Can God be beyond the universe?

[Eodnhoj7]

Illusions cannot exist without some facet of truth, hence illusions as deficiencies of truth are real in themselves through the truths through which they exist.

For example: A unicorn is an illusion, however it is composed of a horse, horn, etc...all of which are true and existent. As an illusion the unicorn exists, but is deficient in the respect it does not fully exist empirically except as an idea...however the idea exists partially through brain chemicals, etc...hence the unicorn still exists as an idea.

A unicorn has full empirical characteristic therefore is an empirical possibility and not an illusion. It is a matter of providing the necessary evidence [from Earth or outer space] to justify its existence empirically.

Then over time God is empirically possible through "The All".

An example of an empirical illusion is a stick appearing as bent when placed between water and air but the reality there is no bent stick at all.
Because the illusion is an empirical one, it is not an idea but rather it is a concept.

Actually the stick as "bent", being observed through the bending of light, observes all empirical illusions reflect the observation of light as a constant with the light bending through the air and water. What we observe is light, not the stick.



Note the following definition [as I used it],
concept = contain empirical elements only, a table, even a tea cup in space ..

The problem with empiricism is that it is an idea. We observe through the senses but we do not observe the senses. I cannot see smelling or seeing "seeing", except through reason...leading to an inherently abstract element.
idea = do not contain and devoid of any empirical elements, e.g. God, soul.

All ideas exist through empirical means in the respect they exist through symbols, these symbols are composed of foundation geometric structures (such as lines or points whether through a form or even letter) and this nature of the line and point as boundaries have dual empirical means.


Whether it is an empirical illusion or illusory idea, both are represented by real neural connectivity and activities in the brain.
Therefore it is critical we understand the neural mechanics that enable concepts and ideas to emerge.

Show me the neurological mechanics that mandate this premise.

Note the empirical illusions in terms of synaethesia, i.e. cross wiring of senses where one can taste music. So it is matter of rewiring the brain to correct the illusion which I am optimistic in the future.

Actually synaethesia, if it empirically exists, cannot be labeled as a "disease" or "faulty" considering these are abstractions of deficiencies.

I believed the illusion of God which has pros and cons are also supported by certain neural processes in the brain which can be rewired [fool proof methods] to eliminate the terrible cons manifesting from theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils as a divine duty.

There can be no illusions in a strict empirical world as what exists exists as is. Illusion necessitates and absence of truth, but truth is an abstract concept.

[Dalek Prime]

If I can sit around the house, I'm sure God can sit around the universe... That is what you meant, wasn't it?

[Philosophy Explorer]

If I can sit around the house, I'm sure God can sit around the universe... That is what you meant, wasn't it?

Not quite DP.

PhilX

[Dalek Prime]

If I can sit around the house, I'm sure God can sit around the universe... That is what you meant, wasn't it?

Not quite DP.

PhilX

Rats!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Illusions cannot exist without some facet of truth, hence illusions as deficiencies of truth are real in themselves through the truths through which they exist.

For example: A unicorn is an illusion, however it is composed of a horse, horn, etc...all of which are true and existent. As an illusion the unicorn exists, but is deficient in the respect it does not fully exist empirically except as an idea...however the idea exists partially through brain chemicals, etc...hence the unicorn still exists as an idea.

A unicorn has full empirical characteristic therefore is an empirical possibility and not an illusion. It is a matter of providing the necessary evidence [from Earth or outer space] to justify its existence empirically.

Then over time God is empirically possible through "The All".

Note there are two either/or views of God's existence, i.e.

• 1. Empirically or empirically possible or
  
  2. Transcendental and transcendent

If theists claimed their God is empirical [which most do] then such an empirical God is empirically possible.
To confirm an empirically possible God exists one must bring empirical evidence to justify and verified a real empirical God.

But to claim one's God is empirically possible has limitations;
1. An empirical God would be inferior to a reasoned transcendental God. Most theists would not accept their God to be inferior to another God.

2. Generally a God is claimed to be absolutely perfect God and all powerful to be able to be whatever God wants. Such a God cannot be empirical. Most theists when highlighted with such an argument will switch to a monotheistic ontological God.

An example of an empirical illusion is a stick appearing as bent when placed between water and air but the reality there is no bent stick at all.
Because the illusion is an empirical one, it is not an idea but rather it is a concept.

Actually the stick as "bent", being observed through the bending of light, observes all empirical illusions reflect the observation of light as a constant with the light bending through the air and water. What we observe is light, not the stick.

You are conflating different perspectives here.

Perspective 1 - Ordinary Common Sense Reality
In the ordinary perspective the "bent stick" perceived is an illusion.
A person who is ignorant of the effect will insist it is a bent stick and believe as such for his whole life.
The reality of that ordinary perspective can be resolved by pulling the stick out of the water to prove the stick is not bent within the ordinary perspective.

Perspective 2 - Scientific Reality re Light Waves
When you shift from the ordinary perspective to a scientific one in terms of light and observation, then it is true humans are only triggered by light waves from whatever is out there which we conceives as 'stick' via language games.

3. Philosophical - Scientific Perspective
Note Russell's

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
Russell - Problems of Philosophy

There are more perspectives to deliberate on.
Point is one cannot conflate the perspectives to form a common conclusion.

Note the following definition [as I used it],
concept = contain empirical elements only, a table, even a tea cup in space ..

The problem with empiricism is that it is an idea. We observe through the senses but we do not observe the senses. I cannot see smelling or seeing "seeing", except through reason...leading to an inherently abstract element.

Note again my view, empiricism is a concept not an idea.
In a way, it is very obvious we cannot see 'seeing' and there is no need for such.
What is critical is we have the experience and these experiences can be verified repeatedly and consistently.
From these experiences we can abstract empirical concepts, e.g. a concept of an empirical 'table' to represent whatever fits the main characteristics of what is a table.

idea = do not contain and devoid of any empirical elements, e.g. God, soul.

All ideas exist through empirical means in the respect they exist through symbols, these symbols are composed of foundation geometric structures (such as lines or points whether through a form or even letter) and this nature of the line and point as boundaries have dual empirical means.

An 'idea' [philosophical] is a thought that comprised empirically impossible elements, e.g. a God which is perfect, omni-potent-all-powerful and omni-whatever or a soul that survives physical death.

Whether it is an empirical illusion or illusory idea, both are represented by real neural connectivity and activities in the brain.
Therefore it is critical we understand the neural mechanics that enable concepts and ideas to emerge.

Show me the neurological mechanics that mandate this premise.

Note the illusion generated by synaethesia are explained by the cross wiring of the sense neurons. There are various theories of which neurons are represented for the different types of illusion. In the meantime they are crude.
That is why I stated we need to understand the detailed neural mechanics of how illusions are generated in the brain.
I am optimistic the above is possible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

Note the empirical illusions in terms of synaethesia, i.e. cross wiring of senses where one can taste music. So it is matter of rewiring the brain to correct the illusion which I am optimistic in the future.

Actually synaethesia, if it empirically exists, cannot be labeled as a "disease" or "faulty" considering these are abstractions of deficiencies.

I did not label it as a 'disease' per se. I stated synaethesia generated illusions. Note also Charles Bonnet Syndrome and others which are natural besides the real diseases that generate illusions.

I believed the illusion of God which has pros and cons are also supported by certain neural processes in the brain which can be rewired [fool proof methods] to eliminate the terrible cons manifesting from theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils as a divine duty.

There can be no illusions in a strict empirical world as what exists exists as is. Illusion necessitates and absence of truth, but truth is an abstract concept.

In one perspective, e.g. as Russell postulated above, whatever is empirical and proven by Science could be illusions in another more refined perspectives.

When I used the term 'illusion' I intend to use them in their respective perspective.

Where God is claimed to be beyond the empirical Universe, it is then a transcendental and transcendent God which is a natural transcendental illusion.

Whatever impulse or feel [empirically, as a transcendent] for God to exists as real, the ultimately reason is human psychology.

[Eodnhoj7]

Illusions cannot exist without some facet of truth, hence illusions as deficiencies of truth are real in themselves through the truths through which they exist.

For example: A unicorn is an illusion, however it is composed of a horse, horn, etc...all of which are true and existent. As an illusion the unicorn exists, but is deficient in the respect it does not fully exist empirically except as an idea...however the idea exists partially through brain chemicals, etc...hence the unicorn still exists as an idea.

A unicorn has full empirical characteristic therefore is an empirical possibility and not an illusion. It is a matter of providing the necessary evidence [from Earth or outer space] to justify its existence empirically.

Then over time God is empirically possible through "The All".

Note there are two either/or views of God's existence, i.e.

No there is not...a view of both empirical and transcendental occurs or neither through the "limit". All empirical or abstract (transcendental) realities are composed of limits which give structure to the empirical or abstract phenomenon and in these respects the limit exists as the foundation of itself. We see this premised in the simple line and point, which is mirrored through all phenomenon, whether it be an empirical phenomenon (such as a horse where we see a form of curves upon closer examination are composed of lines and points, with all points being composed of further lines and lines composed of further points with the existence of the horse, through relative distance always equating to a point in space) and abstract phenomenon (such as the form itself or an argument where the symbols are composed of these same lines and points and the argument itself follows this same "linear" format with each observation existing as a point in itself).

God as Measurer, a common definition in all religion and philosophies, further mirrored in "man as measurer" being the "image" of God in various philosophies and religions, extends from this premise of limit as all measurement exists as the manifestation of limits through limits.

• 1. Empirically or empirically possible or
  
  2. Transcendental and transcendent

If theists claimed their God is empirical [which most do] then such an empirical God is empirically possible.
To confirm an empirically possible God exists one must bring empirical evidence to justify and verified a real empirical God.

But to claim one's God is empirically possible has limitations;
1. An empirical God would be inferior to a reasoned transcendental God. Most theists would not accept their God to be inferior to another God.

2. Generally a God is claimed to be absolutely perfect God and all powerful to be able to be whatever God wants. Such a God cannot be empirical. Most theists when highlighted with such an argument will switch to a monotheistic ontological God.

An example of an empirical illusion is a stick appearing as bent when placed between water and air but the reality there is no bent stick at all.
Because the illusion is an empirical one, it is not an idea but rather it is a concept.

Actually the stick as "bent", being observed through the bending of light, observes all empirical illusions reflect the observation of light as a constant with the light bending through the air and water. What we observe is light, not the stick.

You are conflating different perspectives here.

A perspective however is not only empirical.

Perspective 1 - Ordinary Common Sense Reality
In the ordinary perspective the "bent stick" perceived is an illusion.
A person who is ignorant of the effect will insist it is a bent stick and believe as such for his whole life.
The reality of that ordinary perspective can be resolved by pulling the stick out of the water to prove the stick is not bent within the ordinary perspective.

The stick is bent in perspective, hence pulling the stick out of the water gives a different perspective....this in itself is a perspective as the change in time is observed through reason as we can only empirically see "now". I can see empirically the stick in the water...or the stick out of water, but the difference between seeing the stick in the water and out of the water I cannot see at once; hence perspective is not limited to strictly empirical means.



Perspective 2 - Scientific Reality re Light Waves
When you shift from the ordinary perspective to a scientific one in terms of light and observation, then it is true humans are only triggered by light waves from whatever is out there which we conceives as 'stick' via language games.

Language games observe that language is structured through the context in which it is used and language becomes structure through relation, however the stick example follows this same game as the context of the stick and how it is empirically perceived is one of context. Games are observation of context, and empirical "sight" is dependent strickly upon light. Now I may know through holding the stick inside and outside of water that the stick does not bend, however the "illusion" is one strictly premised in sight alone....the relation of the senses gives further context and observes that the light is bent while the stick stays the same.



3. Philosophical - Scientific Perspective
Note Russell's

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
Russell - Problems of Philosophy

There are more perspectives to deliberate on.
Point is one cannot conflate the perspectives to form a common conclusion.

This is a common conclusion about perspective, that it is both potential and possibilistic.

Note the following definition [as I used it],
concept = contain empirical elements only, a table, even a tea cup in space ..

The problem with empiricism is that it is an idea. We observe through the senses but we do not observe the senses. I cannot see smelling or seeing "seeing", except through reason...leading to an inherently abstract element.

Note again my view, empiricism is a concept not an idea.
In a way, it is very obvious we cannot see 'seeing' and there is no need for such.
What is critical is we have the experience and these experiences can be verified repeatedly and consistently.
From these experiences we can abstract empirical concepts, e.g. a concept of an empirical 'table' to represent whatever fits the main characteristics of what is a table.

The definition of concept and idea you will have to elaborate on as the common median is the observation of limits, and in these respects they are not entirely separated.

idea = do not contain and devoid of any empirical elements, e.g. God, soul.

All ideas exist through empirical means in the respect they exist through symbols, these symbols are composed of foundation geometric structures (such as lines or points whether through a form or even letter) and this nature of the line and point as boundaries have dual empirical means.

An 'idea' [philosophical] is a thought that comprised empirically impossible elements, e.g. a God which is perfect, omni-potent-all-powerful and omni-whatever or a soul that survives physical death.

Empirically impossibilities cannot exist as empirical reality is not only probabilistic, but exists as time through time with time being composed of the relation of parts we observe through movements. An empirical law is that which exists up until now and provides a probabilistic interpretation of a future which empirically is not observed. Empiricism is premised in the observation of actual localized realities through laws which give boundary to certain relations of movements...the problem occurs in the respect that empirical reality is premised in potential reality with this potential reality be un-actualized and in these respects lacking in limit contain certain possibile variables.

"Perfection" is empirical in the respect it is an observation of existence as what exists is perfect in the respect it exists.

"Omnipresence" is empirical in the respect that relative to a specific place in time and space all empirical realities are either composed of or reduced to points in space. I may see a car in the distance as a point, I may go up closer to the car and observed it is composed of further points that I cannot observed as to what they are composed of...the point is ever-present in these respects and provides the foundation for all limit....hence existence.

Whether it is an empirical illusion or illusory idea, both are represented by real neural connectivity and activities in the brain.
Therefore it is critical we understand the neural mechanics that enable concepts and ideas to emerge.

Show me the neurological mechanics that mandate this premise.

Note the illusion generated by synaethesia are explained by the cross wiring of the sense neurons. There are various theories of which neurons are represented for the different types of illusion. In the meantime they are crude.
That is why I stated we need to understand the detailed neural mechanics of how illusions are generated in the brain.
I am optimistic the above is possible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

Synaethesia as the "cross wiring of sensory neurons" is not an illusion as the crossing of neurons has no empirical standard other than what exists exists as is...in simpler terms there are no crossing of neurons that specify how the neurons should be crossed.

Note the empirical illusions in terms of synaethesia, i.e. cross wiring of senses where one can taste music. So it is matter of rewiring the brain to correct the illusion which I am optimistic in the future.

This is not empirical but a statement of belief premised on a standard of measurement where the neurons should be crossed in such a manner...modern science is a religiously dogmatic and no different than the catholic church of the medieval times...and we all seen how that ended...

Actually synaethesia, if it empirically exists, cannot be labeled as a "disease" or "faulty" considering these are abstractions of deficiencies.

I did not label it as a 'disease' per se. I stated synaethesia generated illusions. Note also Charles Bonnet Syndrome and others which are natural besides the real diseases that generate illusions.

All illusions, as a deficiency in reason, mirror the nature of disease as a disease is an absence of health. Illusion is the absence of healthy, or "balanced", reason.

I believed the illusion of God which has pros and cons are also supported by certain neural processes in the brain which can be rewired [fool proof methods] to eliminate the terrible cons manifesting from theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils as a divine duty.

"I believe" is a statement of religious dogma, with all belief acting act as the focal point of measurement through which reality is effected. If a man observes a specific set of beliefs what he does is measure reality according to those beliefs with this measurement in turn forming both himself and the world around him.

There can be no illusions in a strict empirical world as what exists exists as is. Illusion necessitates and absence of truth, but truth is an abstract concept.

In one perspective, e.g. as Russell postulated above, whatever is empirical and proven by Science could be illusions in another more refined perspectives.

Hence an empirical only understanding of God is in itself an illusion.

When I used the term 'illusion' I intend to use them in their respective perspective.

And that perspective is relative to other perspective, as a "part" of a whole perspective, which is both composed of and composing further perspectives. "Illusion", while defined in multiple different means through multiple different perspectives, is still a common word (regardless of definition) amidst these various perspectives. In these respects you may argue I am not arguing "illusion" in accords with the context you use it, but the word "illusion" exists because of multiple contexts and to limit it to any one leads to contradiction which inevitably leads to the argument being built upon this premise as faulty.

Where God is claimed to be beyond the empirical Universe, it is then a transcendental and transcendent God which is a natural transcendental illusion.

But God as "limit" is not beyond the empirical universe only as what we observe through empiricism (and it's relativistic nature of observing parts relating through movement) is merely an approximation of a universal constant in the respect the same foundations which form empirical reality (limit) form the abstract as well.

Whatever impulse or feel [empirically, as a transcendent] for God to exists as real, the ultimately reason is human psychology.

But the neurons created this...and the neurons exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posted

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note there are two either/or views of God's existence, i.e.

• 1. Empirically or empirically possible or
  
  2. Transcendental and transcendent

If theists claimed their God is empirical [which most do] then such an empirical God is empirically possible.
To confirm an empirically possible God exists one must bring empirical evidence to justify and verified a real empirical God.

But to claim one's God is empirically possible has limitations;
1. An empirical God would be inferior to a reasoned transcendental God. Most theists would not accept their God to be inferior to another God.

2. Generally a God is claimed to be absolutely perfect God and all powerful to be able to be whatever God wants. Such a God cannot be empirical. Most theists when highlighted with such an argument will switch to a monotheistic ontological God.

No there is not...a view of both empirical and transcendental occurs or neither through the "limit".
All empirical or abstract (transcendental) realities are composed of limits which give structure to the empirical or abstract phenomenon and in these respects the limit exists as the foundation of itself.

We see this premised in the simple line and point, which is mirrored through all phenomenon, whether it be an empirical phenomenon
(such as a horse where we see a form of curves upon closer examination are composed of lines and points, with all points being composed of further lines and lines composed of further points with the existence of the horse, through relative distance always equating to a point in space)
and abstract phenomenon
(such as the form itself or an argument where the symbols are composed of these same lines and points and the argument itself follows this same "linear" format with each observation existing as a point in itself).

God as Measurer, a common definition in all religion and philosophies, further mirrored in "man as measurer" being the "image" of God in various philosophies and religions, extends from this premise of limit as all measurement exists as the manifestation of limits through limits.

Frankly even parsing your post I find it difficult to understand the point re your "limits".

Btw, transcendental is not transcendent.
Transcendental meant transcending the normal senses and perception.

Transcendent meant transcending normal senses and is absolute independent of the human conditions. Note the claim by Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The ultimate transcendent God as claimed by most do not has limits.

Btw, can you explain clearly how the transcendent God which is absolutely independent of the human condition can then interact immanently and interdependently with humans?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I find it difficult to address your reply because you encased everything in one quote.

Where God is claimed to be beyond the empirical Universe, it is then a transcendental and transcendent God which is a natural transcendental illusion.

But God as "limit" is not beyond the empirical universe only as what we observe through empiricism (and it's relativistic nature of observing parts relating through movement) is merely an approximation of a universal constant in the respect the same foundations which form empirical reality (limit) form the abstract as well.

I am lost on the above.

Let me try this;

Let say I see and touch a solid table - this would be an empirical thing.

If I were to speculate a table exists somewhere in planet Saturn, that would be empirical but that is transcendental [reasoned and abstract of a possible empirical table].

But if I insist the whole of reality and all there is a table beyond the universe, then that would be transcendent and impossible.

See if you can use my views above to get your message across.

Whatever impulse or feel [empirically, as a transcendent] for God to exists as real, the ultimately reason is human psychology.

But the neurons created this...and the neurons exist.

Yes.
The neurons created a God that delivers holy texts via a messenger that contain commands to inflict evil and violence upon non-believers and the evil acts are actually happening in reality.
This is why we need to focus our attention on the neuron involved and do something about them [foolproof] to prevent evils acts being committed as directed by a God.

[Eodnhoj7]

Note there are two either/or views of God's existence, i.e.

• 1. Empirically or empirically possible or
  
  2. Transcendental and transcendent

If theists claimed their God is empirical [which most do] then such an empirical God is empirically possible.
To confirm an empirically possible God exists one must bring empirical evidence to justify and verified a real empirical God.

But to claim one's God is empirically possible has limitations;
1. An empirical God would be inferior to a reasoned transcendental God. Most theists would not accept their God to be inferior to another God.

2. Generally a God is claimed to be absolutely perfect God and all powerful to be able to be whatever God wants. Such a God cannot be empirical. Most theists when highlighted with such an argument will switch to a monotheistic ontological God.

No there is not...a view of both empirical and transcendental occurs or neither through the "limit".
All empirical or abstract (transcendental) realities are composed of limits which give structure to the empirical or abstract phenomenon and in these respects the limit exists as the foundation of itself.

We see this premised in the simple line and point, which is mirrored through all phenomenon, whether it be an empirical phenomenon
(such as a horse where we see a form of curves upon closer examination are composed of lines and points, with all points being composed of further lines and lines composed of further points with the existence of the horse, through relative distance always equating to a point in space)
and abstract phenomenon
(such as the form itself or an argument where the symbols are composed of these same lines and points and the argument itself follows this same "linear" format with each observation existing as a point in itself).

God as Measurer, a common definition in all religion and philosophies, further mirrored in "man as measurer" being the "image" of God in various philosophies and religions, extends from this premise of limit as all measurement exists as the manifestation of limits through limits.

Frankly even parsing your post I find it difficult to understand the point re your "limits".

Btw, transcendental is not transcendent.
Transcendental meant transcending the normal senses and perception.

Transcendent meant transcending normal senses and is absolute independent of the human conditions. Note the claim by Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The ultimate transcendent God as claimed by most do not has limits.

Btw, can you explain clearly how the transcendent God which is absolutely independent of the human condition can then interact immanently and interdependently with humans?

I could give a definition of "limit" based upon a common usage of the term in the dictionary; this in turn will lead to a linear definition of limit leading to "Y" definition, with "y" definition going back to "limit" while going to "z" definition.


Assuming God is "independent" of the human condition is to argue on a variable the majority of faiths do not hold true...so it would be equivalent to saying "x" faith is wrong because it claimed "y" when "x" never claimed "y"....but I will humor you.

Because the human condition, as an extension of the Creator, exists as both an extension but as an extension take on the same role of the 1 creator as 1 in themselves. So if only 1 creator, as the All from which nothing else exists, manifests through the human condition under the Image of God as Mankind, then mankind takes this same role.

In these respects man is an extension of the Creator.

In a separate respect man's existence, in the face of relative nothingness, mirrors that of God and in these respects all existence relative to nothingness is in itself perfect as what exists is true in the fact it exists...and relative to "void" all is perfect.

Now considering "nothingness" does not exist in and of itself, what we understand of nothingness is merely an absence of perceived unified being through inversion of unity into multiplicity. Take for example a unified line...it may be composed of multiple further lines and points with each point being an inversion of the "unity" into "units"...hence nothingness is merely separation as inversion...but considering it does not exist in and of itself as "nothing is nothing" but rather an "observation of relation as approximation", this observation of nothingness in turn mirrors the Creators existence as "everything" and "the all" through "nothingness" in which the perceivably separate nature of the human condition as "individuals" mirrors this same nature of the Creator.

[Reflex]

I wonder why it is so difficult to understand that unity (monism) precedes but does not exclude diversity? That composition is not identity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I still cannot get the main theme of your argument.
I was struggling with 'DontAskMe' but when we get on to his background of 'Advaita Vedanta' which I am very familiar, we could get on to something.
I will try to get a grasp of you views.

I could give a definition of "limit" based upon a common usage of the term in the dictionary; this in turn will lead to a linear definition of limit leading to "Y" definition, with "y" definition going back to "limit" while going to "z" definition.

Are you implying the problem of infinite regression like turtles all the way.

Assuming God is "independent" of the human condition is to argue on a variable the majority of faiths do not hold true...so it would be equivalent to saying "x" faith is wrong because it claimed "y" when "x" never claimed "y"....but I will humor you.

Note I may have mentioned, do you understand [to agree or disagree] the principles underlying Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
where reality of things [thus including God] is independent of the human conditions i.e. God exists regardless of whether the individual man or humanity exists or not.

"x" never claimed "y" because x is ignorant of the truth of "y' in terms of Philosophical Realism.
Most theists just believed based on faith [90%] and do not care with the truth of reality.

Because the human condition, as an extension of the Creator, exists as both an extension but as an extension take on the same role of the 1 creator as 1 in themselves. So if only 1 creator, as the All from which nothing else exists, manifests through the human condition under the Image of God as Mankind, then mankind takes this same role.

In these respects man is an extension of the Creator.

The above, human condition is an extension of the Creator, is a mere assumption and belief based on faith, thus false based on critical reasoning.
Deductively whatever that follows from it will be false.

In a separate respect man's existence, in the face of relative nothingness, mirrors that of God and in these respects all existence relative to nothingness is in itself perfect as what exists is true in the fact it exists...and relative to "void" all is perfect.

Now considering "nothingness" does not exist in and of itself, what we understand of nothingness is merely an absence of perceived unified being through inversion of unity into multiplicity. Take for example a unified line...it may be composed of multiple further lines and points with each point being an inversion of the "unity" into "units"...hence nothingness is merely separation as inversion...but considering it does not exist in and of itself as "nothing is nothing" but rather an "observation of relation as approximation", this observation of nothingness in turn mirrors the Creators existence as "everything" and "the all" through "nothingness" in which the perceivably separate nature of the human condition as "individuals" mirrors this same nature of the Creator.

I am not too sure above the above re nothingness.
I don't want to crack my head over it.
I'll wait until you have something clearer.

Anything to do with Buddhist 'nothingness.'
I am not interested in philosophical nihilism and solipsism.

My main point is,
the idea of God is an impossibility to be real.
Thus the question of God is real is moot, i.e. a non-starter, so is the question 'Can God be beyond the universe?'

[Eodnhoj7]

I still cannot get the main theme of your argument.
I was struggling with 'DontAskMe' but when we get on to his background of 'Advaita Vedanta' which I am very familiar, we could get on to something.
I will try to get a grasp of you views.

I could give a definition of "limit" based upon a common usage of the term in the dictionary; this in turn will lead to a linear definition of limit leading to "Y" definition, with "y" definition going back to "limit" while going to "z" definition.

Are you implying the problem of infinite regression like turtles all the way.

All "regress" is a relativistic observation of movement, as backwards is relative to forwards. Definition, either infintely progressing or regressing necessitates definition as "movement".

Assuming God is "independent" of the human condition is to argue on a variable the majority of faiths do not hold true...so it would be equivalent to saying "x" faith is wrong because it claimed "y" when "x" never claimed "y"....but I will humor you.

Note I may have mentioned, do you understand [to agree or disagree] the principles underlying Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
where reality of things [thus including God] is independent of the human conditions i.e. God exists regardless of whether the individual man or humanity exists or not.

"x" never claimed "y" because x is ignorant of the truth of "y' in terms of Philosophical Realism.
Most theists just believed based on faith [90%] and do not care with the truth of reality.

If I disagree with it, I negate it, thereby saying it exists. If I agree with it, it cannot exist without negating other philosophical schools and in doing so necessitates there existence. Philosophical realism is a perspective, an axiom that is both composed of and composes other axioms and relative to itself it is contradictory as it negates itself through its continual need for relations.

Because the human condition, as an extension of the Creator, exists as both an extension but as an extension take on the same role of the 1 creator as 1 in themselves. So if only 1 creator, as the All from which nothing else exists, manifests through the human condition under the Image of God as Mankind, then mankind takes this same role.

In these respects man is an extension of the Creator.

The above, human condition is an extension of the Creator, is a mere assumption and belief based on faith, thus false based on critical reasoning.
Deductively whatever that follows from it will be false.

All numbers are an extension of "1" either through multiples or fractals, hence this is not an assumption but a basis of logic.

In a separate respect man's existence, in the face of relative nothingness, mirrors that of God and in these respects all existence relative to nothingness is in itself perfect as what exists is true in the fact it exists...and relative to "void" all is perfect.

Now considering "nothingness" does not exist in and of itself, what we understand of nothingness is merely an absence of perceived unified being through inversion of unity into multiplicity. Take for example a unified line...it may be composed of multiple further lines and points with each point being an inversion of the "unity" into "units"...hence nothingness is merely separation as inversion...but considering it does not exist in and of itself as "nothing is nothing" but rather an "observation of relation as approximation", this observation of nothingness in turn mirrors the Creators existence as "everything" and "the all" through "nothingness" in which the perceivably separate nature of the human condition as "individuals" mirrors this same nature of the Creator.

I am not too sure above the above re nothingness.
I don't want to crack my head over it.
I'll wait until you have something clearer.

Anything to do with Buddhist 'nothingness.'
I am not interested in philosophical nihilism and solipsism.

Nothingness is not a thing in itself but rather an inversion of unity through multiplicity but considering nothingness is not a thing in itself it is only an "illusion" in the respect it is a deficiency in existence due to its dependence on relation, hence is an illusion. However all illusion exists as a partial truth, and relative to nothingness they exist as true but are deficient relative to other "truths" which are fuller.

My main point is,
the idea of God is an impossibility to be real.
Thus the question of God is real is moot, i.e. a non-starter, so is the question 'Can God be beyond the universe?'

God as the "Idea of the All" is real, as all ideas are real as ideas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My main point is,
the idea of God is an impossibility to be real.
Thus the question of God is real is moot, i.e. a non-starter, so is the question 'Can God be beyond the universe?'

God as the "Idea of the All" is real, as all ideas are real as ideas.

I am speaking of 'idea' in the philosophical sense as used since the ancient philosopher.
This is different from the typical meaning of idea which can be any thought.

Concept versus Idea [philosophical]

A concept is related to empirical [+ intuition and sensibility] things, example the concept of a 'table'. A concept is conceived from a combination of the experiential things and the "understanding" [intellect].

A philosophical idea is something that is purely a thought based on primal reason that do not has any empirical, i.e. intuition and sensible based at all.
Example a square-circle is an idea but a contradictory one.
God is an idea arising out of pure reason as a transcendental illusion.

I expect you to be very lost on the above, but I throw it out anyway hopefully you can catch some drift.
If you want to understand [not necessary agree] the above, then master Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

[Eodnhoj7]

My main point is,
the idea of God is an impossibility to be real.
Thus the question of God is real is moot, i.e. a non-starter, so is the question 'Can God be beyond the universe?'

God as the "Idea of the All" is real, as all ideas are real as ideas.

I am speaking of 'idea' in the philosophical sense as used since the ancient philosopher.
This is different from the typical meaning of idea which can be any thought.

And what is the "ancient" sense of the philosopher when all is mind with empiricism and materiality merely being a dimension of ideas with its own set of laws? What "ancients" are you referring too? The Socratics? The Pre-socratics? Or the religions which existed as the foundations prior?



Concept versus Idea [philosophical]

A concept is related to empirical [+ intuition and sensibility] things, example the concept of a 'table'. A concept is conceived from a combination of the experiential things and the "understanding" [intellect].

A concept as the relation of intuition and sense observes a rational idea binding these things, hence as a focal point of measurement through the faculty of reason.

A philosophical idea is something that is purely a thought based on primal reason that do not has any empirical, i.e. intuition and sensible based at all.
Example a square-circle is an idea but a contradictory one.



https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=im ... ORM=HDRSC2



God is an idea arising out of pure reason as a transcendental illusion.

Existence as empirical gives rise to God as empirical reality is existence through the senses with the flow of time observing an inherent approximation to this unity as reality perpetually unfolds.

All empirical reality is defined and given structure through the faculty of reason in the respect reason acts as a means of observation.

I expect you to be very lost on the above, but I throw it out anyway hopefully you can catch some drift.
If you want to understand [not necessary agree] the above, then master Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.



There is nothing to be "lost on" as everything you state is a contradiction in the respect it is deficient in the ability to sustain itself under its own weight of logic. Kant's work is an ornate but empty cathedral which should be burned to the ground. I am reading, and am about finished with "Kant's Critique of Reason" and it is pure garbage...people look at the complexity and assume some depth when in reality people get enamored by the obscurity as it gives some sense of depth and purpose.