Nemra

When I see existence itself as the fundamental truth, then God starts to make total sense, because nothing remains outside of it. But why specifically God? Because existence is infinite; otherwise, this experience couldn't be. Thus, the differentiation of God and I is seen as illusory. And I start to notice that God must have been ever-present in all of my experience. God must be experiencing, not the human.

Her arrangement is awesome! Mindgasmic! I crave this type of piano music; it makes me emotional.

Now, this is awesomeness!

Instagram has added the option of snoozing and resetting suggested content, and you can also add keywords to include or exclude content related to that keyword.

Yay, I'm almost done with the first part of that piece! I just need to catch up to her speed a bit without making mistakes. I may share a video of my attempt if I feel confident enough.

@Leo Gura, you have posted the same video twice about explaining God on threads.

Happy eternal birthday!

Prophet's Prey Overview: Filmmaker Amy Berg sheds light on the sexual, financial and spiritual abuses heaped upon members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by their former leader, Warren Jeffs.

The reification of sports.

Women's sportswear. Why they gotta be sexual or revealing? Sport wasn't meant to be a beauty contest. Would most men honestly care about women's sports if it were the opposite? I don't think so. This degrades women's sports.

I watched all 15 episodes of the "The Vow" documentary. Warning: The documentary gets pretty dark than I anticipated.

So in your nightly dreams, parts of the dream haven't affected the dream itself?

Loved the Brain Fuel perspective. Psychedelics are categorized in such a way that it creates bias against them, and people treat that categorization as absolute. These catagories are Hallucinogen: Assumes malfunction Illegal Drug: Assumes criminality Narcotic: Assumes addiction

Sure. I just don't agree with your logical perspective. But it is what it is.

@Breakingthewall, ah, man, we aren't going to have effective communication. We both think we're way more open-minded and more truthful than the other. I'm only going to say that you're using logic unfairly, and most probably you won't agree with that.

@Mellowmarsh

For example, is there a visual field that exists for itself outside of your visual field? From my observation, there isn't a such thing. Do cameras have a visual field of their own outside your visual field, even if you can watch the recorded videos, which, by the way, will appear in your visual field? Your visual field is one and only in terms of actuality. The above is different from saying that some things are actual and other things are potential now. Potentiality is like when you are about to take a picture and actuality when you captured it. And because the captured photo can only be actual, the photo itself is the only actual thing that can be as a photo. The captured photo is an analogy of your visual field.

Some believe that God resides on the clouds and heaven is a place filled with gold.

Well, I don't know what to say about that. It's just actual. It can be conceptualizing. What's stopping you from conceptualizing everything? I don't think that others are just a projection, but I can't provide an honest, deep answer about the nature of the "other" as of now.

@Breakingthewall, let's forget about solipsism for now. I mean whatever is actual is actual, and whatever is potential can actualize itself later. From my observation, experience, by definition, must be actual; it is some way and not other way. So, we cannot actually compare experience with potential experiences because we will not be comparing experiences that are actual. You can think about potential experiences by conceptualizing. Interestingly, the act of conceptualizing potential experiences is an actual experience. This makes, for example, your sight a thing that doesn't have its other.

@Breakingthewall, how can you compare something that exists with something that doesn't exist? Well, you can, but you'll be comparing the ideas of what was actual. Won't you? For me, actuality and potentiality are like apples and oranges.

I don't see how infinite reflections would present a contradiction here. Don't you agree that experience, whatever it is, is actual? I don't understand why we should compare what is still potential with what is actual, even if potentiality becomes actuality and vice versa.

Simple logic: If God encompasses everything and there's nothing outside of it, then there can't be more than one God, like the God that encompasses everything and has no outside, existing together. If there are more than one God existing together, then those Gods cannot encompass everything and have no outside, like the God that does. However, by definition, God has no outside; otherwise, it cannot be God. So, God must be solipsistic.

In a twisted way, it's true. Of course, he was trying to make sociopaths seem superior to people who can have compassion, as if compassion itself is some sort of illness. He really believed that he was an awakened person because he hadn't experienced compassion.