn’t truly infinite, then the absolute isn’t complete.
Bias isn’t a flaw - it’s a necessary property of infinity.

[Nemra]

11 hours ago, Someone here said:

Smoke some DMT

You don't even think it's worth doing. So why bring that example?

Why don't you do that yourself instead of believing in stuff?

Edited yesterday at 11:32 AM by Nemra

[kbone]

13 hours ago, gengar said:

That's true, but my argument was also talking from that level. 1-How can you point a philosophical, rationalist person towards the Truth? by saying 2-Idealism is true. Because from the philosophical standpoint it is, because all Idealism says is that THIS is true, and no conceptualisations are like materialism.

Idealism is the 3-turning philosophy in on itself by "escaping" the conceptualisation, if you get what I mean.

If you want to get a person lost in concepts out of their game you have to defeat them at their own game, so therefore, 4-argue for Idealism.

Which is always possible because 5-God is infinitely real and thus all logical reasoning leads to it.



 

1- One can only point to Truth, and it cannot be described in any way that conveys it in a way that any mind, uninformed by Truth itself, can 'understand'. The distinction is absolute. I do NOT get involved in eristic arguments as such, because it is not my intent to simply win an argument. But, when someone shows genuine curiosity, I don't mind entering a conversation about Truth. It is the only thing that will set one authentically FREE.

2- Idealism can be a way to approach the convo in a manner that is conducive to a healthy discussion. Above is a video with Bernardo Kastrup, whom I think is someone genuinely interested in that kind of discovery. Would I say that idealism is the end all be all? Not really, but it has value. As far as alignment with expressions go, I'd say Zen or Advaita/Non-duality provide good value. That said, most minds just cherry pick the stuff they like, repeat phrases ad nauseum, collect ideas presented, etc, but never actually REALIZE what they're pointing to.

3- Yes, eventually philosophy does turn in on itself, resulting in all sorts of paradoxes. It's the nature of the bifurcating mind, which is why I hammer on it more than most peeps are inclined to do. As for the "escaping", yes, I do get what you mean. Peeps often are strongly attached to their ideas and/or have woo woo experiences that they like to hold up as proof of their superiority or omnipotence, so such escapism is bound to get squeezed out of the order of their arguments. After all, wisdom begins when one knows what one doesn't know <tips hat to Socrates>.

4- I wouldn't really argue 'for' any religio-pholisophical stance, but me more inclined to put it under the scrutiny of one's faculties. Idealism might serve as a good vehicle of choice to take one to the precipice in every mind, where one has come naked, stripped down to the very core of existence itself, humbled in the face of ITS immensity, and take the plunge. Most shudder at the thought, stay away from such ledges, and prefer to remain comfy and clothed in their ideals that cloak their anxiety and existential suffering born of feeling separate from the whole and/or unworthy. That's a mind game, sure, but it takes bravery and transhuman-like willingness to even get to that precipice, much less jump into the void. In other words, it ain't for everybody.

5- The concept of god refers to the same 'thinglessness' as infinite (endless, expansive and clear space of potentiality--- FREE) or eternal(endless time without beginning or end... Alpha-Omega, if you will----PEACE). The realization of IT is a doozy, to be sure. But it's more like the mind's surrender; the shift that moves one's sense of/as EXISTENCE beyond the prison bars of the mind's beliefs. There was never a lock to be picked; it was simply an ignorance of the bifurcating mind.... the master <sneers and giggles at Nurse Ratched>.

Edited yesterday at 12:47 PM by kbone

[kbone]

14 hours ago, gengar said:

This is incorrect. We're talking about what is actually real and fully actualized. A part of a fractal doesn't exist - where do you pinpoint where one part begins and ends? You're missing the subtlety of what's being said here.

The experience of "zooming in" is an illusion. you've never left the exploration of the full fractal. it's like going into a forest, and having the forest experience which is of course very different than the desert experience or the experience on the moon. yet all those things are only conceptually different, different to biased creatures, but not in actuality.

So how can something conceptual (the subinfinity) be just as real as something that is actual? (the entire infinity)

The arm of the fractal exists only as an idea, while the entire fractal itself does not exist as an idea, but in full actuality.

God has never counted up the natural numbers till infinity. because if he would, he would still be doing it right now and not created this experience right here.

The logic of Infinity demands there to be only one Infinity, and all others to be illusions, and the consequence of this is that a "subinfinity" can never exist. God is infinitely "choosing" aspects of Absolute Infinity, and that unending process is whats happening right now. Any zooming in on one part, like the set of all cheeses, is purely an illusion; it may seem that God is exploring the set of all cheeses but he is not, since the set does not exist at all. Were the set of cheeses be real, and the function of infinitely exploring it (actualizing the subinfinity) also real, then God would never get back to the exploration of Absolute Infinity.

In computer science terms, Gods search algorithm is neither depth-first nor breadth first, but random (unbiased). because both a bias for breadth-first (choosing different sets), and a bias for depth-first (cycling through members of a set) would give an infinite bias to either a particular set or only the first member of each set. Gods search algorithm must therefore be completely unbiased which means all subcategories are absolutely conceptual and arbitrary.

In a sense, Cantor's critics were correct in saying infinities are mere conceptualisations, except about one thing: Absolute Infinity. (nothing against Cantor he was genius but we're talking about what is ultimately real here)

 

Curious where this goes. I think what some have been calling 'logic', I'd be more inclined to call it Intelligence. But, with that in mind, I wouldn't be looking to infer agency of any sort, or anthropomorphize it as some skydaddy and all the rest. It's not necessary to think of Intelligence as some kind of grand plan (strictly order), and perhaps more like childlike creativity, which, logically, is more aligned with joy, spontaneity, freedom of expression, and inspiration.... authentic, of course.

I tend to have little 'issues' with the word "real" for several reasons. 

[kbone]

13 hours ago, Someone here said:

Cool. Watching now 🍿

 

Any luck or insights? More confusion?

Curious.

[kbone]

14 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I think this is one of the clearest breakdowns of materialism, physicalism, and rationalism I’ve come across. He still refers to it as analytical idealism, so he’s not avoiding the label – and that’s important. There’s nothing inherently wrong with calling it idealism, as long as the approach is grounded in rational analysis and argumentation.

Thanks for sharing. I hadn't watched him in a while. He's an authentic human being, has a clear mind, and is honest enough to say when he doesn't know/gnossis. There's also one with him being interviewed with Rupert Spira in which they discuss BK's analytical idealism and non-duality. I remember rezzin' a bit with some of their dialogue.

Edited yesterday at 02:05 PM by kbone

[kbone]

On 5/20/2025 at 4:30 PM, Leo Gura said:

You guys keep underestimating the things being taught here, acting like you already got it all.

"How do you really know... if there are many degrees of awakening, which there are, how do you really know what level your teacher or school is at? How do you know? You're just assuming. You don't really know. So just recognize that.

And then from that place of not knowing, your mind can be open to new possibilities." 

~Leo Gura, Outrageous experiments in Consciousness- 30 Awakenings in 30 Days, April 19, 2020

 

What teaching are you assuming is being underestimated? Got all of what?