Where does this "requirement" come from? IOW, who ordered that?
Where do I claim "activities above and beyond any particular individual"? To me, that means the activities of individuals other than myself.
if you can't distinguish the experience of knowing you are god, by any value, ability or attribute, it is non-different from not having the experience ... since both states would be identical
Are you implying that we can't talk about knowledge of God unless some "requirement" is met?
Sure .. at least if you are intent on meaningful discussion.
Otherwise we can say things like "Circling the aspect of interior lighting I have come to understand that triangles are just like hexagons"
Why is that? What's the requirement? I mean if you want to know something, isn't that really the only requirement?
If you actually know something (as opposed to attempting to borrow from the authority of the subject in some dubious manner eg: "hey everybody I am just like god ... even though there is a good chance I will be shitting my pants if I manage to live another 75 years") you shouldn't have any problem meeting this requirement.
For instance I can tell you a triangle has three sides, and this in itself is sufficient to distinguish it from a circle. You may disagree and say that you have experience of a circle with three sides ... but it would become apparent in the course of such a discussion that its either a matter semantics (You are using the word circle to define what I call a triangle) or you have either a vague or no clue what you are talking about.
Unless of course you can somehow exclude yourself from "knowing" (maybe you're too stupid), then exclude everyone else by implication (since of course, everyone else is just like you), what requirement is there? I think what you mean here is that my "definition" doesn't jibe with yours. And as I may have mentioned, your idea, my idea, anyone's idea, of God, is not God. God is (an) experience. Live with it."Just like me" huh? Are you omniscient?
I am saying your (theoretical) definition of god - namely one that is incapable of bearing so much as a ripple on the surface of the phenomenal world - is one that doesn't gel with the standard definitions of god (summum bonum, omnimax, cause of all causes, etc etc).
Fair enough if you want to say that you had this neat experience on magic mushrooms in pursuit of shamanistic practices, but you are just dumbing down the definition of god (at best ... and at worst, reinforcing a pathetic stereotype ... anyone recall the old simpsons episode with krusty the clown on acid from the 70's?)
You appear to be someone who believes that God has a certain definition, "behaves" in a certain way, and any other description is "dumbing it down".
You believe that you can say something like "I am god" and completely fail to display even a trace of anything to justify such a claim except the mortification that your ego might be bruised if one suggests otherwise.
But I don't think you know what God is,
Plenty of info out there to explain what god is.
Everytime I bring you back to these standard definitions you insist that these are fabrications and that its actually your (apparently drug induced) experience that is valid ... despite the fact that in the middle of such experiences of, you would have a sense of hazard avoidance more diminished than a ten year old
It seems likely you've
forgotten. And what you appear to be trying to tell me is that I don't know what experience or consciousness is because I can't define either of these things. Can you?[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt you had some sort of "experience".
Your complete inability to dress it up in any way resembling the term "god" (without dumbing down the term of course) seems to indicate you are deluded