[AntonioLao]

analogous to the movie Star Wars, God is the Force that surrounds the entire universe. When the Force is actively in action, energy is created in the form of kinetic energy. When the Force is dormant or inactive, the potential energy is created. But since action and reaction and inaction are relative to each other, the Force is always absolutely active (existence of absolute acceleration) in one particular level of existence (LOE) at one infinitesimal point of spacetime. This activity is called the local infinitesimal motion (LIM). Furthermore, this LIM with the principle of directional invariance create the square of energy with two nonequivalent topological spacetime curvatures of hyperbolic and elliptic geometries.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao analogous to the movie Star Wars, God is the Force that surrounds the entire universe. When the Force is actively in action, energy is created in the form of kinetic energy. When the Force is dormant or inactive, the potential energy is created. But since action and reaction and inaction are relative to each other, the Force is always absolutely active (existence of absolute acceleration) in one particular level of existence (LOE) at one infinitesimal point of spacetime. This activity is called the local infinitesimal motion (LIM). Furthermore, this LIM with the principle of directional invariance create the square of energy with two nonequivalent topological spacetime curvatures of hyperbolic and elliptic geometries.

It is very interesting to see that you include god as a perfectly-well concept of physics, and define it with math. BTW, what is your position? (theist, atheist, agnostic.....).

How can a force create energy? (isn't it vice-versa?)

how can "god" or the "force" exist at a LOE? and be ruled by the LIM id its suppose dto be god, and, what do you mean whne you say that there is no difference between inaction, acition, reaction?¿?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE you mean whne you say that there is no difference between inaction, acition, reaction?¿?

I am a theist in God that is the Force and not a force. In physics, a force is defined but physics and science in general cannot define the Force.

action and reaction and inaction are relative. They are the integral of energy, which is the product of a force and a distance (both physics definition and not metaphysical definition).

For the Force, short distance and long distance are the same. The Force can be here, there and everywhere and everywhen.

[zeroca]

Jalal Ad-din Rumi’s poetry again (I like it very much); about God – translation is made by Mr. Vakhushti Kotetishvili from Persian into Georgian. My translation – from Georgian into English, it isn’t as good as that of Mr. Kotetishvili's, but I tried my best to preserve the main idea (The transcendental meditation is indirectly mentioned, meant in it and finally - joining to eternity, to God):

I’m an artist and with one motion
I can create the faces’ army,
But in the moment when you appear,
Every single one with me is parting.
Thousands of figures created fully,
Passion-ignited, soul-inhaled,
But you appeared and altogether
Were burnt down, thrown as vain.
You are supporter refined and pleasing…
Or with rivalry your heart is seethed, or
Might you are the motive, reason
That disassembled my stable building?
Even my soul without ponder,
Spilled and joined at once your wonder,
You gave your breathing I’m dead with caress,
And that’s the reason that made me younger.
This small bloody drop just at your knees,
Bears your loving-inspired breathing,
You made it blooming - colored with feeling,
Wind of your vigor my soul is seething.
I’m an earthen water-full cabin,
And I’m crying for you and longing,
Visit my haven! Or otherwise,
I have to desert my loamy building …

[Guille]

Continuation to my posts:

I'm not going to (or going to try not to) write "proof" or "demonstration" any more, due to the fact of absolute relativity and subjectivity of my words/thoughts.

I know I can't dis-prove god, I know it's just impossible. Nobody wil never really take it into account if I do so (at least theist persons, or maybe yes, but a very small quantity). I think that I can't dis-prove god because he or it itself is wrong. It's something that has no existence. I don't meen that doesn't exist, but that has no "essence". The "essence" of something is all the properties of it. These properties are not defined by humans but by nature. Nature has never revealed us "god", so any of his properties, and with this, we can't know the "essence" of god. It's something difficult to explain.

[Guille]

For this explaination, I ask the reader to get into the place where mathematics=nature, if s/he already does, then there is no problem. Something that we must all agree, is that math is logical. math is logic. I have strong arguments that convince me that nature is logical. Ok, these are the only things we need to base on.

Imagine a discussion in a chat session about math, nature and logic, in which one person claims that math isn't logical because in math: infinite+infinite=infinite. Then, most people would be convinced. But there is a clever one that isn't convinced, and he justifes: infinity or infinite isn't logical. So, infinite isn't math or in math. Thus, nature has no infinite/infinity. God is theoretically infinite/infinity, so, then, god is not in nature. But everything is in nature or natural, then, god isn't infinite/infinity. Then god isn't god. Then god doesn't exist. Thus, math=logic=nature.

[zeroca]

God is (or is considered to be) the most important conception in the universe. Its basic characteristic features are: 1. Invariability, 2. omnipresence, 3. absoluteness (existence in itself) and so on. . .
What exists in the space during the time can't be omnipresent (because of its existence in a limited space), invariable (because everything, that exists is changing), absolute (because the location, movement, size, density or any other characteristics of what exists are relative), that means, that god doesn't exist as any form of energy (substance). Nonexistence is the main characteristic feature of the God: since it doesn't exist, so it never comes into being or die, doesn't change, i.e. it's eternal, absolute and remains permanent during the birth, or dying of the world...

[Guille]

zeroca,

the logic you use to show that god is eternal and other things because of his non existence is correct, but it all breaks down because you start with a wrong assumption. From non-existence you can only get non-existence properties. Eternity and others are existent properties. Don't only think in space but also time as parts of existence.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by <<>> Zeroca, but it all breaks down because you start with a wrong assuption.

I agree that to some extent it looked like nonsense, because if existence is considered as any phenomenon in 3D space within time, so nonexistence can't be included in any sort of existence; even a great part of people consider the term "nonexistence" as absence of something, but not as absence of everything(i.e.not as absence of universe in whole) and their great argument is that this universe always existed.
O.K., let's presently consider it this way:
1.One concept-Universe always existed!
2.The second concept-Universe was born from nothing, i.e.it arose from nothing. Let's leave for a while to analyze the credibility of any concept to be absolutely true...
Both concepts are unproved. The first one has great advantage over the second, because we already see this universe, see it's manifested existence(since even illusion of existence definitely means existence), but even if this universe really was born from nothing and it has the chance to turn some day into nothing again, we wouldn't feel such state, as we will eliminate together with universe, so nobody will remain to verify such state(of complete nonexistence).
Let's return the god again:
If we assume(I don't say "let's accept") that this world was born from nothing, i.e.nothing was the previous stage of world arising, I'd then slightly exchange a figurative formula "the world was created by Father" for "this world was created from Father" and "father", i.e.god and nothing is the same for me.
I.e.concept god is the same as concept nothing for me. We can't say that nothing exists, but I say metaphorically, that main characteristic feature, which makes concept god eternal, absolute, invariable is it's complete nonexistence. Maybe that is trivial, but I'm restricted to explain it any other way...

[Guille]

I'm against all suffering and sacrifices that the religions promote. These are nonsense and out of order. They are made just so that humans are controlled and easy to "eat" their brain.

I remember an old Jewish saying that a jewish friend of mine told me: The fear of the lord is the begining of the knowledge.

The symbolism and metaphors here are obvious. It means that people work and are good and create and continue like that because they are scared of going to hell by their sins, sended by god.

This is so disgusting that religions should be banned everywhere and everytime. You must be thinking of telling me: why do you think religion isn't banned? it's because it's done many good things, and it isn't exactly how you say it.....bla bla bla.....

Well, if there is something I know at my short life (and even shorter life of knowing about the truth of religions) is that our world isn't what it appears. We say we have __ so many countries with democracy. We say we have __ so many rights and rules in favor of us. But the truth is that if the rules where correct, religion would be baned. But of course, the presidents are religious, the members of the senate and congress are religious, the king of Spain is religious, and much more. Is this really democracy? Yes, but it is the fake democracy. The democracy we call democracy but that isn't democracy. The democracy started by voltiere, Russeu and other illustrated.

I thought two months ago thaat probably anarquism was the only real democracy. But no. No, no, no, no.... This is because in anarquism each is ruled by himself. Himself again, isn't democratic. My common sense may have bigger percentage than my feelings in "Guille's Brain Parliament".

All I used to think was good in hour time, in civilization, is in fact bad, negative, wrong.....

The only and uinique correct political/cultural-civilizational way of living is the one I have thought of. It may look as stupid as you want it o be, but if you analize everything in our world in the correctoid and objectoid (not exactly correct and objective: it's impossible) you will have to agree:

Basically, the whole paper I'm writting, and to a difference with most political/philosophical papers, I concluded and had the idea of this politism whiles I wrote my political manifestation, so, natural-logical thinking let me to this, is that we must go back to the forest living or something and live like we did thousands of years ago. Without preocupations. Without all this negative things we now have. Without religion. The only thing we are with is the without. Of course, do have a family. But maximum get in tribes. Without wondering about nature, and stop wanting to create a TOE. Stop being what we are, we say searching for truth and wondering is humanoid but no, it's anti-natural. We are not different to animals. W should not care about things if we want to be natural. This is the basics of Guille's political manifestation.

Thank you verymuch for reading this, if you have any comment, argue or suggestion let me know,

Guillermo Garrido-lestache Vidal.