Can God be beyond the universe?

[Erk]

God does sit outside of or around the universe in all directions equally. It's the only thing that doesn't have an outside. This makes it the only true absolute. However, the remainder of existence is contained within it. This makes it relative as well as absolute, or in other words relatively absolute.

This does not diminish its impersonal or personal greatness however. If it was entirely absolute it would be the only thing that exists. That wouldn't be so great for us and quite possibly for God as well. It would be all God all the time.

And God can't be inside of itself or it would then be outside of itself and it would end up being absolutely relative. Absolutely relative should be saved for the finite universe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Kant's CPR is pure garbage?

Kant is the greatest Western philosopher of all times.
You should read Kant's CPR thoroughly and understand [not necessary agree] it.

If you disagree where is your counter views with direct reference to the book?

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Kant's CPR is pure garbage?

Kant is the greatest Western philosopher of all times.
You should read Kant's CPR thoroughly and understand [not necessary agree] it.

If you disagree where is your counter views with direct reference to the book?

Philosophy is dead in the west...so to say he "is the greatest Western Philosopher of all times" is like saying "this is the best smelling shit in town".

There is nothing to understand...as the interpretations which precede from it have random variations due to their subjectivity. Regardless...Kant is dead.

However if you want to present a quoted argument, from Kant (with you argument added to it of course), I will address it if you wish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's CPR is pure garbage?

Kant is the greatest Western philosopher of all times.
You should read Kant's CPR thoroughly and understand [not necessary agree] it.

If you disagree where is your counter views with direct reference to the book?

Philosophy is dead in the west...so to say he "is the greatest Western Philosopher of all times" is like saying "this is the best smelling shit in town".

There is nothing to understand...as the interpretations which precede from it have random variations due to their subjectivity. Regardless...Kant is dead.

Unfortunately you are expressing your views from ignorance.

However if you want to present a quoted argument, from Kant (with you argument added to it of course), I will address it if you wish.

Here is a statement I made earlier,
"God is an idea arising out of pure reason as a transcendental illusion."

The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions [ideas, e.g. God] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They are sophistications [ideas, e.g. God] not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397 - N K Smith

Have you any counters from Kant's book and elsewhere to the above?

[Eodnhoj7]

Kant's CPR is pure garbage?

Kant is the greatest Western philosopher of all times.
You should read Kant's CPR thoroughly and understand [not necessary agree] it.

If you disagree where is your counter views with direct reference to the book?

Philosophy is dead in the west...so to say he "is the greatest Western Philosopher of all times" is like saying "this is the best smelling shit in town".

There is nothing to understand...as the interpretations which precede from it have random variations due to their subjectivity. Regardless...Kant is dead.

Unfortunately you are expressing your views from ignorance.

Ignorant? How so...considering you know so much.

However if you want to present a quoted argument, from Kant (with you argument added to it of course), I will address it if you wish.

Here is a statement I made earlier,
"God is an idea arising out of pure reason as a transcendental illusion."

The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

The empirical premises of a syllogism exist through symbolism, hence there is no strict non-empirical form of reasoning as it is mediated through the symbolic nature of reality as a medial point.

These conclusions [ideas, e.g. God] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

Reason is founded in the creation, maintainance and structure of limit as reason is definition through the application of limit. This nature of limit, is dually empirical and abstract and in these respects we observe a cycling between the abstract and empirical as a universal limit in itself.

They are sophistications [ideas, e.g. God] not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

Pure Reason, as evidenced and premised through "the limit" is not abstract, nor empirical, but provides the foundation for both as "both and" as limit itself and "neither/nor" as possible limit itself (no-limit).

Kant is full of shit.
B397 - N K Smith

Have you any counters from Kant's book and elsewhere to the above?

I don't have to quote kant, you are doing it for me. His emphasis on the subjective only means the Critique of Pure Reason is a memoire of his own objectification.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy is dead in the west...so to say he "is the greatest Western Philosopher of all times" is like saying "this is the best smelling shit in town".

There is nothing to understand...as the interpretations which precede from it have random variations due to their subjectivity. Regardless...Kant is dead.

Unfortunately you are expressing your views from ignorance.

Ignorant? How so...considering you know so much.

Why are you still participating in a Philosophy Forum at present if Western Philosophy is dead??

Philosophy-proper as I had mentioned in another post is an inherent human function almost as near to the need to breathe. Obviously like most basic function it has its forms and extremes, examples like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
or
certain academic philosophies which are incestuous.

However if you want to present a quoted argument, from Kant (with you argument added to it of course), I will address it if you wish.

Here is a statement I made earlier,
"God is an idea arising out of pure reason as a transcendental illusion."

The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

The empirical premises of a syllogism exist through symbolism, hence there is no strict non-empirical form of reasoning as it is mediated through the symbolic nature of reality as a medial point.

These conclusions [ideas, e.g. God] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

Reason is founded in the creation, maintainance and structure of limit as reason is definition through the application of limit. This nature of limit, is dually empirical and abstract and in these respects we observe a cycling between the abstract and empirical as a universal limit in itself.

They are sophistications [ideas, e.g. God] not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

Pure Reason, as evidenced and premised through "the limit" is not abstract, nor empirical, but provides the foundation for both as "both and" as limit itself and "neither/nor" as possible limit itself (no-limit).

Kant is full of shit.
B397 - N K Smith

Have you any counters from Kant's book and elsewhere to the above?

I don't have to quote kant, you are doing it for me. His emphasis on the subjective only means the Critique of Pure Reason is a memoire of his own objectification.

You are ignorant of Kant's Philosophy. I will not bother to reply to the above until I can read something rational from you regarding Kant.

You are actually insulting your own intellectual intelligence when you insist Kant is full of shit while Kant is recognized as the greatest [if not one of the topmost] Western philosopher of all times.

I am not insisting you must accept what I have expressed of Kant's view but to be intellectually honest you need to counter Kant's views more honestly, i.e. at least understand [not necessary agree with] with Kant's philosophy more thoroughly.

[Philosophy Explorer]

VA asked:

"Why are you still participating in a Philosophy Forum at present if Western Philosophy is dead??"

Ofc John Doe will most likely respond to this question, but I like to speculate. Maybe JD is looking to restore Western Philosophy. Or maybe JD means something different.

PhilX

[Eodnhoj7]

VA asked:

"Why are you still participating in a Philosophy Forum at present if Western Philosophy is dead??"

Ofc John Doe will most likely respond to this question, but I like to speculate. Maybe JD is looking to restore Western Philosophy. Or maybe JD means something different.

PhilX

Philosophy needs to be restored as it is the foundation of the Human Condition as Man as Measurer. All civilizations stem from ideas which direct the course of people's lives and vice versa. The ability to reason provides the foundation for human existence.

I have no interesting in restoring Western Philosophy in a Globalized society...philosophy must cycle back to the pre-socratics and resynthesize with its origins.

[Eodnhoj7]

Unfortunately you are expressing your views from ignorance.

Ignorant? How so...considering you know so much.

Why are you still participating in a Philosophy Forum at present if Western Philosophy is dead??

Philosophy-proper as I had mentioned in another post is an inherent human function almost as near to the need to breathe. Obviously like most basic function it has its forms and extremes, examples like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
or
certain academic philosophies which are incestuous.

That which is dead must rise again.

However if you want to present a quoted argument, from Kant (with you argument added to it of course), I will address it if you wish.

Here is a statement I made earlier,
"God is an idea arising out of pure reason as a transcendental illusion."

The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

The empirical premises of a syllogism exist through symbolism, hence there is no strict non-empirical form of reasoning as it is mediated through the symbolic nature of reality as a medial point.

These conclusions [ideas, e.g. God] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

Reason is founded in the creation, maintainance and structure of limit as reason is definition through the application of limit. This nature of limit, is dually empirical and abstract and in these respects we observe a cycling between the abstract and empirical as a universal limit in itself.

They are sophistications [ideas, e.g. God] not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

Pure Reason, as evidenced and premised through "the limit" is not abstract, nor empirical, but provides the foundation for both as "both and" as limit itself and "neither/nor" as possible limit itself (no-limit).

Kant is full of shit.
B397 - N K Smith

Have you any counters from Kant's book and elsewhere to the above?

I don't have to quote kant, you are doing it for me. His emphasis on the subjective only means the Critique of Pure Reason is a memoire of his own objectification.

You are ignorant of Kant's Philosophy. I will not bother to reply to the above until I can read something rational from you regarding Kant.

You are actually insulting your own intellectual intelligence when you insist Kant is full of shit while Kant is recognized as the greatest [if not one of the topmost] Western philosopher of all times.

I am not insisting you must accept what I have expressed of Kant's view but to be intellectually honest you need to counter Kant's views more honestly, i.e. at least understand [not necessary agree with] with Kant's philosophy more thoroughly.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde

In some sense, human beings experience only appearances, not things in themselves.

All phenomena, as medial points to further phenomena, exist as image with image itself being the structuring of a reality as an approximation of it. Our ability to image a reality is fundamentally a means to give form and structure to it, with all structure acting as a means to further structure as both an extension of 1 structure through "the all" and a means to further structure as both composed of and composing further structures.


Space and time are not things in themselves, or determinations of things in themselves that would remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of human intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion a) at A26/B42 and again at A32–33/B49. It is at least a crucial part of what he means by calling space and time transcendentally ideal (A28/B44, A35–36/B52)].

Space exists through limit as limit itself and provides the foundation for all phenomena as being composed of limits.

What we understand of time is an approximation of unity, through the relation of parts, where we observe unity approximately as one part existing through another under a process of inversion, with this inversion conducive to change.

From a perspective of "the all" as infinite unity and everything what we understand of "change" becomes infinite and absolute in the respect infinite change is no change as change becomes 1 limit in itself.




Space and time are nothing other than the subjective forms of human sensible intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion b) at A26/B42 and again at A33/B49–50].

This is an objective statement. If it is not, and is only subjective, then this is a subjective truth which does not apply universally.

Space and time are empirically real, which means that “everything that can come before us externally as an object” is in both space and time, and that our internal intuitions of ourselves are in time (A28/B44, A34–35/B51–51).

All empirical realities stem from abstract realities, and vice versa, through the foundation of Limit.


Do you want more? I can go on or explain any of the prior statements above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are ignorant of Kant's Philosophy. I will not bother to reply to the above until I can read something rational from you regarding Kant.

You are actually insulting your own intellectual intelligence when you insist Kant is full of shit while Kant is recognized as the greatest [if not one of the topmost] Western philosopher of all times.

I am not insisting you must accept what I have expressed of Kant's view but to be intellectually honest you need to counter Kant's views more honestly, i.e. at least understand [not necessary agree with] with Kant's philosophy more thoroughly.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde

In some sense, human beings experience only appearances, not things in themselves.

All phenomena, as medial points to further phenomena, exist as image with image itself being the structuring of a reality as an approximation of it. Our ability to image a reality is fundamentally a means to give form and structure to it, with all structure acting as a means to further structure as both an extension of 1 structure through "the all" and a means to further structure as both composed of and composing further structures.


Space and time are not things in themselves, or determinations of things in themselves that would remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of human intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion a) at A26/B42 and again at A32–33/B49. It is at least a crucial part of what he means by calling space and time transcendentally ideal (A28/B44, A35–36/B52)].

Space exists through limit as limit itself and provides the foundation for all phenomena as being composed of limits.

What we understand of time is an approximation of unity, through the relation of parts, where we observe unity approximately as one part existing through another under a process of inversion, with this inversion conducive to change.

From a perspective of "the all" as infinite unity and everything what we understand of "change" becomes infinite and absolute in the respect infinite change is no change as change becomes 1 limit in itself.

Space and time are nothing other than the subjective forms of human sensible intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion b) at A26/B42 and again at A33/B49–50].

This is an objective statement. If it is not, and is only subjective, then this is a subjective truth which does not apply universally.

Space and time are empirically real, which means that “everything that can come before us externally as an object” is in both space and time, and that our internal intuitions of ourselves are in time (A28/B44, A34–35/B51–51).

All empirical realities stem from abstract realities, and vice versa, through the foundation of Limit.


Do you want more? I can go on or explain any of the prior statements above.

You are merely noises above based on points pulled out from somewhere and do not address any critical point at all.

The point is prove Kant's assertion that 'philosophical ideas are illusions' is 'full of shit'?

Note sure what you meant by "Limit."
What I see if humans are limited in asserting 'God exists' because the idea of God is illusory, e.g.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment. B311

The above imply there is a limit to the empirical and concepts thus one cannot go beyond the limit to the idea of an illusory God.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are ignorant of Kant's Philosophy. I will not bother to reply to the above until I can read something rational from you regarding Kant.

You are actually insulting your own intellectual intelligence when you insist Kant is full of shit while Kant is recognized as the greatest [if not one of the topmost] Western philosopher of all times.

I am not insisting you must accept what I have expressed of Kant's view but to be intellectually honest you need to counter Kant's views more honestly, i.e. at least understand [not necessary agree with] with Kant's philosophy more thoroughly.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde

In some sense, human beings experience only appearances, not things in themselves.

All phenomena, as medial points to further phenomena, exist as image with image itself being the structuring of a reality as an approximation of it. Our ability to image a reality is fundamentally a means to give form and structure to it, with all structure acting as a means to further structure as both an extension of 1 structure through "the all" and a means to further structure as both composed of and composing further structures.


Space and time are not things in themselves, or determinations of things in themselves that would remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of human intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion a) at A26/B42 and again at A32–33/B49. It is at least a crucial part of what he means by calling space and time transcendentally ideal (A28/B44, A35–36/B52)].

Space exists through limit as limit itself and provides the foundation for all phenomena as being composed of limits.

What we understand of time is an approximation of unity, through the relation of parts, where we observe unity approximately as one part existing through another under a process of inversion, with this inversion conducive to change.

From a perspective of "the all" as infinite unity and everything what we understand of "change" becomes infinite and absolute in the respect infinite change is no change as change becomes 1 limit in itself.

Space and time are nothing other than the subjective forms of human sensible intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion b) at A26/B42 and again at A33/B49–50].

This is an objective statement. If it is not, and is only subjective, then this is a subjective truth which does not apply universally.

Space and time are empirically real, which means that “everything that can come before us externally as an object” is in both space and time, and that our internal intuitions of ourselves are in time (A28/B44, A34–35/B51–51).

All empirical realities stem from abstract realities, and vice versa, through the foundation of Limit.


Do you want more? I can go on or explain any of the prior statements above.

You are merely noises above based on points pulled out from somewhere and do not address any critical point at all.

The point is prove Kant's assertion that 'philosophical ideas are illusions' is 'full of shit'?

Note sure what you meant by "Limit."
What I see if humans are limited in asserting 'God exists' because the idea of God is illusory, e.g.

Limit:


All definition of limit, through a simultaneous circular and linear form of reasoning, results in a limit in itself in the respect limit exists through a continual extension of itself through further definitions in one respects with the relation of these definitions providing a continually changing definition to limit as A must be defined by B which is defined by C...ad-infinitum.

In these respects limit exists through limit under a continual progressive and self-maintain directive movement as replication. Limit in these respects is progressive change, through progressive definition, as a means of change in which the progressive definition is a relation of parts which continually individuate under a continual progression away from the source of origin.

Limit as a means of change, observe limit existing through limit as change through change fundamentally being circular in definition (as limit), as a means of no-change (or absolute) in which the maintain definition as the connection of parts observes all structural connection as cause in and of itself in the respect causality exists as structure.


In these respects Limit exists as both Relativistic Change through Actualizing Parts and Reflective Absolute Symmetry as a Causal structure and provide the foundation for the axiom as self-evidence in which the limit exists as limit and provides the foundation for the axiom through the axiom as the axiom.

ex: A line causes another line with this replication of the line resulting in a structure, such as a square, with this replication of line in one respect observing a change through the manifestation of the square under a form of replication. In a seperate respect the square, as the connection of the replicating lines acts as a structural cause in itself as an extension of 1 cause in the respect the "square" is a chain of replicating lines as 1 moment.

The replication of the line, through change, and the observation of this connection as deterministic cause (equivalent to structure) in turn provides the foundation of the axiom as self-evident in the respect it exists as fundamentally directive in which the axiom is a limit in itself as a directive through which limits manifest.

I may have to elaborate on this point further, but to expand upon this point here is a solution to the Munchaussen Trillemma that gives further definition to the nature of limit:

Solution to the Munchhausen Trilemma:

1) The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
2) The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
3) The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts


A is the cause. B is the effect. B is the cause of C and the effect of A.

B is an everpresent cause through A, hence B is A circling back upon itself effectually leading to the repeat of A through B.

A maintains itself through B and C while expanding ad-infinitum through further variables.

A is maintain through B as circular, hence maintains an axiomatic nature as infinitely circular.

A progresses through itself as B to C ad-infinitum; hence maintains an axiomatic nature as infinitely linear.

The self evident nature of the argument is founded upon its dual circular and linear form which is both absolutely constant (expanding circle is always circle) and relativistically changing (expanding circle changes relative to other circles).

The axiom is directive by nature.

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment. B311

The above imply there is a limit to the empirical and concepts thus one cannot go beyond the limit to the idea of an illusory God.

God is limit through no-limit as the no-limit negates itself as limit with the manifestation of limit manifesting limit being un-limited. In these respects God is both limit and no-limit and if fundamentally axiomatic under the statement "I am".

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is limit through no-limit as the no-limit negates itself as limit with the manifestation of limit manifesting limit being un-limited. In these respects God is both limit and no-limit and if fundamentally axiomatic under the statement "I am".

Noted your point on 'Limit'.

What I can see is this is all about the problem of infinite regression, i.e. limit to infinity.

Your above where 'a no-limit negates itself as limit' is a deception and introducing the interjection of a first cause, i.e. a God to stop the infinite regression.
This grasping to a first cause is due to a strong psychological compulsion to reify something out of nothing at the end of one's intellectual limit.

The compulsion to a God is just like the compulsion of seeing two 'normal' faces in this image.
The compulsion to reify a God is more refine and difficult to grasp.

[Eodnhoj7]

God is limit through no-limit as the no-limit negates itself as limit with the manifestation of limit manifesting limit being un-limited. In these respects God is both limit and no-limit and if fundamentally axiomatic under the statement "I am".

Noted your point on 'Limit'.

What I can see is this is all about the problem of infinite regression, i.e. limit to infinity.

All limit exists if and only if it is infinite (ie the line) as this continuity of limit maintains the limit as the limit.

The negation of this this infinity observes an inherent degree of relativism where the line as infinite exists if and only if it continues to relate, as it can only project if there is somewhere to project (hence difference lines).

In these respects the negation the infinite line, through a seperate line, maintains itself as the line much in the same manner the negation of a negative maintains a positive as a result with all negativity being an absence of structure.

Your above where 'a no-limit negates itself as limit' is a deception and introducing the interjection of a first cause, i.e. a God to stop the infinite regression.

This negation of the infinite regression is initself infinite and acts as a point of inversion where the negation of regression results in a progressive as both progress and regress are relativistic statements in the respect they observe a multiplicity observed under a dualism of direct. The limit, as line, maintains this dual nature of "both/and" as inherently neutral.

All cause is an observation of structure, hence all first cause observes quantitative 1 and qualitative unity as causal.




This grasping to a first cause is due to a strong psychological compulsion to reify something out of nothing at the end of one's intellectual limit.

No it is not as the application of "unity" and "unit" or "1" and "multiple 1's" is the foundation of intellectual limit.

The compulsion to a God is just like the compulsion of seeing two 'normal' faces in this image.

The two face are different.....


The compulsion to reify a God is more refine and difficult to grasp.

And the compulsion to create a new system of truth is not more refine and difficult to grasp?

[Michael MD]

The above posts tend to assume that quantum physics basically has a "handle" on the cosmos and its past history that we can reliably use for a model. I dispute that.

Currently, quantum physics does not entertain the concept of an underlying ether matrix. This is based on a series of experiments done in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which many scientists don't think are still theoretically valid. For one example of the fallibility of present quantum theory, take quantum entanglement, for which quantum physics has no rational explanation.

Using the model of a universal ether,quantum entanglement represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have a matching vibratory pattern. A straightforward explanation. -Elemental ether units are the on;ly actual participants in the phenomenon, with the separate quantum units being "walled off" kinetically, like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, universal, ether mechanism.

There was no mystery "Big Bang" as in quantum physics. Instead, the very first thing that happened was a universal oscillation, which produced a universal ether. That led to an "ether world" that existed just prior to our present quantum/atomic world. That earlier world contained hyper-fluxes of ether energy, from which sapient entity(s) arose, who manipulated the etheric forces mentally and creationally. For existential reasons, they formed quantum/atomic magnetically-structured "islands." in this earlier world, a world which, other than the island structures, was mostly etheric. As it turned out, this type of surrounding-ether macrocosm meant that the "island" type of quantum/atomic structured living environment was magnetically unstable, which led to creation of a more magnetically-stable universe environment, our present world. -This creation process involved mental projections of very potent ether forces (the etheric units being much tinier than quantum/atomic units being created out of the ether units).

In creating the present quantum/atomic universe, a major hurdle was the fact that for every quantum unit created, an antiparticle unit appeared. In the creation process, these antiparticles had to be channeled through the ether matrix, via "like-unit" channels, toward black holes, out of the way of the new quantum universe. (This amounts to a first-ever way to account for the absence of antiparticles, and the presence of black holes, in the universe.)

In sum, the very first thing that happened was a universal oscillation, which produced a universal ether. Creational input followed later. There never was a mystery "Big Bang" that started the universe.

[Reflex]

God, described as infinite Being, includes the universe but certainly extends beyond it.