A theory of everything

[paarsurrey]

I'm not saying that humans know better than God - quite the opposite.

Then it is OK with me.

 

[kellykep]

I know only of the bible wherein the notion of the POWER OF CHOICE was given to man. Now the power of choice is one of the many powers that God has (remember that He is omnipotent), and this He bestowed to man. He kept all other powers to himself. Was He in the wrong when he gave this power to man? Or was He confused?
We can conclude from this that:
The power of choice was given to man because there existed themes, objectives, agendas, etc, that were, as you put it 'symmetrical'. man was given the power to choose between one thing or its other symmetrical half. God represents peace, love, harmony, light, good, etc. The opposite is the symmetry of God - sin, evil, satan, hate, anarchy, etc.

Man is the instrument that demarcates between God and its symmetry. What we live through in the world in the past, today or in the future reflects the choices that we made or make or are making regarding the whole. Because we were made to be the demarcation between God and its symmetrical half, we cannot live, at our present form, in the WHOLE. This is just impossible.
In seeing this impossibility, God created an instrument in man called the MIND and placed this in him. The mind is able to see and roam in the WHOLE and then quickens the body to act according to the computations of combinations and permutations it requires of the various symmetrical halves of God and its symmetry

Remember: GOD IS OMNIPRESENT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT. HE IS THE WHOLE. HE IS THE COMPLETE. HE IS THE UNITY.

 

[kaat]

I know only of the bible wherein the notion of the POWER OF CHOICE was given to man. Now the power of choice is one of the many powers that God has (remember that He is omnipotent), and this He bestowed to man. He kept all other powers to himself. Was He in the wrong when he gave this power to man? Or was He confused?

Interesting post! I want to 'challenge' the above part ... Given that the nature of what we're pondering mostly doesn't seem to be "knowable" by humans, and, the fact that the Bible was written by humans - how can we be truly sure about any of the above? Me making this point doesn't reflect on my beliefs - I'm very much a believer. In what, I'm not so sure.

We can conclude from this that:
The power of choice was given to man because there existed themes, objectives, agendas, etc, that were, as you put it 'symmetrical'. man was given the power to choose between one thing or its other symmetrical half. God represents peace, love, harmony, light, good, etc. The opposite is the symmetry of God - sin, evil, satan, hate, anarchy, etc.

Man is the instrument that demarcates between God and its symmetry. What we live through in the world in the past, today or in the future reflects the choices that we made or make or are making regarding the whole. Because we were made to be the demarcation between God and its symmetrical half, we cannot live, at our present form, in the WHOLE. This is just impossible.
In seeing this impossibility, God created an instrument in man called the MIND and placed this in him. The mind is able to see and roam in the WHOLE and then quickens the body to act according to the computations of combinations and permutations it requires of the various symmetrical halves of God and its symmetry

Cool, you've taken the symmetry idea in another direction. How did you come up with the above paragraphs? Are there any Biblical references to this? What I was briefly referring to, is different (I think?).

I wasn't thinking about sin and evil at all. I've always felt it obvious that these are the results of not feeling, or not accepting a spiritual guide of some sort. Without that, it's all just so much time in the wasteland (and of course, perhaps that's all there is anyway?). The symmetry I was thinking of is simply down to the idea that we all are one, including God, and that we therefore have the same potential as God. "Made in His image", if you will. About all being one - science tells us that before the Big Bang, there was merely some kind of singularity - oneness. I don't know if this thinking is good (and I doubt it's at all original). It's a bit like claiming that we're all African, which, in a sense, we are.

Remember: GOD IS OMNIPRESENT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT. HE IS THE WHOLE. HE IS THE COMPLETE. HE IS THE UNITY.

I certainly accept this, but, can you explain how these ideas don't in fact refer to everyone and every thing? I mean, there is only the one oneness, right? Thus surely it includes everything, whether certain parts of everything realize it or not.

Cheers,
Martin

 

[kellykep]

Interesting post! I want to 'challenge' the above part ... Given that the nature of what we're pondering mostly doesn't seem to be "knowable" by humans, and, the fact that the Bible was written by humans - how can we be truly sure about any of the above? Me making this point doesn't reflect on my beliefs - I'm very much a believer. In what, I'm not so sure.

I am a Christian and have been so since birth. I have never read any other sacred manuscripts or literatures relating to spiritual development apart from what Christians have written. But my indepth study of the Bible has shown me a lot of things that Christians do not yet appreciate. In fact, what I have just written in the forgone thread will sound intensely heretic to any Christians.

As a Christian, I believe in Christ. In wanting to make my spiritual progress not in vain, I set out to understand Christ in the context of the Bible and came out knowing Him far more differently than what I had known before. A dilema arose in which there was a need to balance the New Testament and the Old Testament. I knew that if I could bridge this gap, then Christianity will be the same thing as Judaism. By getting closer to the root of Christianity, I would get closer to the common themes of the Eastern Religions.

In my understanding, what bridged the gap between Judaism and Christianity was Christ. While Judaism was menat to be progressive, traditionalists and conservative clergies led the mass to believe that Jesus was not God nor the Incarnate Son of God and so Judaism became stagnant to what it is today - believers of the Old Testament only. But this could not be because, like an equation, the New Testament completely balanced out with the Old Testment and the equality was IN Jesus Christ.
When this enlightement dawned on me, it did not become impossible to believe in the Old Testament, less prejudiced. I was especially interested on how God structured the creation in Genesis. I found almost all the themes of the Bible emanating from the design of this creative activity. Anyway, to cut it short, I am sure of the Bible because it is a perfect balance and the oneness that we infer here refers to God. There is no other oneness apart from Him.
Genesis explains the concept of symmetry by introducing the notion of Free Will. You see, free will is an exercise of the mind exhibited through our various acts. It shows that when mental decisions are enacted, physical realities come to pass. Our predicaments are the results of our actions which are the results of our thoughts. So right thoughts will give rise to right actions which will give rise to right circumstances in life, and vice versa. Who instituted that free will should exist in man? According to the Bible, it was God in Eden when he created man.
One significant corollary from this observation is that, our momentary mental decisions regarding anything, in our case, the concept of oneness is the result of our free will to think that way. In considering this, even oneness has its symmentry and that is maniness. What is perhaps important is equanimity - realizing that one is many and many is one and leaving it as it is. Even so, when the Bible states that man was given the mind to exercise free will, it simply means that man was given the power to think, rationalize and then choose. This means that the power to think was given by God. Of all the other powers He had, God chose to give man the power to think. So we can think what we may, but these will all go back to God since He is the source.

As to the physical realities that confront us. These reveal yet another of God's power - the power to create. He did not give to man this power - to create something from nothing. You see, nothing exists only in the mind. So God created by conjuring things up from within His mind when he acted by speaking. Again we see this process: thinking, action and then circumstance.

There are so many other powers that God reserve for His own use. We do not have the capacity to understand them. The process of reaching enlightenement is through the exercise of the mind and its will.

 

[kaat]

We might as well also acknowledge that Muslims, too, accept Christ as a prophet, but not as the son of God.

 

[kellykep]

We might as well also acknowledge that Muslims, too, accept Christ as a prophet, but not as the son of God.

Insofar as Judaism and hence Christianity share, to a large degree, common ancestry with Islam. Perhaps this just shows a long religious jealousy existing between Judaism and Islam concerning a birth right which Judaism claims was given to them through Jacob, instead of Esau.

I wonder what that birthright was?

 

[Orias]

I'm interested in a grand unified theory of everything. But not only for science. For everything. The shortest way I can summarize my efforts so far is this:

Scio me nihil scire (roughly translates into) "I know that I know nothing".

By nothing we manifest "something", nothing is a consensual and consistent perception invoked by the existential. Through this means, what we know is purely subject to what is.

That was still hard, and at the same time I want to keep going

Everything is what it is, and is also the opposite of what it is, at the same time. Everything we experience is symmetrical waves on an otherwise still pool. This explains everything.

This is pretty good, and sounds pretty Satanic to me referencing opposition and what not

 

[kaat]

It's a privilege talking to such thoughtful people here.

 

[Orias]

I respect the goal and purpose of the thread here, it is something that I think would be awesome to explain short and sweetly yet at the same time it is something requires a couple of large posts to get into.

 

[kaat]

I respect the goal and purpose of the thread here, it is something that I think would be awesome to explain short and sweetly yet at the same time it is something requires a couple of large posts to get into.

You've hit (my?) nail on the head. I'm quite convinced that there is some worth in all this, but if I can't express it properly, or if people aren't accepting, what use is it?

 

[Orias]

Well that all depends on how sincere people are about what they take in as information, and exactly how useful the person in question is.

Aside from that, it would be easy to conjure such things as it being a way to bring forth a more universal peace or further segregation or whatever else follows appropriately.

But most if it is actually caring, which most people lack until it is pointed out.

 

[chinu]

Everything is what it is,

Yes! everything is what it is for a normal person.

and is also the opposite of what it is, at the same time.

Yes! it is also the opposite of what it is, at the same time for a abnormal/Spiritual person.

Everything we experience is symmetrical waves on an otherwise still pool.

Yes! still pool of love.

This explains everything.

Yes! this explains everything to a abnormal person.

 

[kaat]

... it would be easy to conjure such things as it being a way to bring forth a more universal peace or further segregation or whatever else follows appropriately.

Let's please begin exploring this - it's "the approach" that's on my mind a lot these days.

• Who might listen to and understand this theory?
  
• Is there actually anything new or different about the theory?
  
• Any ideas?

Martin

 

[Orias]

People that are more likely to listen, perhaps they are more like you and I.

New or different, depends on what you have been exposed to.

In terms of having any ideas, a universal theory is magical, influential beyond all grasps of comprehension. In addition, it is oppositional, like two sides to a coin. The dualistic references can only be referenced through a singular existence.

 

[kaat]

People that are more likely to listen, perhaps they are more like you and I.

New or different, depends on what you have been exposed to.

In terms of having any ideas, a universal theory is magical, influential beyond all grasps of comprehension. In addition, it is oppositional, like two sides to a coin. The dualistic references can only be referenced through a singular existence.

I can only agree, and once again hang my head as we arrive at the unknowable. Then again, I could disagree, and hold my head high as we leave the knowable.

 

[Orias]

Or we could leave nothing and keep moving towards our goal

As only the existential can fathom what does not exist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm generally a little concrete for this type of thinking, but...

Couple of questions. I don't understand what you're trying to communicate by suggesting that everything is at once both itself and it's opposite. For my way of thinking I've generally thought of things as being...kinda like along a grey scale timeline? With white and black being absolutes that only come into play with the most simple of questions. For example, I am a human. Absolute answer...(hey, I said I was concrete).

Whereas did you like the movie, would be somewhere along the grey scale. The factors that go into making it sit wherever it does would be numerous, but this is just a kinda overall pictorial representation. Sorta like cosmic metacritic...ahem...

So...are you suggesting that there are no absolutes, and that everything has a dual nature?

I'm having some trouble reconciling that with your view that when we're looking at the metaphorical glass of water, it's perspective based. This would indicate multiple 'truths' from a human perspective, which I get I think, but also that there actually is a single cosmic truth, albeit more complex than what a human could understand. Like...if an infinite number of people from an infinite number of angles viewed that glass of water, and you could then assemble their perspectives together, you would be able to 'see' what the glass is truly like.

Meh...apologies for whatever I have misunderstood or butchered. This isn't usually my thing.