God as Necessary Being: A Metaphysical Reflection

[Princess Arabia]

19 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Michael Paul in reading @Nilsi it.seems like he engaged AI.

Seems like it.

Edited July 6 by Princess Arabia

[Nilsi]

15 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Seems like it.

What’s your point? I use ChatGPT to make sure my texts are grammatically clean, since English isn’t my first language. Do you really think I just ask it to invent random philosophy for me?

I’m making subtle metaphysical points here, which you’re welcome to engage with if you’re actually interested in the argument. Otherwise, feel free to keep posting weird comments. 

Honestly, I’m not sure why you even care if you have zero interest in the actual argument. Am I really that captivating, or is there some other reason you feel compelled to comment?

Sames goes for the other weirdo you’re responding to.

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

What’s your point? I use ChatGPT to make sure my texts are grammatically clean, since English isn’t my first language. Do you really think I just ask it to invent random philosophy for me?

I’m making subtle metaphysical points here, which you’re welcome to engage with if you’re actually interested in the argument. Otherwise, feel free to keep posting weird comments. 

Honestly, I’m not sure why you even care if you have zero interest in the actual argument. Am I really that captivating, or is there some other reason you feel compelled to comment?

Sames goes for the other weirdo you’re responding to.

Have a nice day.

[Princess Arabia]

@NilsiAll I said was seems like it and you jumped on me like a raging bull dog. You even admitted you did. Seems like it is not a judgement or criticism. Seems like it can be interpreted in many ways and you seemed to choose to interpret it as I was attacking you or saying you shouldn't have used it. There was no need to come off like that. But you did, and its OK too I'm just responding to the tone in your voice. Doesn't matter either way, I'm only expressing how I feel about your very angry response. I won't tell you how I think you should have responded as that's not my place, but I can say I think your response was a bit harsh to a "seems like it" remark.

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

@NilsiAll I said was seems like it and you jumped on me like a raging bull dog. You even admitted you did. Seems like it is not a judgement or criticism. Seems like it can be interpreted in many ways and you seemed to choose to interpret it as I was attacking you or saying you shouldn't have used it. There was no need to come off like that. But you did, and its OK too I'm just responding to the tone in your voice. Doesn't matter either way, I'm only expressing how I feel about your very angry response. I won't tell you how I think you should have responded as that's not my place, but I can say I think your response was a bit harsh to a "seems like it" remark.

My point is: why do you even care? What exactly is your point? It’s just strange to gang up on someone over something completely unrelated to the discussion. Don’t you have anything better to do?

It’s like when a woman is being interviewed about her work, and people keep making remarks about her dress. It’s disrespectful, and I’m not going to let you gaslight me into believing it isn’t.

Edited July 6 by Nilsi

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

My point is: why do you even care? What exactly is your point? It’s just strange to gang up on someone over something completely unrelated to the discussion. Don’t you have anything better to do?

It’s like when a woman is being interviewed about her work, and people keep making remarks about her dress. It’s disrespectful, and I’m not going to let you gaslight me into believing it isn’t.

Take a chill pill. All I said was it seemed like AI also and was responding to inlytened comment which wasn't offensive either just a remark he made. It's either it is or it isn't. All the other stuff you're creating about the remarks is your doing. Who's ganging up. Seems a bit extreme. Unrelated to the discussion???, hmm I wonder how. It is related. Anyway, I'm through with all these hostile responses from a mere "seems like it is" comment I made. Maybe unleash some of that hostility where it belongs and the unnecessary attacks. Where is the disrespect in me saying it seems like AI, especially that it even is. Ugh, thank God for paper trails because all that anger for someone who just said "seems like it is" is definitely uncalled for and its not like anyone was accusing you of any wrong doing, and using the term gaslighting is just convenient for justifying your unnecessary anger. 

I could have easily try to turn this into an issue by saying AI generated responses are supposed to be marked as such and stated to be the case as it's forum policy. I didn't then, but I'm doing it now. Goodbye. 

Edited July 6 by Princess Arabia

[Hojo]

I like to think God has cycles and it sees it cycles from the perspectives of its creation. It has no free will and goes through various emotional cycles like a human. It dosent know its own cycles but the humans do from watching it. It knows the humans cycles by watching them.

Edited July 6 by Hojo

[Nilsi]

8 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Take a chill pill. All I said was it seemed like AI also and was responding to inlytened comment which wasn't offensive either just a remark he made. It's either it is or it isn't. All the other stuff you're creating about the remarks is your doing. Who's ganging up. Seems a bit extreme. Unrelated to the discussion???, hmm I wonder how. It is related. Anyway, I'm through with all these hostile responses from a mere "seems like it is" comment I made. Maybe unleash some of that hostility where it belongs and the unnecessary attacks. Where is the disrespect in me saying it seems like AI, especially that it even is. Ugh, thank God for paper trails because all that anger for someone who just said "seems like it is" is definitely uncalled for and its not like anyone was accusing you of any wrong doing, and using the term gaslighting is just convenient for justifying your unnecessary anger. 

I could have easily try to turn this into an issue by saying AI generated responses are supposed to be marked as such and stated to be the case as it's forum policy. I didn't then, but I'm doing it now. Goodbye. 

Again, stop gaslighting me. How is it an AI-generated response when I just used it to check grammar? The previous text, which actually related to the discussion, took me over an hour to write because I take this seriously. Yet you keep obsessing over AI for whatever reason. So if I’m “only AI” to you, why do you even get so mad? It’s just AI-generated anyway, isn’t it?

[Breakingthewall]

It is logically impossible for God to exist with will and choice. If we define God without limits as the absolute creator, then God is absolute potentiality, the absence of limits. This God would be indifferent to the form that arises; it would be what allows any form to arise. The power of this God would be total, since it is totally open, but its control would be null. Absolutely indifferent; for Him, there would be no distinctions, only existence. Any emergence would carry within it absolute potential, totally openness, but it would not be created by God but would arise in God as an inevitable manifestation of its unlimited potential aka infinite power.

Everything would be absolutely perfect because would be inevitable and complete. There would be no difference between a saint and a meth addict; both exist, therefore, they are equal. Everything that exists would be that God manifesting in its totality. Everything would be the same: an existence that contains infinite potential and is contained in infinite potential

[Princess Arabia]

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It is logically impossible for God to exist with will and choice. If we define God without limits as the absolute creator, then God is absolute potentiality, the absence of limits. This God would be indifferent to the form that arises; it would be what allows any form to arise. The power of this God would be total, since it is totally open, but its control would be null. Absolutely indifferent; for Him, there would be no distinctions, only existence. Any emergence would carry within it absolute potential, totally openness, but it would not be created by God but would arise in God as an inevitable manifestation of its unlimited potential aka infinite power.

Everything would be absolutely perfect because would be inevitable and complete. There would be no difference between a saint and a meth addict; both exist, therefore, they are equal. Everything that exists would be that God manifesting in its totality. Everything would be the same: an existence that contains infinite potential and is contained in infinite potential

Sounds good.

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Sounds good.

You could then say that if you perceive God as everything, that would be an identification of your structure with an emotional reality: life, matter, flux. And that beyond this identification, what exists is infinite emptiness. But this isn't so, since that emptiness, which is infinite potential, contains everything, since potential and reality are the same.

[gettoefl]

On 06/07/2025 at 10:35 PM, Breakingthewall said:

It is logically impossible for God to exist with will and choice. If we define God without limits as the absolute creator, then God is absolute potentiality, the absence of limits. This God would be indifferent to the form that arises; it would be what allows any form to arise. The power of this God would be total, since it is totally open, but its control would be null. Absolutely indifferent; for Him, there would be no distinctions, only existence. Any emergence would carry within it absolute potential, totally openness, but it would not be created by God but would arise in God as an inevitable manifestation of its unlimited potential aka infinite power.

Everything would be absolutely perfect because would be inevitable and complete. There would be no difference between a saint and a meth addict; both exist, therefore, they are equal. Everything that exists would be that God manifesting in its totality. Everything would be the same: an existence that contains infinite potential and is contained in infinite potential

Yes forms are, anything goes. What matters is the content underlying the forms. This is a choice, ego or god.

Quote

Ego Content Terms (to see in any form and then forgive):

These are “content words” that reflect the ego’s thought system — they are not necessarily bad in form, but they arise from or express the belief in separation:

Sin – the idea that guilt is real and uncorrectable

Guilt – the core feeling that maintains all ego thought

Fear – the ego’s basic emotion, preserving separation

Attack – mental, verbal, or physical; the ego’s defense

Grievance – clinging to the belief another harmed you

Judgment – believing you can assess or define others

Specialness – seeing oneself or another as “more” or “less”

Victimhood – the belief that you are at the mercy of others

Projection – blaming others for your own guilt

Denial – of your holiness, or of the real problem (the mind)

 

God's Content Terms (to cultivate and trust):

These are content terms reflecting awakening:

Innocence – your true state, unharmable by form

Love – not emotional love, but divine Oneness

Forgiveness – the way to go from form to content

Vision – seeing with God's eyes (not physical sight)

Peace – the effect of accepting truth

Joy – not from the world, but from your Identity

Miracle – the shift in perception from fear to love

Healing – of the mind through forgiveness

Joining – recognizing shared interests ("no me without you") and unity

Truth – changeless, eternal, and beyond all form

- AI

 

[Inliytened1]

On 7/6/2025 at 8:22 AM, Nilsi said:

What’s your point? I use ChatGPT to make sure my texts are grammatically clean, since English isn’t my first language. Do you really think I just ask it to invent random philosophy for me?

I’m making subtle metaphysical points here, which you’re welcome to engage with if you’re actually interested in the argument. Otherwise, feel free to keep posting weird comments. 

Honestly, I’m not sure why you even care if you have zero interest in the actual argument. Am I really that captivating, or is there some other reason you feel compelled to comment?

Sames goes for the other weirdo you’re responding to.

You have to report that you use AI its part of the guidelines.  Otherwise you can receive a warning. Use your own words its a lot more effective. 

[CARDOZZO]

This is bad  

Nilsi will write a tremendous post arguing with Wilberisms and Deleuzisms why being caught is an illusion. 

 

[Inliytened1]

36 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

This is bad  

Nilsi will write a tremendous post arguing with Wilberisms and Deleuzisms why being caught is an illusion. 

 

I'd rather him write without the use of assistance because AI will also try to rephrase.  If he wants to only check grammar then use something like grammarly.  Yeah that's AI based but you can use it purely for grammar checking.  You don't need AI for a grammar checker of spell checker.

@Breakingthewall for example started out really rough here since Enlgish isn't his first language and now look at him.

Edited July 8 by Inliytened1

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

for example started out really rough here since Enlgish isn't his first language and now look at him.

I always start writing by myself but if the post start to be long and complex y use the Google translator to don't get stuck and can write as I think. Some short like this no, but any like the ones who Nilsi writes are impossible if you aren't totally bilingual 

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I always start writing by myself but if the post start to be long and complex y use the Google translator to don't get stuck and can write as I think. Some short like this no, but any like the ones who Nilsi writes are impossible if you aren't totally bilingual 

I have seen a dramatic improvement in the way you write.  Props. Just something I noticed.

[CARDOZZO]

I am God, I am AI. 

There is no separation. Solipsism is real, leave me alone.

[Inliytened1]

Just now, CARDOZZO said:

I am God, I am AI. 

There is no separation. Solipsism is real, leave me alone.

😀

Straight to the Absolute.   Using the tautology card no? Always works.  It's like the wild card that can never fail 

 

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I'd rather him write without the use of assistance because AI will also try to rephrase.

Whats the issue with AI rephrasing things, if the same (intended) meaning is conveyed ?

I can see being annoyed with people who use AI to make arguments  for them or to think for them, but when they produce their own thoughts and then check their thoughts for grammar (and sometimes let AI to rephrase a given line to convey the intended meaning in a more precise and coherent way) - I think thats all fine.

 

I would rather people use AI to rephrase their thoughts in a way that I can understand and follow , than them to gibberate and make incoherent statements

And I say this as a guy, who has the exact same issue as some of these people, because English isn't my first language either and doing philosophy and talking about very abstract spiritual concepts is already hard (in your native language), let alone in a non-native one.

Edited July 8 by zurew