To mind one's own business is the basic lemma in ruling your own confines, which is the prime function in a functioning society. It is only within those confines that we have the emphatic ability to actually care for each other. If you are not interested in my business you should simply not mind it, lest you cannot care for what it might entail and will thus loose providence on your own power. I did. I care. I will not argue for your sake but I will happily teach you anything on the subject of divinity if you present to me humility before it.

, you're welcome too since you've been implied.

that claim would only make any sense if this united god was schizophrenic — Nobeernolife

Consider for a moment that Allah was a beer and JHWH is life. He drinks his beer, then gives his life to JHWH. JHWH, drunk on himself, would naturally make a lot of assumptions. Of course Allah would be in on this, but would that make him schizophrenic?

Need I say more? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If you said all that you mean, I reckon you're all set. I'm flexible enough to be convinced on whichever grounds.

I deem both views valuable. Would humanity really know itself without the cruelty and injustice set upon them by a theoretically loving God? You've obviously taken some good points from it. I do not however deem YHWH and Christ to retain the same concept. While YHWH rather appears to be about tough love, Jesus is about the redemption of YHWH in unity with the people - a light pointing towards the real love. So which basket is it? Both, neither, nor neither. It goes beyond singularity. A trinity perhaps.

Which Jesus? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The Jesus I deem embodies the Christ by coining the phrase giving raise to eternal civilization: By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Remains to be seen, doesn't it? Sooner rather than later, I hold. Following Christ is as simple as being His disciple, by the only definition we can know. That's the entirety of what Christianity is about to me.

That one.

The problem might be — Eleonora

Mind your own business - it would have been founding tenant in teaching men to govern themselves. The countermeasure to that is to care for other's. Those two are equally important decrees in any real democracy and that the reality of Athena should know.

The problem might be to assume there is an answer when not having directed yourself to it with a question. The truth can remain that you do not know the depth of my knowledge, as I might not yours - and therefore not the consistency within which my context prevails. I will not leave you alone, but I will give up on you now.

that is not much — Athena

From whence do you judge the depth of my knowledge? Please don't leave me alone. Don't give up on me.

Why do you say only one religion can result in a civilization? — Athena

Therein lies the compromise. There is no need for any religion to justify my beliefs. Christianity entails the concept of following this ideal: Love - which I deem is the only civilizationable measure. I believe this concept to be the Christ. It was is and will be so before and after any version of Christ may or may not be born. The concept itself is Christ and any person regardless of religion can lift it up.

I'm an atheist too. I just happen to be multi-religious and theistic. If it requires me to be insane, so be it. God doesn't have to be single to be singular. My appearance of denial probably resides in your wish to ascribe value to my words. A place to belong?

Of course I mean what I say. That is the only real value of the words. For example: I do not require evolution to be incorrect in order to understand creation as valid. It's not at all difficult to do them both when it's a simple matter of perspective. Perspective can change before it even begins.

You are the compromise in demand of itself. It doesn't in any way alter my statement for what it stands. There is nothing absolute about it, merely for what it is.

And after studying the other religions how did you come to that decision? — Athena

Was that directed at me? Where then is the decision to your reference? I need a little more meat on my legs to justly answer it.

Well, if you twist the definition enough, you can claim anything. — Nobeernolife

A twist of definition is another definition. As I posed one we have a clear opportunity to do whatever we want with it. That's all - no argument.

we are all born muslim — Nobeernolife

I rather want to postulate it that we are all born within Islam. Being a Muslim in essence is also as simple as being a Christian - to want to know God. Allah loves you enough to not involve beyond your will to do so. Muslims however might love God more than they love that fact and therein lies your issue with Allah.

This is a real dilemma — Athena

No compromise. I do however concur about civilizations presuming to exist without Christianity. I do not recognize any to exist without Christ however. Were we to consider Christianity the Church of Christ, it is about to figure out where Jesus fits into the picture. Whether he exists or not is non-essential for whichever conclusions we might derive at. According to Christianity, be it the church of Christ or not - Jesus said: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."; John 13:35. Whoever coined that phrase; is Christ in my opinion. Everything around it is mere happenstance.

So is there really civilization without Christianity? Be it by happenstance or a blessing by God. Being a Christian is about following Jesus and this is it.

Honestly? Jesus Christ - I reckon. I put all my hopes in that basket.

No thing is longer than no thing, because it is perpetual infinity. I call that space.
No philosopher is smarter than no philosopher, because it is perpetual wisdom. I call that love.

Both physical and real quantities of absolute nonsense.

to be a distraction — Frank Apisa

Right, so that said: Let's believe the issue to be divided into three points.

Firstly; the ultimate actuality is the absolute potentiality.
Secondly; Each instance of possible ultimate outcome is one with the absolute potential.
Thirdly; Every potential actuality is its own ultimate actuality.

What we seek to respond to the issue is a single point in the versus of the question. In my opinion it is a simple matter of what we call it. I suggest we call it Santa Claus; because that's who I personally believe it to be.

How do you feel about ancient temple prostitiution in ancient Iraq? — christian2017

Wow, you really touch ground here. I believe that the Latter Day Saints recognize that they do not understand a single thing about Kabbalah as it were and in regard strictly observe connections - to follow the light in its most intricate sense. It's a posture of humility.

Temple prostitution is a further inquiry into the very matter of the same manner. Metaphorically speaking it sort of entails being a prostitute in a sacred temple. Realizing that your ways are foul and therefore submitting wholly to the temple proceedings in order to boundlessly correct yourself. Thus; conclusion - prostitution in temples are bad but the metaphor is good.

When it comes to these particular cases, I think we have to look at each individually. It raises high and sinks low. Some might have considered it an honor an really embraced the unknowable purpose, in which case they would have faced God. Others would have not, in which case it was a sin - both pertaining to the victim and the perpetrator. Mainly because we cannot ever know which really is which. Knowing this and facing God would have been the same at that time.

John 21:17

In both cases, they restrict the human to the most negative in our species, don’t they? — Borraz

The greatest challenge we face with regards to it is finding their place in agreement. Positivity is about embracing negativity. Only together in all right places can we move beyond and into where optimism might take us.

maybe don't mean what this first part sounds like — Pfhorrest

Alright - let me clarify my sense of the goal. The goal across branches of philosophy runs perpendicular to its first principle. As the question is about the universal first principle, it cannot be the goal in itself. Thereby there are derivatives of the goal which in turn are what you described. Since it runs perpendicular to the goal, the universality of the first principle must therefore embrace the potentiality for the dimensionality of all those branches. That is what a principle to seek common ground first does.

Philosophy is about knowing of what we speak. Therefore the ground is the most important. Thus it must be the first principle to seek it.

Not every way of reasoning works this way, but to find those ways is what each individual goal is about. Philosophy itself is about understanding each individual goal. This is the philosophy of the goal.

Intuitively I should say that it was, probably is and will be about the nature of divine being in essence. That it springs from what was originally introduced to humans of the modern world to get a sense of what a God could be. That then from divine inspiration and human cohesion sprung the precept of the Abrahamic God. Although still disputed today, I believe it is about to settle and that the then Mesopotamian religions will play an important part in re-integrating a measure of unity in the equation. That in turn will amount to a real sense of a single individible God - Tawhid. From it we will collectively realize what has happened - thus who we are. Exhilarating times. :joke:

I have spent some time as a Latter Day Saint and I have seen no signs of pure Kabbalah, although I can see that the general idea is there. It's all about divinity and how it belongs to us all anyway. Now, the Talmud - interesting stuff. In retrospect it will reveal a lot more about the mind of God than any other scripture. Although if you want to know how God did it, I recommend to study the Sibylline Books in retrospect. Knowing all of history of course is a requirement for zen in the matter. It happened on Earth though, that's for sure. The planet of solidified God - Tell-us.

Just a feeling. Please share any worthy seeming sensation pertaining to the Talmud. I would love to hear of it.

I forgot to "puff" you. Post above.

I love Kabbalah but I rarely study anything. I mostly move between topics - connecting the shit out of everything. It is an important topic, more so than we might ever know. It can stand the test of time though so there is no need to hurry. Making fun is an integral part of it.

The Secret is a bit like leaving a door open with only a small scissure. Some of us wants to run in arms open and just hug whomever is behind it. However it hosts a rational fear too. Many of us knows this is real and recognizes the opening in the door for what it is. Although we might not fear what's inside; we know that this probably is the last chance we will ever get to be normal humans again. Why rush, right?

I don't mind however it goes. I love us too much to even bother. It gives me a chance to be curious. Instead I enjoy the notions of it and help whenever I may. It's both a book and a film. It really is the proverbial door. Some secret.

What about Kabbalah enticed you the most?

I appreciate that sentiment. I honestly think we die because we believe that. I really do know. The definition of existence is fairly simple; it is anything to exist - boundless, prepositional or real. It matters, or not; with magic smack evident in the middle - we decide. It's not an easy endeavor to turn around and simply live forever by the sheer belief though. But that is at least the theory. There is much to esteem in that regard. Any decision matters and that is what makes civilization a mighty interesting endeavor. I'm happy to be here. A fine crew aboard this vessel.

I think those principles are:
- There are no unanswerable questions
- There are no unquestionable answers — Pfhorrest

I reckon these to be the derivatives of the first principle, which in turn presupposes a third derivative: the goal. The goal in itself might be and optimally is a first principle to any branch of philosophy. In conclusion; the first principle of all philosophy is its common denominator. It can be anything, but it's common denominator is that it is its common denominator.

The higher our regard, the clearer our answers, all the while more difficult to ground in the denominator. To be that ground is God's purpose - the denominator of the denominator of the denominator. Although God is not the purpose, the purpose is reasonably confused as God. The philosophy goes above that, because the purpose is real. We have philosophy because it is real; in contrast to science which can only address that which is fleeting to some degree. This though is where science and philosophy meets. They have a common common denominator. Although philosophy can reach a little further. It touches religion where science can not.

Their common denominator is magic - my favourite philosophical topic. I believe it does better philosophically than religiously. I appreciate it from either direction though, but I don't talk about it religiously. Religion has unrefutable answers about it, but it is philosophy that ultimately makes it pristine. Either way - any first principle: common denominator.

Alright, let's kill this subject once and for all. It is a real non-issue that due to the controversial contrast between not having reason, justify reason. In short: The terms for having no reason does not exist, but this question does because to all of us; having nothing seems more reasonable than having something. This is because you have spent eternity having nothing - do you remember? It makes sense, despite the deficiency in ability to see it. There is not something rather than nothing - rather there is nothing rather than something. We - the living - cares to differ.

All these attempts at quantifying nothing in order to justify a difference does not make sense. There is not anything to quantify. This is where sense enters in. Nothing to quantify, means that it can be quantified - so long as there is an inconclusive answer. Nothing as you say is not possible, but it is real. Everything did not begin with o-how-possible everything is. It's absolutely impossible. Nothing is impossible. See how it precedes the unreasonable?

It - however impossible - must be. There is no middle ground. Even without existing - that's what it is. Even when that's impossible - that's what it is. Although it is a variable, it's outcome is not. That's where it started.

It goes beyond the impossible, beyond thinking, beyond even God. That's a little off-topic, but yet not. As it is conducive to the outcome - destiny - through the ultimate everything; and we are asking about the ultimate nothing and why it ultimately is something. It is relevant.

I know these things, before I was there I did that. It works. So, from myself to myself: Would it even be acceptable to permit the inconclusive answer to be that there is both? Everything, nothing and their Jedi-friend - Obi-Wan Kenobi? It only takes one Jedi to keep a galaxy safe you know and only a single galaxy to illuminate every possibility to a concept. Jesus is the absolute Jedi master.

Nothing is the nexus for negative time; that's all - the spirit realm. Nothing not possible means everything possible but nothing is real beyond possibility. I love this shit, so I will stop myself there.

That's good. A little scepticism never hurt anyone. Nice place we've got going here. Seems people are coming together. Important to have nodes to traffic wisdom such as this.

That there is nothing to doubt.

I am.

Yes, but by definition all definition also fails at that stage.

Yes; alas it is a valid question. The difference is that I would doubt myself before doubting the question. Do you doubt that?

Alright: pose this;

You cannot doubt yourself in a way wherein your doubt does not pose as proof of your existence. I understand this. If proving your existence by doubting it in any way was vital to your existence, then having doubts about the doubts you have not yet finished having would qualify as progress in cementing yourself to subsistence. Then would you imagine having missed a doubt to do so before having doubted it, or worse it happens before you've doubted yourself in that regard - what then would happen to your immortal soul?

How do we define exist and how do we know if we die is the next stupid question that will be asked. — christian2017

I'm in deep shit. I don't know.

No one exists. We are misinformed corpses. — Borraz

You know nothing. Salutation.

I AM, no matter how we choose to designate it. — BrianW

My love to that.

The skeptic just doesn't get anywhere, doesn't move the conversation forward, and, in the end, is just kinda boring. — Artemis

I think the point is for the sceptics to get it though. It might not be so boring as we imagine. Life is all we have far and in between. Although personally I prefer to live the notions rather than speculating on them. Or even better; compose life from them in completely Descarterian ways. Doesn't matter if it persists to any other range than us having a good life of it. Knowing it to the point of the question only acts as joint for the notion of eternal life, to which we can relax; or smoke - preferably both simultaneously.
Be it a Big Bang, a Big Bong or a Big Boing. It all takes us right here. I don't do either.

Mess with that, and your sense of self consciousness/identity should degrade and vanish into a chaos ideas, facts, memories but without any form, function, or purpose, which I not call that ‘thought’ or ‘thinking’, so a problem to the Descartes way of evidencing oneself. — Sir Philo Sophia

Your ideas on qualia are nice. I believe that we are de-facto the qualia of each other. Real substance to it that from the perspective of a single individual is atman. It in turn is the essence of the World Soul, because it constitutes what the soul would be. From here it is a mere matter of interacting with myself in order to reach the conclusion of everyone remembering who I am before I do, in effect giving me the qualia to remember my essence by. Either that or not, until there was no more. To be or not be is the question. I reckon that everyone has given their real answers.

Heck I don't know if you're conscious or not. — khaled

I am conscious about your consciousness. Feel free to act conscious about it. I love life.

I thought the Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

I thought the devil's trick failed because the very notion of his existence was too absurd to begin with. The trick only served to have people doubt. So it succeeded, right?

Proving existence then involves demonstrating an absence of contradictions and proving nonexistence requires one to show that a contradiction follows. — TheMadFool

What then of proving both? Such as the chain of infinite contradictions amounting to the substance of naught so; which we then found our logic upon. The ultimate contradiction would be that all the contradictions constituting non-existence would amount to the existence of a non-existence, which in term is not a contradiction since that is what existence is. Different same.

Doesn't a question logically presuppose a questioner? — ovdtogt

No. Because that in itself would be a question. Does it produce an answer? If anyone isn't there to be patient enough to answer it - it should then be a smooth operation in conclusion. Who then gets the reply?

I know that I exist because when I kick someone in the teeth it is my foot that hurts and not my mouth. — A Seagull

Watch that mouth.

"Cogito Ergo Sum". According to prof John Cottingham (Reading) in the "Oxford Companion to Philosophy" this is perhaps the most celebrated philosophical dictum of all time. Perhaps someone on this forum feels like doing a master's dissertation on the topic - especially if the era of the Enlightenment is what turns you on! — Daniel C

I'm sort of working my way through it with all my answers on this thread right now. It should qualify in any sensible official regard. I'm not much for the prevalence of authorities.