Introducing Not God

[Tristram Quinn]

Hi everyone,

Welcome to not god. A concept I have formulated over the last few weeks, primarily to help one stubborn Christian see the supreme control of cause an effect. However, this concept is applicable to all forms of attachment. For those of you who are into other applications of logic, such as mathematics or electrical systems, might appreciate the "not" element referring to the inverse of a gate type (ie the inverse of an "and gate" is a "not and gate").

So what is it?

Not god is not god. Where god doesn't exist not god does. Similarly, where Tristram doesn't exist not Tristram does. Now to see it's worth in the construction of an argument we have to draw on cause and effect. Take a perfect Christian origin for example... Everything starts with God. In this scenario we have immediately what the Christian provides, the Concept "god".

So What is it? (props to those who are following my jokes or my points)

Now as we know, any effect is the result of a cause, or more simply everything is the effect of a cause. So logically, god, infinite as he may be, is a result of his cause. Christians buy this? not likely. So in comes not god to the rescue! Still in the Christian world, God during origin is the singular. But as we know Not God is also in existence at the same time. Not God represents nothing. Cause and effect dictates that Nothing is the effect of the cause Nothing, and so on and so forth for ever and ever. So in ANY situation, anything that exists has its own non existence that is its counter part. It's counter part IS dictated by nothing's rule of cause and effect, and thus nothing is questionable in this realm of discussion.

Now I wanted to start this thread, because everywhere I looked at continuing a thread there was nothing I found interesting enough in contributing to. So rip into this one!

Tris,
GG

[Liberty Sea]

If A is everything, where does not-A exist?

[Tristram Quinn]

Hi Liberty Sea,

A represents the infinite. Everything has a not everything, but as the term everything implies, everything would also include not everything, as not everything is something

Not A exists where A isn't. A is the infinite. The infinite is everything.

Tris,

[jupiviv]

Now as we know, any effect is the result of a cause, or more simply everything is the effect of a cause.

*Everything* isn't the effect of a cause, but rather, everything *else* except the cause.

So logically, god, infinite as he may be, is a result of his cause. Christians buy this?

If God is infinite then he is uncaused, since there is nothing beside him that can cause him, or that he can cause. Christians want God to be both finite or infinite at the same time, which is not possible logically. But Christians aren't really concerned with logic.

Not God represents nothing.

If God is defined as any finite thing then not God doesn't represent nothing.

P.S - Tristram *Quinn*? Any relation to David Quinn?

[movingalways]

jupiviv: If God is infinite then he is uncaused, since there is nothing beside him that can cause him, or that he can cause. Christians want God to be both finite or infinite at the same time, which is not possible logically. But Christians aren't really concerned with logic.

Do not the logicians want this very same thing? Espousing logic, which is temporal and finite in nature, to be the logos of the infinite? Acknowledging that although no cause for the unbound and limitless infinite can be found, and in the same breath, putting forth the language of the infinite to be that of causality. And, as I pointed out to Cathy Preston, the god of the human intellect not only wants the infinite to be infinite and finite and not caused and caused, it also want the infinite to be unconscious and conscious, making the infinite unconscious before it becomes conscious. Why it wants to believe this insane view of consciousness is understandable, for it makes the human ego into God. See how God comes alive [only] when I think of God?

Are not the Christians and the logicians living in the same glass house, throwing the same stone of darkness at one another?

[jupiviv]

Do not the logicians want this very same thing? Espousing logic, which is temporal and finite in nature, to be the logos of the infinite?

Logically it must hold true that anything that can be logically conceived is a part of the infinite.

[Cathy Preston]

Hi Liberty Sea,

A represents the infinite. Everything has a not everything, but as the term everything implies, everything would also include not everything, as not everything is something

Not A exists where A isn't. A is the infinite. The infinite is everything.

Tris,

A = infinity
Not A = anything that "thinks" it is not A, which then creates more Not A.

[banetoday]

If A is everything, where does not-A exist?

thats the beauty of nothing its nothing no matter no anti matter this almost if not impossable for a mind to comprehind cause we
dont actually expreince reality throught direct contact. since all our expriences come to just electrisity in our brains we have to assosiate nothing with color which its not cause nothing is nothing. so even u where the only thing around and there was truely nothing
how would u know. i say this cause i was asked by my child to show me nothing and she said ok and stood there. i asked her what she was doing she said showing u nothing its right infront of me i laughed and then she said well you cant see hear or feel it daddy its nothing. now mind you my child is 9 dang near blew me away that a child with not higher than public education understood what nothing really is. in example i want you to think of nothing imagine what u think it is most people see black some see white but its nether cause nothing has no color,shape,smell,size,or existents.

and on the other there is no such thing as infinite, but there is such a thing as never ending. think about u have to have a start but u dont have to have a end.

and yes its almost one big runon sorry in a hurry

[Cathy Preston]

Hi Liberty Sea,

A represents the infinite. Everything has a not everything, but as the term everything implies, everything would also include not everything, as not everything is something

Not A exists where A isn't. A is the infinite. The infinite is everything.

Tris,

A = infinity
Not A = anything that "thinks" it is not A, which then creates more Not A.

just to add

FIRST CAUSE = thought

A = uncaused
Not A = cause/effect

[Tomas]

-Liberty Sea-
If A is everything, where does not-A exist?

-Benny-
That's the beauty of nothing its nothing no matter no anti matter this almost if not impossible for a mind to comprehend cause we don't actually experience reality through direct contact.

-tomas-
Where were you when I needed some crib notes in 8th grade science class?


-Benny-
Since all our experiences come to just electricity in our brains we have to associate nothing with color which its not cause nothing is nothing. So even where the only thing around and there was truly nothing how would you know.

-tomas-
Good assumptions. We'll never know in this lifetime.


-Benny-
I say this cause I was asked by my child to show me nothing and she said, 'okay', and stood there. I asked her what she was doing she said showing you nothing its right in front of me I laughed and then she said well you can't see, hear, or feel it daddy its nothing.

-tomas concurs-
Even children understand :-)


-Benny-
Now mind you my child is 9 dang near blew me away that a child with not higher than public education understood what nothing really is.

-tomas-
Give it a few years and keep your child well-aware of the pitfalls of over-education.


-Benny-
An example I want you to think of nothing imagine what you think it is most people see black some see white but its neither cause nothing has no color, shape, smell, size, or existents.

-tomas-
Await the capstone!


-Benny-
And on the other there is no such thing as infinite, but there is such a thing as never ending. Think about you have to have a start but you don't have to have a end.

-tomas-
Every picture tells a story, don't it!


-Benny-
And yes its almost one big run on. Sorry, in a hurry

-tomas-
Yeah, yeah. We all gotta go.

[banetoday]

-thomas-
Await the capstone!

-bane-<not benny not mad just correcting"
i now what capstones definition is but im kinda confused in what sense do u mean.

i got one for you. it was a theroy i had a long time ago but i gave up on it cause of to many dead ends
you will see what i mean.
ok now im going to use the word man but what i want to say is singularity being" or what ever our final form would be" im just not going to type that every line.

ok imagine 2 men/women standing in a room

man 1 says to man too i want to play a game

man 2 says ok what shall we play

man 1 says its a game of experince

man 2 says ok what is the objective

man 1 says to play

man 2 says ok

man 1 creates a game "life" which the object is to play

by playing the game man 2 has already won but what man 2 didnt know going in "our mabey he did" is that upon start he forgets he is in a game thus the real fun begins and the game dosnt end for u " man 2 split into all consensus observers " untill you die or find the exit and it goes back to the you rejoin man 1 in reality as man 2

the best part about this is man 1 would control the game environment but not u and all u could do is use the controller "brain" to play

the game ending i had hundreds of ideas but all where almost equally good but only a couple stood out to be more plausible.

if i was makeing a game that i wanted you to finish all the way i would ether put the exit where u can not get too our where u would not look for it. like in the center of a black hole for instance.


see alot of ill logic that stayed in my head for a long time and it was all because of that revolver movie.

i have had a lot of good theroys on this kinds of stuff i.e.

old world so called gods and messiahs we actually time travlers from a alternate timeline where religon wasnt created and the end of time came or they grew in knowledge so much that they destroyed the very fabric of there space and time but not before sending back there smartest to change the outcome of life on earth cause truely think if science was domanite with no religon morals wouldnt exist in the since we see it it would just be logic no real love hope or fear. this would help explain why they we able to do stuff that we think they couldnt or shouldnt have been able to do.

also i have one that kinda goes against all my other theories is a religious one kinda it really goes hand in hand with evolution. but thats for a later time or another post.

-thomas-
even children understand,

-bane-
i dont think so cause she wasnt right she just had the right idea cause even though there was nothing infront of her.she assumed there was nothing she couldnt see there wasnt nothing< double negative gotta love it>cause there was something i.e. air/light/sound and other things we just cant see with out limited vision.

[Gurrb]

i can apply logic to this problem, but i feel that it doesn't sufficiently encompass this 'dilemma'. firstly, nothing is the opposite of something. zero (nothing) is the opposite of any value (therefore has infinite amount of opposites). apply this basic logic to the ideas proposed by tristram (and the almost obligatory refutations) and we can assume that in this case infinity (everything) contains all things except zero (nothing). therefore, everything does not include nothing. this is obviously an ornate way of displaying rather primary logic. to add onto the theory, there can seemingly be a term coined 'not infinite'--not to be confused with finite. 'not infinite' simply represents the non-existent form of all there is. essentially, all things can either be or not be, they can be nothing but these two states. the amount of things that can be is infinite, therefore the possibility of not being is also infinite (although non-existent in a tangible sense). these non-existent forms still 'exist', they just cannot be experienced.

little bit of quantum mechanics tied into this theory, but the idea and its components are merely cognitive and theoretical.

[Dan Rowden]

"Nothing" is a nonsense concept. At best a toy we need for certain playtimes.

[Pye]

Dan writes: "Nothing" is a nonsense concept.

whew . . . finally . . . :)
O would that "it" could even make it to it-hood, let alone conceptual form . . . .
Anything but this, anything but this . . . . the real mantra of suffering . . . .

[Tomas]

i have had a lot of good theories on this kinds of stuff i.e.

Old world so-called gods and messiahs were actually time travelers from an alternate time-line where religion wasn't created and the end of time came or they grew in knowledge so much that they destroyed the very fabric of their space and time but not before sending back their smartest to change the outcome of life on earth. Cause truly think if science was dominate with no religion morals wouldn't exist in since we see it it would just be logic no real love, hope, or fear. This would help explain why they were able to do stuff that we think they couldn't or shouldn't have been able to do.

Care to expand on this? I didn't know if you were just passing through and not ever return to Genius.

[ForbidenRea]

"And" you're the son of anus.

[Firefly]

"Nothing" is a nonsense concept. At best a toy we need for certain playtimes.

'Nothing' is the basis for 'Something', that is why to name something "Nothing" is to name something. Without 'Something', 'Nothing' could not exist and without 'Nothing', 'Something' could not exist.

Makes sense as a foundation for Logic.

[Tristram Quinn]

Nothing and Not something are different concepts. Not something could indeed be something, Its just not the initial subject (ie me and not me, you are all not me). Where Not something applies is where someone sees something as supreme. Nothing is supreme, something and not something are only parts and thus can never be supreme. If you can look at the world and see it as it is, a perfect alignment of matter, and if you can see that you are the only thing you can legitimately justify as existing, than "not god" applies perfectly in defining you as something at all. Of course defining YOU is a whole other question, but defining NOT YOU is an equally a valid way to define YOU. Imagine everything as an A4 sheet of paper, and you cut out the shape of a human representing you. The human form and NOT the human form makes up everything, and this is the same for everyone, unless you can prove to me an existence other than your own?

Yes David is my dad.

I feel compelled to explain this just this once to justify my slow upkeep. I work five days a week and am twenty.

Tristram

[Firefly]

Nothing and Not something are different concepts.

I agree.

I was using our habit of labeling things as part of an analogy for existents with the label, "something" to represent any and every existent including existence itself. In the end you basically agreed with me.

-"Nothing" is a nonsense concept. At best a toy we need for certain playtimes.-

At this point he attacked the concept of 'nothing' by declaring that it is nonsense. A bad habit of cranky people. I thought to expose the concept of 'nothing' for the sense that it makes. Being that his post was a cheap shot and more of a poke than an argument, I didn't think my tactic would bother anyone. In fact I hoped it would help clarify things a bit.

Also, I thought it was obvious I was not addressing the "initial subject".

Sorry to bother you.

[Gurrb]

nothing is essentially an arbitrary label. it's difficult to avoid semantics when dealing with nothing. nothing is something that cannot be experienced in any way by an observer and their senses/body or mind. the intention is to put emphasis on the word 'cannot', as the potential for experience does not exist--it cannot become 'something'.

[Jamesh]

[If A is everything, where does not-A exist?]

Not-A is the future that the present and past MUST grow into.

Time is infinite, and if something is infinite then it must always be. If it must always be then the future must always occur and thus it can be referred to as existing as it cannot be otherwise. Its the same concept as the necessary existence of The Totality.

[Jamesh]

Nothing only exists in mathemetics and lingustics ie it is an abstract with no basis in reality. Nor do negative numbers for that matter.
It just represents an absence of a direct causal duality or reality.

As nothingness cannot be caused it cannot exist. It has no attributes for causality to work with, so cannot manifest.

Only things that are caused can exist, except in the case of that which is infinite, and infinity can only be 1 thing, not two.

[banetoday]

Nothing only exists in mathemetics and lingustics ie it is an abstract with no basis in reality. Nor do negative numbers for that matter.
It just represents an absence of a direct causal duality or reality.

As nothingness cannot be caused it cannot exist. It has no attributes for causality to work with, so cannot manifest.

Only things that are caused can exist, except in the case of that which is infinite, and infinity can only be 1 thing, not two.

no basis in reality, one would think that if A= reality then not A is nothing cause everything has a opposite. A is cause then not A is nothing. or am i just being redundant.

nothing is the cause for something before you can have something there has to be a nothing to create that something.

[jupiviv]

Nothing and Not something are different concepts. Not something could indeed be something, Its just not the initial subject (ie me and not me, you are all not me). Where Not something applies is where someone sees something as supreme. Nothing is supreme, something and not something are only parts and thus can never be supreme.

So by "not something" you mean everything except something, i.e, something else, and by "nothing" you mean absolutely nothing whatsoever - correct?

The human form and NOT the human form makes up everything, and this is the same for everyone,

That could be applied to any thing. E.g a rock and everything that is not the rock make up everything.

unless you can prove to me an existence other than your own?

The fact that a thing exists proves that there is an existence other than that thing - you said so yourself.

[ForbidenRea]

Not god; not Jesus!!¡!