Defining God: A Hijjacked Plane (I mean thread...)

[curium96]

God shall be defined as all-encompassing. In other words, eternal.

All that exists is God, and God is all that exists.

There is no other acceptable definition, and any definition contradicting this is paradoxical.

A paradox is an idea which represents incompleteness, e.g. a failure in understanding.

If it appears that ideas which are otherwise acceptable exist in contradiction to each other, it shall be assumed that these ideas are incomplete, incoherent, or just plain incorrect.

This will not be disputed because it is fact.

There is no debating fact where fact is indisputable, and this point, while widely accepted, implies an endemic shortfall of perspective which can be described as a natural consequence or limit of existence.

Scientists call this "the event horizon".

They don't accept the implications, rejecting the implications as unknowable, rather than accepting the unknowability of the implications as A fact.

See what I'm getting at?

Turns out this whole "alphabetical language" wasn't a complete waste of time, if you know what I mean...

Am I right?

Human beings had an inkling.

Then we had ideas.

We strung those ideas into a sequence, in relation to each other, in relation to ourselves.

We draw upon reality, the objective, the totality of existence, to formulate these ideas.

The limits of these ideas in relation to each other distinguishes what is real and what is not.

The totality of what is real is God: the Objective Frame of Reference.

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, curium96 said:

God shall be defined as all-encompassing. In other words, eternal.

All that exists is God, and God is all that exists.

There is no other acceptable definition, and any definition contradicting this is paradoxical.

A paradox is an idea which represents incompleteness, e.g. a failure in understanding.

If it appears that ideas which are otherwise acceptable exist in contradiction to each other, it shall be assumed that these ideas are incomplete, incoherent, or just plain incorrect.

This will not be disputed because it is fact.

There is no debating fact where fact is indisputable, and this point, while widely accepted, implies an endemic shortfall of perspective which can be described as a natural consequence or limit of existence.

Scientists call this "the event horizon".

They don't accept the implications, rejecting the implications as unknowable, rather than accepting the unknowability of the implications as A fact.

See what I'm getting at?

Turns out this whole "alphabetical language" wasn't a complete waste of time, if you know what I mean...

Am I right?

Human beings had an inkling.

Then we had ideas.

We strung those ideas into a sequence, in relation to each other, in relation to ourselves.

We draw upon reality, the objective, the totality of existence, to formulate these ideas.

The limits of these ideas in relation to each other distinguishes what is real and what is not.

The totality of what is real is God: the Objective Frame of Reference.

None of this crap is fact. There's no evidence for anything you've asserted. Nobody wants to hear you preach or soapbox. This is a discussion forum, not your blog. Please go away if you can't follow the rules.

[MigL]

Well, to be fair, he did say

12 hours ago, curium96 said:

There is no debating fact where fact is indisputable

and, true to his word, he didn't present any, and there is nothing to dispute or discuss on this discussion forum.

Might as well close the thread, then.