I have not denied existence. My whole philosophy is predicated on the recognition that existence exists. Do you mean that denying the existence of God is absurd, I can say that denying Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is also absurd. But this does not move us any closer to a reliable method for distinguishing what theists call God from something they may merely be imagining.
That’s OK I don’t need your money.
Existence itself is what religion calls God. It is the infinite non-dual indivisible absolute. It is the consciousness in which everything appears. So you can make up funny names for it, but you can’t deny it. To deny it is to deny yourself.
Good…because all I know is you can’t trust a damn philosopher. They’re gonna feed you a line of crap and they’re gonna act like they mean it and they’re gonna think it’s funny when you freaking swallow it.
Pass!
Read: triune
infinity
I can imagine this right alongside theists. I can imagine that existence is the consciousness in which everything appears. But that doesn’t make it so. I deny that existence is the consciousness in which everything appears. That would make existence a figment of the imagination and grant metaphysical primacy to a consciousness, which I know to be false. Here, question # 9 comes to the fore: When I imagine something, how is what I imagine not imaginary? I am asking for a method, and what you have given me is a metaphysical assertion dressed up as inevitability.
You could not imagine anything unless your consciousness was primary.
If nothing contingent would exist unless it was imagined, then consciousness that imagines all that is contingent is primary.
However, you have to consider …that which is primary is not described by its essence unless it exists (is existing) its essence.
So you need all of it, or you have none of it. And seeing as we do not have none of it, then we can assume all of it.
Oops, I just compelled nature to answer reason’s questions (Kant, CPR, Bxiii) again.
This is not true. Imagining is the ability to rearrange mental content into new combinations that don’t exist in nature, but without some objectively derived content, my imagination has nothing to work with. I can imagine a ten-thousand-foot skyscraper, but only because I know about skyscrapers, numbers, feet, storeys, etc. Your statement forgets that reality is primary and consciousness is the faculty that perceives it, not the faculty that creates it.
Your consciousness is the condition for the possibility of your own imagination. Consciousness is primary.
But it is not the only primary. Go back and read what I said.
Red, yellow, blue …bitches.
It’s true that my consciousness is a precondition of my being able to imagine. Existence is the precondition of my being conscious. Consciousness requires a means (physical senses and a brain) and an object, something external to it, to be conscious of.
If existence is a precondition of being conscious, then how can it be primary?
existence (verb) is the primary means
substance (spiritual/physical noun) is the primary medium
essence (predicate) is the primary end/function
They all need each other. That’s why they’re each primary AND one/whole (Godhead).
They don’t need anything external to them. They have each other.
Their cup (essence) “runneth over” (but it’s whole) — and that’s why we/they are (everyw)here.
It’s magically fracdelicious.
This is where question #5 comes to the fore. By what means are you aware of this? Are you directly aware of it, or do you infer it? If you infer it, what is your starting point? If you are directly aware of these things, by what sense modality are you aware of them, and how is it distinguishable from the imagination?
Please disambiguate what you mean by imagination. Are you including all phenomena or experience under that term or merely the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality?
Rearranging percepts into new combinations that don’t exist in reality. For example, I can imagine a skyscraper that extends out of Earth’s atmosphere and into space, a giant Doughnut the size of mt. Everest, and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
Existence and consciousness are not merely connected but are fundamentally the same non-dual absolute reality.The perceived distinction between existence and consciousness is an illusion.
Do you recognize a fundamental distinction between something that is real and something that is only imaginary?
Of course, I was merely asking you to disambiguate your use of the word.
That’s good to hear.
Given that you recognize the fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary, do you want to rethink your position that consciousness and reality are indistinguishable?
A combination of sounds and visions can be experienced in both the physical and the metaphysical.
TOUCH is the sense that connects the physical with the metaphysical.
TOUCH is the sense that differentiates between the in and out of the moment consciousness states.
Many individuals are obsessed with only the sound and vision senses to the point of psychosis.They relate these two senses to thought,hence Rene Descartes claim “I think,therefore I am”.
Rene Descartes wasn’t a good philosopher and neither was Albert Einstein a good scientist and neither was Sigmund Freud a good psychologist.
Good philosophers,scientists and psychologists are not interested in boring psychotic opinions relating to misrepresentations of reality (Illusions).
They want to know about reality.