The Final Truth, a Theory of Everything

[ken]

You begin with the definition of God. That implies that the existence of God is indisputable.

I could begin with the definition of Ati. But, that does NOT imply that the existence of Ati is indisputable. You could with evidence and proof dispute the existence of Ati, successfully. What is needed first, before any thing could be proven to exist or not exist, is an agreement on the definition.

By the way human beings are able to, and have know to, dispute any and everything, even the Truth, but that does not mean they can do it properly nor successfully.

I find it hilarious that for thousands upon thousands of years human beings have been disputing whether God exists or not, but in all that time have forgotten to define what 'It' is exactly.

Where have you proved the existence of God?

Can you say, 'I exist, without lying?

If so, then 'I' exist.

If, and when, 'you' discover/realize who 'I' am, then 'you' will know.



Also, I have questioned you previously about what proof would it take?

'Proof' can not be seen and recognized if there is a belief that there is none nor that there could be any.

Sorry. I did not know you were jmaf6556.

And yeah, just give any proof. We will see if it is enough or not once you give it.

I never said there was any, yet. I have just questioned you about what do you need.

And yeah, do you believe that there ever could be any proof?

[sthitapragya]

I never said there was any, yet. I have just questioned you about what do you need.

And yeah, do you believe that there ever could be any proof?

I don't need anything. This is a forum for debate. When anyone puts forth a premise, they are expected to give proof of it. That is it. If someone starts with a premise, "God exists" they are first supposed to prove his existence. How they prove it is their business, not mine.

If, however, you are asking me personally, then yes, if God exists there must be proof of his existence. That is just how reality works.

I also don't understand why you are arguing for jmaf6556. My question to prove the existence of God was directed at him, not you. So why are you replying on his behalf? You and I had agreed that we should not be arguing because neither understands what the other is saying.

[jmaf6556]

Dalek, I'd say I haven't infused the spiral with meaning, in a way it's the other way around, rather I've used the spiral to explain the Truth mathematically, the spiral is a means to an end and is secondary to the pre-existing Truth it explains.

Sthitapragya, I find myself explaining this often, it's as Ken said, actually I haven't assumed the existence of any God, and certainly not that of a preconceived anthropomorphic being. What I've really done is used the word "God" as one description of the objective being, along with other descriptions such as "the Self", "the Heart", etc. I'm providing a definition of "God", see the "Self-Knowledge..." section of my site for the definitions, I'm not proving the existence of some preconceived concept of "God", the meaning of "God" is so subjective.

Ken, I agree with your answer to sthitapragya's question, it seems that you might understand the meaning of my post, and self-inquiry/jnana yoga as a whole . Regarding your question, it was a long and hard journey to figure out this spiral explanation in which everything including the mathematical explanation of God and peace and love clicks and makes sense, the idea of a spiral was given to me by Spirit, my part was to clarify the direction of progression as being towards the origin, the type of spiral as being logarithmic, and the significance of the two qualities of zero amplitude and infinity frequency. It's an original idea, I haven't seen it anywhere else, so I'm doing all I can to get it out to more people, because I think it provides profound spiritual understanding. For one thing it provides a mathematical answer to the whole Advaita/Dvaita debate.

[sthitapragya]

Sthitapragya, I find myself explaining this often, it's as Ken said, actually I haven't assumed the existence of any God, and certainly not that of a preconceived anthropomorphic being. What I've really done is used the word "God" as one description of the objective being, along with other descriptions such as "the Self", "the Heart", etc. I'm providing a definition of "God", see the "Self-Knowledge..." section of my site for the definitions, I'm not proving the existence of some preconceived concept of "God", the meaning of "God" is so subjective.

But that is the whole point. There is nothing so far that we know of that suggests there is a self other than the brain and body. The heart as far as we know is a vital organ and has no ability to think or feel. Do you have any data or evidence which shows that there is a self independent of the brain and body?

Also what is this objective being that you talk about?

I don't see any self knowledge section in your site. But I did see this:

God:
The one supreme being
The one universal spirit
The one true Self of all
Who is
Who we really are
The Heart
The origin and source of life energy, intuition, and conscience
The essence of all things
Consciousness
Awareness
The present moment
The Truth
Reality
The absolute

Which of the above is God? The one supreme being? Do you have anything to suggests that such a one exists? Or of the existence of the one universal spirit? etc etc.

[jmaf6556]

I think the existence of at least some of these definitions I've given is self-evident:

The one supreme being
The one universal spirit
The one true Self of all
Who is
Who we really are
The Heart
The origin and source of life energy, intuition, and conscience
The essence of all things
Consciousness
Awareness
The present moment
The Truth
Reality
The absolute

And again, what matters is that which these words are pointing to, not the words themselves, since people might poke holes in word choices such as "Self" and "Heart" too. By "Heart" I don't mean the physical organ, I mean the heart of your soul, the source of love, like the origin of a logarithmic spiral. This reminds me of the popular piano song, "Heart and Soul".

[sthitapragya]

I think the existence of at least some of these definitions I've given is self-evident:

The one supreme being
The one universal spirit
The one true Self of all
Who is
Who we really are
The Heart
The origin and source of life energy, intuition, and conscience
The essence of all things
Consciousness
Awareness
The present moment
The Truth
Reality
The absolute

And again, what matters is that which these words are pointing to, not the words themselves, since people might poke holes in word choices such as "Self" and "Heart" too. By "Heart" I don't mean the physical organ, I mean the heart of your soul, the source of love, like the origin of a logarithmic spiral. This reminds me of the popular piano song, "Heart and Soul".

Not really. There is no evidence of the existence of the soul. Awareness exists. But it is not evidence of the existence of the universal self. So does consciousness. But what is the correlation of the existence of the heart, awareness or consciousness with anything else? The source of love is hormones.

There are so many assumptions you make here without evidence: the soul, the absolute, the Truth, the source of love, the one true self of all. Do you have any evidence that these exist?

Forget evidence. What is your logic for their existence?

[jmaf6556]

Self-Knowledge is simply knowing that your true identity is the universal spirit, which is one of the purposes of the section you're quoting. What's the proof, well what's the proof of any piece of knowledge, I suppose upon investigation it just becomes clear. How do I prove to a person whose eyes are closed that the sky is blue, it's best if they open their eyes and check for themselves.

God is simply another word I think is appropriate to describe the objective existence that all the other phrases point towards. The reason is that God is thought of as the absolute being, which the existence I'm describing is, like the origin of a logarithmic spiral, it's one and absolute.

[sthitapragya]

Self-Knowledge is simply knowing that your true identity is the universal spirit, which is one of the purposes of the section you're quoting. What's the proof, well what's the proof of any piece of knowledge, I suppose upon investigation it just becomes clear. How do I prove to a person whose eyes are closed that the sky is blue, it's best if they open their eyes and check for themselves.

God is simply another word I think is appropriate to describe the objective existence that all the other phrases point towards. The reason is that God is thought of as the absolute being, which the existence I'm describing is, like the origin of a logarithmic spiral, it's one and absolute.

See now you are using the age old excuse. Open your eyes. That is not how you debate in a philosophy forum. I think you need to open your eyes. I don't point it out to you in a debate because that is not how it is done. Has it occurred to you that upon investigation, everything you say has been concluded as hogwash by me?

What objective existence which phases point towards? What ever God might be thought of as, if you want to do philosophy, you need to show your logic behind agreeing with it. Otherwise, you should find a theology site and put up your ideas there. But on a philosophy forum, you have to get logic or evidence with you.

[jmaf6556]

I suppose part of the evidence is personal experience, there is a feeling aspect to all of this, I'm not arguing for the existence of these metaphysical entities as much as I am using words to point to something I think most people experience.

For evidence of the soul, research reincarnation, I think many scientifically-minded people are becoming more open to the idea based on evidence found through certain children. I seem to remember there being some good articles on Collective Evolution: http://www.collective-evolution.com/

For a logical explanation of the existence of a soul, I'll suggest thinking of how people say we're composed of soul, mind, and body. Or the expression that someone's "feelings were hurt". You might enjoy the section "The Elements and Theory of Evolution" on my site, which also discusses our various layers of energy bodies, including the underlying spirit: https://sites.google.com/site/jmaf6556/ ... al-healing

[sthitapragya]

I suppose part of the evidence is personal experience, there is a feeling aspect to all of this, I'm not arguing for the existence of these metaphysical entities as much as I am using words to point to something I think most people experience.

For evidence of the soul, research reincarnation, I think many scientifically-minded people are becoming more open to the idea based on evidence found through certain children. I seem to remember there being some good articles on Collective Evolution: http://www.collective-evolution.com/

For a logical explanation of the existence of a soul, I'll suggest thinking of how people say we're composed of soul, mind, and body. Or the expression that someone's "feelings were hurt". You might enjoy the section "The Elements and Theory of Evolution" on my site, which also discusses our various layers of energy bodies, including the underlying spirit: https://sites.google.com/site/jmaf6556/ ... al-healing

Sorry. Evidence found through certain children is anecdotal. That is not proof of reincarnation.

Also what people say does not explain anything. There is nothing that suggests that we have anything other than a brain and a body. There is no evidence of a mind independent of the brain, nor is there any evidence of a soul. I would not read any section of your site which tries to interpret actual science because you seem to have no knowledge on the subject. There is no such thing as energy bodies or an underlying spirit. So no, Thank you. I think I am done. You really should try a theology site instead of a philosophy forum.

[jmaf6556]

I'm actually not here to prove anything to anyone. I'm here to share knowledge with people who might be interested in learning about it. You want me to find a proof for you of the existence of the soul, well this isn't exactly what I'm offering right now, I'm offering a mathematical explanation for people who have an interest in spirituality, philosophy (metaphysics), and math. I'm offering a theory, not a proof, like the Theory of Relativity, the theory comes first, experience and experiments determine its validity afterwards, the theory itself doesn't prove anything, it explains.

Pure awareness, which you referred to in a previous post, the unchanging being who's the subject of all experiences and whose identity remains constant throughout all changing life experiences, that's the underlying essence and spirit I'm talking about.

[ken]

I never said there was any, yet. I have just questioned you about what do you need.

And yeah, do you believe that there ever could be any proof?

I don't need anything.

Need any proof, I think you mean.

If a person says they do not need any thing, then they may also not want any thing.
However, if a person needs some things, then they must also want those things.
To continue living every person needs some things and thus also wants those things.

If you do not need any proof, then you may also not want any proof.
I have questioned you in relation to what kind of proof do you need for God to exist? You say you do not need anything [proof], so you may also not want proof that God exists.
So, now I will ask you, do you want proof that God exists?

This is a forum for debate.

Ah, now we are getting closer, and to where I was heading previously, but you refused to answer My clarifying questions. We are closer to showing others, that is, WHY you talk and discuss the way you do.

I do not see a philosophy website as a forum for debate. I see a philosophy website as a forum for 'arguing', logical reasoning, as a way to discovering or finding and seeing Truth. Debating is, by its very nature, the opposite of logical reasoning and finding and seeing Truth.

When anyone puts forth a premise, they are expected to give proof of it. That is it.

Does that include you? If it does, then every time I ask you clarifying questions in regards to your premise(s) I am ignored or just refused an answer. I can not even get answers to straight forward simple questions out of you, let alone any proof.

If someone starts with a premise, "God exists" they are first supposed to prove his existence.

Do you realize or you do not realize that it is just about an impossibility to prove anything to a person who believes otherwise?

Also, believing God is a 'he' makes it even harder to start to prove God's existence.

Having beliefs has an effect on evidence, thus prove, and Truth. But some will believe otherwise.

How they prove it is their business, not mine.

You are right in that how a person proves anything is up to that person. But also, how open another person is to be able to see that proof is also up that other person. How receptive a person is depends on the beliefs they already have and hold. The more beliefs one has, the less open they are.

An open perspective is needed prior to being able to see and find seemingly, relatively "new" Truth.

If, however, you are asking me personally, then yes, if God exists there must be proof of his existence. That is just how reality works.

That may be one of the most obvious statements I have read for a while.

Just like if Ati exists, then there must be proof of Its existence. It just obviously logically follows that if anything exists, then there must be proof of it.

But, before the proof of God's existence can and will be shown and seen, do you believe God could exist?

WHY do you insist God is a 'he', by the way?

[sthitapragya]

I never said there was any, yet. I have just questioned you about what do you need.

And yeah, do you believe that there ever could be any proof?

I don't need anything.

Need any proof, I think you mean.

If a person says they do not need any thing, then they may also not want any thing.
However, if a person needs some things, then they must also want those things.
To continue living every person needs some things and thus also wants those things.

If you do not need any proof, then you may also not want any proof.
I have questioned you in relation to what kind of proof do you need for God to exist? You say you do not need anything [proof], so you may also not want proof that God exists.
So, now I will ask you, do you want proof that God exists?

This is a forum for debate.

Ah, now we are getting closer, and to where I was heading previously, but you refused to answer My clarifying questions. We are closer to showing others, that is, WHY you talk and discuss the way you do.

I do not see a philosophy website as a forum for debate. I see a philosophy website as a forum for 'arguing', logical reasoning, as a way to discovering or finding and seeing Truth. Debating is, by its very nature, the opposite of logical reasoning and finding and seeing Truth.

When anyone puts forth a premise, they are expected to give proof of it. That is it.

Does that include you? If it does, then every time I ask you clarifying questions in regards to your premise(s) I am ignored or just refused an answer. I can not even get answers to straight forward simple questions out of you, let alone any proof.

If someone starts with a premise, "God exists" they are first supposed to prove his existence.

Do you realize or you do not realize that it is just about an impossibility to prove anything to a person who believes otherwise?

Also, believing God is a 'he' makes it even harder to start to prove God's existence.

Having beliefs has an effect on evidence, thus prove, and Truth. But some will believe otherwise.

How they prove it is their business, not mine.

You are right in that how a person proves anything is up to that person. But also, how open another person is to be able to see that proof is also up that other person. How receptive a person is depends on the beliefs they already have and hold. The more beliefs one has, the less open they are.

An open perspective is needed prior to being able to see and find seemingly, relatively "new" Truth.

If, however, you are asking me personally, then yes, if God exists there must be proof of his existence. That is just how reality works.

That may be one of the most obvious statements I have read for a while.

Just like if Ati exists, then there must be proof of Its existence. It just obviously logically follows that if anything exists, then there must be proof of it.

But, before the proof of God's existence can and will be shown and seen, do you believe God could exist?

WHY do you insist God is a 'he', by the way?

Just let it go, dude. You win. I lose. I told you already. What the fuck do you want from me? Just ignore me.I honestly find your line of questioning very infantile. And I cannot deal with you. You will always win.

[ken]

I don't need anything.

Need any proof, I think you mean.

If a person says they do not need any thing, then they may also not want any thing.
However, if a person needs some things, then they must also want those things.
To continue living every person needs some things and thus also wants those things.

If you do not need any proof, then you may also not want any proof.
I have questioned you in relation to what kind of proof do you need for God to exist? You say you do not need anything [proof], so you may also not want proof that God exists.
So, now I will ask you, do you want proof that God exists?

This is a forum for debate.

Ah, now we are getting closer, and to where I was heading previously, but you refused to answer My clarifying questions. We are closer to showing others, that is, WHY you talk and discuss the way you do.

I do not see a philosophy website as a forum for debate. I see a philosophy website as a forum for 'arguing', logical reasoning, as a way to discovering or finding and seeing Truth. Debating is, by its very nature, the opposite of logical reasoning and finding and seeing Truth.

When anyone puts forth a premise, they are expected to give proof of it. That is it.

Does that include you? If it does, then every time I ask you clarifying questions in regards to your premise(s) I am ignored or just refused an answer. I can not even get answers to straight forward simple questions out of you, let alone any proof.

If someone starts with a premise, "God exists" they are first supposed to prove his existence.

Do you realize or you do not realize that it is just about an impossibility to prove anything to a person who believes otherwise?

Also, believing God is a 'he' makes it even harder to start to prove God's existence.

Having beliefs has an effect on evidence, thus prove, and Truth. But some will believe otherwise.

How they prove it is their business, not mine.

You are right in that how a person proves anything is up to that person. But also, how open another person is to be able to see that proof is also up that other person. How receptive a person is depends on the beliefs they already have and hold. The more beliefs one has, the less open they are.

An open perspective is needed prior to being able to see and find seemingly, relatively "new" Truth.

If, however, you are asking me personally, then yes, if God exists there must be proof of his existence. That is just how reality works.

That may be one of the most obvious statements I have read for a while.

Just like if Ati exists, then there must be proof of Its existence. It just obviously logically follows that if anything exists, then there must be proof of it.

But, before the proof of God's existence can and will be shown and seen, do you believe God could exist?

WHY do you insist God is a 'he', by the way?

Just let it go, dude. You win. I lose. I told you already. What the fuck do you want from me? Just ignore me.I honestly find your line of questioning very infantile. And I cannot deal with you. You will always win.

Just let WHAT, exactly, go?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is no win or lose here. Just some are becoming wiser.

Do you want me to stop questioning you so that you can then say and claim whatever you like?

What I want from you is to answer some very simple, infantile (if you like) questions in regards to your beliefs, claims and statements.

If you want Me to ignore you, then do not say things that ask for clarity, nor claim things without proof or evidence.

I have continually said I am only asking very, very simple straight forward [infantile] questions, so why are they so hard for you to answer? Could it may be because the truthful answers will, in of themselves, dispute what you so desperately want to believe and want to insist is true? If you can not answer, what you find very infantile questions, then what impression do you think you are providing others of your claims?

If I WILL always "win" just by asking questions, then imagine what else WILL happen when all the evidence and proof is noticed and seen for what it is within these writings? Just maybe, with the help you are providing here, I WILL have proved with evidence what I have already claimed. Actually maybe I WILL, with your help, achieved what I am actually creating right NOW?

[sthitapragya]

Need any proof, I think you mean.

If a person says they do not need any thing, then they may also not want any thing.
However, if a person needs some things, then they must also want those things.
To continue living every person needs some things and thus also wants those things.

If you do not need any proof, then you may also not want any proof.
I have questioned you in relation to what kind of proof do you need for God to exist? You say you do not need anything [proof], so you may also not want proof that God exists.
So, now I will ask you, do you want proof that God exists?



Ah, now we are getting closer, and to where I was heading previously, but you refused to answer My clarifying questions. We are closer to showing others, that is, WHY you talk and discuss the way you do.

I do not see a philosophy website as a forum for debate. I see a philosophy website as a forum for 'arguing', logical reasoning, as a way to discovering or finding and seeing Truth. Debating is, by its very nature, the opposite of logical reasoning and finding and seeing Truth.



Does that include you? If it does, then every time I ask you clarifying questions in regards to your premise(s) I am ignored or just refused an answer. I can not even get answers to straight forward simple questions out of you, let alone any proof.



Do you realize or you do not realize that it is just about an impossibility to prove anything to a person who believes otherwise?

Also, believing God is a 'he' makes it even harder to start to prove God's existence.

Having beliefs has an effect on evidence, thus prove, and Truth. But some will believe otherwise.



You are right in that how a person proves anything is up to that person. But also, how open another person is to be able to see that proof is also up that other person. How receptive a person is depends on the beliefs they already have and hold. The more beliefs one has, the less open they are.

An open perspective is needed prior to being able to see and find seemingly, relatively "new" Truth.



That may be one of the most obvious statements I have read for a while.

Just like if Ati exists, then there must be proof of Its existence. It just obviously logically follows that if anything exists, then there must be proof of it.

But, before the proof of God's existence can and will be shown and seen, do you believe God could exist?

WHY do you insist God is a 'he', by the way?

Just let it go, dude. You win. I lose. I told you already. What the fuck do you want from me? Just ignore me.I honestly find your line of questioning very infantile. And I cannot deal with you. You will always win.

Just let WHAT, exactly, go?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is no win or lose here. Just some are becoming wiser.

Do you want me to stop questioning you so that you can then say and claim whatever you like?

What I want from you is to answer some very simple, infantile (if you like) questions in regards to your beliefs, claims and statements.

If you want Me to ignore you, then do not say things that ask for clarity, nor claim things without proof or evidence.

I have continually said I am only asking very, very simple straight forward [infantile] questions, so why are they so hard for you to answer? Could it may be because the truthful answers will, in of themselves, dispute what you so desperately want to believe and want to insist is true? If you can not answer, what you find very infantile questions, then what impression do you think you are providing others of your claims?

If I WILL always "win" just by asking questions, then imagine what else WILL happen when all the evidence and proof is noticed and seen for what it is within these writings? Just maybe, with the help you are providing here, I WILL have proved with evidence what I have already claimed. Actually maybe I WILL, with your help, achieved what I am actually creating right NOW?

Wow. You are like a monitor lizard, aren't you? You just won't let go.