Llyricist

Guttersnipe,

Fair enough

I'd just like to say that Unum just described the only deity that I would believe in

And though it is consistent with most people's idea of atheism, it does have another name.

Unum

Thank you. It's good to be here. However, I do not consider myself a pantheist, nor a theist, nor atheist. I believe in everything, therefore I believe in all of these things.

I don't see a problem with this. The One entity to truly be One, encompasses all things. If the universe is encompasses by the multi-verse, then the One is the multi-verse. If the multi-verse is actually encompassed by something else, then the One is this something else, ad infinitum. The One is the final parent. I used the term universe as it seems to be the currently accepted term for something that encompasses everything. The definition for universe at m-w.com states "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated". If this is the accepted definition I don't see how the multi-verse would not be contained within the universe as universe includes even things postulated (which the multi-verse is). Either way, the One would be both the universe and the multi-verse.

I agree, it cannot be proven. Nor can anything if you think of it. It always ends up in an infinite regression. I guess this is where we all have faith.

Peace,

Unum

Synaesthesia

So, hrm, by most logics..

(X AND ~X) --imply--> Y

So if your theory is totally true and totally false at the same time, pink donkeys fly with the horses to the pink moon every saturday while visible in the night sky all over the world.

Unum

I consider reality to be that which my mind relays to me from the sensory input I receive. I am unable to prove this reality to others because I have no idea if they sense exactly what I sense. Does this answer your questions?

Circularity also occurs when we use the thing being measured to do the measuring. To define the concept of words requires you to use the concept of words. I do not know what the concept of words means until it is defined, yet to define it requires you to use the concept which means I must already know the concept to understand the definition.

Are you certain that a city is not aware of itself? Are you aware of yourself and the part you play in the city? If you consider yourself to be aware, then it stands to reason that this city is aware as you are a part of it.

Of course it's not incompatible with atheism as it includes atheism within it. However, it also includes theism within it as well. It is the entity that unifies all things into the singular. The entity that I am speaking of is everything, so it is the creator and the creation. God, Allah, The Tao, the universe, etc. are some of the many names that have been posited for this entity. None of them are entirely correct, yet at the same time none of them are entirely incorrect either.

Peace,

Unum

Guttersnipe

Am I certain? No, there is very little of which I can honestly say that. However, the question is not one of certainty but rather of sufficient reason (or perhaps semantics). You seem to think that an entity (such as the city) must possess all properties of its individual components. If that were true, then I must be both conscious (incorrigible) and not conscious (like my liver). But I cannot logically possess both of these properties -- my being conscious rules out the possibility of me being unconscious, or vice versa. So it must not be true that I possess all of the properties of my parts.
As I see it, you have two paths here. 1)Deny the law of non-contradiction. 2)Insead of saying that there is one entity that possesses all properties, make the more plausible claim that there is one entity (the universe) which has many parts with many different properties. The latter path avoids consistency problems because it does not attempt to conjoin inconsistent properties. Here is another example of what happens when we do attempt to do such: There are two squirrels - one fat, one skinny. Therefore, the One entity is a squirrel which is fatter than itself.

K

Unum:

This drastically reduces the significance of your One. Nothing is really being said about the absolute truth of the One if it is all false at the same time that it is all true. What is there possibly to gain by saying that the universe contains all things that are true and all things that are false? So what. The One buys us nothing over the standard concept of the universe.

Aerion

Unum,

I think your argument is in a way valid in that we can say that human entities all live on a planet entity which lives in a solar system entity on and on until you get to the universe.

Nonetheless, this does not prove the existance of a supreme being.

This does remind me that at one time we believed the smallest particle of matter was a molecule. Since then we've taken this down a number of levels. I wonder if we will one day learn that there are progressively bigger entities than clusters or even universe.

Unum

Yes, this happens now as you have just spoken it into existence. I have no way of knowing if things that do not exist can cause an effect on me. However, I do know that things that do exist can. Your statement caused an effect when I read it, in other words it had energy and likewise power, therefore I assume it exists.

I never claimed that this entity that I try to speak of is an easy concept to grasp. In fact, I don't believe it can be grasped. The moment I think I have it, is the exact same moment it has slipped through my fingers.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

Until we know everything, is there anything we can be absolutely certaion of?

The greater entity is the individual components. If the individual components have a property, than the greater entity has that property.

Is logic logical? Can you prove it using logic?

I don't have to pick one, as I will pick both of them. The law of non-contradiction rules out dualities, yet dualities are inherent in nature. How can something both be one and many at the same time? How can something both be everything and nothing at the same time? How can something both be infinite and finite at the same time? A circle is both infinite and finite. There is no beginning nor end to the circle, only a relative beginning and end. Yet, I can still consider it to be one circle. It's illogical, yet it is what it is. Maybe we need a new law of logic to account for these things.

Not exactly. The entity would not become a squirrel, but two squirrels.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

It is the only thing that is significant as it is the only thing there is.

This is purely a matter of perspective. What is true and what is false? Personally, I see nothing that is false, therefore this entity is all truth to me. It very well could be true and false to others. However, this would still be included in this entity as to be everything it must include both the true and false, as well as the logical and illogical.

There is nothing to gain and nothing to lose as well as everything to gain and everything to lose. What do you see that is true and what do you see that is false?

The One does not buy us anything nor does it cost us anything either. It just is. When most people think of the universe, they don't think of it as being conscious nor able to help them in any way. This One entity that I speak of however is conscious (if I am conscious) and can help people (If I can help people). It's all a different persepective of looking at the things around you.

Peace,

Unum