God

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

And how do you know what the true nature of existance is?

I don't

Then how could you know that math cannot be used to figure it out?

 

[Govert]

Then how could you know that math cannot be used to figure it out?

again:

Because math is an instrument for multiplicity and separating thinking, which cannot describe the unity of the true nature of existence. If you think it can, please go ahead, keep writing models and win a Nobel prize as a reward for your efforts.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Because math is an instrument for multiplicity and separating thinking

So math is an unstrument for separating thinking? How does it separate thinking? What if I said "math is an instrument for unifying thinking" - do you think this statement is wrong? If so, why do you think so?

 

[Nienna]

Back to the God separate from creation thingy here.

From the religious texts that have been quoted in various places and what I have read, all references to a separate god have the god taking on human attributes, such as but not inclusive of:

1. Contempt
2. Hatered
3. Commands of obedience
4. Revenge
5. Jealousy
6. Self-importance
7. Vanity

It seems to me that if these said beings were true gods, then they should be omnipotant and above such moral issues. So far as I have noticed anyone of the claimed gods are merely from a higher density which is what Michio Kaku speaks of in his book Hyperspace where he surmises that if a being from a higher dimension (density?) were to visit our dimension, that being would seem God-like to us as he/she would be able to do things that would seem miraculous to us.

However, does this prove anything? No. I have to say that the only way I can see to prove it one way or the other would be mathmatics, but is this something that we are suppose to be proving at this point? I have no idea.

I am just trying to learn all of the lesson in 3D. To me this would be like 6D lessons. However, everybody has fee will to try to do whatever seems right to them. Maybe for SAO, this is something that is easier for him to try to achieve than it is for me.

 

[Russ]

The way I see mathematics, or science - or simply truth seeking - is that its kind of like a huge puzzle which has been shaken up, and whats happening is we are getting the corner pieces, and putting them in their place, and identifying which parts go where, in order to hopefully construct the entire picture from the clues. So at first its a pile of pieces, then we seperate and compare in order to get a better idea of how the pieces can be put together. From what I can tell, this is a unification process, but the process involves seperation as a tool to acheive unity.

 

[vinny]

I think I can see how Govert may have got into this particular line of reasoning. and I think it is to do with:

Because math is an instrument for multiplicity and separating thinking, which cannot describe the unity of the true nature of existence.

now, I disagree with this premise. why? - I go along with SAO's suggestion that math may also be an instrument for unifying thinking. Which puts Govert's ideas into a whole different light.

Govert, can you see that this might change things? Does this help to clarify why there is some 'resistance' to your idea? does this help to resolve the circular argument that you are trapped in:

you are making a formal declaration about the objective nature of reality, which is that: 'the objective nature of reality cannot be formally declared'.

Perhaps the problem is that you sound so very sure about your particular reasoning, at the same time as saying:

And how do you know what the true nature of existance is?

I don't. Do you?

If I get this right (please correct me if necessary), Govert is asserting that math is 'non-objective' in a real sense, and cannot be used to explore objective reality or 'the true nature of existance'. This is based on the idea that math is 'separating', rather than 'unifying'.

It is important to be open to any possibility, until a good reason shows otherwise. I think Govert's reasoning in this case is flawed.

 

[Ryan]

We don't have to perceive a reality with our senses to have mathematical or logical conclusions that logically point to one reality over another, or mathematically/logically proving that something is impossible or creates a contradiction that needs to be resolved etc. I just can't seem to understand why the fundemental question of existance cannot be resolved in the same logical manner, without us having to wait till we're at the level of God and SEE for ourselves. It just seems that if creation is a certain way, there must be a reason for it, some fundemental logical reason that makes it a certain way and no other way. If we could find/understand that reason, we could in theory understand the true nature of creation, and why it cannot possibly be any other way. But is it possible to find that reason using logic/math at 3rd density?

The way I see it is that the question of God is unlikely to be mathematically/logically provable at this level because it is one of the "fundamental lessons" of this density - ie. a personal choice to be made before further progression. As such, a truly freewill choice cannot be made unless there are equivalent influences of order/chaos, creativity/entropy, information/disinformation ect (from the perspective of the chooser). If God/7D were able to be definitively "proved" or "disproved", such a thing would quickly become common knowledge, and thus multiple possibilities would collapse into a single actuality via the "observer affecting the observed". Multiple possibilities are a prerequisite of choice.

And certainly, the extensive libraries of philosophical discourse over this question provide adequate data that arguments over the existence/non-existence of God are unable to conclusively resolve the issue in a definitive way. ;)

This is just a hypothesis, but it's what I'm working with at the moment.

 

[Govert]

So, if I understand you (some persons) correctly you believe that you can make a mathematical model of for example the life essence of a human being if you can make models of some characteristics of a human being or putting together some models (puzzle pieces) of the legs, the heart, the blood etc. ?

Do you believe that the unity of existence is more than adding up many parts or can you by describing enough characteristics of the many parts know the essence of the unity?

So, do you believe that the unity is more than the parts? Are there really parts or are they an illusion?

If that is the case, how can you put the unity of existence in a math model if there are no parts?

Could you show me a model that describes 'completely' the unity of something (let alone complete (unity of) existence)?

 

[Art]

Here are some questions about God and the universe that seem to create certain paradoxes or contradictions that puts into question God's existance as being SEPARATE from creation.

The subject of this thread was exposed by SAO on the first post: The idea of a God as being SEPARATE from creation, does brings inconsistencies. Thus, the historical presentations of "God", as have been presented, that is, as SEPARATE of creation, could be just hiperdimentional beings self-portrayed as the such or presented as the such by their minions, or 'priests' (like the Pope, for instance).

THAT is the problem SAO wanted to bring to attention. That God is NOT a separate entity from creation, and that such a understanding (God is separated from creation) is by it's very own postulation, a falacy. SO SAO presented arguments pointing to such a falacy, like: How could such a God create free-will without having free will? That is: How can this characteristic belong to a "God" which is SEPARATE from creation? SAO is saying: Free Will was not created by a God separated from creation, because a God separated from creation cannot create, since it is separated from creation.

The point was: The Control System has been using this idea (God separated from creation) to opress humanity. And SAO's intention was to bring this to our attention.

The problem is not if God exists or not. The problemis: There is a problem: That the Control System has been feeding us with the idea of a God separated from creation. And this idea has got many effects on humanity.

Only one who has not understood a few elemental ideas would argue there is not such a thing or idea as a 7th density, that is, a universal source, that is, a beguining/end, whose characteristics are certainly not human; whose characteristics are more than a human mind can elaborate; whose characteristics do not obbey to human dessires/capabilities, and that its presence is a FACT on every single manifestation all across the creation (a word humans use to refer to the wholeness of all that that exists).

One elemental idea is that of the Soul: There is no proof because it is not a phenomena -it is not something meassurable. It is a INNER EXPERIENCE, totally convincing, and enough on it's own terms, for those who have got it.

There are those who have not got this experience, thus, have no evidence of a Soul. So they question it with wrong tools, as reazon (and a faulty reazon to that). It is indeed not a matter of belief. What requires a 'belief' is the idea of a God separated from creation.

No.

It is a matter of connection. Once this is stablished, several problems arise, such as those treated by Gurdjieff or Mouravieff.

The relevant factor is to seek, and maintain, this connection. It is on the destiny of every human being. This connection is not something "regular". It is sublime and deeply esoteric and powerful. And it is not a cause subject to demonstration.

It is subject to experimentation. And a God separate from creation, cannot in any way provide this inner, self experimentation, unless it is via lyes and illussions.

Via 'beliefs' and contracts and compromises with exterior factors the which demands from the believer submission.

Another elemental idea is the fact that I, in my souled quality, am not alone. That there are others, both below and ahead of my level. And that there are others who do not belong, at least yet, to the souled quality.

That last bit is not elemental idea. It is a very advanced realization and the difficulty it presents to accept it, is big, because it demands a re-wireing of the ideas stablished by the notion of a God separated from reality and all that such a notion implyies and has been stablishing along milenia.

Another elemental isea is that I, on my souled quality, do can and should and most progress, that is, I in my souled quality am to know my self, and this activity would, in every step, demonstrate to my being the reality of the proposition -and the marvelous spiritual adventure ahead of me.

Nihilism is designed to distract the Knight from it's path. To that, it uses a rethoric aimed to weacken and betray progressive efforts. Why? Because there is no point on anything. Thus, it is also said, we live in a dying planet. This two arguments goes hand-by-hand and it is called enthropy.

 

[ark]

So, if I understand you (some persons) correctly you believe that you can make a mathematical model of for example the life essence of a human being if you can make models of some characteristics of a human being or putting together some models (puzzle pieces) of the legs, the heart, the blood etc. ?

Sure one can make partial models. But for these models to be of nay use more knowledge is needed that we have now.

Do you believe that the unity of existence is more than adding up many parts or can you by describing enough characteristics of the many parts know the essence of the unity?

We do not believe anything. But one can surely form a hypothesis that "the unity of existence is more than adding up many parts". This is what usually happens in so called "complex systems". Complex systems, for instance, can be endowed with structures that simple systems simply can't carry :)

Think for instance of a "hole". You can go "around" the hole in two dimensions, but you can not do it in one dimension. This is the simple science of "homotopy". A simple example of "more is different". But there are many much more interesting examples.

http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97g.complisci.html

Could you show me a model that describes 'completely' the unity of something (let alone complete (unity of) existence)?

Of something? Sure. For instance Poincare conjecture has no meaning for one-point sets. But is has a meaning and is highly nontrivial for three dimensional manifolds that consist of nothing but single points!

http://kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/perelman-the-poincare-conjecture-and-a-fields-medal/

As for the "existence", we are not sure about its meaning.