God(s)

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: God(s)

Post by bahman »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:20 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:20 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:34 pm
Really, void negating itself into being is only subjective?

In physics a vacuum negates itself into randomly appearing particles....being does come from nothing.
Void negating itself into something is objective. It is a phenomenon that occurs constantly.
And the subconscious, void, does not negate itself into consciousness?
I don't think that subconsciousness is void. Our all our memories exist in subconscious mind.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

bahman wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:20 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:20 pm
Void negating itself into something is objective. It is a phenomenon that occurs constantly.
And the subconscious, void, does not negate itself into consciousness?
I don't think that subconsciousness is void. Our all our memories exist in subconscious mind.
Not necessarily, the void acts as a separator and a medium.

If I have a continuum progress to a point, then diverge to multiple continuums, the void is a seperator.

If I have multiple continuums progress to a point, then converge to one continuum, the void is a converger.

The void thus is an ever present medium.

If I have a simple line between to voids (0d points), the line projects to another line through the void. Thus the void, as effectively "nothing" is just a gateway.

The truth of it, we don't know whether the subconsciousness contains phenomena or is a medium. If we say it contains information, we are making a conscious statement that entraps the subconscious within the circular reasoning of the consciousness.

If we say the subconscious is an underlying medium, we are saying that conscious forms diverge and connect through the subconscious by the act of just assuming them. I may assume an experience, and the subconsciousness inverts it into a new form which we project and then reassume.

The subconsciousness is formless and as formless it is void.
HereToDiscuss
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:25 pm

Re: God(s)

Post by HereToDiscuss »

This seems like you wanted to just say "God is the absoluteness, it is the absolute property of everything. This god is both logical because this god exists and has great justification towards it's existence, and it is also illogical because it just doesn't make any sense." but decided that it would be too simple and tried to "beautify" it. Did i get you or what you're actually saying is something different?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

HereToDiscuss wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:16 pm This seems like you wanted to just say "God is the absoluteness, it is the absolute property of everything. This god is both logical because this god exists and has great justification towards it's existence, and it is also illogical because it just doesn't make any sense." but decided that it would be too simple and tried to "beautify" it. Did i get you or what you're actually saying is something different?
Answer this question and you will understand.


We use the number one to count things. We use it as a unit of measurement. We use it to produce mathematical formulas and algorythms.

But if you look at the number 1 it is undefined. So we have other numbers which exist as variations of number 1 in order to define it by observing relations.

But these are all variations of one and thus we are left with a loop. But taking the loop out of the equation for a moment and we are left with continually manifesting more numbers to justify not just one but all the other numbers as well. This goes on infinitely. We assume this, even though there is no proof for or against infinity.

But this is irrational as it is continuous. The relation of 1, through other numbers, is rational. But for it to be rational is must be irrational. 1 effectively manifests itself infinitely in order to exist, but infinity cannot be proven.

However we need one in order to have proofs in the sciences as they required definition. We also need one as "unity", which is required for the philosophies and religions

Yet the nature of one as a foundation for reason requires it to dynamically change, ie be "irrational". One can be applied to any and everything, even itself, thus it means nothing. And yet we use it to define and prove everything.

Do you see the nature of rationality and irrationality existing as "1"?

I will stop here.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: God(s)

Post by jayjacobus »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:25 pm
HereToDiscuss wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:16 pm This seems like you wanted to just say "God is the absoluteness, it is the absolute property of everything. This god is both logical because this god exists and has great justification towards it's existence, and it is also illogical because it just doesn't make any sense." but decided that it would be too simple and tried to "beautify" it. Did i get you or what you're actually saying is something different?
Answer this question and you will understand.


We use the number one to count things. We use it as a unit of measurement. We use it to produce mathematical formulas and algorythms.

But if you look at the number 1 it is undefined. So we have other numbers which exist as variations of number 1 in order to define it by observing relations.

But these are all variations of one and thus we are left with a loop. But taking the loop out of the equation for a moment and we are left with continually manifesting more numbers to justify not just one but all the other numbers as well. This goes on infinitely. We assume this, even though there is no proof for or against infinity.

But this is irrational as it is continuous. The relation of 1, through other numbers, is rational. But for it to be rational is must be irrational. 1 effectively manifests itself infinitely in order to exist, but infinity cannot be proven.

However we need one in order to have proofs in the sciences as they required definition. We also need one as "unity", which is required for the philosophies and religions

Yet the nature of one as a foundation for reason requires it to dynamically change, ie be "irrational". One can be applied to any and everything, even itself, thus it means nothing. And yet we use it to define and prove everything.

Do you see the nature of rationality and irrationality existing as "1"?

I will stop here.
Good! Stop and stay stopped because I have something to say about this:

Definition of presumption:

NOUN


an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.
"underlying presumptions about errors in human thinking"

an act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, especially at the start of a chain of argument or action.

behavior perceived as arrogant, disrespectful, and transgressing the limits of what is permitted or appropriate.
"he wrote insulting texts about us and I was enraged at his presumption"
synonyms:
brazenness · audacity · boldness · audaciousness · temerity · arrogance
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

jayjacobus wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:25 pm
HereToDiscuss wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:16 pm This seems like you wanted to just say "God is the absoluteness, it is the absolute property of everything. This god is both logical because this god exists and has great justification towards it's existence, and it is also illogical because it just doesn't make any sense." but decided that it would be too simple and tried to "beautify" it. Did i get you or what you're actually saying is something different?
Answer this question and you will understand.


We use the number one to count things. We use it as a unit of measurement. We use it to produce mathematical formulas and algorythms.

But if you look at the number 1 it is undefined. So we have other numbers which exist as variations of number 1 in order to define it by observing relations.

But these are all variations of one and thus we are left with a loop. But taking the loop out of the equation for a moment and we are left with continually manifesting more numbers to justify not just one but all the other numbers as well. This goes on infinitely. We assume this, even though there is no proof for or against infinity.

But this is irrational as it is continuous. The relation of 1, through other numbers, is rational. But for it to be rational is must be irrational. 1 effectively manifests itself infinitely in order to exist, but infinity cannot be proven.

However we need one in order to have proofs in the sciences as they required definition. We also need one as "unity", which is required for the philosophies and religions

Yet the nature of one as a foundation for reason requires it to dynamically change, ie be "irrational". One can be applied to any and everything, even itself, thus it means nothing. And yet we use it to define and prove everything.

Do you see the nature of rationality and irrationality existing as "1"?

I will stop here.
Good! Stop and stay stopped because I have something to say about this:
What an arrogant thing to say....


Definition of presumption:

NOUN


an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.
"underlying presumptions about errors in human thinking"

All ideas as forms have some degree of truth in them by existence alone.

an act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, especially at the start of a chain of argument or action.

Presumption is presumptuous then, as truth is an idea. The definition is circular. "An act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, especially at the start of a chain of argument or action" is exactly what happens when that definition is read and taken as true.

You are left with recursive forms being the fullest nature of truth as even truth value is an idea, and the idea is dependent upon a truth value....thus you are left with grades of ideas and grades of truth.


behavior perceived as arrogant, disrespectful, and transgressing the limits of what is permitted or appropriate.
"he wrote insulting texts about us and I was enraged at his presumption"
synonyms:
brazenness · audacity · boldness · audaciousness · temerity · arrogance

That is subjective, morality is relative as the foundation is "behavior percieved as". Everyone is evil then, as a person can walk into a room of 30 people and the 30 people will have 30 different views of that person. For every moral good and simultaneous moral evil exists.
I am guessing you are calling me arrogant...but truthfully that is just a viewpoint and relative to your respective beliefs.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: God(s)

Post by jayjacobus »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:17 pm

I am guessing you are calling me arrogant...but truthfully that is just a viewpoint and relative to your respective beliefs.
Let me take arrogant off the table.


brazenness · audacity · boldness · audaciousness · temerity ·
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:17 pm

I am guessing you are calling me arrogant...but truthfully that is just a viewpoint and relative to your respective beliefs.
Let me take arrogant off the table.


brazenness · audacity · boldness · audaciousness · temerity ·
I really don't care... do you have a non adhominum point you are trying to make?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: God(s)

Post by jayjacobus »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:52 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:17 pm

I am guessing you are calling me arrogant...but truthfully that is just a viewpoint and relative to your respective beliefs.
Let me take arrogant off the table.


brazenness · audacity · boldness · audaciousness · temerity ·
I really don't care... do you have a non adhominum point you are trying to make?
Temerity it is, then.
User avatar
Tesla
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:57 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Tesla »

I'm not quite following what you are attempting to discuss.

Before I can address your many bullet points concerning God(s), I would like to know are you making a presumption they exist? or simply attempting to define what they would look like if one or more did?

I will set this as a starting point after you answer that question:

All of mankind's mental faculties are limited in many ways by the knowledge it has available. Our science digs through the words produced by thought to determine what reality actually is, despite what it is thought to be. Data concerning God or gods has been non-existent in any measurable repeatable form, but only psychological and behavioral data that proves it is a powerful belief.

If you are attempting to define what a God or gods could be based on the very incomplete science of the universe and its theoretical birth--which it assumes a singularity in many models)--that would be a good place to start to examine what we do really know about the universe, and therefore, what we could only hope to know concerning God or gods given the true answer here is 'no one knows'.

That lack of data will of course make it a great philosophical topic, for, only when one can admit where their knowledge stops, can one truly be discussing with some wisdom to guide them.
User avatar
Tesla
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:57 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Tesla »

I decided despite my weariness to read the comments. I believe you are trying to define a God(s) you have already decided exists. I'm not sure which religion, but it appears to be a model based on the Koran/bible/Jewish origins.

The text is ancient. the first short flight happened in the early 1900. Children believe what they are taught, communities of believers reinforce the belief. If what I have written in this post is true, it will be very difficult to have a real discussion with you.

A singularity is when all that exists, would exist as a single point without ability of any outside influence, because no outside exists. everything is contained as a single thing, in a single place. change is impossible. even time cannot exist without a second point to measure from. So the science model is wrong. but so is the theory of 'creation'. something has to be created to create. The what creates the creator issue.

I believe the idea of God should be taught is schools. First would have to be the discussion of how to define existence. I Define it as a noun. The 'something' that always was, that all is a part of. nothing can be outside of it that 'exists'. Second would be the discussion of alien life vs. 'God(s). lastly, would be the discussion of superior intelligence and reading 'The Nacirama'. The former to point out that we cannot have discussions with ants that are meaningful, and a superior highly advanced intelligence may have that problem. The later to point out that any advanced technology or workings of the universe is magic to an ignorant observer.

Good luck with your discussion. I hope it brings you pleasure to grow and learn as you discuss such things.
roydop
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: God(s)

Post by roydop »

You are God that has temporarily forgotten true Self, in the same way a human can lose awareness of the body while playing a video game.

To come back to Reality/Self, delve deeply into the space between thoughts.

Yup. But human consciousness is in a very deep state of delusion (note our addiction to all that mind has created: e.g. screens).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Tesla wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:58 am I'm not quite following what you are attempting to discuss.

God(s) and definition fundamentally.


Before I can address your many bullet points concerning God(s), I would like to know are you making a presumption they exist? or simply attempting to define what they would look like if one or more did?

All knowledge is assumed, the assumption of assumption results in the first form of consciousness no different than void "voided" results in being or form. The negation of 0d point results in the line, mass negated volume, etc.

Assumption of assumption results in defintion, where God as assumed manifests the same nature in assuming himself (assumption). God is an void term that voids itself into many definitions.


I will set this as a starting point after you answer that question:

All of mankind's mental faculties are limited in many ways by the knowledge it has available. Our science digs through the words produced by thought to determine what reality actually is, despite what it is thought to be. Data concerning God or gods has been non-existent in any measurable repeatable form, but only psychological and behavioral data that proves it is a powerful belief.

If you are attempting to define what a God or gods could be based on the very incomplete science of the universe and its theoretical birth--which it assumes a singularity in many models)--that would be a good place to start to examine what we do really know about the universe, and therefore, what we could only hope to know concerning God or gods given the true answer here is 'no one knows'.

That lack of data will of course make it a great philosophical topic, for, only when one can admit where their knowledge stops, can one truly be discussing with some wisdom to guide them.

Knowledge requires assumed premises, thus all premises are intrinsically void of foundation. The assumption of assumption is the grounding of knowledge and shows a necessary recursive nature of "being through being" premised within the nature of metaphysics itself.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Tesla wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:25 am
Welcome, I will update you on the thread.
I decided despite my weariness to read the comments. I believe you are trying to define a God(s) you have already decided exists. I'm not sure which religion, but it appears to be a model based on the Koran/bible/Jewish origins.

How can I decide without assuming something first? We assume our assumption, thus resulting in the converge of the assumptions (many assumptions into 1) and the divergence of assumptions (one assumption to many with this converging into a new assumption as a variation of the original.


The text is ancient. the first short flight happened in the early 1900. Children believe what they are taught, communities of believers reinforce the belief. If what I have written in this post is true, it will be very difficult to have a real discussion with you.

They assume what they are taught, as children assume reality. The first assumption of assumption results in the first definition as "form" where assumption as intrinsically empty negates itself into this form. This form is thus reassumed into one (the same) and many (a variation of the original form) where this form directed to form results in the first "symbol". This "symbol" is "the word".

The word is merely form, resulting in reality as a dialectic as all being is form.


A singularity is when all that exists, would exist as a single point without ability of any outside influence, because no outside exists. everything is contained as a single thing, in a single place. change is impossible. even time cannot exist without a second point to measure from. So the science model is wrong. but so is the theory of 'creation'. something has to be created to create. The what creates the creator issue.

I believe the idea of God should be taught is schools. First would have to be the discussion of how to define existence. I Define it as a noun.


Check Definition thread in general section.

The 'something' that always was, that all is a part of. nothing can be outside of it that 'exists'.

Nothing negates itself into existence where existence is both contained by and contains nothing thus equivocating existence as a center point of being.


Second would be the discussion of alien life vs. 'God(s). lastly, would be the discussion of superior intelligence and reading 'The Nacirama'. The former to point out that we cannot have discussions with ants that are meaningful, and a superior highly advanced intelligence may have that problem. The later to point out that any advanced technology or workings of the universe is magic to an ignorant observer.

Good luck with your discussion. I hope it brings you pleasure to grow and learn as you discuss such things.
User avatar
Tesla
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:57 am

Re: God(s)

Post by Tesla »

"How can I decide without assuming something first? " -Eod

You are using long strings of assuming assumptions up is down and backwards is forwards to describe your method of assumption.

Indeed, lets assume your wrong. Anything built on a false assumption leads to misinformation.

I understand that those who study Philosophy enjoy complex ideas. But if your going to assume qualities to a an idea that does not even qualify for the realm of theory, I'd say your more looking to form the world under your presumption instead of searching for where to find information that could explore potential places to look to gather data for a working theory. Do you follow?
Post Reply