Is god a number?

[bobevenson]

"The Ouzo Prophecy" is allegorical, my friend, but unfortunately, not up your alley.

Not up my alley: correct.

Neither is spiritual salvation, my friend.

[Tesla]

"The Ouzo Prophecy" is allegorical, my friend, but unfortunately, not up your alley.

Not up my alley: correct.

Neither is spiritual salvation, my friend.

you are a part of the miracle of existence right now. why do you expect more? because you were told it is so? that is the only evidence. it is unlikely that we know less now than was known 200 years ago, or thousands of years ago. it is very difficult to come to terms with that. there is information out there, but only when you change the way you look at things do the things you look at change. I explained to you my experience to give you insight as to what could happen if you gave up dogmatism to look for 'truth': which is only possible if you entertain the prospect you are wrong. that is unlikely to happen, but if for some reason it does, you have a guide in the story of my life to at least have the foresight to preserve yourself through laughter and balance in the event you do.

[reasonvemotion]

Tesla,

I adore your avatar.

Is that your daughter?

Such a lovely baby.

[Tesla]

Tesla,

I adore your avatar.

Is that your daughter?

Such a lovely baby.

Yes it is and yes she is <3 she is the reason I am working so hard to address the issues of this day. I fear she will not have a fighting chance for her descendants if we fail to address the global issues.

[bobevenson]

...if we fail to address the global issues.

There aere only two global issues, human rights and free-market capitalism.

[Tesla]

...if we fail to address the global issues.

There aere only two global issues, human rights and free-market capitalism.

http://www.globalissues.org/

you would be incorrect.

[Bernard]

You can't go around saying things like something can come out of nothing or that existence came before energy. These statements won't withstand scrutiny.

I didn't. Read more carefully. Note: 'Apparently' and note 'Existence is the necessary energy that was first'.

After a more careful reading, do my statements hold up to scrutiny? If not: why?

Tesla, you say:

You can determine it is 'apparent' that something can come from nothing, but literally nothing can come from literally nothing, and so because of what 'is' it came from 'something'. That something is 'existence' (necessary energy) which is necessary before anything can 'exist'.

What occurs in these sentences is curious... yes, I see I wasn't reading carefully enough, but there is a closed circle here. You identifying correctly that something can't come from nothing but then say that existence is necessary for anything to exist (???). This prior mono existence to my mind is nothing; hence the cause of my feeling that you are saying something (existent things) can come from nothing (mono existence). Existence, in my books, is composed exclusively of existent things.

We need to refer to something here:

(From Wiki on Plato's theory of forms)

Thus we read in the Symposium of the Form of Beauty: "It is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself," (211b). And in the Timaeus Plato writes: "Since these things are so, we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything anywhere, is one thing," (52a, emphasis added).

I think you need to consider your idea of existence being prior to existing things as being incorrect, or at least poor philosophy. I offer Plato here as a means of seeing that our ideas of mono existence/God are often religiously related to 'beginnings' of existence, but we cannot in fact discuss intelligibly the beginning of existence except when speaking of the beginnings of separate existent things because they are the only source of the abstract notion of 'pure forms'.

(So in the Timaeus Plato, he is not saying there is any dependancy between his 'one thing' and existing things. That is due to the fact that it is a notion, an idea, only).

[Tesla]

You can't go around saying things like something can come out of nothing or that existence came before energy. These statements won't withstand scrutiny.

I didn't. Read more carefully. Note: 'Apparently' and note 'Existence is the necessary energy that was first'.

After a more careful reading, do my statements hold up to scrutiny? If not: why?

Tesla, you say:

You can determine it is 'apparent' that something can come from nothing, but literally nothing can come from literally nothing, and so because of what 'is' it came from 'something'. That something is 'existence' (necessary energy) which is necessary before anything can 'exist'.

What occurs in these sentences is curious... yes, I see I wasn't reading carefully enough, but there is a closed circle here. You identifying correctly that something can't come from nothing but then say that existence is necessary for anything to exist (???). This prior mono existence to my mind is nothing; hence the cause of my feeling that you are saying something (existent things) can come from nothing (mono existence). Existence, in my books, is composed exclusively of existent things.

We need to refer to something here:

(From Wiki on Plato's theory of forms)

Thus we read in the Symposium of the Form of Beauty: "It is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself," (211b). And in the Timaeus Plato writes: "Since these things are so, we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything anywhere, is one thing," (52a, emphasis added).

I think you need to consider your idea of existence being prior to existing things as being incorrect, or at least poor philosophy. I offer Plato here as a means of seeing that our ideas of mono existence/God are often religiously related to 'beginnings' of existence, but we cannot in fact discuss intelligibly the beginning of existence except when speaking of the beginnings of separate existent things because they are the only source of the abstract notion of 'pure forms'.

(So in the Timaeus Plato, he is not saying there is any dependancy between his 'one thing' and existing things. That is due to the fact that it is a notion, an idea, only).

beautiful argument! but...you missed something. I was not referring to the beginning of existence. I was referring to existence itself. existence is the noun for which all things that exist are a part of. and as you correctly point out: it is the first thing, and cannot have a start--it in itself--is the starting point.

see?

That something is 'existence' (necessary energy) which is necessary before anything can 'exist'.

take a sheet of paper. label it existence. now make a dot on it. that dot is all of what we know of our universe and existing things. everything beyond the dot is unlimited possibilities.

[Bernard]

Just to quote the thread starter by Firebird through which to respond:

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

So where we are at, I think, is that these quantitive ideas are not real in terms of being existent phenomena except as logical constructs. I disagree that infinity is quantitive. Indeed, I would say it is qualitative, not as noun but as experiential.

The existence you posit is only quantitative (quantity of 1) and therefore essentially unreal, though highly logical. It is then as you say a starting point, or middle and end point for cognitive function, but beyond that arena it is useless because there is no detectable end to existing things and therefore cannot be quantified.

[Tesla]

Just to quote the thread starter by Firebird through which to respond:

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

So where we are at, I think, is that these quantitive ideas are not real in terms of being existent phenomena except as logical constructs. I disagree that infinity is quantitive. Indeed, I would say it is qualitative, not as noun but as experiential.

The existence you posit is only quantitative (quantity of 1) and therefore essentially unreal, though highly logical. It is then as you say a starting point, or middle and end point for cognitive function, but beyond that arena it is useless because there is no detectable end to existing things and therefore cannot be quantified.

1 Whole is =1 (which is equal to 'all') all is 1/1 = 1

it cannot be measured.

[Bernard]

What logical object can be truly measured when measurement itself is just a necessary way of coping and creating descriptors? Philosophies and religions talk of the all, the unity, the absolute but none of this is essentially real. Where does a whole, a one, an all, a God begin and end? Existence is immeasurable, we are immeasurable, isn't that the sanest starting point, rather than a logistic such as 'one' or 'God' or 'existence'?

[Tesla]

What logical object can be truly measured when measurement itself is just a necessary way of coping and creating descriptors? Philosophies and religions talk of the all, the unity, the absolute but none of this is essentially real. Where does a whole, a one, an all, a God begin and end? Existence is immeasurable, we are immeasurable, isn't that the sanest starting point, rather than a logistic such as 'one' or 'God' or 'existence'?

No. because it suggest cynicism. A whole is the sum of its parts.

[tillingborn]

I explained to you my experience to give you insight as to what could happen if you gave up dogmatism to look for 'truth': which is only possible if you entertain the prospect you are wrong.

How does 'truth' differ from dogmatism? Do you know Plato's joke about Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi? (For anyone who doesn't, the gist is that Socrates, in his pursuit of wisdom, asks the Oracle who is the wisest person. The Oracle replies, 'You are.' 'How can that be?' Says Socrates, 'I know I know nothing.' 'Yup!' Says the Oracle, 'That's what makes you wise.')

[Bernard]

What logical object can be truly measured when measurement itself is just a necessary way of coping and creating descriptors? Philosophies and religions talk of the all, the unity, the absolute but none of this is essentially real. Where does a whole, a one, an all, a God begin and end? Existence is immeasurable, we are immeasurable, isn't that the sanest starting point, rather than a logistic such as 'one' or 'God' or 'existence'?

No. because it suggest cynicism. A whole is the sum of its parts.

Agreed. So what is the point?

I am not cynical if I acknowledge what is really out there: infinity, impersonal, alive beyond imagination.

Don't reject a greater sanity for sake of a comfy, familiar but lesser one.

[Tesla]

I explained to you my experience to give you insight as to what could happen if you gave up dogmatism to look for 'truth': which is only possible if you entertain the prospect you are wrong.

How does 'truth' differ from dogmatism? Do you know Plato's joke about Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi? (For anyone who doesn't, the gist is that Socrates, in his pursuit of wisdom, asks the Oracle who is the wisest person. The Oracle replies, 'You are.' 'How can that be?' Says Socrates, 'I know I know nothing.' 'Yup!' Says the Oracle, 'That's what makes you wise.')

Truth and dogmatism are two different words for very good reason. Acknowledging ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, but to accept that because ignorance will always be a part of your life means to stop all growth would be very foolish.

Learn what you can. For an aid to life: the better the guide, the better the decisions, the better the decisions: the better the life. You are your guide. Everyone else is information. (Not explicitly so, but concerning knowledge of living)