There is God

post by Seremonia · 2011-03-30T21:56:00.334Z · score: -13 (16 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 31 comments
THE FIRST (The Uncaused Cause) AND THE BIGGEST (Encompass)

Firstly, I believe there is God. The definition of God on my side: God is The Uncaused (Consciousness that is not caused) and Encompassess All.

The argument actually based on "THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT" http://www.existence-of-god.com/... = "The past cannot go back forever, then the universe must have a beginning."

The impossibility to traverse back forever, only comes from thinking that it is impossible to retreat into the past to reach infinity. But the argument itself is still maintaining the possibility of retreat into the past indefinitely. That is, from our own thoughts asserted that search backward to the infinite extent should be stopped, while from the side of the argument does not assert a clear structure that shows the end point of a backward search.

This refinement shows the infinite that is indicated by "the first argument" actually indicate a stopping point.This argument perfected the argument that you know is: “because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will expire on the earliest”, where this refinement is by eliminating the reason (that asserts "traverse back forever is not possible") that lean towards unlimitedness.SYMBOLS for the argument

"[...]" indicates = direction, process
"(...)" indicates = object ... earlier ... earliest
"x" and "y" indicate = variables that can be replaced with any - considered - existence (on its own direction - position - related to this argument)

THERE IS THE EARLIEST EXISTENCE

(Consequences of Backward Search)

The existence of something comes from the existence of something else and the existence of something else comes from the existence of something else … which may be endless.

“x” <[from] ~ (unlimited)

(consequence) <[from] (unlimited – earlier)

Assuming that there is no any existence after the “x” then the most left boundary lies in the “x” (consequence – the next), and retreated to the right (causal – the earlier) away from the “x”.

The question now is whether this time can occur a creation? There are two possible answers are:

1. If it is not possible for any creation means no change in the amount of presence so that the amount being calculated from the “x” (consequence) and then retreated to the right (cause) away from the “x” there will be no adding for an existence.

“x” <[reverse direction] “!” (Limited - Earliest Point)

2. Even if it is possible for any creation means there is any additional existence towards the right (away from “x”):

“x” <[from] “?” [adding]> “y”

(consequence) <[from] (“?” – causal – the earlier – at any position) [adding]> (consequence)

Which resulted the search backward formation in two possible directions:

- search backwards from the “x” (consequence) toward the right (causal – the earlier – any position away from “x”),

“x” [search backward]> “?”

- the “y” (another consequence – an opposite position of “x”) located at the position of the sequence after the “? ” (causal – the earlier – at any position) toward the left (towards the “? “)

“x” <[from] “?” [adding]> “y”

“y” <[from] “?” [adding]> “x”

(consequence) <[from] (“?” – causal – the earlier – at any position) [adding]> (consequence)

“y” <[search backward] “?”

FINALLY, after all searches are always cultivated it shows (go to) the end point which is the limit as the earliest point from any direction, and this certainly confirms the existence of The Earliest.

“x” <[from] “?” [adding]> “y”

“y” <[from] “?” [adding]> “x”

“x” <[towards right] “?” [backwards from]> “y”

(“x” – consequence) <[towards right] (“?” – causal – at any position) [backwards from]> (“y” – consequence)

(“x” – consequence) <[towards right] (Meeting Point - Earliest Point) [backwards from]> (“y” – consequence)

----------
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

I just have to state it (license) to protect clearness of my refinement
----------

This dialog is a convertion for a better understanding. Sometimes thinking logically looks like "doesn't make sense" because of using symbols or forms of language that unusual to everyday life. This dialog hopefully will help them to get the sense of "make sense".

The point is: whether we go from the past to the present time or vice versa, there is no unlimitedness on the sequence !

I'd rather use dialog to clarify, and please use your imagination, this is a kind of thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho...). For a note, "infinite" in this conversation must be interpreted related to this argument:

Me: "well infinite, you must be running to the past as far as you can"
Infinite: "Yes I am running"

Me: "can you stop for a while? so I can catch the earliest?"
Infinite: "no, I am still running to the past, i never stop and therefore there is no ending point"

Me: "Ok, how about I make a guess for a number that represent an existence on your journey as the earliest that can exclude you!"
Infinite: "Okay, what is your number?"

Me: "The number is less than yours"
Infinite: "you can't catch me!, I am always running to the past"

Me: "The number is the same as you"
Infinite: "the number can't always be the same with my number", "I am still running to the past, therefore the number is still increasing"

Me: "The number is bigger than yours"
Infinite: "then it's me, not beyond mine, I am still running to the past and there is no indication for the ending point"

Me: "can you tell me the exact number at this present time?"
Infinite: "here is the number 1000xxx...!" "but I am telling you this is valid for this time, but later while i am running to the past, ... it could be represented with a different larger number"

Me: "Okay. I accept your number"
Me: "Okay, once again, when you said your number is 1000xxx..., meaning there are existence as many as those numbers, right!"
Infinite: "Correct" "Remember, now the number would be very different as I am running to the past"
Me: "Yes, I understand"

Me: "do you run backwards only to pass through the existing existence on the past, or each time you retreat to the back reflect the creation of another existence?
Infinite: "I am just passing by"
Me: "It's impossible, because it means you are not on the last point on the past
Infinite: "Ok, I am always on the last point on the past"

Me: "Meaning, you are always running (adding a number), and it indicates there is always a new thing (existence) on the past?"
Infinite: "Yes, it's correct"

Me: "Meaning, from any point on the past, I can pass through existing existence on the past to the opposite direction from the direction of your journey"
Infinite: "Yes"

Me: "Meaning, I am going back from the the past goes to the future, passing through all existing existence from the past"
Infinite: "Yes"

Me: "Meaning, it asserts the fact namely from this time goes back to the past, and from the past goes back to this time, and there will be a meeting at a certain point which is the meeting point from two-way search"
Infinite: "Yes"
Me: "Meaning, it asserts there is an existence at the meeting point"
Infinite: "Yes, but there could be more than one existences, each of existence is an endpoint from me (from the past to this time) and you (from this time to the past)"
Me: "I consider it The EndingPoint - The First without beginning"
Infinite: "You should be consider, there are more than one of it"

Me: "at least I found the existence of the earliest, the endingpoint, for my own species"
Infinite: "Whatever" ... "Finally you found the endingpoint on your side through searching on my sequence"

Meaning: THERE IS THE FIRST (Uncaused Cause) AND THE BIGGEST !

My refinement is showing that if we forced to traverse back, then infinity itself shows us a reverse direction, and infinity in this condition will lead us to meeting point.
The Last Part:
To facilitate the understanding, reality can be divided into several categories, and for something has a cause to it and form a causal sequence (traverse back) that is also typical for something itself.

So you can assume there is the sequence of events for animal, there is a sequence of events for matter, and there is a sequence of events for whatever it is. And each of these types of reality should be considered to have something that is: "The First without beginning and it's typical to animal (matter, etc). It asserts, that we can think of a logical consequence of the existence of more than one of "The First without beginning ". There is "The Uncaused Cause" for animals, there is "The Uncaused Cause" for matter, there is "The Uncaused Cause" for human, etc.
  1. There should be the earliest for anything, or the past will go on and go on without having an ending point, and it's impossible, as mentioned above.
  2. Therefore,anything could be track back tothat is regarded as the earliest, "The First without beginning, "The Uncaused Cause".
  3. Then from here, it can be concluded further that because the reality in all categorieshave the sameness namely it's constructed with the same kind of particles, then it should have similarities between "The First without beginning" with all "The First without beginning" in each category of reality. At this point of view, I've turned into, that there is just one "The First without beginning" for each category of reality. Andit is The Greatest (The First without Beginning) and Encompasses All.
Once we believe in the existence of "The First without beginning", it means if we are able to communicate, animals can communicate, then "The First without beginning" is also able to communicate. If we are able to realize, able to feel, then "The First without beginning" is also able to realize  and feel. Up here is enough for me to make sure that there is "The First without beginning" that is able to realize,  able to communicate. And for me it's enough to ensure for the existence of a large force that encompasses everything and can be considered as having consciousness that is worth for us to make decisions, to press the worship button.

 

31 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Manfred · 2011-03-30T22:19:33.319Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Some tips: Before talking about infinity too much, be sure to read up on set theory in mathematics, which has lots of interesting things to say about infinity and provides a common language for saying them.

Also be careful to not use the same word for different things. If you want to call the first cause God, that's okay. But be careful not to later use it for "conscious being" without explicitly showing that the first cause is a conscious being. Track the concepts, not the words.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:01:41.735Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Udnertsadning teh esesnce is cretainty to evreyone to comumnicate wihch is ohter

comment by nhamann · 2011-03-30T22:17:40.033Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sorry, I could not make sense of any of this. Especially the symbolic part, but also the conversation part. And all the other parts too.

comment by Alicorn · 2011-03-30T22:21:17.335Z · score: 7 (7 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yes, especially all of it.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:27:30.801Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sorry, perhaps you can try understanding on thought experiment section.

Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again, sorry for this.

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-03-30T22:54:23.308Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Once we believe in the existence of "The First without beginning", it means if we are able to communicate, animals can communicate, then "The First without beginning" is also able to communicate. If we are able to realize, able to feel, then "The First without beginning" is also able to realize and feel. Up here is enough for me to make sure that there is "The First without beginning" that is able to realize, able to communicate. And for me it's enough to ensure for the existence of a large force that encompasses everything and can be considered as having consciousness that is worth for us to make decisions, to press theworshipbutton.

This doesn't follow. Just because all things have the same particles, or share origins, doesn't mean that they share all the same properties.

We can communicate. Clams, which are made of all the same particles and share most of our evolutionary history, cannot communicate.

I agree with Manfred that you should study the mathematical concept of infinities further before attempting to base arguments on your understanding of it. However, since the universe does appear to have a past of limited length, and so there is probably something that could be considered the first cause, this is not the main problem with your conclusion.

The main problem is that you seem to be attributing qualities to that first cause that it almost certainly doesn't have. It's much simpler to make thinking things out of parts that don't think, which follow consistent rules, than to make everything have thought on a basic level. This post explains this somewhat, and I hope it can make things clearer for you.

Naming such an entity "God" is also almost certainly a mistake. The entire Human's Guide to Words sequence is helpful to understand, but this post is probably the most important for your right now.

I'm sorry that these articles aren't available in a language that would be easier for you to follow. Comprehending the sequences is hard enough work for fluent English speakers, and it's difficult to express the concepts in them more plainly, but the ideas would be valuable for your to understand.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-03-31T02:22:40.160Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I am asserting that, for "The First without beginning" it shows the consequence of having qualities that cover all things that derived from "The First without beginning" itself. Therefore I am not saying that because anything created with the same particles then it means they share all the same properties. I am saying that if we see something able to communicate, then this ability must be inherent to "The First without beginning". The ability to communicate doesn't have to be owned by anything.

And I it doesn't have to be structured based on mathematics. As long we constructed argument with axioms and we can understand it, then it's enough for someone to see the make sense of the truth.

For someone who can understand the axiom and can feel the certainty expressed by the axiom, that was enough. Mathematics is not mandatory for everyone, but certainty in the understanding is required for anyone who wants to understand the certainty of something.

I consider the earliest is God that it's "The First without beginning", "The First and The Biggest", It encompasses all things that derived from itself.

"I'm sorry that these articles aren't available in a language that would be easier for you to follow"

I realize that, and this requires more than just the english language for daily activities, but at least I try to flow and see if things become clearer and more easily to be communicated, and hopefully, we will gradually come to another area and spread to overall problem, and maybe in the end we can see the essence of a problem and understand more thoroughly.

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-03-31T02:34:34.300Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I am asserting that, for "The First without beginning" it shows the consequence of having qualities that cover all things that derived from "The First without beginning" itself. Therefore I am not saying that because anything created with the same particles then it means they share all the same properties. I am saying that if we see something able to communicate, then this ability must be inherent to "The First without beginning".

This isn't the case though. It's possible for us to construct simple sets of rules different from those of our own reality which can potentially give rise to intelligent life (John Conway's Game of Life being the example given in that article.) The set of rules is not intelligent, but entities which exist within the system can be.

The potential for intelligences to exist must be inherent in the set of rules, that's obvious, but this is simply a consequence of how entities obeying the rules interact. It's not as if "Intelligence: allowed" is inscribed on some cosmic natural order. Nobody even has a concrete idea of what it would mean if that were true.

If you want a word for an entity that encompasses all things derived from itself, what's wrong with "universe?"

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:37:57.042Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Please note that there is an axiom to show that something has a connection directly or indirectly with the awareness. And it can be tested by being able to travel from point A towards a certain direction and return to starting point A. This proves that something should be considered able to adapt and communicate directly or indirectly with us.

And the more difficult things to establish movement patterns near circular trajectory, parabolic, it indicates the less chance of something considered to have a conscious and able to adapt and communicate better.

If there is something is big enough (planet) and considered difficult compared to our lifes to forms the trajectory approaching the form of spheres or parabolic, but it did, then it assert that there is a consciousness that has the quality to adapt a more diverse and better communication.

If something more intelligent, then something will be increasingly able to demonstrate the ability to create movement closer to parabolic trajectory or circle. This is the axiom.

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-02T14:00:03.334Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

What basis do we have for adopting that as an axiom? It seems completely arbitrary.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T15:58:44.763Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • The momentum of something that moves without any obstacles at all will likely move to a perpendicular direction.

  • Something (gravity etc) that forcing something else to form as an angular movement (closer to parabolic or circle), then it requires the resistance that is not random.

    Moreover, for the motion that closer to parabolic or circular and it was happened ​​over and over again, then this further indicates the existence of resistance to the linear momentum that is not random and directed, and this confirms there is something behind it, and it's the existence of intelligence and strength enough to adjust and controlling.

  • We can validate it with empirical evidence, and easy to know in everyday life.

    • A dog that is chasing its tail.

    • Computer simulation featuring a circular image, it simply shows the intelligence behind the computer, and it has been proven which is human.

    • and other similar with these, etc, ...

The more neat for something doing movements (left traces in the form of) that is closer to the parabolic shape or a circle with a greater difficulty (compared to our lifes) and it was happened again and again, the more shows there is the existence of an intelligent with the power which is also higher (large).

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-02T17:24:37.919Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

The momentum of something that moves without any obstacles at all will likely move to a perpendicular direction.

Can you explain this further? On face value, this appears to be either meaningless or false.

Something (gravity etc) that forcing something else to form as an angular movement (closer to parabolic or circle), then it requires the resistance that is not random.

Celestial bodies tend to move with negligible resistance, and there's no reason to hypothesize an intelligence guiding them when exceedingly simple rules of motion explain their behavior quite precisely.

If you can follow it, it may be helpful for you to read this. You appear to be reasoning by analogy when the mechanisms behind the things you're referring to do not support the comparison.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T19:36:35.252Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • On outer space, if something is thrown, then the object will travel a straight path. Please try to use your feeling (your sense of self-evidence), whether the object will turn from its original direction (if there is no obstacle)? Of course not. If the object is in conflict or are attracted by gravity from another object, maybe it'll shift. And if the attractiveness of the object is stopped, then this object will be shifted from its original direction but not in a circle.

    Imagine a missile exploring a space and bound by a strong rope in its nose. When the missile is traveling in a straight direction, then pull the rope on the missile until the missile is enough to make the shift, then cut the rope, so the missile can travel free to move forward in accordance with the residual energy.

    Are you aware of this? Missiles will be shifted but did not form a circular path. If necessary, the rope can be drawn continuously (with supervision - consciousness) to shift the missile and withdrawn continuously to form a round, but this reflects a conscious effort (intelligent).

    Or after shifting, the rope is released and a new missile has a trajectory different from the original trajectory (but not a circle). Or taken over by the program to return to its original position, and this shows there is intervention of intelligence.

    Here asserted that the missile which shifted from its original direction of movement will tend to have a new path which will never form a parabolic or circular.

    Do you believe in someone who said he had seen a missile shot and after a hit by something and still be able to continue the trip, the missile is moving in different directions with the direction of movement that is almost close to parabolic or circular path (and this is done without using a program or without the remote control by humans that is considered to have intelligence)?

  • Suppose you look at the super computer that is turned on for weeks and just make a simulation of image as a circle. Is this enough to show us there will always be a simulation of image as a circle that repeated for many times, so it is considered there is no intelligence (programming) guiding the supercomputer?

    Let us now thinking by scaling with our own reality. We see through a smaller scale in our lives. Is there something not worth mentioning as intelligent but it can form a movement from A back to A or more perfect again by forming a pattern of near parabolic shape or a circle?

    Maybe we have been so affected by the circumstances of the movement pattern of celestial objects are repeated continuously so as to give the impression as it is without any effort (negligible resistance), automatically or similar to these, etc. Strong enough to ignore the existence of resistance. But this is actually a relative.

    Negligible resistance? Because of what?

It's not about analogy, but it's about thinking by scaling.

Thank you for this http://lesswrong.com/lw/rj/surface_analogies_and_deep_causes/

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-03T00:46:24.704Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

On outer space, if something is thrown, then the object will travel a straight path. Please try to use your feeling (your sense of self-evidence), whether the object will turn from its original direction (if there is no obstacle)? Of course not. If the object is in conflict or are attracted by gravity from another object, maybe it'll shift. And if the attractiveness of the object is stopped, then this object will be shifted from its original direction but not in a circle.

It's been known since the day of Galileo that an object can attain a circular trajectory by traveling at an appropriate speed perpendicular to gravity. It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules.

In relativistic physics, celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space.

You're invoking complex explanations to account for simple phenomena.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-03T13:42:27.018Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • As you said: " It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules."

    But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.

  • As you said: "celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space"

    It's not a problem. The possibility that a planet circulating around the sun because of being pulled (classical theory) or it happened because they were held by a curved space, it still shows a force or property that has a characteristic capable delivering simulation near parabolic or circular motion.

One more thing, I'm also not simplify anything, but I just try to see things from another perspective and see what's there. On further application should stick to relevancy. When talking about nature and how to interact, then we can not let go of physical explanation, but at least when we talk about an awareness that higher than our own, then physics has room for it.

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-03T14:34:26.103Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.

Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I'm having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it's basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America.

I don't think there's much point in my continuing this. If you can read and demonstrate that you understand all the sequences, then we might be able to get somewhere, but at this point, you're making some very basic and fundamental errors; and they are errors, not simply disagreement, and I don't think we're communicating effectively enough to dispel them.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-03T15:10:09.435Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

As you said: "Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I'm having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it's basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America."

I am not saying something irrelevant, It's not like that. What I mean:

  • When doing activities that involve patterns of circles, thinking in a circular patterns, researching things, and there are many circular patterns involved and occur repeatedly. This shows that we are facing a lot of evidence of intelligence related to what we're dealing with.

    I confirm that all that we face (if not for all) have a lot of crossing patterns and return to its original position, the circle, and this is enough for us to show the existence of intelligence behind it all.

  • Tracking something in relation to this case which involves a parabolic pattern and circle, or in other words think of something, make an argument involving parabolic and circular pattern, it also indicates the existence of intelligence.

  • Protecting - self defense in such way that leave a trail near parabolic or circular pattern, it indicates there is something intelligent involved.

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-04-03T17:09:15.937Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Circles are not evidence of intelligence. Take an object moving in a straight line and apply centripetal acceleration to it, and you have circular motion. It's one of the easiest things in the universe to do.

Unless you go out of your way to demonstrate that you've read the rest of the sequences and understood them, this is the last I am going to respond.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-03T22:35:32.623Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

As you said: "Take an object moving in a straight line and apply ......, It's one of the easiest things in the universe to do."

Really?

  • You can cancel this conversation anytime, but you can not deny that just by simply making parabolic shape or a circle over and over again is not as easy as you think. Especially if it is done on location or circumstances that are difficult (challenging) and in a larger scale. It's not as easy as you think.

  • If you compare with someone who has advanced about HOW to make a circular motion, this is not fair.

    But try to carefully and compare with more than one child. You'll get a few of them made ​​a circle with a form that is far from a circle, and some may be able to draw circles better.

    Even with the evidence that you can make a circle with tools or other strategies, this proves you are more intelligent than a children.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463539/Two-year-old-Matilda-youngest-girl-Mensa.html

  • You should not limit the discretion only to the extent of the sequences in this lesswrong.

And I already cancel this conversation, because you need more times to contemplate the reality of everyday life. Give it a try on your everyday life and you may answer for yourself. Perhaps you consider this argument is weird, but you will find this is as a simple truth but deep.

Thank you anyway personally by providing an opportunity for discussion. See you next time.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T04:41:22.026Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Universe does not cover everything, universe just as a place for everything. All qualities are not derived from the universe, because if this is true, then at least there are signs that the universe has a quality of one of thing that derived from the universe itself, which is able to communicate. It's just a place. We are not within universe, but universe within us.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-03-31T02:52:32.089Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

A set must have the potential of members of a set. Universe encompasses all only as far as accommodating, but it does not have the potential to communicate like humans

If a man makes a work of whatever it is, certainly at one time, there will be a work that reflects the characteristics of humanity, and demonstrated ability to interact with humans, but we understand the axioms that the universe would never have characteristics that can be attributed to humans, but only to be places . Among the universe with human and the other is the complementary for each other.

comment by Desrtopa · 2011-03-31T03:05:43.796Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

A set must have the potential of members of a set. Universe encompasses all only as far as accommodating, but it does not have the potential to communicate like humans

It doesn't actually follow from your argument that this is problematic at all though.

I don't want to be rude, but I think your English fluency is really impeding your ability to argue your point. A lot of what you're saying doesn't make sense, and it's difficult to tell how much of it is due to lack of familiarity with the language. For your benefit, I should point out that this is not a community where this statement

This dialog is a convertion for a better understanding. Sometimes thinking logically looks like "doesn't make sense" because of using symbols or forms of language that unusual to everyday life.

holds true. Members of this community in general are quite well equipped to follow symbolic logic, and if a lot of people here are telling you that you're saying something that doesn't make sense, it's worth taking seriously the idea that rather than having an audience that doesn't understand, you may actually not be making sense.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:16:05.299Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

When you can not understand something, at least you can explain the essence of something that you can not understand, even if it's wrong, to show that you can not understand, and to demonstrate that the essence of an explanation can not completely understood, and it can not be understood not by appearance, but because its essence can not be understood

Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again. sorry for this.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-03-31T03:26:56.389Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thank you as i mentioned before, if somehow, we still unable to make intelligible communication, then i should delete my argument. that's all. thanks

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T04:51:25.972Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Udnertsadning teh esesnce is cretainty to evreyone to comumnicate wihch is ohter

comment by Dreaded_Anomaly · 2011-03-31T02:00:02.535Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

The universe does not need God.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T05:48:23.889Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yes, you are correct, but on my side, the necessity that inherent to my logical thinking asserts the existence of God. Anyway, Every person has differences, I can't argue it.

We all share just looking for suitability in between us, not arguing.

Arguing to reach an approval is only an illusion, but actually, everyone has limits in the adjustment, and when the compatibilities occur among us, will be formed as an approval.

There is no arguing, it's just adjusting. So, if you do not agree with me, that just because you do not have compatibility with me. Nothing is wrong, truth is subjective to the observer, but not for truth itself, It's just an illusion about arguing on our own perception.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-03-30T22:28:01.042Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand the essence, but if you still couldn't understand, that's ok , soon i will consider it to be deleted. Thank you anyway for your comments.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T06:58:21.832Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

We all share just looking for suitability in between us, not arguing.

Arguing to reach an approval is only an illusion, but actually, everyone has limits in the adjustment, and when the compatibilities occur among us, it will be formed as an approval.

There is no arguing, it's just adjusting. So, if you do not agree with me, that just because you do not have compatibility with me. Nothing is wrong, truth is subjective to the observer, but not for truth itself, It's just an illusion about arguing on our own perception.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T06:30:04.010Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Another proof for intelligence life, that should be considered leads to the existence of The Most Powerful Consciousness:

  • Please note that there is an axiom to show that something has a connection directly or indirectly with the awareness. And it can be tested by being able to travel from point A towards a certain direction and return to starting point A. This proves that something should be considered able to adapt and communicate directly or indirectly with us.

  • And the more difficult things to establish movement patterns near circular trajectory, parabolic, it indicates the less chance of something considered to have a conscious and able to adapt and communicate better. If something more intelligent, then something will be increasingly able to demonstrate the ability to create movement closer to parabolic trajectory or circle. This is the axiom.

If there is something is big enough (planet, Einstein's geometric gravity etc) and considered difficult compared to our lifes to forms the trajectory approaching the form of spheres or parabolic, but it did, then it assert that there is a consciousness that has the quality to adapt a more diverse and better communication.

comment by Seremonia · 2011-04-02T06:19:17.868Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

For someone that still don't understand my argument:

  • Sorry, perhaps you can try understanding on thought experiment section.

  • Udnertsadning teh esesnce is cretainty to evreyone to comumnicate wihch is ohter.

  • When you can not understand something, at least you can explain the essence of something that you can not understand, even if it's wrong, to show that you can not understand, and to demonstrate that the essence of an explanation can not completely understood, and it can not be understood not by appearance, but because its essence can not be understood.

Anyway, If it does not help, sorry, even when you feel my arguments are not much understood, but my argument can not be deleted, so in the end I tried to respond as simple as possible. Once again. sorry for this.