Ok guys, so ive spent a couple of days now trying to tweak this out. tell me what you think?


Abstract: Through this series of propositions I demonstrate that the idea of an infinite yet personal creator (that discriminately chooses to create some things over others and keeps those that have existed from coming
about again) is a contradiction in terms. Further to this, I also demonstrate
that the theory of an oscillating universe is equally flawed. Instead what I
propose is that all existence is brought about indiscriminately without
limitation. This conclusion is further expanded within the ‘Aorist Principle.’



2.4.1.1 If X & Y are in fact one X then that one X still requires an explanation for its cause.


2.4.1 If X represents the present Universe and this present Universe represents the totality of known existence in the extensions
of both qualia and spacetime, then where two universes are connected by some common
qualia, space or time they must in fact be one universe as the extensions of
the first now extend through to the second.


2.4 We cannot consider X and Y as being separate and distinct if they are connected
in some possible way.


2.3.1.1 If there is no common qualia or spacetime between X & Y then both can be said to exist both simultaneously or either one
after the other as time is no longer a factor in regards to succession between
the two bodies.


2.3.1 If X and Y are completely disconnected from one another then there cannot be any means for Y to cause X.


2.3 Y cannot be responsible for X if it is completely disconnected from the latter.


2.2.2.1.1 It is insufficient to say that ‘once this causal chain has ended it will inevitably come back into existence’, as a causal chain,
being solely responsible for all existence, would require some finite catalyst.


2.2.2.1 The statistical probability of an infinitely enduring causal chain ceasing is equal
to 1.


2.2.2 An infinitely enduring chain of causality is subject to the laws of probability.



2.2.1.1.1 To bring any body to mind is to define its limitations, thus contradicting the definition of infinity.


2.2.1.1 An infinitely enduring causal chain can never be realized in its totality.


2.2.1 An infinitely enduring causal chain is a contradiction in terms.


2.2 For X to be caused solely by Y implies an infinitely enduring causal chain.


2.1.1 If there was only a finite energy source then, given an infinite timeline, even the loss of the minutest amount of energy
would inevitably cause the infinitely enduring causal chain to dissipate.


2.1 An infinitely enduring causal chain would require an infinite energy source to
fuel an infinitely enduring series of finite events.



2 It is insufficient to say that X is caused solely by Y.



1.2.2.1.1.1 If it wasn’t the case that this relative position qualitatively differed in some way to every other, then every other thing would appear the
same in respect to their particular discriminating value. i.e. there must be
some differing quality as to why one chooses one thing over another or else the
choice becomes a random act.


1.2.2.1.1 To have a preference towards any particular option constitutes as a bias towards that choice.


1.2.2.1 A bias towards something implies that one holds a particular relative position towards that thing, as this position differs from
every other thing.


1.2.2 To occupy any relative position over another is to take up a limitation, become qualitative, finite and therefore void of the
infinite. i.e. if one defines God as ‘morally good’ then this defines what he
is and what he is not, thereby imposing a limitation, thus causing God to be
finite in some particular way.


1.2.1.1.1 To physically act, including the processes of thought requires a finite amount of energy and duration and is composed of a very particular
set of values. These values constitute the nature of the act and subsequently its
limitations.


1.2.1.1 All action, including thought, is finite.


1.2.1 Choice is a finite act.


1.2 To imply that the infinite can choose or act discriminately constitutes a
contradiction in the definition of what ‘infinite’ is.


1.1.2 To choose from these options randomly is to choose indiscriminately.


1.1.1.1.2 One cannot keep something from existing unless one knows what it is that one wishes to prohibit.


1.1.1.1.1 One cannot know something before it has been created.


1.1.1.1 To know these options means one is already familiar with all possible options.


1.1.1 To make a choice, one first requires multiple options.


1.1 To create discriminately implies to make a choice.



1. X is not created discriminately by the infinite.



C X is created indiscriminately by the Infinite


By ‘discriminately,’ we imply that X has been chosen to exist over some other thing, either at a particular point in space or time or X
has been prohibited from existing a successive time or ever at all.


Therefore by ‘Indiscriminately’ we imply that there is no selective process in place which could prohibit X from occurring
successively or at all. Instead what is argued is that what limits an infinite
number of differing things from existing at once is the ‘Aorist Principle’ as
described.



Views: 41

Comment

You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!

Join Theosophy.Net

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service