Huh?
What does "universal knowledge" have to do with solipsism?
And what is "universal knowledge"?
The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
What does "universal knowledge" have to do with solipsism?
And what is "universal knowledge"?
We can conceive of ‘nothing’ as the lack of anything, but we know this is not the case since there is something, and so a lack of anything was not possible. This information indicates that there has to be something, that there must be something, but we don’t yet know why.
Yet if the basic something(s) had been around forever, they never would have been made, there both being no source and no no time or place for the creation, yet something has definition and properties without any defining point; so, the something had to be created at some point for some reason, and it can’t be eternal as non makeable and unbreakable. Nor is the something completely full, totally filling up all possible space to absolute solidity, as then we would be packed in like sardines.
This is all philosophy so far, but for the known of something, and we further philosophize that since things can’t forever be made of lessor things since not only would this cascade never end but also have no definition point for the things that nothing is the only possible source.
None of this would seem to go anywhere by itself but for the fortunate correspondence of observation that there is a curious zero balance of symmetry of the basics, this being that pairs of substance pop in an out of existence that have opposite polarity of charge and matter state, such as an electron(-) and a positron(+), as well as that the negative potential energy of gravity matches the positive kinetic energy of substance. There is also the symmetry of there being only two stable matter particles, these being charged, the electron(-) and the proton(+), and their antiparticles, with only one stable neutral energy ‘particle’, the photon, which seems to have a positive and negative lobe.
So, the positive metaphysical position of stuff forever fails, it being absurd for having no source, while a total lack of anything also fails, being absurd since there is and must be something.
Evidently, nothing forever and something forever are true and always present at the same time, which is a kind of neutral metaphysical position, for something always becomes of nothing, the something ever happening, yet these ‘sum-things’ ever summing to nothing overall. Existence has to be made of partial nonexistence in balance.
Electrons, beings, and Beings are somethings, a range of the simple to the more complex, but none of them can be fundamental and eternal. What is eternal and boundless would be the ever in-between of completely full or totally empty—a finite realm ever jitter-bugging with ‘sum-things’, and this Totality fits the bill of being the prime mover, requiring nothing but itself, as well as being eternal in duration and boundless in extent.
Even if one retreats to “can’t know”, just in case, there is still the freedom to be (within our form) because “can’t know”.
Suggestion:
a) All single positive metaphysical positions can be shown to be logically indefensible by themselves.
b) A neutral metaphysical position is thus logically defensible.
c) The universe is either metaphysically neutral or paradoxical.
PS
There can be no stable uncharged (neutral) matter particle with no antiparticle in free space (neutrons decay) because there would be no way to nullify the existence of the substance in the overview by the halves of polarity, and there can be no charged energy particle with a different antiparticle in free space because that would then have to be substance and because energy already embodies Totality at large rather than half of it.
Things are the way they are since there is no other way for them to be.
Last edited:
I wish the world's economists would be smart enough to implement this principle!
Bye bye crisis!
No, I think it is both:
The reason why we have "universal knowledge" is because it is universal, and it is universal since we all have it.
It is in the make-up of the Universe and us (since we are part of that Universe) that we have universal knowledge.
But what set off this exchange was the idea that extreme individualism turns into solipsism.
You'll have to explain what you mean by
Solipsism or extreme individualism can be "quite useful"?
Sure. But what does that prove?
Only nominally.
The moment we claim that Metaphysical Position P exists, it stops being neutral.
Only if it would be conscious.
Well, yes. And how does that help us?
Western pseudo-Zen is notorious for not making people enlightened, but good at making them believe they are ...
It suggest that there is not a "one" but a unity.
It is a unity of the various positions.
No sure why you say that, but just limiting the choices, and I suppose it would be that there is some kind of reason.
All information can help, sooner or later, in this case demonstrating that there were no real options, nothing to be thought out or planned, for example.
Western pseudo-Zen is notorious for not making people enlightened, but good at making them believe they are ...
Unknown reference, but if they actually went through the exercise and saying about it then it might gain a grasp.
Anybody want to say more, including Signal (Thanks). Looking for even more rigor, not just "yes", "no", generalizations, or one-liners. We are addressing the prime paradox that so many threads often get down to, yet are still at the Tahiti beach party.
"Metaphysical neutrality" and "paradoxicality" are qualities of consciousness, not things.
This could imply several things:
1. That God cannot and does not, could not and did not, think, plan and create.
2. That God doesn't exist.
3. That God's will reigns supreme.
I think we'd need to look into why and how people are involved in dicussing topics that contain the word and concept "God" (note that I put that in italics). This might make communication "about God" more meaningful.
What does a particular person who discusses topics that contain the word and concept "God" in a particular situation with particular person(s) try to accomplish?
Can we ever come to definitive answers to that question?
People could be dicussing topics that contain the word and concept "God" for a number of reasons - such as manipulation, self-defense, intimidation, influence, persuasion. People engage in communication for those reasons anyway, and we can hardly say they are not legitimate.
Last edited:
Imagine that one would say to someone
Don't talk to me about topics that contain the word and concept "God," unless you intend to marry me / give me 10 M $.
I'm not going to discuss with you about topics that contain the word and concept "God," unless you marry me / give me 10 M $, within one month, with a written promise now.
Whew! Would that make things clear! And eliminate 99% of bullshit conversations!
Don't talk to me about topics that contain the word and concept "God," unless you intend to marry me / give me 10 M $.
I'm not going to discuss with you about topics that contain the word and concept "God," unless you marry me / give me 10 M $, within one month, with a written promise now.
Whew! Would that make things clear! And eliminate 99% of bullshit conversations!
Would not consciousness have existence, and thus still be something? The neutrality (unity being not just "one") would be what's left after all single notions of "one" can be shown to be absurd.
I was hoping for more rigor on the proposition just as it stands. Things like God or consciousness may be mentioned but are incidental as being examples of something forever, a notion claimed as faulty since there is no source or definition point for what is there and has properties.
This is a case for understanding existence. It's not an attempt at disproving God. The argument may even hint at some mysticism, but the search is for truth, not any predetermined aim, as I may well have in other arguments. If God falls out here as not, then so be it, and I can use it elsewhere, but here we are trying to understand about existence.
Since per you, nothing is something too, there is no problem. Or there is one, depending on what you take "nothing" means ...
My point is that any discussion about anything has to take into consideration the very circumstances and persons in which said discussion takes place.
Ie. a true "being in the present moment."
The Western tradition is one of typically ignoring that consideration for circumstances and persons involved, and instead trying to come up with a stance or position that will be true regardless of circumstances and persons.
Yet we also know that a discussion can take place only in some particular circumstances, with some particular persons.
So trying to focus only on the stance or position, ignoring the circumstances and persons, is denying a good part of what is actually going on.
And yet an Eastern tradition is to have emptiness and fullness somehow connected, though they focus on the unrealness of it all. Yet they still believe in serving the task, as if that is something, perhaps picking up litter not because someone may be watching but because it is the right thing to do.
Their "middle path" is close to my neutral metaphysics, which is why I suggested a connection to mysticism.
Note also that the philosophy of the zero-balance seems to correlate with what we observe in physics. Any rigor in this area? Would someone like to go through the proposition in more point to point detail, going over it for what it is so far?
The Rational God
Many people are naturally interested in what makes for existence and whether it has any inherent meaning, and so some talk of ‘God’ as well as other kinds of origins or totality.
Not having perfect information, we ultimately must go by estimates which consciously or not involve probabilities as we sift and shift through the scenarios, but we would like to get as close as possible by using what is known.
If we could have ‘God’ for sure then we might have the magic properties identified, but these would be a result of having ‘God’ and so they can hardly be employed beforehand to have ‘God’. Same for “It could have magic properties”.
So, I am going to propose a new and much more rational God, it being referred to G.O.D. (the Ground Of Determination), which may be too similar of a name, but we do wish to retain the connection to the basis of all but not overload the establish meaning of the word ‘God’.
G.O.D. is then precisely the jitterbugging dance of particles pairs in and out of existence. Simple? Yes. Boring and not really a great and wonderful complicated thing? Well, yes and no, for it leads to a heck of a lot, and it would still be responsible for everything, although limited and restricted to what a universe can do.
So, some may think that this new and rational G.O.D. does not qualify as what is thought of as ‘God’, and that is true, for it didn’t foresee anything, didn’t expressly make life, nor have human life be a test, nor grant an afterlife of reward or punishment, nor a soul, nor hears prayers, nor is it a being, nor inspire a book, nor do miracles, or any of that kind of stuff, but, really, something has to give here.
All that it is is the basis of all, as specified. Some might still adore it, but this might not have the same flavor as before.
Many people are naturally interested in what makes for existence and whether it has any inherent meaning, and so some talk of ‘God’ as well as other kinds of origins or totality.
Not having perfect information, we ultimately must go by estimates which consciously or not involve probabilities as we sift and shift through the scenarios, but we would like to get as close as possible by using what is known.
If we could have ‘God’ for sure then we might have the magic properties identified, but these would be a result of having ‘God’ and so they can hardly be employed beforehand to have ‘God’. Same for “It could have magic properties”.
So, I am going to propose a new and much more rational God, it being referred to G.O.D. (the Ground Of Determination), which may be too similar of a name, but we do wish to retain the connection to the basis of all but not overload the establish meaning of the word ‘God’.
G.O.D. is then precisely the jitterbugging dance of particles pairs in and out of existence. Simple? Yes. Boring and not really a great and wonderful complicated thing? Well, yes and no, for it leads to a heck of a lot, and it would still be responsible for everything, although limited and restricted to what a universe can do.
So, some may think that this new and rational G.O.D. does not qualify as what is thought of as ‘God’, and that is true, for it didn’t foresee anything, didn’t expressly make life, nor have human life be a test, nor grant an afterlife of reward or punishment, nor a soul, nor hears prayers, nor is it a being, nor inspire a book, nor do miracles, or any of that kind of stuff, but, really, something has to give here.
All that it is is the basis of all, as specified. Some might still adore it, but this might not have the same flavor as before.
(This is the proposition)…
The best case for a philosophy of existence is to have it actually correspond to the observation of it in actual existence… for example:
Something and/or Nothing
We can conceive of ‘nothing’ as the lack of anything, but we know this is not the case since there is something, and so a lack of anything was not possible. This information indicates that there has to be something, that there must be something, but we don’t yet know exactly why.
Yet if the basic something(s) had been around forever, they never would have been made, there both being no source and no no time or place for the creation, yet something has definition and properties without any defining point; so, the something had to be created at some point for some reason, and it can’t be eternal as non makeable and unbreakable. Nor is the something completely full, totally filling up all possible space to absolute solidity, as then we would be packed in like sardines.
This is all philosophy so far, but for the known of something, and we further philosophize that since things can’t forever be made of lessor things since not only would this cascade never end but still also have no definition point for the things that nothing is the only possible source.
None of this would seem to go anywhere by itself but for the fortunate correspondence of observation that there is a curious zero balance of symmetry of the basics, this being that pairs of substance pop in an out of existence that have opposite polarity of charge and matter state, such as an electron(-) and a positron(+), as well as that the negative potential energy of gravity matches the positive kinetic energy of substance. There is also the symmetry of there being only two stable matter particles, these being charged, the electron(-) and the proton(+), and their antiparticles, with only one stable neutral energy ‘particle’, the photon, which seems to have both a positive and a negative lobe.
So, the positive metaphysical position of stuff forever fails, it being absurd for having no source, while the position of a total lack of anything also fails, it being absurd since there is and must be something.
Evidently, nothing forever and something forever are true and always present at the same time, which is a kind of neutral metaphysical position, for something always becomes of nothing, the something ever happening, yet these ‘sum-things’ ever summing to nothing overall. Existence has to be made of partial nonexistence in balance.
Electrons, beings, and Beings are somethings, showing a range of the simple to the more complex, but none of them can be fundamental and eternal. What is eternal and boundless would be the ever in-between of completely full or totally empty—a finite realm ever jitter-bugging with ‘sum-things’, and this Totality fits the bill of being the prime mover, requiring nothing but itself, as well as being eternal in duration and boundless in extent.
There can be no stable uncharged (neutral) matter particle with no antiparticle in free space (neutrons decay) because there would be no way to nullify the existence of the substance in the overview by the halves of polarity, and there can be no charged energy particle with a different antiparticle in free space because that would then have to be substance and because energy already embodies Totality at large rather than half of it.
Things are the way they are since there is no other way for them to be.
Even if one retreats to “can’t know”, just in case, there is still the freedom to be (within our form) because we “can’t know”.
Scheme:
1. The universe is reasonable
2. All positive metaphyscal positions are logically indefensible
3. A neutral metaphyscial posotion is logically defensible
4. Either the universe is a unity (as opposed to 'one'), or it is paradoxical (there are true contradictions)
The first is an axiom, the second a fact, the third a reasoned proposal (I would call it a fact), and the fourth a logical conclusion. (this scheme was proposed by petej on another forum)
The best case for a philosophy of existence is to have it actually correspond to the observation of it in actual existence… for example:
Something and/or Nothing
We can conceive of ‘nothing’ as the lack of anything, but we know this is not the case since there is something, and so a lack of anything was not possible. This information indicates that there has to be something, that there must be something, but we don’t yet know exactly why.
Yet if the basic something(s) had been around forever, they never would have been made, there both being no source and no no time or place for the creation, yet something has definition and properties without any defining point; so, the something had to be created at some point for some reason, and it can’t be eternal as non makeable and unbreakable. Nor is the something completely full, totally filling up all possible space to absolute solidity, as then we would be packed in like sardines.
This is all philosophy so far, but for the known of something, and we further philosophize that since things can’t forever be made of lessor things since not only would this cascade never end but still also have no definition point for the things that nothing is the only possible source.
None of this would seem to go anywhere by itself but for the fortunate correspondence of observation that there is a curious zero balance of symmetry of the basics, this being that pairs of substance pop in an out of existence that have opposite polarity of charge and matter state, such as an electron(-) and a positron(+), as well as that the negative potential energy of gravity matches the positive kinetic energy of substance. There is also the symmetry of there being only two stable matter particles, these being charged, the electron(-) and the proton(+), and their antiparticles, with only one stable neutral energy ‘particle’, the photon, which seems to have both a positive and a negative lobe.
So, the positive metaphysical position of stuff forever fails, it being absurd for having no source, while the position of a total lack of anything also fails, it being absurd since there is and must be something.
Evidently, nothing forever and something forever are true and always present at the same time, which is a kind of neutral metaphysical position, for something always becomes of nothing, the something ever happening, yet these ‘sum-things’ ever summing to nothing overall. Existence has to be made of partial nonexistence in balance.
Electrons, beings, and Beings are somethings, showing a range of the simple to the more complex, but none of them can be fundamental and eternal. What is eternal and boundless would be the ever in-between of completely full or totally empty—a finite realm ever jitter-bugging with ‘sum-things’, and this Totality fits the bill of being the prime mover, requiring nothing but itself, as well as being eternal in duration and boundless in extent.
There can be no stable uncharged (neutral) matter particle with no antiparticle in free space (neutrons decay) because there would be no way to nullify the existence of the substance in the overview by the halves of polarity, and there can be no charged energy particle with a different antiparticle in free space because that would then have to be substance and because energy already embodies Totality at large rather than half of it.
Things are the way they are since there is no other way for them to be.
Even if one retreats to “can’t know”, just in case, there is still the freedom to be (within our form) because we “can’t know”.
Scheme:
1. The universe is reasonable
2. All positive metaphyscal positions are logically indefensible
3. A neutral metaphyscial posotion is logically defensible
4. Either the universe is a unity (as opposed to 'one'), or it is paradoxical (there are true contradictions)
The first is an axiom, the second a fact, the third a reasoned proposal (I would call it a fact), and the fourth a logical conclusion. (this scheme was proposed by petej on another forum)
An aim of many, believers and scientists alike, is to at least obtain a grasp on the ground of existence and at most discover what determines it. Believers don’t go into it very deeply, tending to just declare a Being explaining life due to His own Life, perhaps modeling this after the family structure, and then apply a lot of window dressing as a soul, an afterlife in a good or a bad place, life as a test, angels, devils, prayers, adoration, holy books, prophets, miracles, feelings, sensations, and other mere suppositions and fabrications that add many layers of structure upon the belief. The belief takes over, grooving itself into a strange “belief by reason of faith” that is quite beyond the pale, which is all much better addressed by understanding the psychological nature of strong belief via emotions to explain the irrationality of “reason by unknown”, a contradiction.
Thinkers, philosophers, and scientists may look deeper than just having dogma ‘solving’ all mystery at once and actually exult in and engage mysteries with real information to solve them over time, meanwhile pointing out paradoxes which believers must necessarily ignore since they are already set in their beliefs about their “sure thing”, although some believers are able to be forthcoming to admit that they have nothing firm but that their belief is a comfort to them (a la Martin Gardner).
Where thinkers and believers intersect is the aim for the discovery ground of determination for existence, but the methods differ, one side using what is known, the other side rushing into adoption of unknowns, which is not really even a method or even a philosophy, but a ‘choice’ with all the questions (and answers to those) left out.
Forever entities, whether quarks, electrons, or Beings would be already and always there all defined without ever having been made and defined in the first place that never was, and so this should bear some more scrutiny, as an incomplete notion, it being invariably ‘wrong’ by virtue of its incompleteness of having no source whatsoever, which is hardly a claim to fame. The same with the claim of life requiring Life behind it, but then no LIFE behind Life.
Since belief for believers has already halted at the dogma—case closed, it is not even expected that they would delve further into anything, producing ploys of avoidance, as readily seen to be a part of the human condition. So, then, all proceeds without them, but for some fence-sitters who may be open to considering the points. In extreme cases, they are bloodily wiped off of the face of the Earth when pursuing violence mandated by their religion to convert or conquer ‘evil’ that is merely identified from just being contrary to their flawed ‘goods’, even those of other religions, the sheer existence of other beliefs seeming to lessen the credibility of their own, and certainly those of non believers in any kind of ‘God’. At any rate, their beliefs must be protected, whether out in the world or on forums, by any means.
…
Thinkers, philosophers, and scientists may look deeper than just having dogma ‘solving’ all mystery at once and actually exult in and engage mysteries with real information to solve them over time, meanwhile pointing out paradoxes which believers must necessarily ignore since they are already set in their beliefs about their “sure thing”, although some believers are able to be forthcoming to admit that they have nothing firm but that their belief is a comfort to them (a la Martin Gardner).
Where thinkers and believers intersect is the aim for the discovery ground of determination for existence, but the methods differ, one side using what is known, the other side rushing into adoption of unknowns, which is not really even a method or even a philosophy, but a ‘choice’ with all the questions (and answers to those) left out.
Forever entities, whether quarks, electrons, or Beings would be already and always there all defined without ever having been made and defined in the first place that never was, and so this should bear some more scrutiny, as an incomplete notion, it being invariably ‘wrong’ by virtue of its incompleteness of having no source whatsoever, which is hardly a claim to fame. The same with the claim of life requiring Life behind it, but then no LIFE behind Life.
Since belief for believers has already halted at the dogma—case closed, it is not even expected that they would delve further into anything, producing ploys of avoidance, as readily seen to be a part of the human condition. So, then, all proceeds without them, but for some fence-sitters who may be open to considering the points. In extreme cases, they are bloodily wiped off of the face of the Earth when pursuing violence mandated by their religion to convert or conquer ‘evil’ that is merely identified from just being contrary to their flawed ‘goods’, even those of other religions, the sheer existence of other beliefs seeming to lessen the credibility of their own, and certainly those of non believers in any kind of ‘God’. At any rate, their beliefs must be protected, whether out in the world or on forums, by any means.
…
If not anything at all is supposed to be the source for forever entities then we should look at this as a literal source, although in looking this way, the so-called forever somethings cease to be eternal in that they must have creation via no-thing or the nothing of non-existence, a conclusion that we may not like but are inexorably led to. Looking into the nature of the tiny and basic things, we indeed note a likely zero-balance of symmetry in the quantum realm pair production of entities with opposite polarity of charge and matter/antimatter state, and this is surely more to go on than the fabrication of mythical Beings.
There is, too, the matter of matter being balanced by gravity…
In quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts; but that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.
The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy; however, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space; one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.
“It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch.” — Stephen Hawkings
This shows that the universe could have appeared from a state of “zero” energy, this being, of course, within the unavoidable and small quantum uncertainty. Electron/positron pairs, and more, would be separated faster than they could cancel by the quick inflation of the “Big Bang”, and thus they could not nullify back into the vacuum.
One may still take the position that all is not solved yet, but that we can even utilize knowns to come to thinking explanations and observations that even bear out the underlying philosophy of logic and reason will always and ever beat out the mere and sheer invention of myths that have no basis whatsoever, but the ‘unknown’, which is not even a basis at all.
A much more rational G.O.D. (Ground of Determination) is one without all the human mammals applied window dressing, one that focuses on what is known of existence rather than just wishes of what one wants or what ought to be, in their imagination, which is but based on an unknown reliance that grants comfort, ‘purpose’, and ‘meaning’.
So, Pandora’s new kind of box, one of truth and mysteries getting solved, ever opens more, no matter how much believers keep trying to shut the lid on it via their continuing mere pronouncements and declarations of the magic powers ‘known’ by faith.
If honest believers then admit to no case but still resort to “no one can possibly know, so one must still believe”, then this still fails since we have by that become free and liberated, just the same, if it is that we cannot know.
All that remains, then, is the emotional comfort and the felt security of belief, which is fine, but the proof of the ‘truth’ believed in is nowhere to be found and cannot be claimed.
There is, too, the matter of matter being balanced by gravity…
In quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts; but that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.
The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy; however, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space; one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.
“It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch.” — Stephen Hawkings
This shows that the universe could have appeared from a state of “zero” energy, this being, of course, within the unavoidable and small quantum uncertainty. Electron/positron pairs, and more, would be separated faster than they could cancel by the quick inflation of the “Big Bang”, and thus they could not nullify back into the vacuum.
One may still take the position that all is not solved yet, but that we can even utilize knowns to come to thinking explanations and observations that even bear out the underlying philosophy of logic and reason will always and ever beat out the mere and sheer invention of myths that have no basis whatsoever, but the ‘unknown’, which is not even a basis at all.
A much more rational G.O.D. (Ground of Determination) is one without all the human mammals applied window dressing, one that focuses on what is known of existence rather than just wishes of what one wants or what ought to be, in their imagination, which is but based on an unknown reliance that grants comfort, ‘purpose’, and ‘meaning’.
So, Pandora’s new kind of box, one of truth and mysteries getting solved, ever opens more, no matter how much believers keep trying to shut the lid on it via their continuing mere pronouncements and declarations of the magic powers ‘known’ by faith.
If honest believers then admit to no case but still resort to “no one can possibly know, so one must still believe”, then this still fails since we have by that become free and liberated, just the same, if it is that we cannot know.
All that remains, then, is the emotional comfort and the felt security of belief, which is fine, but the proof of the ‘truth’ believed in is nowhere to be found and cannot be claimed.
Sure.
But do the circumstances really ever occur that would be conducive to meaningful discussion on the nature of existence?
Are we ever with people with whom it would be possible to have meaningful discussion on the nature of existence?
If anything, it seems we are torn between two facts:
1. we have an intense longing to know the Absolute Truth
and
2. we do not really have anyone and no circumstances to talk about it and find out the truth about it.
I mean - do you really think that a few posters at an internet forum are the right people to talk to in order to figure out the Absolute Truth?
And that you and we, as we currently are, with all our flaws, stress and imperfection, time-delayed, typed communication in languages that are not even our native languages - that we are capable of meaningfully approaching issues of Absolute Truth?
Yes, I know what you mean about bringing it up in outside life, but at least on forums there can be some focus on it. We may not find all the answers,but perhaps can make some good progress in localizing it, such as entities said to be around forever could could have been made (as such).
Anything on the particulars 'derived' so far?
Of the 8 billion people in the world, I am down to only a few interested parties here, and some of those are just preachings rather than engaging in any detail.
You are my last hope, Obi-Wan-Signal.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
You are searching for something you will not find until it is too late.
For then I would burn for eternity?
How do you find all these things when I only have gotten close so far?