All proof must be infinite, it it is to continue as an absolute truth statement, hence must exist as unlimited through this continuum. — eodnhoj7

Not true. Again, you're confounding phenomena with the laws which govern them. I can present a rabbit as proof of its existence but it won't exist forever and it hasn't been in existence since the beginning of time. However, the laws which govern manifestation of phenomena are eternal, infinite, etc.

All proof must be infinite, it it is to continue as an absolute truth statement, hence must exist as unlimited through this continuum.

Eastern philosophy allows for circularity, western logic does not. — eodnhoj7

Eastern and Western philosophies describe different circumstances. On the few points of intersection they have, they agree unequivocally.

All description, as a limit occurs through no limit: Anaximander on the apeiron — eodnhoj7

That's a concept. It is not something he proved, rather, hypothesized. Are you implying that's what you were doing?

Eastern philosophers have different laws of logic. — eodnhoj7

What laws?

All western logic is contradictory in terms of eastern logic. — eodnhoj7

Not true. Else, prove it.

Sources that state that:

"Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history." — eodnhoj7

First, every book that deals with perception.
Secondly, every description given falls under those limits.
Thirdly, the laws of logic - all of them which are currently known and acceptable within the fields of knowledge.

What sources? Have you perceived formless, causeless, nothing?

There are multiple logics, hence multiple interpretation of the same axioms. Do you want a list of the multitude of logics? — eodnhoj7

Not multiple logics or laws of logic. I'm asking for multiple and distinctly varied interpretations of those logics or laws of logics. If you have these, show them.

Wow, for you to confirm? So you know more than everyone else? You are an authority of Greater Minds? — eodnhoj7

No. To keep you from attempting to pull wool over my eyes.

You want proof?

Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity, character, etc. There is no formless, causeless, nothing, etc recorded in history. Where do yours come from?

I mean the whole argument is about why I am wrong, according to you, without quoting any source other than laws of logic which have multiple interpretations with the various sources hence are subject to a multitude of fallacies. — eodnhoj7

The laws of logic do not have multiple and varied connotations. Otherwise they would not be laws or principles. What they have is multiple applications. Don't confound the two. (This is an explanation. I've given such in all my rebuffs. Please check again.)

I would welcome any definitive statement from any of the philosophers you've mentioned which contradicts the laws of logic or which finds them contradictory. Be sure to include the exact reference point for me to confirm.

The reflection of a subjective state, as void of any definition, is the canceling of a subjective state as undefined, into a objective state as defined. — eodnhoj7

Is this new information? How did you come by this premise?

If agreement is the foundation of logic, then logic contradicts itself in accords to the bandwagon fallacy and your religion makes no sense. — eodnhoj7

No. Agreement is not the foundation of logic. Agreement is the sign of validity or acceptance. Logic stands by its own right. Like I said, your problem is misinterpretation.

Yes and I am saying the same thing about the laws of logic as being contradictory. — eodnhoj7

What same thing? Limitation is not contradiction. Boy, you need a dictionary!

Fallacy of authority, and ad-hominum, and an insult to yourself for feeling less than anyone intellectually. You are not objective about your subjectivity, hence the contradiction. Subjectivity cancels itself out eventually. — eodnhoj7

You need to take time and develop perspective. I may be smart but not so arrogant not to acknowledge greater application of intelligence when I see it.

There is a difference between beyond comfort zone and being out right wrong. YOU ARE WRONG!

Your axioms cannot maintain themselves. I am arguing all axioms can maintain themselves... — eodnhoj7

Anything past that would already be contradictory.
This is what I'm talking about. There is a difference between having information and having knowledge. At the very least knowledge is information given context. You need to take time to develop that context (perspective). It is greatly wanting.

If it is all subjective, then what are you trying to explain when you know your explanations to be subject to fallacies just like all laws, as you put it. Unlike your faulty explanations, the laws of logic are evident in their application to philosophy, mathematics, science and natural discourse. Their symmetry, harmony, reason is readily apparent in all the field of studies thus far. What validates yours?

To think by just exclaiming, "Subjective!" "Subjective!" that, it would make any of your arguments acceptable is very mistaken. The logic you call subjective is very authoritative because of the validity imposed on them by men of knowledge. You say it's a matter of agreement. Well, you should know that agreement means it is accepted as logical. Where is agreement of your premises? How logical does that make them?

If Pi is a relationship, and the line is a relationship of other lines as line, then Pi as a relationship, and the line as a relationship, observes Pi as a line. — eodnhoj7

Stop with this nonsense, already! If a black-skinned person is a human and a white-skinned person is a human, do you observe the black-skinned person as a white-skinned person because they're both humans? Neither is pi and the line.

@Metaphysician Undercover and I do not contradict each other. Your faulty interpretation is what misguides you.

Your logic is flawed. It is evident to anyone who reads your statements. It is one thing to hope to revolutionize logic by discovering some as yet unknown aspect but, you should be intelligent enough to know that the journey to the unknown begins with the known. Even Einstein did not disagree with Newtonian mechanics though he found them limited. My advice to you is:

Adhere to the prevailing laws of logic. Greater minds than yours have found them valid. However, our human perspectives are limited and there will always be the probability of furthering them. Already there are those who've discovered limitations to those laws of logic but they still understand their validity in the field of knowledge and they still depend on them. Don't be blinded by ambition or obsession. There is a saying (chinese or japanese), "fixation/obsession is furthest from understanding."

Instead of future explanations, please direct me to the source of your information. Perhaps that would more readily resolve this conflict.

Pi is a relationship. It is not a line. The value 3.14159265359 may be applied to a dimension of length but the length or the line does not become pi. If pi is a line, wouldn't a line be pi? Does that compute logically for you?

Pi is not a line.
Pi is not a length.
Pi is not a circle.

What is a quantum angle?

Being and non-being do not comprise a continuum when they are exclusive. You say you adhere to the laws of logic, well, newsflash, they contradict that.

Lines are just lines and points are just points. Directionality is an additional condition, not a quality inherent in the definition or value of a line or its constituent points.

What are laws but group agreement? With group agreement determined by proof? And Proof determined by not just the symmetry of the framework but the symmetry between the framework and the observers? — eodnhoj7

Then, if you differ from the prevailing application of the laws of logic, you must be determined to be illogical. If you agree, then your statements should reflect that. As it turns out, you do not. Hence, you are illogical.

The laws of logic are subject to equivocation. — eodnhoj7

So in regards to your statement "Equal" does not mean "is", you are performing sophistry which does not match up with the evidence with the evidence being the common perspectives of the community, which in itself leads to further fallacies. Evidence itself falls under certain fallacies in these respects. — eodnhoj7

Violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation...
In everyday language, violations of the law of identity introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity).

Are you trying to imply that these violations comprise of or are derived from a law of logic? As you can see, they are expressly referred to as violations.

The Laws of Logic where written and developed by Aristotle. As such we used them based off of a fallacy of authority, as well as bandwagon, considering these laws do not work in modern logic due to there inability to deal with time in a proper manner. — eodnhoj7

The law was not developed by Aristotle. Though he made them popular through his literature, they were and have been in use prior to him and since. Philosophers do not adhere to them because Aristotle has any authority over them, but because these laws have been determined to represent logic and have the appropriate significance and utility in all their applications. That is, they are valid to philosophy.

So The law of Non-Contradiction is not defined by the Law of Identity, and the Law of Identity is not defined by the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Non-Contradiction does not exist through the Law of Identity and defines it? Each law does not define the other? — eodnhoj7

The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other.

@Metaphysician Undercover is right -

P is not defined by not P. — Metaphysician Undercover

Common language can only be acceptable if it renders the right context. For example, "he is not good" implies he is bad/evil (or any other synonym which maintains the intended meaning). However, in no formal sense does 'not good' offer a definition of 'good'. Informally, as in common use, they're still extensively exclusive and explicit.

4)All straight lines are Pi — eodnhoj7

Pi as a line, varies in length with the circle however is always the same measurement. — eodnhoj7

5) The circle, through infinite Pi's observes the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0. — eodnhoj7

6) The line as a quantum angle — eodnhoj7

So a line between two points observes the alternation between being and nonbeing (void) — eodnhoj7

However if the line connects the points, it necessitates that through the line the points are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line becomes non directional considering the points are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother. — eodnhoj7

The negative dimensional line in turn is composed of infinite 1d points. — eodnhoj7

Void must be void of itself, so the 1d line observes the void of void or the 0d point dividing itself as infinity through the line. This 1d line is an inversion of the of both the 0d point through 0d point (or an inversion of inversion) and the -1 dimensional line. — eodnhoj7

The 0d point cancels itself out to units as multiplicity, but also Unity as pure directed movement. Nothing cancels itself out into pure being. — eodnhoj7

3) The line as composed of infinite points is composed of infinite lines, hence the line is composed of infinite circles as all lines exist as Pi. — eodnhoj7

4) The line is composed as infinite circles projecting, hence the line is equivalent not just to infinite points but infinite quantum circles as well. — eodnhoj7

5) Each line, as composed of infinite further lines, is composed of infinite "pi's" where the line as Pi is composed of further Pi's. Hence Pi is divided by an infinite number of Pi being divided by Pi. — eodnhoj7

Hence Pi dividing itself observes Pi as its own function of self-division conducive to 1 through the line where 1 is Pi as a function of perpetual self division.

f(x)= 3.14159→(x→∞)
............f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞) =1
................f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞)
.........................f(x)=... — eodnhoj7

4. The radius is half of the diameter.

5. Each radius in itself is a diameter, of another circle. — eodnhoj7

As the mutiplication/division of a length requires another length, Pi is a constant length of a line — eodnhoj7

Pi is a unit of length as one is a unit of length, with both being continuous. All lines as 1 unit of length observes Pi as a unit of length. — eodnhoj7

hence a line equivalent to Pi where Pi becomes a length. — eodnhoj7

So while pi = c/d or c/2r we are left with the circumferance being pi if the diameter is one infinity and the radius is 2 infinities as one infinite. — eodnhoj7

Pi is a length, not just a ratio and alternates with 1 as the foundation of length. — eodnhoj7

All lines are equivalent to Pi just as all lines are equivalent to one in themselves. — eodnhoj7

etc, etc



Since the above quoted information has no basis in any existing mathematical or scientific laws and even seems to contradict them, doesn't that mean it is your own (not yet universally recognised) invention or interpretation (call it what you may)?

The definitions you argue are correct under standard axioms of mathematics. The problem, as axioms, is that they are subject to a multitude of fallacies: authority, bandwagon, no true scotsman (pseudo fallacy for some), straw man (the axioms form a position not previously held), red herring (each axiom diverts to another axiom), etc.

The axioms are determined as true because of the arguments, as strucutures, which stem from them. These argument/structures, in turn are justified according to there symmetry with symmetry being the replication of certain qualities/quantities that show a common bond. — eodnhoj7

Mathematics is a science with its own accepted rules of expression. If you are not going to adhere to those rules, DON'T CALL IT MATHEMATICS! OR SCIENCE FOR THAT MATTER!!!

I came across this book in my library (long forgotten it was) and I thought to peruse a few pages for nostalgia's sake and then this hit me:

2. For there can be no Religion more true or just, than to know the things that are; and to acknowledge thanks for all things, to him that made them, which thing I shall not cease continually to do.
3. What then should a man do, O Father, to lead his life well, seeing there is nothing here true?
4. Be Pious and Religious, O my Son, for he that doth so, is the best and highest Philosopher; and without Philosophy, it is impossible ever to attain to the height and exactness of Piety or Religion.
5. But he that shall learn and study the things that are, and how they are ordered and governed, and by whom and for what cause, or to what end, will acknowledge thanks to the Workman as to a good Father, an excellent Nurse and a faithful Steward, and he that gives thanks shall be Pious or Religious, and he that is Religious shall know both where the truth is, and what it is, and learning that, he will be yet more and more Religious. [The Divine Pymander of Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus]

The underlined and in bold, seems to me, to refer to what philosophy is or what it attempts to achieve. I also came across the following definition (from an esoteric book whose name I can't remember), "Philosophy is the study of facts in their right relation."

If the proposed provenance of The Divine Pymander is true, then, Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus may well be the first philosophic writer. That aside, it seems that even in ancient times the significance of philosophy was well defined including its influence on other fields of knowledge and information.

It seems like the theoretical isn't definitive enough without empiricism. Don't all theories aim at providing practical value? If so, is that what gives them significance? If not, then what is their significance?

Is Elon Musk (or any of us) part of this simulation? If so, then it's that real. That is, a simulation is real to its objects/subjects. Right...? And how do we come to realize it's a simulation? We must have a reality (or non-simulation) to compare it with, right...? If we're not part of the simulation, then what are we?

Me, personally?

I prefer the principle of absoluteness. To me, Reality/Existence is absolute. Everything else is relative. However, even my concept is just that, a concept. I wouldn't take it to be anything more.

The only logical part is, as Socrates would have it, "can we believe in creation and not in a creator?" The only difference between a religious person and I is how much ungrounded premises we're willing to accommodate. I prefer minimum to none.

Christian, Islam, Judaic deity/deities - are presumed omnipotent.
Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu - presumed omnipotent; other Hindu deities - not so much.
Norse, Roman and Greek deities - not omnipotent.

It all depends on the individual's conception of deity.

Exactly. That's why we worship our own deities.

Depends on your conception of God.

If he asked, I would answer by saying, if the laws of nature were subject to whims instead of being based upon definite and unyielding directives then the chaos which humans exhibit would also be expressed by them. I think the rest of my statements express how I perceive paradoxes (the question was "what if God exists and doesn't exist?").

Neither God, Reality and/or Existence is the sum of all the aspects. They contain everything but are not defined by those things. If such was the case, then the incessant change observed in phenomena would warrant an incessant re-definition of God, Reality and/or Existence. In principle, the absolute is beyond the relative(s) and cannot be determined by it/them.

Unity is the expression of wholeness, comprehensiveness and, primarily, indivision.
Multiplicity is the expression of variety or variation. It also gives rise to relativity.
As with everything else, they are perspectives.

So, can a unity become a multiplicity? No.
For example, a human being connotes the unity of all the processes, mechanisms and faculties possessed by such. However, in shifting perspective to the various processes, mechanisms and faculties do we imply the human has become these multiple aspects? Obviously not. The unity referred to as a human being is a distinct identity which is affirmed separately from its constituent parts or any other identities regardless of the numerous points of similarity or intersection they may have.

The same applies to duality. For example, light and dark are a duality because they are alternate perspectives not because they oppose each other. In fact, they have a very distinct and unified relation where each phenomenon participates in giving rise to the other. Vibration or activity is fundamental to all phenomena. However, the relation between higher and lower vibrations is what gives the perspective we call light and dark. Dark is never the absence of light, rather, it is the lack of appreciation of it. The lack may be due to deficient capacities, tools, mechanisms, etc. Hence, the terms opposite, alternate, contrary, etc., must bear the appropriate connotation. Otherwise, they mislead.

In conclusion, only perspective can be shifted from that of unity to that of multiplicity (duality, triplicity, etc).

Also, those teachings which express the three-fold relation (or any other quantifiable relation) are in no way implying the breakdown of any unity into triplicities (or whichever degree of multiplicity).
The three-in-one relation (of God, Reality and/or Existence) is always a perspective of the characters, activities or influences expressed by the absolute identity.
God, Reality and/or Existence, if a unity, remains as such even when they express duality or triplicity in character, activities and/or influences.

As to the terms form/formless, cause/causeless, something/nothing, etc, if they are to be a dichotomy of polar opposites within a given continuum, they must each define a condition. Unfortunately, the very definition and application of the term reality or existence negates the idea of formless, causeless and nothing. This is because reality and existence or anything that is, must be assertive, inherently by itself as an identity (a kind of self-affirmation) and upon others (through influence and interaction). This is also the basis of concepts such as consciousness, mind, soul, spirit, etc, - they relate to the various conditions manifest in human activities.
We may not be able to comprehend or appreciate certain forms, causes or things, but they do not become formless, causeless or nothing based on that merit.

[The terms formless, causeless, nothing are used informally to denote certain relative conditions which are thinly related to the distinct meanings they are derived from. For example, formless does not explicitly imply a lack of form, rather, a lack of appreciation of form. The difference may be minor but catastrophic to the understanding if not clearly designated.]

Therefore, in the same way it would be mistaken to limit God, Reality and/or Existence within the dichotomy of good and evil, it is just as wrong to include formless, causeless and nothing within the points included in the continuum of reality and existence. It must be used within the bounds of human relativity and not be applied to a concept which transcends it.
Another example would be the perspective that, a line contains infinite points. We cannot, also, contend that a line contains no points. Either it contains (in this case, points) or it doesn't. If the latter, then we can no longer be implying a line. This is expressed by the Law of Non-contradiction.

This is the point of this thread:

I have this friend, who says, "if God is omnipotent why doesn't He end all suffering?"
I reply that, we humans are the instruments of our own pain and suffering. That, the order of intelligence and harmony observed in operation through all of God's creation (or Reality/Existence) would fail if there was no consistency. Therefore, it is impossible for God (Reality/Existence) to act different from their absolute nature by succumbing to human eccentricities. God (Reality/Existence) must allow the law of cause and effect (action and consequence) to operate appropriately and comprehensively thereby manifesting the extent of absolute justice. God's mercy is expressed in the wisdom manifest in a life that allows us to understand that we, ourselves, are the instruments of our own salvation and damnation.

Then the friend says, "If God is good, He should save us from suffering. It would be an act of love, how can it be against the laws of cause and effect?"
To that I reply that, first, our definition of good is explicitly a polar opposite of evil. They exist in the same continuum within human perspective and cannot be expressed as distinct factors. That is, good is 'not evil' and evil is 'not good' in the fundamental sense of their meanings. So, how can God be good or evil? God being absolute as well as the creator of everything must have existed before anything. That is, God existed before humans or their dichotomy of good and evil, and exists beyond them as well, else, that dichotomy (or human perspective) would also be absolute, but it isn't. It is wrong to conflate human conditions (the relative) with God (the absolute). Absolute love or unity is expressed through unbiased operation of universal laws.

What is the point of all this?

PERSPECTIVE.


One of the misconstrued aspects about perspective lies in the concept that, because everything we appreciate is relative, then, there's an endless dichotomy of conditions and interactions plaguing the field we refer to as knowledge. It is true that, limited capacities must possess limited knowledge. Philosophy, being a human endeavour, must just as much be expressed through limited perspectives.
Does this mean we cannot relate with the absolute? No. We most certainly can.
How? By creating a representative identity of the absolute and through strict laws of interaction map out conditions which surpass our limited appreciation. These laws are called logic. Logic must always define limits and it is from such that the concept of 'beyond those limits' emerges.
It would be careless for someone to confound the appreciation of limits with the concept of 'beyond those limits'.

Diligent philosophers are known to avoid succumbing to such traps. It is also possible that such diligence is a consequence of many trials and errors through a progression of varying degrees of success. This is because, from the many connotations of logic, anyone can find a way to skirt around its proper comprehensive identity or application and impose their own idiosyncratic imprint. However, it would always fall short of defining one key ingredient, that is, the principles underlying the operation of reality and existence. That is, it could not explain that which is beyond our relativity.
Also, if we restrict logic to the context of human reason, then, every human interpretation becomes valid because the comparative factor is of little significance when the mental processes inherently possessed participate fundamentally alike. Both smart and stupid people apply reason, the difference being the conditioning which determines their outcomes.

The choice to skirt around proper definitions and avoid adherence within the full complement of logic is insignificant child's play and un-philosophical (of no real value to philosophy). It is why philosophers worth any salt go to great pains to map out their perspectives. Personally, I think we have too many fields of philosophy to entertain a venture into the unnecessary. Therefore, instead of confounding human reason with logic, it is best to find that common path which philosophy finds utility in by serving the many instead of unwarranted self-aggrandizing displays of knowledge. Service to others is the reason why philosophers work hard to reach the understanding of those others.

Number is both quantity and quality. — eodnhoj7

Didn't expect you to argue this. I mentioned it to you earlier about numbers being both. I thought there was something weird about your arguments and now I get it. You used paradoxes to imply logic - that was your fallacy. I was confounded by how you used form and formless, cause and acausal/causeless, turned unity into multiplicity and back, used a whole mess of wording without elaborating any distinct meaning, but it's good to see you talk straight afterwards. Taking the argument as a contest in gab was a good strategy but poor in philosophy especially when it clearly contradicted logic. Good to finally meet this other side.
Namaste. :pray:

At this point, I raise my white flag and call an end to this unyielding argument. I will have my previous statements stand in their own merit as to whether they uphold logic. Still, I find a considerable amount of deficiencies in your arguments and I don't know whether it's in linguistics, logic or both but, if you make sense to yourself, then, I can live with it too. I withdraw. Perhaps I'm bound to realise that I'm the one with the deficiencies and inconsistencies. Anyway, have at it as you please.

That's a very compelling argument.

Unlike you I'm not predisposed nor inclined to follow his directive. And last I checked, Bertrand Russell is not the definitive authority on what philosophy is.

It's bad form to judge me negatively for acting against your expectations. The bar on good philosophy has been whether it is logical, reasonable, rational or, at the least, practical and beneficial. So what if I don't conform to Mr. Russell's or your parameters of philosophy?

Also, like all philosophers including Mr. Russell, their philosophies do not exclude science and religion. There's the part of science and religion which associate with philosophy. That is, facts, which in science are often derived from empiricism; analytical or critical processing of information; ethics or morality, a key component of religion; etc.

Bertrand Russell in History of Western Philosophy outlines in great detail the interaction between religion, politics, science and philosophy, which makes me wonder: the directive you're talking about, is it a case of do as I say not as I do, or what?

What point is it supposed to relate?

Anyway, I would readily indulge you if you reciprocate by reading, "Your Mind and How to Use it" by William Walker Atkinson.

Actually an experience that is not expressed or formulated through thought or memory and translated into word or action is effectively formless. — eodnhoj7

Every experience has to be interpreted through the mental faculty for it to qualify as an experience. The mind is the faculty or tool that processes experiences into consciousness, how can its influence be absent?

I may experience "now", and now due to its rate of change and its direction to me (impression) is effectively without form and does not contain any objective form until memory replicates it. — eodnhoj7

Every experience is appreciated as form. (Try configuration, circumstance or conditions for better context, but ultimately it refers to a form or manner of expression.) Something formless cannot create an impression on consciousness, awareness, mind, etc. The only difference is the quality of form in comparison with others. Also, as long as an experience is held within the bounds of personal/individual bias, it remains subjective. Memory does not determine objectivity/subjectivity. The degree of interaction, with different selves or distinct external points of references, is what determines objectivity. It is a relation not an independent factor.

However This objective natire, occuring through memory as a degree of self reflection, is not fully objective until some act or word allows it to becomes a common median people can find commonality with. — eodnhoj7

Like I said in my first post on this thread (after the OP), "the source of a percept is objective in its relation to different percipients while the source of a concept is always subjective no matter how closely a concept resembles that of another concipient." I will give another example: take two siblings and ask them to give the best qualities of their mother. While they may give a lot of similar qualities, there will be a few that are not matched. This is what shows the subjectivity of concepts. The same would work if you asked them to define their mother's face for a sketch artist to draw. The two renderings will not be identical even if they have plenty of matching features. However, the mother, the source of their perception, remains the same hence the objectivity assigned.

Your explanations show you are acquainted with certain information, unfortunately, they aren't coherent with the wisdom you are trying to match. There are a lot of holes in your arguments due to lack of strict adherence to logic. It is not enough to regurgitate what someone else has said. If you do not understand it yourself, it is impossible to pass on someone else's knowledge as yours.
"Own knowledge is better than that of another," I'm sure one of those philosophers taught something to the tune of this.

You should know the spiritual does not exclude the material. If we restrict 'dharma' to mean duty in the most comprehensive sense, then, because we have spiritual and material experiences among others, we have a responsibility to participate in both the spiritual and material but in accordance with a strict and appropriate code of conduct (call it ethics or morality).
Ultimately, there is only one experience, life, the rest whether spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc, is just perspective. I don't know what you're trying to explain by a biological relation devoid of the others (in "If a man and woman have a child through cheating, the individual are separating there current unions (and themselves as elements of the union to form a new biological union. The individuals involved respectively as divided by one ritual/biological union and a strict biological union. If a child is born out wedlock, while the ritual and spiritual union may be left out (or maybe just ritual if the parents stay together) the union is still strictly biological.") but it is wrong.
Whatever circumstances brings people into having relations with each other is a synthesis of all the above experiences (the spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc), it would be wrong to limit it to just one. This is also a key point of spiritual teachings on human relations.

Philosophy encompasses all fields of knowledge and information. Try not to get caught up in the details, instead, understand the message. The mention of religions is to give perspective to my understanding of God(s). The philosophy in that statement is that I do have information about God and I have chosen to interpret it as expressed which I believe is reasonable. Do you find it otherwise? If so, reveal.

The concept of God comes to us from Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Leibnitz, and is also mentioned by our modern contemporary Roger Scruton who lives in England. — hks

The concept of God comes from many different sources. The ones you've mentioned are neither the earliest, most prominent nor most favoured. Religions seem to have cornered the market on that.

Plus, what if God knocked on your front door and introduced himself to you? What then? Then all your assumptions about God would fly out the window. — hks

First, I have made no assumptions against anything happening. I have merely expressed my perspective with regard to what I know. Like I said in the OP (if you cared to read), until God is perceived, it would be careless for me to assume what He/She/It/They is or would be. If I saw God, I would only tell what I experienced and nothing more. However, my experiences would not become the experiences of others no matter how much they proclaimed it. Such experiences would provide information but can never be identical to the actual experience I participated in. Savvy?
I'm not against information or experience. I'm just saying people should not conflate the two.

You do not know God. That much is readily apparent. It may be the end to YOUR OWN argument. But do not presume to speak for anyone else. — hks

I know the God(s) expressed in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism, Judaism, Spiritism, Spiritualism, etc, among other domains. I have acquired the information as primarily given by them and experienced whatever inspiration is possible to me. After all that, I have come to the conclusion that those who profess any one particular deity or restrict existence to any particular limits, in fact, do not understand God or existence.
All those who think science is against religion or religion is against science; all those afraid to admit the little they know and opt to build grand illusions to mask their ignorance; those who think faith works against reason; etc, know little of God.
The unfolding of reality has a harmony and intelligence unrivalled by human understanding. To presume the little distinction we can make out with our rudimentary perspectives accounts for anything more is to bite off more than we can chew. Is it a wonder there's so much conflict in our minds?
The first part to understanding is to accept reality for what it is. Information is just that. Experience, whether personal or collective, is just that. When we try to extend one domain beyond its prescribed borders and into another without the proper insight then we experience the backlash such an error generates.

A good atheist would mention all the terrible things that have happened in history and blame God. — hks

From my point of view, a good atheist would be indifferent to God. What you're describing, to me, is more of an a-theist, an anti-theist. While the term atheist encompasses both in definition, I think it is counter intuitive to negate something you do not believe exists. Therefore, those who are against theism, to me, are not strictly atheists.

A good deist would simply point out that after creating us, God has simply left us on our own. — hks

A good deist would also argue that God, having given us free will, allows us to make mistakes, suffer through them, learn from said suffering and make amends. I wonder which is more logical, especially with reference to our experiences... ?

Considering a subjective experience is effectively formless in the respect it cannot be viewed by others, or given clear description thrpugh the self, subjectivity is formlessness — eodnhoj7

The fact that you are aware of your experiences means that it can be expressed to others through familiar points of reference. This means that others can have an understanding of it however limited and that a description can also be given.

The objective, that which is defined and observed by multiple people acts as a common median across subjective states considering many people can observe it. The objective acts a a form and function, or limit, in the respect it brings and maintains a form of unity inseparable from the act of it being structured.

Now the subjective, as formlessness or "no limit", and the objective as limit — eodnhoj7

If the objective 'acts as a common median across subjective states', how can it be a limit when the subjective is 'no limit'? How does limit arise from 'no limit'?

(example the rock may have a jagged edge that defines it, but what composes this jagged edge is formless) — eodnhoj7

What do you mean by this? This is what you said earlier, "The replication of certain limits results into complex limits as qualities which replicate so on and so for until some structure occurs." Where do you arrive at 'formless'?

3. A formless form is a unlimited limit, or a limit which exists through a continuum. A line or circle qualifies as such, as well as the number 1. Qualities such as colors are composed of infinite colors with an individual color merely being a boundary through which further colors exist.

4. One progressing to two is a logical observation of unity inverting to multiplicity. 2 existing as 1 number is a logical progression from multiplicity to unity. A cell individuating into another cell is a other example. 1 cell inverts to two cells as many cells with each cell being a unit in itself. — eodnhoj7

You can define a limit within a continuum but cannot then equate the limit to the continuum itself. If the limit is to represent itself as a continuum with its own components, then it would necessarily have a different scale from the continuum to which it belongs as a limit. You cannot have it both ways.
Also, the number two cannot represent 'more than one' and still be unity. You're mistaking the identity of a number with its value. Numbers are part of a relation and do not exist without their values. The individuality of a number does not substitute its value, therefore, 2, 3, 4, 5,... cannot be unity because unity is a measure of value. (1 - unit, 2 - dual, 3 - triple, 4 - quadruple, 5 - quintuple, etc.)

The inversion from a unified state into a multiple state observes a dualism through opposition (opposites) where inversion itself is void of any defintion because it is nothingness or has no structure.

This opposition, is solved through a form of synthesis, as joining. Where 1 moves to many and moves back to one again. 1 has a synthetic nature of continually moving. — eodnhoj7

Neither unity, duality nor multiplicity is contradicted by each other. The individual within a collective, whether of two or more, remains an individual. Unity does not become a duality or multiplicity. A circumstance can change from expressing unity to multiplicity but it can never be both. The circumstance (or limit) expressing unity is not identical to the one expressing multiplicity.

4. Shrodingers cat as both living and dead can be solved by observing the cat as "dying" where both states are observed as one continuum. If the cat is alive, but cells are dying is the cat dead? If the cat is dead, but certain cells keep replicating (such as toenails) is it alive? Shrodingers cat can be solved by a continuum.

The example shows a problem in the principle of identity, and the framework of classical logic being contradictory. — eodnhoj7

Logic is not contradictory. Dead does not mean cessation of processes or mechanisms. Dead means a cessation to the impulse of life expressed as consciousness. After death, the cells and tissues still maintain their mechanical and chemical organisations and proceed to enact their latent processes. You seem to have your own definition and, consequently, your own dilemma.

5. A progression is a localization of other progressions and strictly observes the directive qualities of one phenomena to another. In these respects, a logical argument as proof is merely a structure where proof and structure are inseparable. Intuitionist logic observes this in part where proof is merely a creation. The nature of unity and multiplicity, unity and dualism observes a synthetic property thrpugh the triad as one in itself. — eodnhoj7

A definition of a 'thing' as being composed of many 'things' is false. For example, from the above quote, 'A progression is a... of other progressions, a logical argument as proof is merely a structure where proof and structure...,'. You know you've not said anything about the identity of what a progression, proof or structure really is.

Take for example a man and woman, a dualism. They are unified through the function of sex and form of the child resulting. The man, woman and child are individual entities in there own right, while being connected through eachother as 1 family. — eodnhoj7

What if the man and woman are having an affair and cheating on their spouses? Suppose they get a child out of their respective wedlocks? See where I'm going with this? You are misrepresenting the idea of unity, dualism and multiplicity because you have not worked them out comprehensively.

It is clear you've borrowed your arguments from esoteric spiritual teachings. But you clearly have not understood the principles they're based on.

You have skipped all these august philosophers in jumping to your own conclusions. — hks

What conclusions?

I find your perspective unique and somewhat interesting, however, it seems deficient in several ways:

1. I think you're creating your own abstract meanings and explanations of certain terms e.g. axiom, subjective/subjectivity, objective/objectivity, time, cause, effect, form, etc without recourse to how they relate to the already accepted meanings. In short, everything you're explaining is self-evident to you alone.

2. I think you're not explaining any principles or laws which govern phenomena. You're just giving the same basic explanations that we know about phenomena using complex wording. We know things are composed of parts or that complex configurations are composed of simpler configurations; we know time is a factor in all relationships, circumstances or conditions; we know subjectivity is a perspective towards bias/limit while objectivity is towards comprehensiveness/integration (which, by the way, there's a lot of deviation and conflation of the meanings you give throughout your brief).

3. I think you've misconstrued what perspective means and have gotten entangled in a paradox of your own making. There cannot be a formless form. Such descriptions may be used in various instances but without the right relation it becomes a false explanation. For example, Schrodinger's cat which may be dead and/or alive - first, it is a thought experiment and, in reality, we can only observe either of the two states not both. Your explanations seem to have ignored the context given by perspective. It is not coherent because you mix mash between the observer, observed and observing. You need an appropriate sequence.

4. I think you're trying to delineate the progression from unity to multiplicity and back to unity while, simultaneously, highlighting the relations of duality and triplicity but it all seems cooked up. You have the beginning and the end but there's no logical progression in between them. There needs to be a how and why certain activities and conditions become or act as the what and where in the when.
If you're going to attempt to explain consciousness or activities related to it, then the why is just as fundamental as the how. Otherwise, it is just an alternate commentary on what we already know. And, if the point is to give an alternate commentary, then your mode should relate to ours or, at least, match the basic language of the field of knowledge it belongs to or, better yet, what is universally accepted. Think of it as a translation from your own understanding to ours.

Hope you can make it clearer to understand.

By symmetry, do you mean rationale?

This replication of symmetry, as a reflective or mirroring process, is the foundation of all phenomenon — eodnhoj7

To me, 'This replication of symmetry, as a reflective or mirroring process', is a part of the perception of phenomena but not its foundation. There is a distinct difference between logic and axioms. Axioms are not necessarily logical because they are often tinged with the bias of personal interpretation but logic is distinctly the expression of the laws which govern phenomena thereby inherent in their foundation.

Also, I think axioms express a degree of consciousness or awareness because humans express consciousness in all their activities. An axiom would be nothing more beyond human expression or relation.

Axiom, A self-evident truth — eodnhoj7

When is an axiom evident to others? And how does it relate to facts?
For example, 'women are inferior to men' has been a self-evident truth for many people for many years. Some still persist in that belief presently. However, we know it's not actually true.

1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity). — eodnhoj7

If the objective cancels the subjective, how can an axiom be both? Perhaps you mean they're separate in our considerations...?

3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God". — eodnhoj7

What do you mean by axioms are conscious and how do you come about it?