God

[Judgment]

Beaudreaux: Welcome back! Hope you had a great weekend.



Now, let me try to summarize where we currently are on the subject of universal truth.

• You claimed that Judaism and Islam, two religions who each believe their God is the one and true God, could both be right "for them." (#243 and other places )
• I claimed that your phrase "right for them" is no different than saying "It's their opinion" and that it is a poor use of the word "right" in our discourse. (#250)
• You responded by saying that when it comes to belief in God "There is no Universal Right and True to be found there" (#252)
• I asked if that meant that your statement "There is no Universal Right and True to be found there" is not universally true. (#257 and #259)
• You answered that it was not universally true (#285)

So, here is a valid logical argument based on what we have so far:

• There is no Universal Right and True to be found when trying to understand God.
• The preceding statement is not true
• Therefore, there IS universal Right and True to be found when trying to understand God.

Welcome to a world where logical contradictions are embraced. You can say one thing and its complete opposite IN THE SAME SENTENCE! Isn't it cool!

Thanks Beaudreaux - back at ya.

You claimed that Judaism and Islam, two religions who each believe their God is the one and true God, could both be right "for them." (#243 and other places )

The long drawn out disagreement between the Jews and Muslims is ‘because of’ the very Torah and Koran and Bible. Muslims believe their God to be the same God as in the OT and NT. You will find very few Jews and Christians that hold this belief. Christians believe that their God is the God of the OT BUT Most Jews do not believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and feel their Religion was hijacked. For Peace to become a reality there must be one religion that encompasses all religions… one where ‘all’ can agree on ‘God’ not just the three mentioned. Or….no religion – at least not as religion is currently known. Until that day comes there will be no long lasting peace. Depending on who you are - You can blame Bush, you can blame Israel, you can blame Pakistan, you can blame everything, you can blame nothing and no one BUT first and foremost you need to blame yourself – for any powerlessness that if felt in any way is of your own doing.

I asked if that meant that your statement "There is no Universal Right and True to be found there" is not universally true. (#257 and #259)

There is Universal Truth. What I was saying below is that there is no Universal Truth between all of the beliefs I mentioned in the paragraph below. Everyone has formed their own judgments and all believe 'they' are right.

"There is a Universal correctness in many things - like mathematics. But - when speaking of 'right' or 'true' the Universal correctness you speak of - many times - can be found only in the eye of the beholder ... I believe I am right and true with my beliefs concerning God.. Muslims believe their beliefs are right and true... Jews believe their beliefs are right and true... Christians believe their beliefs are right and true, Buddhists believe their beliefs are right and true - you - believe your beliefs are right and true..and so on... There is no Universal Right and True to be found there - only a mixture of ideas. "

 

[Bishadi]

I believe a person that has that understanding - and of course - that is a genius in mathematics...

it seems that when ptolemy shared mathematically how the 'roaming bodies' (planets) criss crossed the sky with the earth as the center of the universe............. now that is genius

such is the same with QM combined with chemistry.... a person would have to be a genius to remember all the mathematical patches to combine the divisions of these disciplines

but to observe the reality that 'mass, energy and time' combine has been conveyed from many in many different frames throughout history. (it is not unique)

the primary change is to observe 'light' as the energy between mass, then follow the properties from there forth.

It could bring about a comprehension in a God that exists - however - it could not 'fully' explain God.

comprehending how 'existence' operates is all the math can do, as the 'phenomenon' no longer exist as magic (by god)

'That' math problem could only be explained if God itself was to walk upon the earth.

not going there

as you and I both know, god is 'all of it' combined, such as no man is closer to god, representing god, or is a god, greater than another (we equally have the capacity to comprehend)

i see no separation of existence and mankind ever, unless the person chooses to 'think' he is separate from existence......... (away from the garden)

To get the information out to the people that can understand it. Since the universal language is mathematics - it would make sense.

and you are giving me lessons on how to convey.......... a teacher for me to learn articulation

are you God?

just kidding............. we each a part of the total: ONE (mathematical fact)

you know what is being insinuated; please try to assist the progression as i have much material to send to you that will answer any question you may have

remember i offered because of your honesty, not to make me feel good and you can 'judge' for yourself

the name is not a sword to weild or to be used for profit, business, gain or vindication............ there is only one purpose and them days are close

 

[Beaudreaux]

There is Universal Truth. What I was saying below is that there is no Universal Truth between all of the beliefs I mentioned in the paragraph below. Everyone has formed their own judgments and all believe 'they' are right.

So, there IS a universally true conception of God, but it is not embodied by any of the current religions. Correct?

 

[Bishadi]

So, there IS a universally true conception of God, but it is not embodied by any of the current religions. Correct?

wrong.

Ask a jewish person to write or say the name of god. (they won't)

Einstein even knew: "i believe he is the garden'

the hopi, thoth, quran.etc etc etc .......... it is all over the place!

problem is the old writings were limited by the words of their period, just as to have the math means nothing without the ability to convey the material.

All branches combine, the key is in how the foundations are changed by a 'paradigm shift' to comprehend what life itself is; then it all falls into place across the globe.

as strange as that may seems, it is true!

knowledge is the revealing

it's a 'light' thing

 

[Beaudreaux]

Originally Posted by Beaudreaux
So, there IS a universally true conception of God, but it is not embodied by any of the current religions. Correct?

wrong...

I am sorry, Bishadi. I don't understand your position. Are you saying that I am wrong because there is NOT a universally true conception of God? Or are you saying that I am wrong because there IS one and it is embodied by one of the current religions?

 

[Bishadi]

I am sorry, Bishadi. I don't understand your position.

fair as i see it the issue

Are you saying that I am wrong because there is NOT a universally true conception of God? Or are you saying that I am wrong because there IS one and it is embodied by one of the current religions?

Each of the religions from all over the world have conveyances that represent the concepts for defining god. The terms, language, and even translations may very, but each have touched most every portion or phenomena within nature/God.

to describe a rock you describing a portion of god

..... there is NOT a universally true conception of God?

the term 'god' was conceived by conscious people

there is NOT a universally 'accepted' framework to define god, but through-out the world, just about anyone will know what you mean when you say the word 'god'

same with love, life and death

then in the technical side: gravity, electron, black holes, dark matter/energy and hadron.....

all of it combines as strange as it may seem........

as they all describing the same thing: existence!

much of the 'spiritual' ideas of life, souls and even the non-local effects are actually pretty easy but combining the disciplines is not easy

that is what the last chapter is all about

that is what to see during the evolution of knowledge.

in a real sense: existence is defining itself.

 

[Judgment]

Bishadi: it seems that when ptolemy shared mathematically how the 'roaming bodies' (planets) criss crossed the sky with the earth as the center of the universe............. now that is genius

such is the same with QM combined with chemistry.... a person would have to be a genius to remember all the mathematical patches to combine the divisions of these disciplines

but to observe the reality that 'mass, energy and time' combine has been conveyed from many in many different frames throughout history. (it is not unique)

the primary change is to observe 'light' as the energy between mass, then follow the properties from there forth.

Agree - not unique. There have been many great scientific/ mathematical minds over the course of human history. In explaining their theories they gave us all glimpses in to existence itself (God). BUT - to this point in our development - none has completed a theory that can 'fully' explain existence.

Bishadi: comprehending how 'existence' operates is all the math can do, as the 'phenomenon' no longer exist as magic (by god)

Of course. I am talking about it being incomplete. If completed there would be no more questions - the fun would be gone.

Bishadi:not going there

as you and I both know, god is 'all of it' combined, such as no man is closer to god, representing god, or is a god, greater than another (we equally have the capacity to comprehend)

i see no separation of existence and mankind ever, unless the person chooses to 'think' he is separate from existence......... (away from the garden)

Agree. Comment was in Jest - however - while some have the ability to comprehend (And we 'all' posses the ability as you say - even if 'all' do not comprehend at this time) their comprehension is still limited to the observed reality which we take part.

Agree - there is no true separation. There can not be.

Bishadi: and you are giving me lessons on how to convey.......... a teacher for me to learn articulation

are you God?

just kidding............. we each a part of the total: ONE (mathematical fact)

you know what is being insinuated; please try to assist the progression as i have much material to send to you that will answer any question you may have

remember i offered because of your honesty, not to make me feel good and you can 'judge' for yourself

the name is not a sword to weild or to be used for profit, business, gain or vindication............ there is only one purpose and them days are close

Saying we are God is not in-correct - since - we are all 'part' of God. We (meaning individuals) alone are just not the 'complete' manifestation of God. You already know this

 

[Judgment]

Beaudreaux: So, there IS a universally true conception of God, but it is not embodied by any of the current religions. Correct?

Bishadi gave an eloquent response to your question....

 

[Beaudreaux]

..... there is NOT a universally true conception of God?

there is NOT a universally 'accepted' framework to define god, but through-out the world, just about anyone will know what you mean when you say the word 'god'

1. There is an enormous difference between the question I asked and the answer you provided. A universally TRUE conception of God means that there is a real God out there (or in pantheism, everywhere) and that our ideas about Him/it are either correct or incorrect. I am not asking about ACCEPTED views of God. When dealing with universal truth, people's acceptance of that truth does not affect whether or not it is true. So, I'll ask you again: "Are you saying there is NOT a universally true conception of God?"
2. As to whether or not everyone will know what I mean when I say God, that is simply not true. When I say it to a Hindu, they will think I mean one of their many Gods. When I say it to a Jew they will think of Yaweh. When I say it to an atheist they will think of the imaginary concept that people wrongly believe in.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Bishadi gave an eloquent response to your question....

It was poetic, yes. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out, it did not answer my question. In fact, this is probably an instance where directness and clarity of meaning is perfereable to eloquence. My question:

So, there IS a universally true conception of God, but it is not embodied by any of the current religions. Correct?
​

The beginning of any answer should start with either "yes" (indicating that there is a universally true God, but that no one has it quite right) or "no" (indicating that either there is no universally true conception of God or that one particular religion, perhaps pantheism, has it right.) After that yea or nea, an eloquent explanation or defense would be appreciated, but I think we start best when we clearlly understand your position.

 

[BucephalusBB]

we each a part of the total: ONE (mathematical fact)...

I really dislike it when people start screaming MATH if they don't know anything about it. Specially when they start about facts.

The only reason why all parts together are ONE is when given, but then it could also have been 2, 5 or one and a half..
With that, the part where we are all part of the total means the total is given.

With other words, the only way this is fact is when given it is fact. And in that case it is just as valuable as 5+5=12..

 

[Judgment]

Beaudreaux: It was poetic, yes. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out, it did not answer my question. In fact, this is probably an instance where directness and clarity of meaning is perfereable to eloquence. My question:

So, there IS a universally true conception of God, but it is not embodied by any of the current religions. Correct?
​

The beginning of any answer should start with either "yes" (indicating that there is a universally true God, but that no one has it quite right) or "no" (indicating that either there is no universally true conception of God or that one particular religion, perhaps pantheism, has it right.) After that yea or nea, an eloquent explanation or defense would be appreciated, but I think we start best when we clearlly understand your position.

Bishadi answer was spot on in accordance with our beliefs.. For we are speaking of the same God.

Bishadi: Each of the religions from all over the world have conveyances that represent the concepts for defining god. The terms, language, and even translations may very, but each have touched most every portion or phenomena within nature/God.

to describe a rock you describing a portion of god

Bishadi: there is NOT a universally 'accepted' framework to define god, but through-out the world, just about anyone will know what you mean when you say the word 'god'

There is no universally accepted conception of God on planet earth. There are too many religions - too many points of view - too many discrepancies between each. The point Bishadi was making is that these God's share characteristics that are perceived as being Universal - omniscient - omnipresent - omnipotent.

If there was in fact a universally true concept of God - all that believed in God would believe in the same God. And we know for a fact that that is not the case.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Question: So, there IS a universally true conception of God, but it is not embodied by any of the current religions. Correct?

There is no universally accepted conception of God on planet earth...

Look, I appreciate that you guys are all mystical and deep in your answers and what not, but I gotta tell ya. Trying to get a straight answer from you is like trying to nail jello to the wall. But, since I like playing with jello.....

I AM NOT ASKING YOU ABOUT ACCEPTED CONCEPTIONS OF GOD. I am asking you about a TRUE conception of God. Here's an idea. If you don't want to answer me, how about just saying "I refuse to answer the question." Why waste my time and yours answering a question I did not ask you? Seriously.

If there was in fact a universally true concept of God - all that believed in God would believe in the same God. And we know for a fact that that is not the case.

OK, NOW we may be getting somewhere. I take it the logical conclusion of your enthymeme is "There is no universally true concept of God." Please say yes. For the love of all that is good and righteous in the world, please don't start talking about ACCEPTED conceptions of God as though that were somehow an answer.

 

[Judgment]

Beaudreaux: Look, I appreciate that you guys are all mystical and deep in your answers and what not, but I gotta tell ya. Trying to get a straight answer from you is like trying to nail jello to the wall. But, since I like playing with jello.....

I AM NOT ASKING YOU ABOUT ACCEPTED CONCEPTIONS OF GOD. I am asking you about a TRUE conception of God. Here's an idea. If you don't want to answer me, how about just saying "I refuse to answer the question." Why waste my time and yours answering a question I did not ask you? Seriously.

The answer was straight. For the most part - Bishadi and myself understand what the other is saying.

Your question can only be asking my opinion. In Post #1 I gave what I believe to be the True Conception of God - it is not Universal.

Beaudreaux:OK, NOW we may be getting somewhere. I take it the logical conclusion of your enthymeme is "There is no universally true concept of God." Please say yes. For the love of all that is good and righteous in the world, please don't start talking about ACCEPTED conceptions of God as though that were somehow an answer.

Yes.

 

[Bishadi]

I really dislike it when people start screaming MATH if they don't know anything about it.

in today's world most anyone can learn what pretty much all the greats knew: newton, einstein, feynman and wolff etc etc etc

they all put on their pants the same but we have the internet

Specially when they start about facts.

my arrogance pushes folk away, most can't handle a human being having the last word.

The only reason why all parts together are ONE is when given, but then it could also have been 2, 5 or one and a half..
With that, the part where we are all part of the total means the total is given.

With other words, the only way this is fact is when given it is fact. And in that case it is just as valuable as 5+5=12..

had to read that more times than heisenberg's feild equations

but it did remind me of another big mouth and a song

1and 1 and 1 is 3

got to be a joker

he just do what he please

come togetherrrr

right now................

the math is ..............complete!

but why would a person with such come on this forum?

why not stand on the street corner and tell the world?

why not publish to the open community?

i did, in 1982 and because the 'truth' ......... the reality, the FACTS........ show that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong (nature is reversed) the 'community' was not ready back then

for example: life evolves and continues (abuses entropy)... a law breaker in FACT

knowledge 'evolves" (happy b-day darwin)

the last chapter is a paradigm shift and all three of the disciplines of knowledge combine: science, religions, philosphies.

the first 2 are practically obsolete

the reason why 'evolution' is not taught in schools as absolutely true is because the math has never been performed to substantiate the progression of mass and energy to define a living thing (they have no idea how life works at the molecular level)

if that progression was included then evolution would be a part of math and sciences
as naturally part of education

but the current 'laws' of physics are bound to 2LoT and max planck included it in his 1901 paper as absolute, creating a 'direction' to the math (biased)

i call it the drowning of man, ...........by 'walking the planck'

have doubts: it's a good thing (as it fuels the drive to learn)

what i like the most about the knowledge is that each person can understand "life"
and with that:

how to practically live forever....................by choice!

the truth gives life (mass comprehending how it exists and can perform true to existence)

no magic, not miracles, nothing other than comprehending what we are and what choice is

basically allows each to understand life and how to make good choices

simply the same thing each religion has been trying to do but now grounded in nature, reality....................FACT!

and the 'last word' is the mathematical frame that combines it all

it shares the 'process'.......... that's it!

'we the people'.................. will be set free

and with the 'truth' being grounded to the absolute, then equality, life and Peace can exists and mankind will never be controlled again

it is me that was born 6/66, made the covenant with existence and has given most of my life for the one purpose of sharing what life is so the next generation will understand without the bias of ignorance ever again

the 'book of life' is like an owners manual for 'Understanding'

'let him who hath understanding, recon the number of... for it is a human number....'

it is the same as C-12 (carbon 12) in which everything of living form is bound to.............. chemically speaking 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons..............

how did you like your head branded?

with knowledge!

this aint a practice run folks!

 

[Beaudreaux]

Beaudreaux:...I take it the logical conclusion of your enthymeme is "There is no universally true concept of God." ....

Yes.

OK.....ok..[deep breaths]....phew!

I'll respond after I regain some strength.......

 

[Beaudreaux]

in today's world most anyone can learn what pretty must all the greats knew: newton, einstein, feynman and wolff etc etc etc

they all put on their pants the same

my arrogance pushes folk away, most can't handle a human being having the last word.



had to read that more times than heisenberg's feild equations

but it did remind me of another big mouth and a song

1and 1 and 1 is 3

got to be a joker

he just do what he please

come togetherrrr

right now................

the math is ..............complete!

but why would a person with such come on this forum?

why not stand on the street corner and tell the world?

why not publish to the open community?

i did, in 1982 and because the 'truth' ......... the reality, the FACTS........ show that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong (nature is reversed) the 'community' was not ready back then

for example: life evolves and continues (abuses entropy)... a law breaker in FACT

knowledge 'evolves" (happy b-day darwin)

the last chapter is a paradigm shift and all three of the disciplines of knowledge combine: science, religions, philosphies.

the first 2 are practically obsolete

the reason why 'evolution' is not taught in schools as absolutely true is because the math has never been performed to substantiate the progression of mass and energy to define a living thing (they have no idea how life works at the molecular level)

if that progression was included then evolution would be a part of math and sciences
as naturally part of education

but the current 'laws' of physics are bound to 2LoT and max planck included it in his 1901 paper as absolute, creating a 'direction' to the math (biased)

i call it the drowning of man, ...........by 'walking the planck'

have doubts: it's a good thing (as it fuels the drive to learn)

what i like the most about the knowledge is that each person can understand "life"
and with that:

how to practically live forever....................by choice!

the truth gives life (mass comprehending how it exists and can perform true to existence)

no magic, not miracles, nothing other than comprehending what we are and what choice is

basically allows each to understand life and how to make good choices

simply the same thing each religion has been trying to do but now grounded in nature, reality....................FACT!

and the 'last word' is the mathematical frame that combines it all

it shares the 'process'.......... that's it!

'we the people'.................. will be set free

and with the 'truth' being grounded to the absolute, then equality, life and Peace can exists and mankind will never be controlled again

it is me that was born 6/66, made the covenant with existence and has given most of my life for the one purpose of sharing what life is so the next generation will understand without the bias of ignorance ever again

the 'book of life' is like an owners manual for 'Understanding'

'let him who hath understanding, recon the number of... for it is a human number....'

it is the same as C-12 (carbon 12) in which everything of living form is bound to.............. chemically speaking 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons..............

how did you like your head branded?

with knowledge!

this aint a practice run folks!

uhh.....what?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

uhh.....what?

You have to realize that you're trying to obtain meaning from the words, themselves. These are merely letters. You must open yourself to the knowledge they contain. The words are just the messengers - listen to the message.

 

[BucephalusBB]

in today's world most anyone can learn what pretty much all the greats knew: newton, einstein, feynman and wolff etc etc etc

they all put on their pants the same but we have the internet

So what are you trying to say?

my arrogance pushes folk away, most can't handle a human being having the last word.

Does this mean you can't handle that I corrected you or what?

had to read that more times than heisenberg's feild equations

My bad..

but it did remind me of another big mouth and a song

Does this mean you are calling me a big mouth for correcting you?

i did, in 1982 and because the 'truth' ......... the reality, the FACTS........ show that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong (nature is reversed) the 'community' was not ready back then

Thermodynamics???!?!
I wasn't talking about physics, I was talking about math, 2 complete different things. If you don't get that, this is where your internetlearning should start..



ehr, I tried saying anything about the rest of your post but ended deleting it as it was about nothing..??

 

[Beaudreaux]

You have to realize that you're trying to obtain meaning from the words, themselves. These are merely letters. You must open yourself to the knowledge they contain. The words are just the messengers - listen to the message.

I think I might be getting this. Give me a few seconds.

:drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk:

I get it, man....to say there is "One Way" to God means God is...like one of those streets that makes me go around the block just to get to the Dunkin Donunts,...and God knows how much I LOVE those donuts, man. Everything I say is false, but the meaning is there, even if it is an illusion and you don't comprehend it....People.....people are all different man. Drop your preconcieved notions and get on the bus.

See, THIS kid knows what I'm talking about....