May I reply:
"Do you recall your experience of life as a newborn baby? How can someone, say with an alleged blank in recall, claim that people are not born with an awareness of God?
That is nonsense, Alan. You may be aware of many things when you are born - I have no problem with that - but no one is born with a knowledge of English. If you don't speak English, the word "God" means absolutely nothing to you. And if you never learn that there is a word such as "God", you would never feel the need to use the word in any discussion. "
I recognise your point re: the word "God".
But how do you get a knowledge of English?
You get that knowledge; not by going around in circles in a Dictionary. You get it by what philosophers call "ostensive definition"; things like as a child you see the circumstances in which a word is used and you make a MATCH of patterns.
Example: your Mother might have looked at you as a baby and said "Aurino" in such context as it dawned on you that she meant YOU. Someone trips over and says "ouch" and you figure out what "ouch" means.
Have you seen the movie "Matrix 3. Revolution"?
Have you seen the insight that Neo gets on "the machines"? Have you seen his epic battle with Mr. Smith?
This movie is extremely useful in this discussion. Do you think reality is made of numbers? Open your eyes....
A thing IS. It isn't AGAIN except DIFFERENTLY? Reality is one-off say. Eternally now, beyond time.
Quote: "but no one is born with a knowledge of English."
But they ARE born with the ability to construct a knowledge of English by comparing words with other words; and more basically by looking at the circumstances and context in which words are used;
they are born capable of comparing and matching patterns (even making educated guesses in the course of experience).
Think of the MATRIX Aurino! What do you think "English words" are made of?
Note there is a degree of self-referencing
involved in constructing an understanding of the world; and other-referencing; and God-awareness ("Existence" awareness)....
In about 1984 I had an infant-awareness recall experience during which I "heard" my mother talking (while I was a very young baby): Since this re-experiencing occurred at a much later age; older me KNEW that it would be understandable words to me NOW; but I did not know what she was saying.
That is: I re-experienced my mother's voice yet KNEW it could be understood by me now but during this "replay of long-ago-sense-data" I did not know what the words were (as I was genuinely re-experiencing my baby consciousness).
So I do not dispute certain aspect re: your point: I have direct experience of it; BUT it doesn't alter
the fact that I can, regarding patterns that I experienced which had no words to stick to them BACK THEN when I was a baby: I can MATCH these patterns from baby-hood TO the patterns that make up the word "God".
Similarly I had no word for "night time" as a baby; but I can now match "the un-labelled experience" from back then, with the English "night time" of today.
Quote: "If you don't speak English, the word "God" means absolutely nothing to you. And if you never learn that there is a word such as "God", you would never feel the need to use the word in any discussion. "
If I had never heard of the word "God"; that does not mean I would have no such idea; I might use another word to try to fit my baby-awareness and life experience. However I am grateful to have heard about Jesus Christ as a lot of things make sense.
Regarding: "I have recall from when I was a newborn baby and I WAS/AM aware of awareness that fits the Christian idea of God
That proves absolutely nothing about absolutely anything. "
It is my eye-witness statement that certain patterns I experienced as a newborn baby fit with patterns I have learned to asociate with the Christian idea of "God".
Regarding: "As a newborn baby, objects around me seemed to be offered to me
You mean, like baby bottles, pacifiers, and spoons filled with soup? Yeah, I remember that too. "
What I meant was:
objects around me seemed to be offered to me in a way that you might describe (as an adult speaking English) as: a divine presence is all around me; another Being is behind everything that exists; gently offering me an outstretched hand you might say...
"But "God" is not a matter for accountants to add up; is more than any countable phenomena...
Yet here you are, trying to count phenomena supposedly related to God."
THAT is a problem I saw possible with my comment!
But how can I talk of "God" without seeming to measure HIM? I can bear witness to my experience: one could say that this conversation
between you and me is going on inside GOD; we are in Him and He in us; you and I are at the edge of eternity
""Only God is good" suggests that we are talking about "beyond number", so beyond that ....freedom comes to mind....eternal life, mutual consciousness, creation, the edge.... beyond the reach of adjectives......
It's quite funny that you seem to have a problem with mathematics. If you believe in God, then that's your number 1. If you believe you are not God, then that's number 2. If you believe you are reading a post from a person who's neither you nor God, that's number 3. Exactly what could possibly be wrong with that?"
DOUBLE DEFINING, that's what's "wrong" with that?
If I call something "number one"; I have doubled it up? It IS.
NOT: It is, it number one.
Number: just a sticker. Why stick a sticker on it?
And if there is no other number than ONE (to exist a thing must be ONE surely); what need of "one" labels? Except VOLUNTARILY?
Actually: we are taught "God is Three and God is One". To me that looks like freedom conscious of freedom as Existence........?
another STICKER!? Are you ranking it as BELOW number one?
Its another ONE that you called "Two"?
The problem with numbers is that they involve sticking things to each other; forcing them into an ordered sequence; yet in fact ONE; divided into TWO parts, does not say which is first and which is last.
And THREE involves going back in time and re-describing the first ONE as LESS than equal part of the division of the whole; and going forwards in time and describing the new "third" ONE as less than half the whole.
I do not have anything against MATH; I just see through this MATRIX to the light beyond it..............................?
NUMBERS can be voluntary: as you bind on Earth, consider it bound in Heaven; as you loose on Earth, consider it loosed in Heaven
And don't have to be coerced by any numbers from me! You are free..........................................
Regarding: "I know a condition when numbers cease to exist: it's when a man looses his mind. To argue that God created a Universe where numbers don't make sense is to see God as a madman. Not healthy to say the least..."
Numbers make as much sense as they make, and as little sense as they make....
Lose my mind? "Mind the step".....
I am being VERY MINDFULL; I am looking at what is going on and I am seeing through the MATRIX of number-dictatorships to the light beyond?
Healthy? Who DICTATES "healthy?"
Thomas Szasz wrote that if "health values" are deemed to justify coercing others; those who wish to coerce others will welcome say expansion of "health values" into what were "moral values".
I am for freedom.