₦airaland Forum

^^^ By puristic materialism, i did not mean only a rejection of the existence of God, but also a rejection of ALL things non-material; cardinally in this case a rejection of the existence of one's own "spirit" or "spiritual purpose."

^^^ @ Joe: I feel that puristic materialism is the equivalent of death.

Maven what do you make of manifestly evil persons (i:e - Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, the late strongman of Ibadan Politics, or Babangida, or a particular Russian Oligarch who bought a premiership club) whose wealth creates jobs and hope for millions of families across the world?

Basically, do you think knowing God, or the grace of God has anything to do with wealth or particularly the function of spreading wealth and a livelihood to those who need it?

_{Just a question, as i personally believe in the Grace of God in all things.}

mazaje:
Will you stop this nonsense? When did the oneness of infinity make this declaration? . . . .

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello Nwankwo.

Many thanks for your reply. I want you to know that i genuinely appreciate the time you take to respond and the sincerity with which you do so.

Forgive me again. My motivation rests in the fact that i honestly believed my wandering had come to an end when i read the Grail Message. Let me also add that some of the scenes described in it regarding pure worship of God, and some of the sights i saw at the temple in Iju were exactly as i had seen in a dream beforehand several years ago.

That gave me an inner prompting that was very strong, towards being in fellowship at the temple.

You can thus imagine my pain when i came across a portion i knew i could not accept.

You did talk about radiations. Correct me if i am wrong, but the message describes -

1. A Part of God was Severed and anchored outside divinity at the summit of Creation. That Part = Parsifal

2. Parsifal's “radiations” are what incarnated on earth as Mr. Abd Rushin.

This suggests to me that through a process of radiation A PART OF GOD “was severed” and became Parsifal, who also radiated into becoming Mr. Abd Rushin the authour of the Grail Message. I feel that the inference that the authour is God is pretty clear.

This is underlined by the fact that the authour is said to be the “radiated incarnation” of Parsifal, who is said to be the Holy Spirit and part of the Trinity.

The phrase “a part of” does not create a distinction in my mind because as God is Divine and absolute, it is really inconceivable to select or imagine “parts” of HIM that are NOT HIM.

It is quite an oxymoron, in fact.

^^^ Have you ever asked yourself these questions:

   1. What if i am wrong?

   2. What if Jesus was only a human who preached positive values/

   3. What if indeed the talk about him being God or the son of God is not actually the case?

Do you realize it would mean that you have spent a lifetime dishonouring God by worshipping a human being, whereas God's express command was and remains - Worship I, the Lord God alone, and none other?

Have you reflected on the possibility that you may spend your life worshipping a fellow human being?

What if you are wrong?

JeSoul:
Rationality is absolutley central to faith, at least for me.

I will quote Nwankwo who said recently:
So infact I could not disagree more when you say this:
  What is true reason? PastorAIO has a thread on this topic. Am I being irrational to believe based on a spiritual experience? that cannot be translated into the physical?

  For example, I wasn't there when Jesus was cruficied. I didn't see the Romans beat him up or the Jews sell him out. There is no shred of physical evidence, no blood we can test or dna we can match to Jesus. But I believe it. Why? Because I have had experiences not of the physical, there is a undisputable assurance in my heart, and I have seen the words in the bible become true in my life when I followed it - that then becomes my proof to me, my evidence to me, that the bible is true and genuine. Still makes me irrational? to you maybe, but to me, its perfectly logical.

Unrealistic why? Perhaps you've been running into overzealous people of faith. I refrain from discussing biblical issues with non-christians for the simple fact I believe and the bible says that non-christians cannot and will not be able to grasp and understand many biblical teachings.

  I think one big problem is trying to solve an algebra equation using the forumla for a chemical reaction, trying to play basketball with your feet, or cook egusi soup using butter instead of palm oil. We should be seperating matters of the spiritual from matters of the physical. But we fast run into a roadblock, as many non-religionists refuse to accept anything that cannot be perceived by the physical senses.

I have absolutely no qualms with this, but just remember that exactly the same reasoning will stand in defence of the Hindu who worships Cows.

^^^ g1 - this post defines you clearly as an agnostic, and NOT AN ATHEIST.

SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR AGNOSTICS IN ABUJA - NOT ATHEISTS.

And this again affirms my proposition that most so-called atheists do not even know the meaning of atheism.

beneli:
Very informative write-up, pastor.

Regarding the issue of 'faith' and it's relationship with the 'Nous', i would suggest that some peoples 'faith' would actually equate more to the 'Nous', and not to the 'slavish adherence to dogmas or ideas set forth by others' that you mention, Deepsight.

Is 'faith', in Christian doctrines, for instance, not more about 'intuitively' apprehending the spiritual and the eternal? The definition given in Hebrews 11:1(NLT) of it being 'the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. The evidence of things we cannot yet see', sounds 'reasonably' 'Nous'-ish to me. But then that's my interpretation of the meaning of 'faith'.

It is not fair to say this.

You know very well that Christian faith extends to far more than the apocalypse or after-life: for these basic concepts are shared by most religions – Islam is even recorded to state that it is Isa (Jesus) who shall come again to judge the world.

Cardinally, Christian faith requires a BELIEF that Jesus of Nazareth’s DEATH ON THE CROSS serves as spiritual remission of sins.

It is very difficult to accept this in view of the fact that there is not a single Christian who has bought into that belief that can be said to be “free” from sin – they continue, predictably, in sin, and are judged accordingly on the “last day” which makes one wonder what the point of the sacrifice was, since all remain to be judged by their “sins” – just as was the case before the sacrifice.

Anyhow, the real reason I doubt that Christian faith springs from intuition is this – how come it is that 99% of Christians are people brought up in Christian homes? (Ditto for all religions).

If it was by intuition, Christians would be evenly scattered across the globe: unless you want to suggest to me that the intuition of people in southern Nigeria is better than that of Malaysians, for example.

This alone shows that what people are BROUGHT UP TO BELIEVE more often than not determines their “faith” and not intuition.

g1:
@ deep sight, it had nothing to do with islamic extremism, i have never come across an extremist , majority of my family are what i would call moderate muslims and about say 35% of family from my mothers side are well behaved christians, so i did not become an atheist because of the actions of some individuals or group, one of the first doubts that started to bother me about religion was the thought that anyone who did not belong of a certain faith will burn forever and ever no matter how good a person they were, so i constantaly wondered why my good christion friends and people in other faiths such as hindus will burn forever and ever just because they were born in the wrong family i.e just because they were not muslims, and it is the same for christianity too, that all the other muslims, jews and hindus too will burn forever and ever because they were not christians , so the idea of hell cast the first set of doubts in my mind, that led to other stages of doubt on other parts of religion,

This is okay, but you will agree that it hints at horrible religious dogma being one of the driving elements of your atheism. Religious dogma is indeed horrible, such as when certain people tell you that unless you believe in the judicial murder of a Jewish Carpenter then you are going to burn in hell. It baffles the mind that this is subscribed to by centuries of supposedly educated persons. But i want to point out that such dogma has nothing at all to do with the existence of God.

Views on what? Wealth?

I am currently striving to conclude a million-dollar project, but Jesus has assured me that the excessively rich may be materialistic and thus miss heaven. . .

_{Damn, i am goin to miss heaven. . .}

@ Poster - Why does anybody need to know about Jesus?

Is all tat he taught not (love of fellow man) written with a silver pen indelibly in the hearts and consciences of every sincere man?

Need we know the historical Jesus at all?

I hope this has nothing to do with God's private jets. . ._{oyedepo, adeboye & co}

So G1, TELL US WHAT LED YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

I hope its not islamic extremism that made you conclude that?

Pastor AIO:
I am a pastor. (Don't laugh)

I did not laugh, for i believe you to be eminently well suited to teach and impart deep things.

I would also have liked you to be a lecturer in a university on theology, history, culture, philosophy or some related subject.

What denomination, (or angle/type) if you dont mind my asking.

The notion of a Nous as a faculty for arriving at the truth was pretty much discarded and forgotten about. Truth was to be arrived at through the proper processes of Logic.

I still believe very strongly in intuition as an inner lamp that leads to truth, and that can proffer guidance.

The problem really is as indicated in your excellent write-up: faith has taken the place of the Nous for many people and faith itself is not to be equated with intuition necessarily; for faith very often indicates a slavish adherence to dogmas or ideas set forth by others: in which circumstances the faculty of intuition may be said to be dead.

But Hume took it further and gave an in-depth analysis of the Syllogistic process, now called reason, in what is known as the problem of Induction.  He questioned whether the fact that we know and have experienced something to behave a certain way means that it will always behave and has always behaved that way.  In the King of Siam's experience water always flowed.  He believed water to always be fluid.  So therefore his syllogistic reasons would go as follows:

Water always flows as liquid.

Europeans say water becomes solid.

therefore,

Europeans are liars.  

These the first two propositions are what we are informed with through our senses.  We see flowing water, and hear europeans telling us that water can be solid.  These perceptions are, according to Plato, not rational, but 'irrational sensation'.  So therefore according to Plato the inference that we arrive at, that europeans are liars, is only what is likely to be the case based on our experience.  
In other words the propositions on which we base what we call logic today is a product of our experiences and since we haven't experienced everything we are in no position to make absolute pronouncements about anything based on logic.
Hume went on further to say that: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."   In other words Reason is not equipped to seek out pure, absolute, unbiased Truth.  I would go further to say that the syllogistic process, known today as reason, is nothing more than a refinement of the brains ability to learn via the means of conditioned reflexes.

This is absolutely brilliant.

It really caused me to stop and think a bit about my deistic belief that certain truths can be inferred through basic logic.

I concluded (after a few seconds of reflection) that certain basic or elementary truths may be inferred: but compound truths requiring a compound knowledge may perhaps not be inferred for certain unless one is omniscient, as you have suggested above.

I give an example –

Question: IS Barack Obama a living thing?

Answer: Yes, because he has the characteristics of a living thing: Movement, Respiration, Nutrition, Growth, Reproduction and Death.

This is a logical answer. But it is based on our limited knowledge. It pertains to knowledge of the behaviour of physical living things only!

What if spiritual beings exist also on other planes outside the physical?

Based on our logic and the characteristics laid out above, such being may be said NOT to be living things as they may not for example share our features, such as Movement, Respiration, Nutrition, Growth, Reproduction or Death.

However a person who may have knowledge of such beings (if they do exist) may well declare our logic to be limited and leading in the direction of a falsity.

It is equally possible for another person to assert that neither Barack Obama nor any one of us are living things, but only relections of things living in other realms

Thus your point is secure and well founded.

What I would like to detract from it is this – Even though we may not deduce the compound truth, we may certainly deduce some basic elements which can certainly stand as true.

For example in the analogy I gave above, we can deduce, whether it be true that Barack Obama is alive or not, that –

1. There was an experience
2. It was called Barack Obama by some entities, shadowy or real
3. Some body (or something) calling himself Deep Sight is currently writing an example on a computer based on the “experience” called Barack Obama

Besides this I believe that observation by parties not present at the point of creation of something is evidence that –

1. The thing created exists
2. The person (or entity) that created it existed
3. The person viewing it exists

Let me give an example. The Pyramids in Egypt.

The fact that you can see them today shows clearly that –

1. The Pyramids are not the imagination of the people who built them. If they were, they would dissolve once those brains died.
2. The Pyramids are therefore real.
3. The Pyramids were there at a time when Deep Sight was not there.
4. Deep Sight looking at the pyramids today is accordingly not an imagination - Deep Sight is real.
5. The Pyramids would not be seen by Deep Sight if they were imagination of the makers only: accordingly the builders were not imaginary themselves: they existed.

Now even if it can be asserted that all of this is reflective existence only: it remains existence of a sort or the other.

I may be speaking mumbo jumbo, but the point I am trying to make is that some things can be deduced by logic for certain, even if not all things.

Pastor, a happy new year to you and yours.

May your shadow never grow shorter.

This looks interesting, Your field of interest appears vast and engaging.

Just out of curiousity - what do you do (occupation)?

@ OP - What does it matter?

I am certain that the only correct explanation that may be given of atheism is that it is a rejection of religion: or the image of God as given by religion - for NO MAN, bar NO ONE can ever claim that he does not regard his existence to have been caused by a factor (however described).

In that sense it is correct to state that 99% of atheists have misapprehended atheism altogether and should be rebranded as "anti-religionists."

Hi Nwankwo -

Many thanks for all your wise inputs always -

Apologies: but i will return to a subject hinted at above by another poster, which i have raised with you before.

At the very outset, i fear that the subject may displease or irritate you: and i earnestly tender sincere apologies in advance if this is the case: especially since this is not the first time i am raising it with you; you may justifiably feel that i am flogging a dead horse or being unnecessarily insistent.

You know very well my oft expressed aversion to the idea of the deification of any human being; and you are also aware that i regard Jesus of Nazareth, as a human being only: a vastly blessed and endowed human spirit, yes: but doubtless a human spirit only: in my own humble and possibly wrong view.

I am aware that human beings have the tendency to hero-worship - especially the oft repeated tendency throughout history to elevate spiritual or political leaders to the status of gods or God.

The Buddha, who is not recorded to have said a single word about God, or any gods for that matter, is nowadays worshipped as a God in most Buddhist societies, as people kneel before his statue in Prayer to Him. This for me is one of the best examples of the human tendency to deify: for the Buddha spoke of four noble truths which centre around detachment from material things - and this message was enough for hundreds of millions of people today and through history to regard him as God fitting for worship.

It therefore can hardly be surprising that the more passionate life of Jesus from Nazareth would evoke similar declarations of his being God or a deity: notwithstanding his several recorded proclamations to the contrary.

In this I am carefully aware that you have not (as yet) stated him to be God per se: but have stated him to be the Son of God. You have also stated the Holy Spirit to be a second son of God.

Given that I have detailed my concerns over the deity of Christ extensively on this forum, and stated clearly my perceptions of him (which may be wrong), I will leave Jesus aside for a moment.

I am aware, just as you are, that the second “Son of God” said to be the Holy Spirit is claimed by the Grail Message, to be Mr. Abd Ru Shin, the authour of the Grail Message.

This is the singular factor that has restrained me from any further steps towards becoming a Cross Bearer: for I possess a passionate and indissoluble revulsion against what I see as human claims to deity: and worse still: human claims to be the ultimate deity: God.

As I said earlier; I am aware that you have stated Abd Ru Shin to be a “Son of God” just like Jesus. I am aware that the Grail Message states that all of creation was made from the radiations from Abdrushin as he stood at the summit of Creation (as Parsifal) just outside the Divine Sphere.

1. This falls counter to the biblical suggestion that Creation was made through the word: i:e – Jesus Christ.

2. This seems to be an usurpation of the role scripturally credited to another entity – Jesus.

3. For all purposes from the human perspective: this equates Mr. Abd Ru Shin with God himself; or rather – presents him as the highest Manifestation of God that can ever be seen.

I am at odds that the doctrine of the Trinity is preached by the Grail Message with Mr. Abd Rushin being the third member of the trinity as the Holy Spirit.

I am also firmly aware that the Grail Message specifically states that no member of the trinity is superior or inferior to the other: that they being one, are all equal: this causes me greater apprehension as it underlines the fact that Mr. Abd Rushin thereby claims to be equal with God: a fact that Jesus specifically denied in his case.

I will not be satisfied with a response which states that the authour did not claim to be God because I do wonder what else may be gleaned from a statement that “a part of God was severed and anchored outside the divine sphere” and that that part is Mr. Abd Rushin – which is what the Grail Message conveys.

I have a few other questions:

1. God is, yes? If this is the case can gender be ascribed to God? I have no problems with God being described as “the father” but my concern is –

2. Why are the only two “emanative elements” of God – (Jesus, and as claimed by the Grail Message, Abd Rushin) both male? On an esoteric philosophical view, it would have seemed more natural to me if there was one male and one female: as a sign of the duality inherent in divinity and existence of which all that we see is a reflection. Is God somehow averse to or removed from the feminine? Why is it that these prime elements of God are always said to be incarnated on earth as males? Could this not be a sign of the human culture of a male dominated society seeping into dogma in the form of supposed male scions of God?

I am always deeply suspicious about ANY message which culminates in the divinity of the messenger: for the truth I believe, which you have in the past affirmed – is that no human being needs any such knowledge of identities in order to ascend – why then all the claims to divinity by the author of the Grail Message? Could it be that for him, being recognised as God is important?

I must reiterate that the message resolved most of my burning questions about life, but it honestly repulsed me with the assertion of the divinity of the Author, Mr. Abd Rushin, and the fact that a reading of the message virtually discloses Mr. Abd Ru shin to be God himself.

Maven, i have enjoyed your ripostes so much thus far: and also Viaro's i must say, you are both making me think better and further.

I crave your indulgence until i post the prosaical explanations, i think that may put some things in perspective, thanks.

easylogic:
I would like to a that there is a Big difference between eg

A)0.5,0.25,0.125 , infinity

and

B)1,2,3,4,5,6,7, infinity

and

C)1,3,5,7,9, infinity


Cantor the real whiz of Mathematics of infnites showed that for example A and B have different magnitude or as he called it Cardinality.

Although They both will tend towards infinity, one of them will have more elements than the other.

For example a Set of all Real numbers will have more elements than a Set of all positive ODD numbers.

Infinity eliminates this. For the simple reason that both sets of numbers will be utterly endless.

viaro:
I'm not so sure about your use of 'sequential continuum' . . and number bases are entirely irrelevant to the discourse? Are you kidding us? I think when you consider the case of a sequential continuum, it then becomes absolutely relevant to let us know in what parameters your infinities would apply (I sense already that it would entirely collapse when considered in various bases).

I beg to differ, bro.

I may state –

½ - ¼ - 1/8 – 1/16 - 1/32 – 1/64 . . .Infinity

Or –

1, 2, 3, 4. . . Infinity

Or –

1⅛, - 1⅜ - 1⅝ - 1⅞ . . .Infinity

Tell me what difference it makes? ? ? ? ?

Is it not clear to you that as far as numerics is concerned a sequence OF ANY SORT OR ANY BASE still is infinite?[/ b]

So what really is the problem there? ? ? ! ! !

Besides that, your point of reference for infinity does not suggest only one infinity, but at least three infinities:. . . and it would only make sense when you clarify [b]why only one infinity amongst three would be apropos to your thesis.

This is not a problem. Since every number can be fractionalized infinitely, and since every numeric sequence can continue infinitely, then we see that infinity is imbued everywhere and in everything!

Thus all quantities are imbued with infinity.

Thus all things are infinite. The infinities indicated at either end of the spectrum do not indicate three infinities as you have suggested. They rather indicate the endlessness of the one spectrum.

Infinity is in all things. This co-relates to the idea of omnipresence, but please indulge me as I prefer to discuss this when I come to prose, thanks.

All the same, please proceed.

Well taken, bro.

Mavenb0x:
When we combine the two number lines outlined in red, we get interesting results:
Upon addition, everything becomes zero. Each component wipes out the other. Talk about total annihilation! All default to zero.
Upon subtraction, every component becomes doubled, except for three components: ∞, -∞ and 0.
[s]Upon multiplication term-by-term, once again, only three components are left unchanged: ∞, -∞ and 0.
Upon division term by term, all receive a unity magnitude (i.e. -1), except zero, which becomes a singularity: undefined.[/s]

So, if ∞_∞ exists somewhere, anywhere, on that line, be it 0 or 1 or ∞ or something, then being the source, it has considerable influence over the entire number line. (Sorry, I have switched to it, I couldn't keep up with typing he/she/it/ )

On that number line, every other number, spanning in either direction, derives from the source by progressive additions or subtractions in tiny quanta, in leaps, in bounds. The relationship of the sourced numbers with the source ∞_∞ is essentially one of addition and subtraction, as offshoots of the source. As such, I assume it will not self-destruct by the same simple rules of addition and subtraction by which it generated the other numbers. Unless of course, ∞_∞ is the one number that did not self-destruct. i.e. zero.

This is an excellent case in FAVOUR of the theory I have propounded of God, and only serves to prove it in its entire simplicity!

So unless zero is the ∞_∞ that is the source from which all derives, we must be forced to say that the transcedental ∞_∞ will eventually crush itself and all its creation. And then all will go to waste as it it never existed.

We cannot know that it will do this.

But even if it does – that certainly does not detract from the fact of the infinities that spawned forth from it and existed before such a speculative retraction.

If DeepSight tries to proselytize this mystery to old timers, it will be a little funny to them, because there was never any zero in the ancient numeric system and they were doing fine, so how can you tell them that the singularity, the source of all, is likened to the number-line zero? What they had was one. And what made ONE unique was that it was individual, and unquestionably so  

Zero represents nothingness. You cannot assert that Old-Timers had no apprehension of what “nothingness” refers to, simply because they counted from “somethingness” – 1. Indeed the very presence of the figure 1 indicates an appreciation of its possible absence – thus Zero.

Now this aside I hope you are able to digest how I moved from –

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [ZERO]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

To –

←← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [ONE] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → → →

And then –

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

And finally –

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←  ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←  ← ← ←        [INFINITY]        → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → →


Were you able to really digest these diagrams?

What did they suggest to you?

The ancient number system worked with division and multiplication with respect to 1. So, let's outline the number system below
, (1/  ↨), , , 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ,  (↨),
where once again, we assume that  ↨ is a large number that is numerically workable in this number system. ↨ would be a really large number, either way   (and we assume again that ∞_∞ exists on that plane). ↨ in its largeness will help us to unravel the mystery-that-is ∞_∞ in this number system.

If the ∞_∞ is transcendental and exists on the ancient number line, then definitely all the fractions and whole numbers are derivative of it, since ∞_∞ is the source. Multiply throughout the number line by ↨, and we obtain

, 1,, ,↨,, ↨,

since ↨/5, ↨/4, ↨/3, ↨/2, ↨, 2↨, 3↨, 4↨, 5↨ all the way to ↨ are all equal to ↨. Someone may be quick to observe that this is wrong, that one cannot multiply throughout a sequence of numbers using infinity, but this is not infinity, its just a really big number (infinity is a concept that exists on the positive-negative-ordered-around-zero number system). In this number system, there is no "final large number" idea. They keep accumulating 1s to get bigger, or they keep tearing themselves up in tiny pieces as splinters of 1.

Let us divide by ↨ as well and see, similarly

, (1 / ↨) , , (1/ ↨), 1,

Thus, unless ∞_∞ is ↨ or (1 / ↨), it gets annihilated by its own creation, using the same rules of multiplication and division that define size and relevance, and make the numbers derive from the source in varying magnitudes  
But ∞_∞ cannot be 1 / ↨ because in this number system, it means it has been, by continuous division, derived from 1. This can't be so, since ∞_∞ is the source. ∞_∞ may be ↨, however, but I will not be hasty to say so. This is because 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are each ↨ in their own rights, with respect to the amounts of  1 that they have accumulated. Since  ↨ is not bounded, what will be the supremum of this mystery?

[size=13pt]Will the real  ↨ please stand up?[/size] (come to think of it, it kinda looks like its standing up, see it here:  [size=18pt]↨[/size])

And for those that doubt my last observation, see for yourself: if you take the ancient number line back to back like we did for the modern one i.e. smaller to larger, then larger to smaller, and multiply them all out, they ALL give ones since each cancels out the other. No singularity. So is the ∞_∞ dead or what?  

Since everything you wrote here is based on –

we assume that  ↨ is a large number that is numerically workable in this number system. ↨ would be a really large number, either way   (and we assume again that ∞_∞ exists on that plane).

- Which I have explained is not the case as infinity can never be said to exist within any number plane as a specific quantity (i.e: it simply represents the fact of endlessness) then the whole of the above collapses entirely.

In this, your talk about “a very large number” is misguided in the extreme. The infinity which we talk about has nothing to do with “a very large” or “a very small” number. It is endless. Simple.

Mavenb0x:
Now searching for ∞_∞, please put on your searchlights   

DeepSight has indicated that the mathematical analogy of ∞_∞ is to be found in the centre of the number sequences, and after checking out possibilities of ∞_∞ being represented as 0, then 1, he finally fixed it as ∞.

You need to be careful with this in helping your understanding of what I laid out, because you will see that I placed infinity not only in the centre but at both ends of the spectrum. Thus indicating that it permeates all things. As is made obvious within the fact that every number can be fractionalized to infinity – never ending fractions.

Steady, and careful now. . .

While we seek the value of ∞_∞, let us sit on the fence and look at the number line from an unbiased view.

It is a grave misapprehension to imagine that one can ever “seek the value” of infinity. It has no determinate value and can never have one since it never ceases - i.e: is infinite.

Careful again, Maven.

I must first confess that I think, to be fair to these numbers, there cannot be only one point of reference, be it zero or 1. I think there are many points of reference in each direction, linking to one another like threads on a 3D ball (as opposed to arcs on a 2D circle). So, just as there is a datum at zero, there are datum lines at other numbers too. I will come to that.

Let's look at the number line from our further biased (in view of a possible multiplicity of dimensions) zero-point of reference.

-∞,, ,-10^{10^10}, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,, ,10^{10^10},, ∞

and, looking from the other angle, +ve to -ve,

∞,, ,10^{10^10}, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5,, ,-10^{10^10}, -∞

I hope you grasp that this is subsumed under the fact of infinity in either direction and the fact that every point is infused with infinity as proven by infinite fractions.

I also hope you are able to make a correlation between this and the attribute of “omnipresence” of the said source: God. As infinity is per force every where!

Careful again, Maven.

Here, we have an unknown quantity, it's called ∞ (infinity), and we are assuming that there is no number larger than it (or smaller than -∞, so to speak).This unknown quantity is the solution to itself, it is self-aware and cannot be defined except by itself, and it is in fact the reason why 1/0 is considered to be ∞ (recall my previous argument about the ancient number system? so it would take infinite zeroes to make a 1, as far as the old system goes  ).

And here's my first red herring.  How sure is anyone that ∞ exists on the number line?

It is not on ANY number line. Just attempt writing out all numbers in sequence and you will see of course like we all know that it never ends! You will thus leave off the sequence by placing “→ → → → Infinity at the end – simply as a way of indicating that it goes on forever. This is not the same as implying as you have that there is a quantity called “infinity” and that it has a place on the number line.

I hope you see your misapprehension here clearly.

Personally I don't think it does, . . .

For the sake of argument, let us leave ∞ on that number line.

I hope you can see that given that infinity is not said to exist “within” the number line as a specific quantity, the rest of your surmise collapses. . .

Will be back. . .

Mavenb0x:
Let me start by saying one of the most intriguing equations I have ever seen is [size=13pt]e^iπ + 1 = 0[/size]. It's so cute! LOL. Lumping together the five (possibly) most esoteric and omnipresent symbols in Maths (e, i, pi, 1 and 0), if you look closely at that divine expression you will see the utmost paradise there: Shangri-La! (but you need to look really closely like I have, and I guess I should try not to explain it too much to you guys joo, you won't understand me).

Okay, enough jokes. Down to business.

Maven. . .it’s paradise, you know. . .divinity is nirvana!

In the ancient numerical system, when we say a number is large, we are considering the fact that it is made up of multiple "1" units: unity in multiple places. But when a number is really small, then it is such that multiple units of THAT number will be required to form a "1". i.e. 5,000,000 is made of 5 million observed ones, but 50 million parts of 1/50,000,000 are required to add up and give 1 (50 million REQUIRED parts). So the ancient number system revolved around the identity element "1", and all other numbers were either OBSERVED multiples ( > 1), or REQUIRED sub-multiples (< 1) of 1. In this case, the observed multiples were "building upon" 1, so they were positive, while the required sub-multiples (or fractional factors?) were negative to 1 because they were obtained after "tearing apart" 1, and were thus individually deficient.

No problems here. Let me just make one point: The brouhaha over fractions, number bases, etc is entirely irrelevant to this discourse. For the simple reason that a sequential continuum is all that is sought to be established and nothing more. It matters little if you note it in fractions or whole numbers.

But then the Hindus came along with a new identity element that didn't work with multiples (i.e. frequency of occurrences), but worked with distances. So, they established a reference point, called it zero, and then all other numbers were considered POSITIVE or NEGATIVE with respect to their distance from zero. Those that got bigger by being independent of zero (getting farther away from zero) were positive because they had considerable influence regardless of their distance from the reference point. Those that got smaller due to their independence were negative because their influence reduced as they moved father from zero, and whenever they moved closer they had more influence with zero. They were sort of dependent on zero to have a sort of relevance, so they were negative, just like the sub-fractions of 1 had to bee very many before they had any relevance. Thus, I think the two ordered systems are equivalent, it just depends on who's the gatekeeper: 0 or 1? (Having toyed with 2 of the 5 members of that divine equation leading to Shangri-la, let me move ahead )

Correct. Basic, really.

So, going by the modern zero-identity-element, I will start by saying that DeepSight seems to have neglected the fact there is not only one infinity, but its at both ends of the continuum, equally counterbalancing one another in magnitude.

NOPE. Did you not see this –

← ← ← ← ← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → →

Did you not see the infinity I placed at both ends?

How then can you state that I “neglected the fact there is not only one infinity, but its at both ends of the continuum, equally counterbalancing one another in magnitude.” ? ? ? ?

Look this is a delicate philosophical process which will not be helped if we are careless in our observations please.

Else the inattentive will be led astray, okay?

One can never reach ∞ on either side of the numerical scale. One can only tend in that direction, as one's magnitude of relevance to that ∞ increases. e.g. a trillion rather tends towards +∞, and so, since a trillion is larger than, say, 100, we can say a trillion is more relevant to +∞ than 100 is. i.e. a trillion has more numerical properties in semblance of +∞, than 100 does, so it is more relevant in understanding +∞ than 100 is.

Obvious as indicated above already.

For the reason above, one may not totally rationalize or explain away DeepSight's ∞_∞, since it/he/she/ is "unapproachable", but one may examine some of ∞_∞'s characteristics by carefully considering the hypotheses he has offered using large numbers in the stead of ∞, as large as one can surmise, but never forgetting that we are considering an unapproachable infinitum.

This is good – and perhaps you should reflect on what it teaches about the inapproachability of God, or divinity.

easylogic:
Maybe its me,but i still don't see how all this counts as an argument for God's existence.

Numbers and mathematics are abstract objects,and abstract objects do not have causal powers,that is they do not stand in Causal Relations or simply put,numbers don't cause anything.

Therefore if God is Infinity or any other number abstraction,then he would not have been able to create or do anything for that matter.

I just don't see how we can equate God,who is a not simply an abstraction,to numbers which are abstractions.

This is a good observation, but let me simply hit it off by stating this –

The code is intended to show or mirror the totality of infinite quantities in existence as opposed to nothingness or non-existence.

It is a mirror really, which shows the factor of zero (non-existence) and mirrors out its meaning and sequential expansion.

I hope you dig.

easylogic:
Yeah Alaeth you are right.Deepsight seems to be treating Infinity as though it is a number which can be arrived at or started at.

Wrong: as shown above

aletheia:
Thanks but. . .no matter how he presents it; his basic premise is mathematically and philosophically flawed
Looking at Deep Sight''s series: you can see that he treats infinity as being equivalent to 0 or 1. But by definition you can never start at infinity or arrive at infinity.
Is there a number that is equal to infinity+1?

I agree: infinity is infinity - hence the arrows heading off in either direction.

No problems here.

We proceed.

viaro:
Sure, the '0' at the end of either direction of the 9s are presumptive and wrong. But he's said to propose his explanations in prose. . . in which case, I wonder how he's handled the mathematical progression in such a prose that he proposes. However, we should not be in such a haste . . he might surprise us.

I see you already addressed this with alethiea and explained my intention with the diagram, but just a few words from me -

The zero at either end simply represents base 10. The fact that i placed arrows after the zeros heading off into infinity makes clear that what is meant is a continuum that never ends. A sequence that carries on infinitely.

Thus it could be base 3, or base whatever. If i were to spoon feed the class, then i should write - 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. . . . infinity. . . but i simply represented the sequence in base 10. It is neither here nor there.

What matters is a sequence that continues infinitely in whatever base.

Again, This is not a concern that should derail us.

We proceed.

Clarifications are clearly in order: this is only expected: a delicate subject such as this with varying worldviews compels this.

First off:

aletheia:
I think you are murdering mathematics here.
I don't understand how counting in either direction:
0-> 1-> 2-> 3-> 4-> 5-> 6-> 7-> 8-> 9. . .followed by 0?(Not 10?) . . .leads to infinity Come on.
You can never arrive at infinity whether you start counting at one or at googolplex.

I never suggested anything leads to infinity.

I placed these arrows → → → → → → → → → precisely to indicate a continuum that never ends.

As correctly noted by easylogic, nobody can “arrive at” infinity, as it inherently never ends.

I would have thought that the very word “infinity” should have made this clear for you?

This is not a concern that should distract the thread.

We proceed.