One X, Therefore One God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by epicurus_splendicus, Aug 31, 2022.

  1. epicurus_splendicus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    14
    X = matter or non-object. Information can have meaning without matter. This is how a misunderstanding of reality can be created by mind. Reality is comparable to self-configuration. Wisdom is information coming from a single source (reality). Meaningless information comes from many (objects).

    My belief was incorrect we create meaning, just as our minds contain a self-configuration of reality, which is self-configurating along with reality (psychologists are still unclear as to what the mind is). Where the mind is not static and therefore not concept, it is self-configuring and therefore unbound. The SCSPL is intinsic as well as is spacetime due to structure S which distributes over S (self-distributive). Spacetime is thus transparent from within. Where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure of one that merges the concepts ans is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S. S is amenable to theological interpretation.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    And they wonder why we call them crazy.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,937
    If you put X= in front of it that makes it math. And if it's math it must be true.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,522
    Don't forget that S is amenable to theological interpretation.
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,029
    Thought X stood for unknown

    We need wonder no more about the why

    We should turn our attention perhaps why do they post?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,845
    Curiously, S is generally used to denote entropy, which loosely speaking correlates with absence of structure.
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,522
    I'm sorry but God will determine that. Are you God?
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,845
    No, I’m Beelzebub.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,522
    Great Genius Beelzebub I presume...
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,845

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,340
    Objects are usually matter, no? So you're saying X can be either object or not-an-object. X can be anything at all?

    So your argument goes something like this:
    1. If one X, then one God.
    2. X
    3. Therefore, one God.

    Or, perhaps:
    1. If something exists, then God exists.
    2. Something exists.
    3. Therefore God exists.

    The problem would appear to lie in Premise 1, which seems to be an assumption that is highly contestable.

    As an attempt to prove God, this is a very weak effort. Can you do better?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,340
    I'm sorry, but this strikes me as word salad. You know, toss some words into a vat, mix them around and pour them out onto the internet to see what comes out.

    Unfortunately, what has come out here is a bit of an incoherent mess.

    Are you okay?
     
  16. epicurus_splendicus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    14
    "Matter" can also refer to a subject of utmost priority that occupies cognition as God does.

    I will write up a mathematical proof after I study Set theory. This could take a while. But humanity can wait for a proof. So far I've relied upon hard logic. Admittedly, I do not possess the necessary intelligence I call "the supreme intelligence" at the moment as I am merely moderately gifted which forces me to conform to what is ordinary at the moment. But the logic is nevertheless sound.
     
  17. epicurus_splendicus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    14

    I will be more than happy to address in plain language what you do not comprehend.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,937
    Reported as sock puppet.
     
  19. epicurus_splendicus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    14
    After 5 years I think I deserve another chance.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,937
    And you just had it. You squandered it on the same old religobabble.
    You're not interested in discussion; you're evangelizing.
    Which is a violation of the rules that you agreed to (again) when you signed up (again).

    "Behaviour that may get you banned
    • Propaganda, preaching, proselytising or evangelising."

    "I26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis."

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    X stands for χριστός (chrīstós).
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,817
    I don't understand that.

    Maybe. I don't know what information is or what kind of ontological reality it might have. There are deep questions there.

    Because somebody (who are you addressing?) in your opinion confuses information with matter?

    That sounds like a Christopher Langan slogan.

    "Comparable" how? And how can something that isn't real "self-configure" (whatever that means) so as to become real?

    What if reality is pluralistic and contains many things, all of which can be known? Why should we accept the monism that you are sneaking in there?

    As for me, I don't know whether reality can be reduced to a single One. (That sounds like neoplatonism.) I'm more inclined to accept the plurality.

    The middle part of that just seems to be saying that reality changes over time, so that a correct understanding of the state of reality at particular points in time must change too.

    Ok, mind (or its contents) change over time.

    That looks like gibberish to me.

    What is "the SCSPL"? (More Lagan jargon.)

    Whatever it is, it's supposed to be as metaphysically fundamental as spacetime, ok I get that.

    What is "structure S" and what does it mean to say that it "distributes over S"?

    What does it mean to say that spacetime is "transparent from within"?

    What does it mean to say that objects in reality are "s" possessing "the structure of one that merges the concepts and is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S"? It sounds like pantheism, where particular existing things participate in Being that makes them real, and the Being is ultimately One and is God.

    It requires a lot more argument than your little catechism allows it. Just restating traditional theological ideas in pseudo-mathematical jargon don't make things any more comprehensible or plausible.

    You probably need to be aware that these kind of ideas have a long history dating back to ancient times. It was a familiar and more or less standard idea in medieval philosophy. Things have essences that make them what they are. And they have being that makes them real. But in all the familiar objects of real life, being and essence don't coincide and aren't one and the same. A horse can be real or it can be imaginary and still be a horse. We can imagine nonexistent things.

    Supposedly there's only one thing in which being and essence are one and the same, namely God. (That's where the ontological argument comes from, since God's reality is supposedly part of what it means to be God. It's supposedly impossible to imagine God not existing, since the thing imagined wouldn't be God.) And it's this God, this Being, that gives all the particular things of our experience their reality by participation or something like that.
     
  23. epicurus_splendicus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    14
    It is intended to provide a contrasting imagery of opposites (matter and non-object), thus encompassing both matter (concepts and possibly material) and spacetime as well as thought (non-object). Something that is "self-distributed", read on.


    It is intended to convey the fact that information is a more broad and fundamental concept than mere matter or physical substance. The festering disease of atheism tends to believe in the idea that mind is false and we are merely passive observers in a strictly material universe of no mental or spiritual properties.
    It is a misunderstanding of reality, nothing more, nothing less. In even rarer instances, atheists actually perpetuate whatever lies about reality they can. But most are just ignorant and/ or stupid.


    Information is the perceptual reality of the appearing simulation (which I have mathematically proven we live in).

    Yes. I find myself on occasion referring to him because he's the only other genius who perceives the truth about God and the after-life.

    "Comparable" can mean "equal in certain ways". The universe is a big conspanding bubble that quantum-geometrodynamically "self-configures" through non-existence, a contrasting background of non-existence or unbound telesis allows all universes to exist, otherwise they could not.

    Please understand that only objects are pluralistic. There can be only One "objective" reality, which is created by our conscious viewing and perceiving. See my thread from 2008 on these forums called "Proof of Consciousness". In it, I explicitly draw the reader's attention to the question Are we passive observers or powerful creators?, then I prove that it is in actuality the latter. The former is due to the exclusive lack of experience with the spiritual world that exists outside the reality self-simulation (a paper of the same title was authored by Langan in 2020 and published in a reputable academic journal).

    Then you believe in material or physical exclusivity it seems. I go on to use the term "self-distributive" to refer to the One reality which is a far more fundamental reality that the appearing physical that supports the supernatural.

    Reality adjusts and changes on the fly to mind (the powerful creator whomsoever "steps outside the matrix" while existing in body with the material, but "elsewhere" at the same time).


    Reality, S, as opposed to objects, s, distributes over itself, S. Hence, spacetime is thus transparent from within.

    What does it mean to say that spacetime is "transparent from within"?
    s possesses the structure of S. The objects possess God. I will respond to the rest later.[
     

Share This Page