The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

[OPTIONAL777]

But undo itself and not undue itself doesn't make sense on any level.

Which is it? Undo or undue?

LOL!!!

Anyway, from the perspective of spot existence and time and space, from dualistic relativity based logic, of course it won't make sense.

I understand your materialistic logic...and I don't argue that it is true on its own level, just as Newtonian physics is true from its level, as Quantum physics is true on its own level...but they are levels, separate levels...where what I am talking about is not a partial separate value or level, it is beyond the triviality of partial and/or separate values.

Dualistic logic, material logic follows the rules of material existence and dualism...no argument there.

The argument is that wholeness is not subject to the rules of partial limited logic...

Quote from PatternRec:

Not limited by time or space... Ok, can't argue that as that would be a prerequisite for being the greatest power.

But undo itself and not undue itself doesn't make sense on any level. Not even philosophical. It's not even paradoxical.

Granted, you're allowed to make stuff up with the use of your imagination. But like how you want atheists to realize their limits, it's time you realize the functional limits of your own imagination.



One molecule cannot. So unless you are postulating many gods as part of a totality which makes up altogether one god, it would make no sense.



Sorry if we admit that our imagination is just that, our imagination. Imagination is a great and wonderful thing. But a mature mind knows that reality and imagination to two mutually exclusive things until what was imagined is made manifest.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

The argument is that wholeness is not subject to the rules of partial limited logic...

Fair enough. Now if you would be so kind as to diagram the rules of logic concerning what you define as wholeness so that anyone, using your rules, can come to the same conclusions or even better conclusions.

Think of it as peer review.

Or should you be allowed to say virtually anything and then default to "faith" as the key to understanding? Surely, even the rudiments of the object of faith must have a foundation in "material logic" in order to begin to even contemplate it.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Start with the rule that it is both raining and not raining at the same time...

Then go to the rule that God can both create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it, and that He can lift it simultaneously.

Then go to the rule that God exists at all spaces and all times, exists at no particular time at no particular place, and also exists at no space at no time simultaneously.

Then you can explain how the 4 primary forces exist within the boundaries of the universe at all times and all places...now that one should be easy to do...

Next explain how the principles of mathematics don't depend on material existence for their existence or truth...

Next explain the concept of infinity without introducing the concept of finite, or not finite...

Quote from PatternRec:

Fair enough. Now if you would be so kind as to diagram the rules of logic concerning what you define as wholeness so that anyone, using your rules, can come to the same conclusions or even better conclusions.

Think of it as peer review.

Or should you be allowed to say virtually anything and then default to "faith" as the key to understanding? Surely, even the rudiments of the object of faith must have a foundation in "material logic" in order to begin to even contemplate it.

 

[I am...]

Quote from killthesunshine:

it's more reliable to describe inside the box when your actually "inside the box" think outside the box but be sure you test your musings against the real world

By calling it " the real world" instead of *what you see* you are prejudicing your judgment in favor of what's inside the box.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Start with the rule that it is both raining and not raining at the same time...

Then go to the rule that God can both create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it, and that He can lift it simultaneously.

Then go to the rule that God exists at all spaces and all times, exists at no particular time at no particular place, and also exists at no space at no time simultaneously.

Then you can explain how the 4 primary forces exist within the boundaries of the universe at all times and all places...now that one should be easy to do...

Next explain how the principles of mathematics don't depend on material existence for their existence or truth...

Next explain the concept of infinity without introducing the concept of finite, or not finite...

Of course you realize that this needs further explaining. In it's present form it is completely nonsensical.

For instance, I can envision a scenario where it is both raining and not raining at the same time. For instance, it is raining in New York but not raining in Washington DC at the same time. But I can't look out my window and come to a conclusion that the rain that is falling is falling and not falling at the same time.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

It is nonsensical to you because you are applying the rules of relativistic material logic...

You asked about the rules for what I am talking about...and you judge them by the rules of materialistic relativistic logic (which I don't argue as real for the level of a dualistic materialistic physical existence...but not applicable to what I am discussing...in the same way that classical Newtonian rules don't apply to a Quantum level phenomena).

Quote from PatternRec:

Of course you realize that this needs further explaining. In it's present form it is completely nonsensical.

For instance, I can envision a scenario where it is both raining and not raining at the same time. For instance, it is raining in New York but not raining in Washington DC at the same time. But I can't look out my window and come to a conclusion that the rain that is falling is falling and not falling at the same time.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

It is nonsensical to you because you are applying the rules of relativistic material logic...

You asked about the rules for what I am talking about...and you judge them by the rules of materialistic relativistic logic (which I don't argue as real for the level of a dualistic materialistic physical existence...but not applicable to what I am discussing...in the same way that classical Newtonian rules don't apply to a Quantum level phenomena).

Though, Newtonian physics and mechanics rules are foundational to understanding quantum level phenomena and mechanics. You can't go into quantum physics without fully understanding Newtonian physics.

So you will need to "build us up" to your understanding. You're starting at the top with no foundation. The problem is, you're trying to separate material logic from whatever you call the logic dealing with whatever you are imagining. Yet you are still using concepts for which material logic applies.

So you will need to define an intermediate step between material logic and the logic that best applies to your idea of whatever it is you believe.

Otherwise, it's just nonsensical and vain babbling meant to make you seem "enlightened."

 

[OPTIONAL777]

You have to understand the concept of finite to even begin to grasp the concept of infinite...even though there is nothing that is physically infinite. Finite is a property of the physical components of the universe.

Does that mean that finite properties are subject to the same rules and/or laws as that which is infinite?

Do the rules of mathematics demand following the rules of material existence? If the material existence vanished, would the rules of material existence vanish? Would the rules of mathematics vanish?

Nope...

Think of something simply...there is a concept of legal...meaning to follow the legal statutes...and there is a concept of not legal...meaning to not follow those same rules. Now imagine where there are no rules at all. Action would not be legal, nor illegal...they would just be actions.

Materialistic relativistic logic applies to that which is material, spot existence, following the laws of time and space...and that which is not material (Divine) doesn't follow the same laws nor is it bound by those laws...

Oh, and there isn't a single person who doesn't use the concept of finite to explain infinite. So just because someone uses the concepts of materialistic relativistic logic to discuss the concept of something infinite...doesn't mean that the concept of infinite is unintelligible.

Sorry...but you are applying limited thinking to something that is not limited...and your confusion will remain until that time when you can think beyond those limits...

Quote from PatternRec:

Though, Newtonian physics and mechanics rules are foundational to understanding quantum level phenomena and mechanics. You can't go into quantum physics without fully understanding Newtonian physics.

So you will need to "build us up" to your understanding. You're starting at the top with no foundation. The problem is, you're trying to separate material logic from whatever you call the logic dealing with whatever you are imagining. Yet you are still using concepts for which material logic applies.

So you will need to define an intermediate step between material logic and the logic that best applies to your idea of whatever it is you believe.

Otherwise, it's just nonsensical and vain babbling meant to make you seem "enlightened."

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You have to understand the concept of finite to even begin to grasp the concept of infinite...

Does that mean they are subject to the same rules and/or laws?

Nope...

Says you. Now you are obligated to prove that they are not subject to the same laws.

Think of something simply...there is a concept of legal...meaning to follow the legal statutes...and there is a concept of not legal...meaning to not follow those same rules.

Not legal doesn't mean not following the legal laws. It means willfully or ignorantly not following the laws all the while being made subject to them. As in ignorance is no excuse of the law. I can't offer as a defense that I am simply following the concept of not legal as if my being a devotee of not legal should excuse me from what is legal.

Materialistic relativistic logic applies to that which is material, spot existence, following the laws of time and space...and that which is not material (Divine) doesn't follow the same laws nor is it bound by those laws...

Again, because you say so. But what is the proof that they are mutually exclusive at all times? Especially considering your thoughts on totality which encompasses material existence?

You have a lot of work to do if you expect to be taken seriously.

Or to be taken with respect, to some degree, a simple, well I believe this to be the case though I can't prove it will do the trick.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Infinite=not finite.

Finite subject to time and space.

Infinite not subject to time and space.

There are an infinite number of points on a limited line.

How is that possible if the limited line is subject to the rules of time and space?

It is because the conceptual point has no size, it only has a conceptual size.

In fact, the concept of size is not actually relevant to the concept of of points on a line.

I repeat, you are stuck in classic materialistic relativistic logic, and naturally confused about that which is not material or existing in relation to something it is not.

You want to apply the rules of materialistic logic (science of parts, time, and space...and the relation of those parts to each other) to that which is a whole value beyond the rules of time and space...

Now who is being nonsensical?

LOL!!!

Quote from PatternRec:



Says you. Now you are obligated to prove that they are not subject to the same laws.

[/b]

Not legal doesn't mean not following the legal laws. It means willfully or ignorantly not following the laws all the while being made subject to them. As in ignorance is no excuse of the law. I can't offer as a defense that I am simply following the concept of not legal as if my being a devotee of not legal should excuse me from what is legal.



Again, because you say so. But what is the proof that they are mutually exclusive at all times? Especially considering your thoughts on totality which encompasses material existence?

You have a lot of work to do if you expect to be taken seriously.

Or to be taken with respect, to some degree, a simple, well I believe this to be the case though I can't prove it will do the trick. [/B]