aurum

What better option is there other than to at least try? Just be depressed and waste more time?

"Unfalsifiability" and "logical necessity" are related but not the same. Unfalsifiability means that what I am describing must be absolutely true. If something is absolutely true, it cannot be proven untrue under any circumstances. Notice that the existence of consciousness itself is unfalsifiable. Everything in your conscious field is literally exactly as it is. Furthermore, anything you imagine that could be outside of consciousness must be in consciousness, otherwise it could not be experienced. Even if consciousness were a simulation, the simulation itself must still exist and be experienced. You have never had an experience outside of consciousness. Ever. 100%. "Logical necessity" refers more to the structure of Infinity / God itself. Infinity is logically necessarily because you logically cannot have a universe from arise from a finite thing. Eventually, you just have to admit that there must be an infinite something, even if you just imagine that something to be a static, eternal void. You are stipulating something impossible. If an entity knew all truths, it could not be a finite entity. Because to know all truths would require an infinite perspective, which no finite entity can have. To be an entity is literally to have a specific perspective. You can only have infinite perspective as an infinite object. But then you will not be an entity. And if you still want to claim that this entity knows all truths, then I just claim that your proposed entity is God. Because to be God is to have infinite perspective.

An "entity" is FINITE by definition! Therefore it is not infinity, therefore it is not Absolute, therefore it is not unfalsifiable. I am claiming that only Infinity itself is what is unfalsifiable. Your hypothetical contradicts itself by suggesting an infinite, finite entity.

Yup. Because Christianity is based on claims of the existence of a historical finite human, Jesus, who was God. So they lose their right to claim infallibility. My position cannot be falsified because it is based on Infinity. That's the double standard. That is possible to a degree. I am always working on my sense-making and making things clearer for myself. There are degrees of understanding infinity. But I claim that even if I become thoroughly self-deceived, infinity still remains unfalsifiable. That's what makes it Absolute Truth and not a perspective or opinion. God is untouched by self-deception.

If they've truly have had revelation, there are two possibilities: 1) They'd agree with me and would no longer be Christians. Because God breaks Christianity 2) They've had revelation, but have interpreted it poorly for various potential reasons Both are possible. There is also the possibility that they are just self-deceived about experiencing revelation in the first place. Either way, revelation is the most crucial aspect of realizing you are God. And you cannot properly answer the objections you are raising without it. The difference is that a book is a finite object, while infinity is not. And infinity is bound by its own internal logic to exist. Whereas a book is not. You cannot have an "infinite book" because by definition books are finite. This a contradiction in terms.

I take on no such burden. Because if you understood what I was saying, you'd understand no human can possibly prove to you that God must exist. Proof is your problem, not mine. I will speak what I understand, regardless of whether you've verified it. I'm not going to wait around for you to verify my answers. No. Revelation is a perfectly acceptable form of understanding. Assuming you've actually had it. The problem with most Christians is that they haven't experienced revelation. No, because we are not talking about a book. We are talking about GOD. Tough shit. I will do no such thing. You want me to water down my understanding of God. I can defend it plenty. The question is whether you'll recognize it.

@zurew You are asking for a level of proof no human can possibly communicate to you. It’s like I am saying “If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection”. And then I give you a bunch of math to show how mirrors work and why this must be a case. But instead of just looking in the damn mirror to see if that’s true, you demand proof of my methodology. “How do I know if I look in the mirror I will see myself??? I can come up with other conclusions based on looking in the mirror! You are presupposing that your mirror methodology works!!!” Just have direct consciousness and your questions will be answered. Plenty of techniques have been provided for how to do so. You will either use them or not. Either way, I have no burden to prove anything to you. Because proof always follows experience. If you don’t have experience, then there’s nothing else to be said.

Fine. You avoid math jail this time

Why you hating on pure maths

@Davino Keep it simple and just try to meet them where they are at. It's like being a good teacher in anything. You have to know what is and what isn't appropriate to share.

Anyone who hinges their political philosophy on being “post-monetary” is delusional. Money is not going anywhere. This whole project needs to be rethought from scratch.

@TheSomeBody Are you looking to move up the levels? Have you ever met anyone at level 4? Also, what changes have you noticed from being at level 2?

Mark Henry without a doubt. 900+ lbs deadlift natty?? Total genetic freak:

I assumed remote viewing must be possible to learn in the initial stages of my Awakening. This turned out to be wrong. I was very bad at it. I still think it's possible, but it seems clear it's not just a talent everyone unlocks on their spiritual journey.

I'm not claiming it "solves it". You just realize that an Absolute exists, which shifts your understanding and epistemology. The Absolute is the reason for epistemic anarchy. You don't agree about it, you become directly conscious of it. That's what makes it different. But yes, people could interpret it in different ways. It's not a perfect solution. No. There is only one way: direct consciousness. It's not that "being" is only the correct way to understand. It's that all knowing must eventually derive from Being. You cannot know anything without existence. No, their reasoning is mostly correct. God is logically necessary for knowledge to exist. But they corrupt this with Christianity and lack of direct consciousness. Before direct consciousness, God is question-begging. After direct consciousness, God must exist.