_Z_
from far far away
the third eternal .
hello people, its been a short while so here is what i have been up to lately - hope you all had a merry xmass. here then are my answers to a few questions that have been posed concerning the essence of reality and existence pertaining to the question; is god a creator and the judge of his creation [ha, it sounds crazy just saying it]. perhaps it may help you find an understanding in your own fashions.
note ‘>’ = a quote.
here i am debating as to why there is no god of punishment and judgement, nor a heaven only for the blessed. as you can imagine we have to explain the fundamental natures of what a ‘god’ being would be like or if at all, and explain how things can be if there is no god as we would ordinarily see him.
>1. does god punish punish the wicked and would even people like hitler eventually make it into heaven?
1. i would think that centralised forms of mind and animation are not of god but of entity. e.g. we have such natures, but the ultimate nature/being would be decentralised. as such it would not operate as we do making finite decisions and actions. any kind of afterlife would be a continuance of being for all things as there can only be one eternity and like attracts like, would be the only relevant principle.
> how can there be no creation.
> no one can say what everything is.
2. draw a point on a piece of paper ~ there you go everything! well... the paper is infinity, the point is singularity and the infinitesimal, all other points are contained within that point, all energies are points, all compounds are made of atoms with are points around points. the balance between infinity and the infinitesimal is arbitrary and hence quantum ~ is a point.
because everything cannot exist at once we have time [change of points]. because the interchange has infinity as its base we have inexhaustible points and hence an eternity.
...did i miss anything.
the only reason anyone denies god is because of the Images of god; you disagree with the image, as well you should [1], ‘god remains your master’[2].
3. agree with part 1 in principle, but not the latter. god is not our master, we are as all things are, self determined. god if a higher intellect [remember about infinite monkeys and typewriters], would not consider things in linear finite terms, everything he ever thought or would think would necessarily occur at once ~ in an infinitesimal amount of time or in infinite time = 0. a master would necessarily be present in each instance were he could pawn over us.
> ‘Being does not have Being’. [from the question; is god pure being]
4. what is a non-thing that possesses every-thing but is not any of those things? as like infinity would be. we could then say that if being was prime ~ the base nature, then it would have being. it is not prime, yet belongs to the prime nature which is the essence of its loosely descriptive nature. in other words, what ever we call it being life or anything, then the naked truth of it exists where the entity of it is perhaps only holistic.
5. everythingness must exist or you have to un-include things leaving a vacuous space in the infinitive of the all.
>It is circular logic. X exists, therefore it must exist. It assumes the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion. It also completely contradicts this premise "it just is" because it posits inevitability and necessity.
we can say without doubt that there are things, we can also say without doubt that there is not everything at any time or even over all time. can we say though that infinity being unbounded is a kind of everythingness? by this i mean that just as it may for instance, contain all knowledge ~ the product of infinite calculation, deduction, and equally the meaning behind all meaning. where there is a principle there is a meaning [which is not a ‘meaning’ as such] to which that principle exists and is true. then that principles are before the things that go by them? or even where principles are resultant of things there essence would somehow be encompassed in infinity.
5,b. > The statement that "X exists, therefore it must exist" can only ever be a final statement that is false, or an opening statement of an arguement or treatise used to begin broaching the implications of the subject matter.
or X exists and hence is, not that it must be, as there is no need for it to be, there is no ‘must be’, just the simplicity of its presence. good point though in terms of argument. many things may need the premise you describe [the process of], especially transient things. there are always exceptions and infinity must necessarily be one as it cannot have a premise nor beginning/end of any kind. perhaps we can say; ‘where there is no base to a thing, that thing is base’?
going back to the point and paper argument...
6 > you explain everything, except all that is outside of the point, including that which brought about the point.
the three eternals:
infinity is the paper/outside. the point is eternal or you need a prime mover, secondly you have to have an ingredient which takes it away and places it there to begin with [in a manner]. i would think that there is no instance where there is no point, as you have as a premise two invariables; infinity and the infinitesimal. these two primary realities are non-linear nor cyclic having no limits nor ends and beginnings. the quantum point would then be the third eternal as it is resultant of the first two. it is only when further points are added that we can start talking in linear terms with time etc.
why other points are added i am unsure, perhaps we may think of the three eternals as like the womb of infinity, they are so they produce ~ in that there must always be a result to the eternal equation e.i. a point must be resultant, then once occurred it follows that agian a point must be resultant ~ add infinitum.
7. > You cannot assume God. It is circular logic. God created everything, therefore God exists, therefore God created everything.
absolutely! sorry, i meant only that ‘if’ there is a god entity of any kind then it could not ‘do’ anything nor judge us, and i agree it cannot create either as i hope i have shown that existence simply is. ...and it is a continuum.
hello people, its been a short while so here is what i have been up to lately - hope you all had a merry xmass. here then are my answers to a few questions that have been posed concerning the essence of reality and existence pertaining to the question; is god a creator and the judge of his creation [ha, it sounds crazy just saying it]. perhaps it may help you find an understanding in your own fashions.
note ‘>’ = a quote.
here i am debating as to why there is no god of punishment and judgement, nor a heaven only for the blessed. as you can imagine we have to explain the fundamental natures of what a ‘god’ being would be like or if at all, and explain how things can be if there is no god as we would ordinarily see him.
>1. does god punish punish the wicked and would even people like hitler eventually make it into heaven?
1. i would think that centralised forms of mind and animation are not of god but of entity. e.g. we have such natures, but the ultimate nature/being would be decentralised. as such it would not operate as we do making finite decisions and actions. any kind of afterlife would be a continuance of being for all things as there can only be one eternity and like attracts like, would be the only relevant principle.
> how can there be no creation.
> no one can say what everything is.
2. draw a point on a piece of paper ~ there you go everything! well... the paper is infinity, the point is singularity and the infinitesimal, all other points are contained within that point, all energies are points, all compounds are made of atoms with are points around points. the balance between infinity and the infinitesimal is arbitrary and hence quantum ~ is a point.
because everything cannot exist at once we have time [change of points]. because the interchange has infinity as its base we have inexhaustible points and hence an eternity.
...did i miss anything.
the only reason anyone denies god is because of the Images of god; you disagree with the image, as well you should [1], ‘god remains your master’[2].
3. agree with part 1 in principle, but not the latter. god is not our master, we are as all things are, self determined. god if a higher intellect [remember about infinite monkeys and typewriters], would not consider things in linear finite terms, everything he ever thought or would think would necessarily occur at once ~ in an infinitesimal amount of time or in infinite time = 0. a master would necessarily be present in each instance were he could pawn over us.
> ‘Being does not have Being’. [from the question; is god pure being]
4. what is a non-thing that possesses every-thing but is not any of those things? as like infinity would be. we could then say that if being was prime ~ the base nature, then it would have being. it is not prime, yet belongs to the prime nature which is the essence of its loosely descriptive nature. in other words, what ever we call it being life or anything, then the naked truth of it exists where the entity of it is perhaps only holistic.
5. everythingness must exist or you have to un-include things leaving a vacuous space in the infinitive of the all.
>It is circular logic. X exists, therefore it must exist. It assumes the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion. It also completely contradicts this premise "it just is" because it posits inevitability and necessity.
we can say without doubt that there are things, we can also say without doubt that there is not everything at any time or even over all time. can we say though that infinity being unbounded is a kind of everythingness? by this i mean that just as it may for instance, contain all knowledge ~ the product of infinite calculation, deduction, and equally the meaning behind all meaning. where there is a principle there is a meaning [which is not a ‘meaning’ as such] to which that principle exists and is true. then that principles are before the things that go by them? or even where principles are resultant of things there essence would somehow be encompassed in infinity.
5,b. > The statement that "X exists, therefore it must exist" can only ever be a final statement that is false, or an opening statement of an arguement or treatise used to begin broaching the implications of the subject matter.
or X exists and hence is, not that it must be, as there is no need for it to be, there is no ‘must be’, just the simplicity of its presence. good point though in terms of argument. many things may need the premise you describe [the process of], especially transient things. there are always exceptions and infinity must necessarily be one as it cannot have a premise nor beginning/end of any kind. perhaps we can say; ‘where there is no base to a thing, that thing is base’?
going back to the point and paper argument...
6 > you explain everything, except all that is outside of the point, including that which brought about the point.
the three eternals:
infinity is the paper/outside. the point is eternal or you need a prime mover, secondly you have to have an ingredient which takes it away and places it there to begin with [in a manner]. i would think that there is no instance where there is no point, as you have as a premise two invariables; infinity and the infinitesimal. these two primary realities are non-linear nor cyclic having no limits nor ends and beginnings. the quantum point would then be the third eternal as it is resultant of the first two. it is only when further points are added that we can start talking in linear terms with time etc.
why other points are added i am unsure, perhaps we may think of the three eternals as like the womb of infinity, they are so they produce ~ in that there must always be a result to the eternal equation e.i. a point must be resultant, then once occurred it follows that agian a point must be resultant ~ add infinitum.
7. > You cannot assume God. It is circular logic. God created everything, therefore God exists, therefore God created everything.
absolutely! sorry, i meant only that ‘if’ there is a god entity of any kind then it could not ‘do’ anything nor judge us, and i agree it cannot create either as i hope i have shown that existence simply is. ...and it is a continuum.