|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2022 22:14:25 GMT
If evil is necessary for good to evolve to higher state then this necessitates evil as not only a good, because of its necessity, but good as fundamentally evil considering good always has deficiencies because it always evolves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 30, 2022 13:22:08 GMT
I think that good can exist without any evil. In other case there would be no heaven. Heaven cannot exist without Hell, otherwise there would be no distinction possible for heaven being heaven. God is super powerful. If He wishes He can create Heaven without hell. Heaven is a condition of the soul, it's not mechanical construction. Do you think God is a plain human engineer? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 18:50:00 GMT
Heaven cannot exist without Hell, otherwise there would be no distinction possible for heaven being heaven. God is super powerful. If He wishes He can create Heaven without hell. Heaven is a condition of the soul, it's not mechanical construction. Do you think God is a plain human engineer? 1. God's wishes are evidenced by what exists. A heaven without a hell would be a totalitarian way of doing things as God would force everyone to love him...this totalitarian way is evil. 2. The soul is reflective in the respect it gives and receives impression under the form of knowledge. As reflective the soul has a design. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 19:09:41 GMT
Yet your algorithms are the repetition, thus cycle, of the number 1. And yet the answer is repeatably the same under certain contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 19:12:26 GMT
A sappling growing into a tree negates the sappling. Growth and decay are relative opposites in one respect. However these opposites exist through eachother thus them being opposites is negated in another respect. One context says one thing, another context says another. You said destruction and a sapling is not destroyed because the full grown version of that tree exists and neither does the fact that said sapling will grow into a full size tree , and I used to have my horticulturist license so I've planted a few trees in my day  Good for you, I have planted trees and gardens as well. The form of the sapling is negated for the form of the tree, growth requires destruction. As further evidence of this the act of consumption destroys somethings (food) for the growth of other things (the body). |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 4, 2022 19:20:54 GMT
No, My Algorithms Are As The Universe Intended It, Which Is Vast And Beyond Human Intelligence. My PI Formula Is Better Than Super Computers And Quantum Computers, My Formulas Function Beyond The Prepubescent Naivety Of Repetition, It's Repetition That Prevented People From Understanding How PI Works, I Did What Nobody Has Done And Truly Figured Out What PI Is By Breaking Human Repetition. And yet the answer is repeatably the same under certain contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 19:48:37 GMT
And yet the answer is repeatably the same under certain contexts. So your answer, if not repeatable, says one thing at one time and a different thing at another? |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 4, 2022 20:54:11 GMT
The Answer Is Not Repeatedly The Same, Because It's The First Of Its Kind To Be Answered, After Thousands Of Years Not Being Answered. So your answer, if not repeatable, says one thing at one time and a different thing at another?
I'm Not Speaking In Checkers, Or Chess, But Quantum Facilitations In Regard To Multi-Faceted Agencies.
The Answer I Provided Does Go Two Ways, But For Two Contexts That You See As Merely One, Much Like "Algorithm" Vs. "Cycle" Are Two Contexts, As You Don't Understand Them Enough To Separate Them As Two Agencies.
I Have Considered That My PI / Euler Breakthrough Is The First Of Its Kind, So There's No Possible Aspect Of Repetition, While The Answer Concluded Does Involve A Type Of Repetition, But Not The Circulatory Kind, Rather The Critical Conclusive Kind. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 21:00:42 GMT
So your answer, if not repeatable, says one thing at one time and a different thing at another?
I'm Not Speaking In Checkers, Or Chess, But Quantum Facilitations In Regard To Multi-Faceted Agencies.
The Answer I Provided Does Go Two Ways, But For Two Contexts That You See As Merely One, Much Like "Algorithm" Vs. "Cycle" Are Two Contexts, As You Don't Understand Them Enough To Separate Them As Two Agencies.
I Have Considered That My PI / Euler Breakthrough Is The First Of Its Kind, So There's No Possible Aspect Of Repetition, While The Answer Concluded Does Involve A Type Of Repetition, But Not The Circulatory Kind, Rather The Critical Conclusive Kind.If no two contexts are one then things are not under a singular design. Your mathematical answers must remain the same if under the same context(s). As such they repeat under said context(s) and are therefore circular. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 4, 2022 21:04:39 GMT
No, My Answers Are Not Simple, They Are Vast That Consider Points People Normally Never Consider.
I'm Not Speaking In Checkers, Or Chess, But Quantum Facilitations In Regard To Multi-Faceted Agencies.
The Answer I Provided Does Go Two Ways, But For Two Contexts That You See As Merely One, Much Like "Algorithm" Vs. "Cycle" Are Two Contexts, As You Don't Understand Them Enough To Separate Them As Two Agencies.
I Have Considered That My PI / Euler Breakthrough Is The First Of Its Kind, So There's No Possible Aspect Of Repetition, While The Answer Concluded Does Involve A Type Of Repetition, But Not The Circulatory Kind, Rather The Critical Conclusive Kind. If no two contexts are one then things are not under a singular design. Your mathematical answers must remain the same if under the same context(s). As such they repeat under said context(s) and are therefore circular.
Circulatory Is Scientists / Mathematicians / Super Computers Never Breaking PI / Euler's Function.
Conclusive Is Me Being The First Man To Break Into PI's / Euler Function's Mainframe To Conclude Its Raw Formulaic Algorithm.
They Cannot Be The Same Thing, Because One Never Gets Anything Done, While The Other Does The Opposite And Gets It Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 21:10:03 GMT
If no two contexts are one then things are not under a singular design. Your mathematical answers must remain the same if under the same context(s). As such they repeat under said context(s) and are therefore circular.
Circulatory Is Scientists / Mathematicians / Super Computers Never Breaking PI / Euler's Function.
Conclusive Is Me Being The First Man To Break Into PI's / Euler Function's Mainframe To Conclude Its Raw Formulaic Algorithm.
They Cannot Be The Same Thing, Because One Never Gets Anything Done, While The Other Does The Opposite And Gets It Done.
Then if they are not the same there is no singular design to reality....only multiples. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 4, 2022 21:21:23 GMT
I Am Referring To Two Types Of Repetition: Circulatory / Conclusive.
Circulatory Is Scientists / Mathematicians / Super Computers Never Breaking PI / Euler's Function.
Conclusive Is Me Being The First Man To Break Into PI's / Euler Function's Mainframe To Conclude Its Raw Formulaic Algorithm.
They Cannot Be The Same Thing, Because One Never Gets Anything Done, While The Other Does The Opposite And Gets It Done.
Then if they are not the same there is no singular design to reality....only multiples. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 6, 2022 20:21:00 GMT
Then if they are not the same there is no singular design to reality....only multiples. If the parts where of a singular design there would not be the distinction between parts which result in a multiplicity. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 7, 2022 5:49:08 GMT
This Would Be Blanket-Stating, And Abusing Broad-Brush Fallacies. The Context Within The Tapestry In Its Unique Separate Parts Does Not Negate The Totality Itself, The Same Way The Gears Of A Machine And The Organs Of A Body Does Not Negate The Totality Of How It All Works As One, While Working In Parts. The Parts Are Of A Singular Design. If the parts where of a singular design there would not be the distinction between parts which result in a multiplicity. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 13, 2022 19:56:09 GMT
If the parts where of a singular design there would not be the distinction between parts which result in a multiplicity. The whole is the connection of parts, all things are one in the respect that all things share the quality of individuality/distinctness. The sum of the parts is the whole, the whole is reducible into the quality that is known as 'distinctness'. This leads to a paradox considering that all things are distinct, and this distinctness is the connecting quality of all things, yet this quality of distinctness (which all things share) necessitates a separation because of this very same quality of distinctness. Reality is both one and many and neither one nor many. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 13, 2022 20:17:22 GMT
Just Because Humans Can Separate The Whole Into Parts, Doesn't Reduce The Whole Into Parts. The Parts Work To Make The Whole, It's Not Just Parts; It's Parts, And A Whole. You Keep Trying To Jump To One Over The Other, When It's Clear As Day It's Whole (Of Parts). The whole is the connection of parts, all things are one in the respect that all things share the quality of individuality/distinctness. The sum of the parts is the whole, the whole is reducible into the quality that is known as 'distinctness'. This leads to a paradox considering that all things are distinct, and this distinctness is the connecting quality of all things, yet this quality of distinctness (which all things share) necessitates a separation because of this very same quality of distinctness. Reality is both one and many and neither one nor many. |
|
