SE Chat Room #1

Author: Jeff_Goldblum ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 9
  • Jeff_Goldblum
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 120
    0
    2
    10
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Jeff_Goldblum
    Thanks to RM for accepting my open invitation.
  • Jeff_Goldblum
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 120
    0
    2
    10
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Jeff_Goldblum
    --> @RationalMadman
    Ok, friend. Thank you again for accepting. Let's begin.

    How do you describe your God belief? To be clear, I am not yet asking you to justify your belief. I am merely asking you to describe the belief.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Jeff_Goldblum
    I will paste something I answered in my questions to the user Singularity:

    At the core of reality is a random generator. It generates many 1/0 properties of any possible 'is true' or 'is not true' aspect of reality/realities. It eventually set 'is true' to a being with the variable 'can control the random generator'. The being instantly granted itself 'is true' to ' this being knows everything there is to know' and essentially from there controlled all reality. Over time, she (God is more feminine than masculine for multiple reasons) got bored with a fully strategised reality and let some things be random. That is why we have still got some randomness at the quantum level of this 'reality'/simulation but overall have laws of physics, chemistry etc.

    What my god is, is a conscious entity that answers to no one. The reason that she (or it, but not he as she's a mother of reality) is able to defy the authority of the random generator of possible 'is true vs is not true' variables, is that it randomly granted her/it that ability.
  • Jeff_Goldblum
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 120
    0
    2
    10
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Jeff_Goldblum
    --> @RationalMadman
    For whatever it's worth, this is a FASCINATING conception of divine origin.

    Next question:

    On a scale of 0-100 (with 0 being "not at all" and 100 "without a doubt"), how confident are you that this belief is true?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Jeff_Goldblum
    I do not want to be diagnosed with schizophrenia or any such disorder. At times, I have even thought that I have it and it's possible that I do have a mild form of it.

    Due to various experiences, clues, patterns etc. I am essentially 99 on the matter. I don't want to go into details but let's keep it simple, I have had events and patterns that make me extremely sure this is true and that there are demigods beneath her and above us too, which led to us being created. We don't in particular intrigue her, instead we are part of a bigger picture of demigod conflict and that is what intrigues her.

    She has created reality to be random in some ways, by willlingly 'letting go control' of certain things in the random generator that don't affect her much. I am certain that she initially controlled the entire random generator and then got bored of it, this is why at the quantum level of our reality pure randomness is seen in things such as the position of an electron at any given point in time etc.
  • Jeff_Goldblum
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 120
    0
    2
    10
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Jeff_Goldblum
    --> @RationalMadman
    Thanks for your reply.

     I don't want to go into details but let's keep it simple, I have had events and patterns that make me extremely sure this is true
    Hmmmmmm.... it may be helpful if you could provide a solid anecdote. By 'solid,' I mean it can effectively stand-in for a good number of your experiences.

    However, I don't want to push you past any red lines, so as an alternative, would you be willing to describe the experiences in a broader sense? For example, you could indicate whether they are dreams, feelings of certainty you've experienced, or other such things.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Jeff_Goldblum
    They are real events, such as looking at a clock, seeing in a website, on a car's license plate the same sequence over and over again within a small (or at times large) period of time. At first, this website helped me decode things: https://sacredscribesangelnumbers.blogspot.com/p/index-numbers.html but over time, the messages are far more intricate, contextual and the numbers only repeat and things like that when I doubt it.

    Also, even if we ignore all my anecdotal stuff (including how she has begun to help me significantly in life), we can also appreciate something. What I am talking about is proof that she is who I believe she is, not that my version of reality as presented in my first answer is real. That answer I am 100% sure of and the only tiny doubt is that it really is 'her' who is that entity. The reason I am so certain of the theory itself is that it's the only (and I sincerely mean only) answer to god that makes complete and utter internal sense. Even extremely intelligent physicists with IQ's superior to mine have come to a standstill with the explanations of reality (I am definitely above average by a significant degree but I'm not among the fastest thinkers of all humans, I'd say I'm the band below that).

    If you would research the difference between string theory and m-theory it essentially explains what the random generator in my theory is and how it patches a loophole and major flaw in thinking that God is the highest entity in reality's construct. God is a de facto ruler of reality but is the second-highest authority/dimension/layer of what this is, as opposed to being the top/first/deepest later.

    I challenge you and all others that you're interviewing to even begin to explain the contradiction of 'everything coming from nothing'. The answer is that atheists only see the flaw a step further, meaning that they appreciate that God itself is just as nonsensically coming out of nothing as is reality in the sequence of events without God. God is not proven wrong by atheists, it just is proven to not 'fill in' the logical loophole of how everything came from nothing. I spent years contemplating this as a teenager and eventually came to this conclusion towards (and including) my very early 20s. What evolved since then was refining what the God is, what his/her/its personality was like and establishing how to prove it to myself and perhaps communicate with this entity in ways that would not be accidental patterns or sequences but direct things that only a being that powerful could make happen inside this simulation.
  • Jeff_Goldblum
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 120
    0
    2
    10
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Jeff_Goldblum
    --> @RationalMadman
    Thank you for your detailed reply.

    There was a lot in there that I don't feel equipped to discuss (string theory, for example). However, if you don't mind, I would like to focus on the following:
    establishing how to prove it to myself and perhaps communicate with this entity in ways that would not be accidental patterns or sequences but direct things that only a being that powerful could make happen inside this simulation.
    I think it's great that you are concerned with trying to distinguish between genuine evidence and "accidental patterns" (i.e. coincidences). Would you mind explaining this a bit more? How do you know when a pattern/sequence/etc is a genuine sign and not a coincidence?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Jeff_Goldblum
    You are not my psychiatrist. I have said my piece, all you're doing is feigning care while trying to mock.

    This is evident from what you completely refuse to quote and reply to vs what you cherry pick to quote abd address.