Metareligion as Human Singularity

[Ostronomos]

Causal inference is interactive and linear; events are predicted from prior events occurring along timelines. Formal inference is derivational; specific relationships are substituted for more general ones (or vice versa) irrespective of temporal priority. A supertautology evolves self-dually or “metaformally”, in a way that couples formal and causal evolution. This is the proper mode of evolution of an ontological metalanguage capable of not only supporting causation, but of justifying existence, including its own existence, without the help of any other language. Metaformal inference, elsewhere referred to as “telic causation”, properly includes both formal and causal inference as aspects; thus, it supports both generative origination and causal evolution, and can be understood as a higher mode of inference embracing logical deduction, empirical induction, and metalogical reasoning about reality as a whole.

There already exists a branch of logic, model theory, that deals with the interpretation of empirical phenomena in theories and the mathematical structures of which they consist, but its standard formulation is dualistic. It now has a reflexive self-dual extension called the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU; Langan, 2002), or as some have called it in more traditional and religiously loaded terms, Logos, mainly in recognition of its status as a metaphysical formulation of logic. Technically, the CTMU is a reflexive, high-level kind of model theory designed to support the description of reality on the ontological level of discourse ... the level on which reality exists independently of anything external. On this level and all of those beneath, the supertautological structure of the CTMU is virtually unassailable. Just as standard logic requires no assumptions, neither


Taken from: View of Metareligion as the Human Singularity

It is said that "God is dead". But that more accurately describes faith. Thus, the time for religion and science to unite is nigh. The above was written by one of the most prolific authors of the new God science, Christopher Langan. His logic is irrefutable.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

They are two different magisteria that do not overlap. And I am equally suspicious of anyone who wants to combine both as I am of those who wish to combine church and state. Keep science and religion separate.

 

[Ostronomos]

They are two different magisteria that do not overlap. And I am equally suspicious of anyone who wants to combine both as I am of those who wish to combine church and state. Keep science and religion separate.

Your suspicion is noted. But it is not based on logic, the supreme authority of what is real and what is not. Logic is the sole reason that science and religion both share the same reality.

In the absolute truth of this author's mind, reality takes the form of an SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). This cements it in reality. As there is only one reality, there is only one collective. We work together to give rise to our world.

Just as a single, One God exists, there is only One reality that it exists prior to.

 

[Valjean]

They are two different magisteria that do not overlap. And I am equally suspicious of anyone who wants to combine both as I am of those who wish to combine church and state. Keep science and religion separate.

You wish to govern without knowledge [Latin: "science"?

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Your suspicion is noted. But it is not based on logic, the supreme authority of what is real and what is not. Logic is the sole reason that science and religion both share the same reality.

In the absolute truth of this author's mind, reality takes the form of an SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). This cements it in reality. As there is only one reality, there is only one collective. We work together to give rise to our world.

Just as a single, One God exists, there is only One reality that it exists prior to.

My religion doesn't need logic. My religion is non-empirical and is a matter of faith and revelation. I don't have to provide evidence for God or my spiritual beliefs because they are subjective revelations based entirely on faith. Science has nothing to do with that.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

You wish to govern without knowledge [Latin: "science"?

I wish to govern myself with the principle of love and beauty. But you can go govern yourself with whatever you want to govern you. You do you.

 

[Ostronomos]

My religion doesn't need logic. My religion is non-empirical and is a matter of faith and revelation. I don't have to provide evidence for God or my spiritual beliefs because they are subjective revelations based entirely on faith. Science has nothing to do with that.

Unfortunately, much of today's world does not see it that way. It is high time that God be put to rest on something more than faith. Namely, logic.

So you reject the logical version of God based merely on a whimsical feeling? The two (science and religion) are compatible to say the least. They both conform to logic and therefore can be proven solidly. Using logic to reinforce each as mankind demands more than just faith in order to lend universal credence to God.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Unfortunately, much of today's world does not see it that way. It is high time that God be put to rest on something more than faith. Namely, logic.

So you reject the logical version of religion based merely on a whimsical feeling? The two (science and religion) are compatible to say the least. They both conform to logic and therefore can be proven solidly. Using logic to reinforce each as mankind demands more than just faith in order to lend universal credence to God.

God is not an object subject to logical or scientific scrutiny. If God were then God wouldn't be God. Quit telling God what to do. God is subject not object. God is essential in nature not existential. By emphasizing God's essential nature, we’re acknowledging that God is not a separate, distinct entity but the very fabric of existence itself. This view challenges us to think about God in terms of relationality, presence, and participation in the act of being, rather than as an external object that can be proved or disproved. You cannot prove God because it is incorrect to say "God exists", rather we should understand that rather than existing "God is". Science cannot even begin to understand that because science deals with the objective truth not subjective relationships to the All That Is. God is not something that can be quantified, measured, or examined like other entities. So science has no business poking it's fingers into the God question.

 

[Ostronomos]

God is not an object subject to logical or scientific scrutiny. If God were then God wouldn't be God. Quit telling God what to do. God is subject not object. God is essential in nature not existential. By emphasizing God's essential nature, we’re acknowledging that God is not a separate, distinct entity but the very fabric of existence itself. This view challenges us to think about God in terms of relationality, presence, and participation in the act of being, rather than as an external object that can be proved or disproved. You cannot prove God because it is incorrect to say "God exists", rather we should understand that rather than existing "God is". Science cannot even begin to understand that because science deals with the objective truth not subjective relationships to the All That Is. God is not something that can be quantified, measured, or examined like other entities. So science has no business poking it's fingers into the God question.

Granted modern science is ill-equipped to answer questions of a metaphysical bent. However, this is due to the lack in logic that mankind has not been granted thus far. You simply demote logic to faith because you lack the fundamentals. I see farther, though I imagine you are not satisfied with the idea as you seem to believe it robs the big questions of their mystery and awe... I would argue that logic knows no bounds when it comes to the limits of reality and the edge of existence.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Granted modern science is ill-equipped to answer questions of a metaphysical bent. However, this is due to the lack in logic that mankind has not been granted thus far. You simply demote logic to faith because you lack the fundamentals. I see farther, though I imagine you are not satisfied with the idea as you seem to believe it robs the big questions of their mystery and awe... I would argue that logic knows no bounds when it comes to the limits of reality and the edge of existence.

Just tell me how you are going to fit God under a microscope?

 

[Valjean]

Unfortunately, much of today's world does not see it that way. It is high time that God be put to rest on something more than faith. Namely, logic.

So you reject the logical version of God based merely on a whimsical feeling? The two (science and religion) are compatible to say the least. They both conform to logic and therefore can be proven solidly. Using logic to reinforce each as mankind demands more than just faith in order to lend universal credence to God.

No, they are not, do not, can not, and have not.
Do you understand what logic is?
How about testable, repeatable, falsifiable, objective evidence? Is that not necessary, if only to generate some premises for logic to work with?

If you have a rational reason to believe in God, please present it.

 

[Valjean]

Just tell me how you are going to fit God under a microscope?

There are more sources of objective evidence than that, and if you're implying that God cannot be evidenced he becomes indistinguishable from no God at all.

 

[Valjean]

God is not an object subject to logical or scientific scrutiny. If God were then God wouldn't be God. Quit telling God what to do. God is subject not object. God is essential in nature not existential. By emphasizing God's essential nature, we’re acknowledging that God is not a separate, distinct entity but the very fabric of existence itself. This view challenges us to think about God in terms of relationality, presence, and participation in the act of being, rather than as an external object that can be proved or disproved. You cannot prove God because it is incorrect to say "God exists", rather we should understand that rather than existing "God is". Science cannot even begin to understand that because science deals with the objective truth not subjective relationships to the All That Is. God is not something that can be quantified, measured, or examined like other entities. So science has no business poking it's fingers into the God question.

Do you have any real evidence that God exists? How is something imperceptible any different from something that doesn't exist?

 

[Absolutely Frank]

There are more sources of objective evidence than that, and if you're implying that God cannot be evidenced he becomes indistinguishable from no God at all.

Have you ever seen the number two walking down the street? Tell me why if you haven't.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

Do you have any real evidence that God exists? How is something imperceptible any different from something that doesn't exist?

God isn't imperceptible to me.

 

[Ostronomos]

No, they are not, do not, can not, and have not.
Do you understand what logic is?
How about testable, repeatable, falsifiable, objective evidence? Is that not necessary, if only to generate some premises for logic to work with?

Why, yes. But it is only necessary to a limited extent. As it misleads the experimenter into believing that the tautology "reality exists" does not go beyond the merely ephemeral, materialistic dimension. That is where logic fills in the gaps. A thing that is real is subject to logical proof. God is real because He is proven using logic.

Axioms of Metaphysics​

1.] The mind exists at individual points in metric space but shares a single point in sub-space. This would explain why non local mind can exist.

2.] The human brain resonates between material and immaterial levels of reality. Reality has its own frequency because it IS energy.

3.] The world and the body appear within consciousness, rather than the other way around.

4.] The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

5.] When man is unprotected he will become prey to a type of logic that resides in reality(the thing we incorrectly believe can only be perceived and not mind connection that fills our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else and thus results in non-separation and hence limitlessness).

6.] Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

7.] I am as sure of this as the shortest distance between A and B must be a straight line.

8.] Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as a separate and distinct lifeform.

9.] Mind = Reality = Language. Reality enters the mind in the form of language or information.

10.] Reality is self-perceptual. Reality observes itself.

11.] Death is an illusion of change. Whereas objects exist within time and space, reality does not.

12.] Reality is the set of all things that exist. This, as we can see, leads to the self-inclusion paradox. Reality is the subset as well as the powerset of itself.

13.] Non-separation is also known as unity by spirit

14.] God is not apparent in the matter we perceive. Therefore, as elusive as God is, He can only be known through logic and mathematics. Less so empiricism.

15.] Two things are different because they have at least one similarity in common, namely that they are both real.

16.] Your nature is identical to the universe's syntactic structure.

Note: these axioms are arguably theoretical. That is their only limitation. The underlying theme is non-separation.

If you have a rational reason to believe in God, please present it.

I hope it is to your satisfaction.

 

[Valjean]

Have you ever seen the number two walking down the street? Tell me why if you haven't.

A number is an abstraction, not a concrete thing like a living God. You treat God as an objective thing existing independent of our imaginations. That puts God into our perceptible, conscious realities -- and within the purview of science and research.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A number is an abstraction, not a concrete thing like a living God. You treat God as an objective thing existing independent of our imaginations. That puts God into our perceptible, conscious realities -- and within the purview of science and research.

Consciousness has no objective eivdence. And something existing as itself independent of consciousness is unknowable, because you know in your consciousness.
Further you have no evidence that other humans are conscious.

 

[Ostronomos]

P.S. I am referring to the sixth sense or extrasensory perception.