There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY

[Quantum]

I use the term God loosely. I mean absolutely no religious context associated with it whatsoever. But in hindsight I suppose I can understand what such a word may evoke as an image for another who shared as much as was shared regarding your sentiments on religion. Let us loose the word God. It will only deflect the intent of the dialog. God for me is Infinity. God for me is the One Infinite Creator. God for you may be the figure of religion which we both know and agree is the Easter Bunny God. If we are agreed, we may move on.

you 'humorously' use the word 'god', however your entire last post, is clearly in the strong defense of such a god, even if you are someone who doesnt believe in a god, and do it for argument's sake.

And then you go on to say:

doesnt make much difference. whether it be without any religious attachment, or not, the defense of an 'almighty god' is still the same.

Who is defending an almighty God here? I've explained...even apologized out of respect, albeit I needn't defend the use of such a simple word as "God", or the philosophical concept of the word "nihilism" when in fact God is humorously a word for me that very definitely is the exact same as Infinity for you, albeit you disagree. It offends your sensibilities. I understand. But short of your providing a list of words which are out of bounds for discussion, I would once again invite you to not look for what is not there. There was never one single mention in my post of an almighty God. God is Infinity (for me)...(but need I truly reiterate this when it was already explained in my previous post?) May we concentrate therefore on keeping our eye on the ball and have an academic discussion on concepts as opposed to personalities. My apologies for the 4th time?

we are not agreed, god for you may be infinity, yet, god according to Ra is not infinity.

Thank you. I may with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. And herein lies the difference in our interpretation. I am not offended in your interpretations. I am in fact intrigued by them. I get that you believe Infinity and "God/The One Infinite Creator" are somehow differentiated. I don't get that you suggest that Ra states this. May I disagree to your disagreement, for which we are here for, to explore our understandings academically, and give you my reasons without umbrage?

the infinite intelligence which is named as creator happens/comes after infinity becomes aware. hence, infinity is not 'god'.

Thank you once again. I may again with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. Herein then is my take on the point of God and Infinity being one and the same and thus undifferentiated. May we explore together?
1. Is it not our understanding that differentiation is an illusion?
2. Making an argument therefore for God being differentiated, as if God is not Infinity, is tantamount to the very very first and primary act of investing oneself into the illusion fully itself to begin with. It is making an argument from the very beginning, even before creation, that the illusion is indeed differentiated.
3. A child is born into its body unaware. It may even be argued that an adult with a heavier veil fully intact, and more resistant to even simple observations with respect to the sensitivities of life, or those all about him, is an individual less aware as a result than might be his brother next door. His or the child's awareness or lack thereof does not make him or the child someone else or something else other than who he is, an unaware energy. Becoming aware is not a separation or differentiation or an individuation. The child becomes aware. You state you believe in patterns. Here is perhaps the very single first and primary pattern to all of CREATION. AWARENESS. The child is more of itself for becoming aware, every bit as much as is the adult who became more aware than as a child. WE are not making an analogy to Comic Awareness here. This is simply a simple step of recognizing.........."I AM". Seems I've read that somewhere before in a book somewhere. "I AM THAT THAT I AM". A statement such as this sounds a great deal like an energy that became aware. But IT is still IT. It may therefore be seen that God, i.e. The One Infinite Creator, was unaware before It became aware, but was God nonetheless. This is unity. This is an undifferentiated state, albeit now more evolved.
4. God is continuing to evolve as such. Given we agree that God is continuing to evolve, is it then suggested that IT is becoming less of ITself as such due to IT's ever increasing evolvement, which is presumably IT's entire purpose, rather than more of ITself through IT's ever increasing awareness?
5. Lastly, I am fully aware of the quote that Ra made as regards Infinity becoming aware. I suggest that IT (GOD) and Infinity are One AND THE SAME as the "I AM-NESS" undifferentiated, but now aware, every bit as much as is the simple child who becomes aware, yet is still the child, as much as is 1D to 3D becoming more aware, but is IT-self nonetheless.

6. The first distortion was not AWARENESS. This was not what Ra stated. The first distortion was FREE WILL, then LOVE, then LIGHT.

7. The first act of INFINITY was AWARENESS, which preceded the first distortion.

8. Thus, even after INFINITY became AWARENESS, INFINITY was still undistorted...as in ONE, as in UNIFIED, as in an ALL ENCOMPASSING ONE INFINITY.

9. God simply became aware, who was Infinity unaware, at which point it became "I AM" for the first time as the status of ITS awareness.

As for the nihilism comment, and any attempt to address your persona personally, I am perplexed? Nihilism is a legitimate philosophical belief of which more than a few famous philosophers were of this persuasion?

I would have thought that you would have taken this as an understanding at the very least, if not a compliment at most, more than an injury. I was addressing what I find to be your curious beliefs on infinity, not you or your persona. My confusion lies in the fact if you understood the term and its definition and were injured nonetheless. My apologies are offered if for utilizing it you did not understand its meaning and it resulted in your misunderstanding. See more on nihilism on

the problem is on that part you first attribute something that is not relevant to me, and then start to expand on analysis and then make conclusions from them in regard to the subject we were discussing.

Your concepts are indeed relevant. You and I are not. Nothing was attributed to you. Only philosophically to your interpretations. There is a vast difference between these two. I am not married to my interpretations. You may categorize my views as Nihilist, or a believer of Aristotelian Realism, or Kantian Conceptualism, or Husserlian Descriptivism, or so many others to which I would find no umbrage intended whatsoever. Once again, my apologies to you for your misunderstanding on the definition of Nihilism and that your views seem to argue for Nihilism.

infinity, is not limited to 'be'ing. infinity is not limited to any of these. all of these are subsets of infinity. for every 'possibility' of 'being' that one can find or think, there exists also a counterpart of that situation, that is totally the exact opposite, and complements it to point infinity, perfect state of nullification and balance. if there is a 'creator' there is a 'non creator'. if there is an 'infinite intelligence', there is also an infinite 'unintelligence'. crude may be the naming, the concept is evident.

Thank you. And here again is where my interpretation comes in as regards what may be understood philosophically simply as Nihilism. The concept that there never was a Creator and that there never was a Creation as the antithesis that there surely was, may be viewed as falling into this philosophical category named as Nihilism.

I return to my previous post wherein I commented that in such a world view, in which you hold INFINITY as being a state wherein everything is not only Infinitely possible, but also a state wherein everything is Infinitely not possible (and forget possibilities in as much as you argue for nothingness as well) as well as a state wherein Existence itself never was, Awareness never was, Creation never was, the One Infinite Creator never was and in which INFINITY itself by your definition also must be a never was, where Everyone is alternately incorrect, and Everyone is alternately correct, as much as is Everything alternately incorrect, as is Everything alternately in a state of never was, that in such a state and world view there is no reason for existence or exchange. If this is not the definition of Nihilism, then I am as interested in what your definition of Nihilism is, as much as I am interested in what the purpose is of exploring and exchanging where nothing you say is correct as much as its understood that everything I say is, or vice versa? It is for this reason quite simply and logically that I suggest that your position for exploration is although perhaps interesting, it is as much as untenable.

I readily admit that either for the limitations of my understanding or the syntax of you verbiage, that I often do not understand your responses. Can you keep it simple, clear, concise and so direct that it answers the dilemma directly of the contradictions philosophically quite naturally created? If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this? Whats the point if your as wrong as I am correct, or that you never were as much as you are, or that nothing ever existed if it did. It is a state of negation and neutrality that obliterates the expansion of consciousness (that also never was), as much as Infinity itself (that also never was). As alluded to in my previous post, in order to sustain your position, you must also in an INFINITE state (that you argue for) also concede your position. If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this fascinating position which you ascribe to?

~ Q ~