I agree, it couldn't possibly be meaningless, I would reframe the statement to, God is ... If we accept growth in nature as the obvious workings of a creator, i.e. structure, then the content will always be in context of such. For instance, the sun shines and grows the weeds as well as the vine. There is no dvision of what should or shouldnt receive the sunshine. This has been proposed as the basis of unconditional love, regardless, it is made available to everything, such is pure love.

I would also be tempted to go further, if God is infinite and you divide infinity, then you have two aspects of infinity, albeit one if really framed by the other. In this context God most certainly would approve of God and instead of being meaningless it now has both meaning and can be evidenced in the law of nature via growth. As Jesus put it, "i am in you, you are in me, and I am in the Father".

Nor do I except for what I have read and understood, but I have an exceptional teacher, life. So I my view the entire concept is a massive deception and cannot be answered truthfully. It would be worth reading the first book of Platos republic its not very long and easily read in less than a day. But keep in mind, "he who holds the pen, writes the history" and "the pen is mightier than the sword". Plato wrote the Republic, but didnt feature in it, instead he claimed it was Socrates he was narrating on behalf of (abdicating responsibilty) and consider careful how at the beginning he creates a frame of reference and also admits there was a "small deception" in the logic in the preamble. The written language is incapable of answering the question, much like...

Its nice to be important, but its more important to be nice.
Its right to be wrong, its wrong to be right.
Its good to be bad, its bad to be good.

All examples why logic cannot answer the question because of its inadequacy (its only one side of the coin and therefore cannot describe the entire coin)

I am starting to consider that neither good nor bad, right nor wrong exist unless they have already broken out of unity. Within unity, neither exist because one is so perfectly balanced by the other. In that must lie the truth of God and from this frame of reference only can the question be answered.

I've just had another thought. If you attempt to describe that which is perfect and within the description you use anything, even one thing, that is not perfect then the entire thing can no longer be perfect because it contains a contaminant (that which is not perfect). For instance, if you had pure white paint, if you introduce even the slightest colour of non white, it can no longer be pure white, even if it has the appearance of being so. So that which is perfect must simply be that with absolutely no contaminant, Good = NOT bad, as a poor example.

This sounds very much like Platos Republic, book 1, where Socrates basically attempts the same arguement in the guise of "Justice" but in fact his "opponent" appears to be of a synthetic theocracist (the Church). Part of the problem lies in the fact that the arguement is divisive because that is the logical style, where as God maintains everything within a unity. It's not possible to define infinity using instruments (the mind) that are finite. Using reason, you can create a reasonable arguement, but God is found well beyond reason. It could be described as an optical illusion of the mind. A clever delusion.

The saying, "divide and conquer" is appropriate here. It you take a unity and break it down into pieces you can reasonably reject each piece, however, you cannot reject the totality of the unity because it is beyond the realm of reason.

If you are the most reasonable person in the room, who will argure with you. In the same sense, if you are a skilled bread maker and the topic is cake baking, but you can establish the rules of "cake baking" as actually being the rules of bread making, you have a distinct advantage. But you have also mislead everyone in the room.

It would be interesting to apply this to Raymond Smullyan - Knights and Knaves, as well as his other works, "Forever Undecided"

Interesting, microbes like anything will evolve when attacked directly. This is why holistic medicine is a better approach (stengthening the natural forces that eliminate, or making the environment less appealing for them). Antibiotics and the like have similarly forced bacteria and the like to get stronger (i.e. get stronger or die) so what we are left with is all the strong bacteria and viruses.

I remember when a cold last 3 days, now they last weeks and months. They will continue to get stronger the more we directly attack them. A similar thing happend with rabbits when we introduced myxomatosis. All the weak rabbits died and only those who became immune or were stonger survived. Sadly we don't seem to learn very well.

Ultimately a virus or bacteria of super strength with potentially wipe out all the weaker humans. That said, there seems to be little concern of such as we are considered over-populated already. Nature always balances everything, that is its purpose. Everything that evolves into balance will survive, everything else will fall away, so it has been, so it always will be. Adapt or die.

We all have to find our own purpose. I liken our predicament to Platos - Allegory of the Cave. To me, this makes perfect sense. That said, I do think Plato was highly skilled in logic and therefore was able to be highly persuasive. He defeated the then theocracy and replaced it with a souless Republic which we still enjoy today.

Absolutely so. The language of the conscious mind, which developed from picture, to symbol, to letter is not one that the sub conscious understands. It understands stories and visualisation as shown by hypnosis and the like. A child with no language is more in tune with its sub conscious and often more intuitive. It has been suggested that we become more like children in order to understand ourselves better so this leads me to conclude that all else is really a distraction. It would also follow then that the conscious mind is divisive where as the sub conscious is unifying.

Thank you for the comments, and of course the solution. I will check out Raymond Smullyan and I love the Irish joke! Most lightening!

I can't help but think this equation above has a relation to both Buddhist negation, and mathematically truth tables. Does anyone else see a coloration?

I think we should be finding our own individual purposes — StarsFromMemory

I don't fully agree, as it appears to be a re-creation of purpose, but one you have made up for yourself within the parameters of what you find acceptable. There is a difference between "finding purpose" and "creating a purpose".

This is only to cope with the dread of a universally meaningless existence. — StarsFromMemory

Universal meaningless is where we are at already until we find our purpose so perhaps its not as dreaded as the potential for both death and judgement, and upon an unfavourable judgement, a return to try again - or wasted time.

Just because we weren't born with a inherent purpose doesn't mean we cannot create one for ourselves. — StarsFromMemory

If we accept that nothing happens without a cause, then your birth most certainly did contain a purpose - it happened for a reason. The fact we cannot remember the purpose right now does not mean there was no purpose. If you were born without a purpose, then there was no cause for your birth, in which case, you shouldn't be here.

One could say, because it is difficult find our purpose, it seems reasonable that making up another one to suit our own desires/needs appears to make sense. But, if there was an original purpose, then your new purpose is simply a distraction - simply spinning your wheels.

That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.

So true, I read a similar thing in the Emerald Tablets of Thoth, saying "knowledge is regarded by the fool as ignorance, and the things that are profitable, are to him hurtful. He lives in death, it is therefore his food."

I couldnt put it better, very true.

That's certainly a fair comment. My point really was that belief is a placeholder for knowledge, but you're right because not all knowledge is aquired that way. Flashes of inspiration and definitely religious experience can produce knowledge that comes neither from belief nor progressively by belief or reason.

There is a school of thought that suggests the sub conscious mind already knows the patterns of existence and our conscious mind is simply a torch lighting up this knowledge as we go along.

I have no wish to create any animosity, nor to be in a battle of winning or losing. I simply engaged to test my own wisdom and to benefit any that might have the eyes to see it. Go well, I wish you all the best.

As I follow this, understanding brings something into thought, so is a synthesizing function, not entirely thought, and not merely thought. And in some cases, thinking can impede understanding (examples were given, Zeigarnik effect). — Pantagruel

True, understanding is the flowering and brings something much greater into it. It is greater than the sum of its parts. Thought will always intrupt this process, so the skill is as understanding arises, don't try to grasp it, instead allow it to be and it will grow.

If you can't tell me, it can't be all that clear or "understandable." — Artemis

Read the book, honestly even if its just a few pages and see what you think. If you object, listen to your objection, is it valid? What are you objecting to?

The buddist say, "Don't look at the finger pointing to the moon and mistake the finger for the moon". Sit quietly and contemplate this. What does it mean? Why is it so profound?

Why were ancient cultures more interested in listening to the heart, than the mind? What does that mean? Can you feel anything in your body? These things may help.

Give me an example. — Artemis

In your experience, have you ever known something that was not taught to you by another human being? Have you ever had a "flash of inspiration"? Have you ever been determined to find a solution to something, only to walk away from it and suddenly get the answer? Do you hear your voice of intuiton inside you? Have you ever "known" something you couldn't have known?

The examples cannot come from my experience because I cannot give you that. But you have a memory, therefore can you remember in your own experience a time when anything like this happened to you? How far back can you remember? Can you remember any of your early childhood?

Have you ever had a gap in your thinking, other than falling asleep and dropping below consciousness, instead of being awake and rising above it? Have you read any buddist material on negation?

Artemis, read his book, or take a look online for a PDF copy of his works, it might help this make sense. Or don't, it's your choice.

Understands WHAT? — Artemis

Understanding in both cases that thought is the method creating the confusion. If you go beyond thought, you gain a greater understanding of yourself and the world you are in.

the problem with theories that want to do away with thought in favor of some "other" kind of understanding is that they fail to give any coherent theory. — Artemis

You are relating everything to thought still. Your point then is, if I cannot understand it with thought, or if it cannot be put into a form that thought can understand, then it is not coherent. The relating it to thought is not coherent.

I haven't met a "spiritual master" yet who's impressed me much with his or her "understanding." I've read several books by so-called "spiritual masters" that have very much put me in doubt of their level of insight, to be perfectly honest. — Artemis

Read Eckhart Tolle, Power of Now or New Earth. He most certainly understands this as having almost killed himself, had his eyes opened.

If your entire counter argument boils down to "you're confused," then it's not only weirdly presumptive, it's pointless. Confused how, why, and about what exactly? — Artemis

Thought creates the confusion when its mistaken for understanding. Consider bump-starting a car. Thought its the initial push to get the car moving, but then it fires and propels itself. If you keep trying to push the car once its going, you would struggle and be confused as to why the car has sped off.

Precisely that. Artemis sees thoughts as the "ends" of the process, where it appears as the "beginnings" of the process, but to be moved beyond and past in order to gain the understanding, mere thought on its own and of itself becomes an obstacle or a distrubance. The order is, a thought occurs, the thought ends. Understanding appears. If thought comes back in, then understanding doesn't appear, because it was given no grounds in which to appear.

Quite right, now that's wisdom!

Understanding is mixed with thought mainly because of our confusion. René Descartes made the mistake of mixing thought with being, "I think therefore I am" and you are doing the same thing here. René Descartes should have said, "I think I think, therefore I think I am". That would have been more accurate.

So, if your arguement held true, those spiritual masters who claim the importance of "no thought" would not attain understanding, because they are without thought - again, not so. Thought creates "distrubance" within what would otherwise be perfect understanding, or the grounds to create perfect understanding. All thought, words, etc are just distrubances.

Consider then what a vision is (not optical vision, but a vision in the mind). thought is not involved but understanding is present.

If the statement creates a pause in the continual stream of thought, then something else has the opportunity to arise. Perhaps, something more meaningful than thought.

Not so, "a kind of thought," already implies an incomplete understanding of what thought is. What "kind" of thought do you imagine understanding to be? Understanding is spontaneous and does not require thought as stated above. Consider how empathy works, or humilty.

Absolutely, when we are born we know very little, children make mistakes all the time - because they're learning all the time. I liken this very much to alchemy. You have to burn down and distill to get rid of the rubbish, and what you are left with it pure, so it is eliminative. Karl Popper had a good process then.

I would equate more silence (bigger gap) to greater understanding. However, the moment of initial understanding also interupts the process and creates thought, so breaking the silence. I think also the Zeigarnik effect has parallels with the notion of "we never learn by getting things right, we only learn by getting things wrong". Success comes to those who fail the most because they are the ones who are learning.

Also, is there such a thing as "gradual understanding" or is all understanding arrived at in "a flash" moment?

I agree. An abundance of thought profits nothing, but silence is of great benefit. So it follows, would a person who had never developed language still have understanding? On this basis, it seems that they would. There would be no mental commentry, but there would be understanding.

We haven't been able to prove what "thought" is. We haven't be able to prove for "consciousness" is. We haven't been able to prove what "sub-consciousness" is. And yet these are the tools we use to answer the question of universal purpose. Assumptions are no different to beliefs. If you believe there is no purpose, then you wont look for one. This is sometimes called a "life spectator", refusing to start the race for fear of there being no point. However, the belief means there definitely wont be any point because you didn't look for it. Fortunately, rebirth gives us another opportunity to try again... and again... and again!

True, I like the paradox, "This statement is a lie". If I am a liar, it's true. If I am truthful, it is a lie. The paradox exists because of Order. If we make the assumption that everything by default is false, and only when we have understanding, we create truth. Therefore, truth is always born from the false. Put another way, Chaos comes first. From Chaos, Order is created. As the objective is to create truth, it will always contain the former because truth is supported and upheld by the false. That is its opposite. There is no further integration required because by their very nature they are already integrated.

The same applies to maths and numbers. For a long time, zero was not acknowledged but it was always implied. Zero is infinite (chaos), from this One is formed. A division of the infinite making it now divided. It can be seen as a boundary from infinity, putting infinitiy on the outside of the one (or as we would write it 01).

Knowledge could be likened to a jigsaw puzzle. When all the corners fit, you accept it as "new" knowledge and the piece is placed within the picture. Beliefs are the pile of puzzle pieces you group together because they are "similar" to the picture or they relate to each other. Some people like to put all the straight edges together is a pile, or match them by colour. It doesn't matter how it's done, what matters is that it takes place. People have different ways of making the piles, as people have different beliefs. When you have enough puzzle pieces together, you can start putting them in place (converting them to knowledge).

So, belief is a precursor to knowledge but not necessarily. Some peoples beliefs are simply wrong. If pointed out, the wise ones will change their beliefs. All of this is performed using the power of discernment.

If you have a belief, it's because you don't have the knowledge, or you have only part of it. You cannot believe something you know, and you cannot know something you believe. They are exclusive. .

Are there any truths that exist that you don't know? Of course not. Because your knowledge to you is truth, unless by the power of discernment, you realise the belief was wrong, in which case it is dropped and subtitude. Science does precisely the same thing and has been doing so for years. Today X is scientific fact, but tomorrow when it's proved wrong, Y will be scientific fact and X will be dropped and forgotten.

In this I am charactising understanding as something that happens after the event. Is understanding something that happens as a result of thought, or it is a product of the digestion of thought and therefore occurs outside of the thought, i.e. in the gap after the thought is processed.

The assumption here is that the external world is the same for all of us. That we see the same colours as each other, and we are in the same physical world. This is not necessarily so. The is no certainty of anything unless it is from within you.

Trying reading this by Plato... Allegory of the cave

Until proof is provided, all ideas are beliefs (that is the nature of belief). Once you know, belief is replaced by Knowledge. The gap/time inbetween requires Faith. To believe their is a God or isn't a God is a belief. If there is no God, then you have to question what animates the world (your world). Things like, the Golden Ratio, mathematical Pi and geometry, the celestial layouts and orders would then have to be "things that just happened by themselves". To one who believes in God, Atheism is as ridiculous as believeing in a God if you are an atheist. One is black, the other is white. The world is a dichotomy, look around you and see. Can hot exist without cold? Can darkness exist without light? Welcome to relativity - the measuring of one thing by comparing it against another (it's opposite).

Eckhart Tolle - The Power of Now.
Jon Peniel - The Children of the Law of One.
Emerald Tablets of Thoth
Socrates - Plato - Aristotle

Keep in mind, the order of our history to assist in "which egg hatched which chicken".
The Greeks had a massive impact on our language, as well as what we call things. Ultimately their lanaguage - through Latin - became our language.

Rene Descartes said, "I think therefore I am". As Tolle excellently put it, this is to associate thinking with being which was a complete error, but he did highlight the mistake we make with our thinking, the fundamental error in our evaluation of the world. The correct statement should have been, "I think I think, therefore I think I am."