[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Imcompleteness of Human Understanding...

Oh, it's a long history___since the dawn of the queen of sciences___the birth of metaphysical philosophy. Many still believe this is the premier science of all the world's knowledge systems, yet they seem to forget, science long ago passed the validity of metaphysics, for that of physics, math and logic. Yes, it is true, it long held the world of knowledge and wisdom spellbound, up until about the latter part of the 19th century___now what changed? Many in the fields of physics, math and logic started realizing you couldn't any longer infer undefinables into logic and expect any scientific results___in other words, words such as god, spirit, consciousness and such, are truly undefinable entities, when they are logically considered___thus___they can not be properly inferred into logic, without creating false outcomes___by the rules of physics laws, mathematical axioms, scientific facts or qualified and quantified logics. Still, those in the metaphysical community try to falsify the required information input processes. As I have stated many times before, Poincare first stated, "singularities are required to exhibit paradoxes", and there is no way for undefined ontic words not to be interpreted as undefined singularities___thus the paradoxes, and lack of logical outcomes or proofs of any type of objective reality. Again, logic requires actual objects to be inferred into it for any type of scientific outcome___any and all subjective words or ideas inferred into logic, must return a value of incomplete and quite often incorrect truth. Oh, this is not to say it will not be used by metaphysicians to attempt their syntheses of truth, and quite often make reasonable sense to other metaphysicists, but these syntheses based on undefined false ground states, can never make logical sense to true logicians___metaphysics, by its very nature, must return false values to true logics.

Now, why is this? If you just think about this for a second___the complexity of the physical mind, when viewed metaphysically, is over-whelming, to even our most sophisticated computers. If you just try to talk about one essence of the mind, say love, how can it possibly be separated from its many other essence agents, and still maintain any value of meaning to the scientific mind___it can't due to the mind's true process, of processing so many volitions at once, to even determine what is meant by love, just to itself, let alone to someone else. Oh, it is true, one can delude themselves that they understand all the meanings of love, but I'm willing to bet, there isn't an individual alive, who could name and make sense to all the variations of human love. Now, why is this? Each mind processes its essense actions differently, from the complexities of life's experiences. Just take the child learning the meanings of words___what does love mean to the one year old, just learning to put meaning to ideas and visions? What does love even mean to a two year old. These are subjective ideas, yet they are learned by associations to real object actions___the actions of parents to the child, and the actions of others to the child, and the child learns by nothing other than free association, from what he is taught about the word love. When the parent protects, holds, comforts or whatever, and the parent tells him it is because he/she is loved, then the child, with enough rote repeats, finally is programmed to associate a loose deffinition of what love means. Of course, through life's experience, he/she learns a great deal more___until first relationship of what these two different individuals define love to be and consist of___and herein lies life's eternal quagmire, and sometimes happiness. Accidents do happen once in a while to put two similar people together, but not very often.

The majority will live the rest of their lives trying to figure why women are different than men, and vice versa. Most will never get to realize women are more metaphysically emotional and men are more scientifically logical, and that these two major maturity levels of minds___are quite at odds. Many will spend the rest of their lives, mostly in private, argueing about who is more mature and who is more immature. The fact is there are two real life maturity levels, and almost always, not recognized by adulthood___the mature emotional metaphysical state of mind___and its most often opposing mature scientific logical state of mind. Now, both can be quite rational, within their own respective fields, however, let the opposites expose themselves, and it's most often fire and ice___just as what you see on this very forum. So, I think it's high time everyone on this forum recognized the two majority maturity levels, and started trying to understand these real subjective and objective differences. What do you think?

Regards,
Lloyd

[Eric]

I tend to believe all is God and God is all....But that depends on who or what is your God.

chazzysaw,

And this is exactly the problem we face. I'm glad you posted.

If God is not beyond all (as the whole is beyond the sum of its parts), then there is no answer to what or who is God.

I am God, you are God, the particle is God, energy is God, infinity is God, the father is God, the mother is God, the child is God, Jesus is God, Krishna is God, etc. There is no end to it.

God is beyond all and invisible, even to the mind.

God doesn't have to be seen or imagined to be God. We can pray to an image or depend on an image, even our own image if we like. But that won't solve the problems of the world and doesn't mean what we've actually arrived at God.

There is only one God. It invisibly encomasses all.

Eric

[Eric]

In addition, it is entirely logical to believe in something and not nothing, and entirely illogical to believe that something came from nothing.

The question is what is the "something"? The source that does NOT have a source. The uncaused. There is no religion, philosophy, science, or logic that has ever put forth an answer, to both the something and how it doesn't have to come from nothing.

Every discipline has its pretenders, but that doesn't change the facts.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, you just keep ignoring the facts___they are there, if you just want to find them. Try starting with Dr. John Nash, Dr. Paul Davidson and Dr. James Robertson on the truth about ergodic probability statistics___you just may find a few people do know a bit more about the facts than you, my friend. After you have the ergodic facts, just transfer this knowledge to the true ground state mechanics of the entire universe. The facts are all there if one just seeks them out___instead of using unreliable emotions.

Originally Posted by Eric

In addition, it is entirely logical to believe in something and not nothing, and entirely illogical to believe that something came from nothing.[Every sensible scientist agrees with this___it's just common sense.]

The question is what is the "something"? The source that does NOT have a source.[As Boltzman, Einstein and many other physicists have stated___It's all thermodynamics___period.] The uncaused.[Again___Thermodynamics] There is no religion, philosophy, science, or logic that has ever put forth an answer, to both the something and how it doesn't have to come from nothing.[You seem to have no understanding of Boltzmann's or Einstein's work on thermodynamics___the most basic laws of physics, along with Newton's and Liebniz's laws and maths of motions.]

Every discipline has its pretenders, but that doesn't change the facts.[The facts have never changed___Newton, Liebniz, Boltzmann and Einstein are still correct, as to the basic laws of physics___get the absolute foundations through your head, and it all becomes clear.]

These men know far more than you, and though they all believed metaphysically also, they knew enough not to mix metaphysics with physics. They just continued questioning what was all along directly in front of them___the uncaused, cause of all motion___thermodynamics___the cold quantum linear state, creating the hot quantum angular spin state___in its first finite singularity.

Eric, emotions are fallable, that's why we have cold mechanical statistics and the laws of science and logic. Only when you fully calculate all your emotions, do you find the absolute truth.

regards,

[Eric]

There has never been an explanation for the something that has no source.

To know what the something is, requires "no source" to be established first.

Any speculation including infinite, does not satisfy the rules of logic, in trying to arrive at a single something.

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[dipayankar]

You are right. Anything without a source has no meaning. Because if God existed without any source, then all our laws of Physics that we know and have proven today are wrong.

Originally Posted by Eric

There has never been an explanation for the something that has no source.

To know what the something is, requires "no source" to be established first.

Any speculation including infinite, does not satisfy the rules of logic, in trying to arrive at a single something.

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[mkirkpatrick]

The very word source implies a "starting place" from which the "thing" originated from,in
the case of God,this is non-applicable,as God is the exception to all universal laws,
although God is within the law,IT also transcends it as well simultaneously.And as God is
Absolute and eternal,It eternally IS!The very LIFE of all LIFE,in which we all live and move
and have our imaginary being?


regards michael.

[Aiya-Oba]

The greatest One (God), is the eternal Oneness of All, in every possible world.-Aiya-Oba

[Aiya-Oba]

The greatest One (God), is the eternal Oneness of All, in every possible world.
-Aiya-Oba (Poet/Philosopher).

[jim barlow]

On perfection:
Eric, god cannot be perfect or "omnipotent" because those are adverbs that can be used only as colors for example: you could say that god is perfect redness and etc... The scholastics themselves used this as "more perfect than" argument. "Omnipotent" is nonsense. Only potency as an adverb: more potent than...

There is no problem with saying however that there may be a god or more likely some combination of them corresponding to beings more potent than humans.

The single illogical "all x god" is an ancient jewish-later arab power grab for their chiefs and priests and unfortunately europe got infected with this mental "challenge" for most of 2000 years.

I have a question too: why do you guys need this "magic" when everything you look at, from toilets to distant stars is one of the most improbable combination of things unimaginable?