UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 8 to Talk Back 12
The exegesis of TTWNGCBC reasoning & wordplay - when language breaks down.

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

The exegesis of TTWNGCBC reasoning & wordplay - when language breaks down.

a. TTWNGCBC=That Then Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived (assumption No. 1)  
(This is just absurd terminology). 

b. In re = in reality. (This is just terminology).

c. In intellectu = in mind.  (This is just terminology).

First TTWNGCBC ≠ God, this is mere assumption. TTWNGCBC might = something that is not associated with the God question altogether. The universe is that which is greater than that which I can conceive (TUITWIGTTWICC); its entirety simply cannot be conceived of in my mind, mere re-labeling of the TUITWIGTTWICC to God, is pointless; and nothing may be a state of reality that supersedes the God question; and the TUITWIGTTWICC.  

So instead let’s leave it alone: fewer multiplications equal less absurdity:
a. God b. reality and c. mind.

1.) God is something (Even if that something is just a thought, a word, or a question).

2.) Whenever a person talks about or considers the possibility of God, this thought is temporarily existing in their mind (as thoughts do; always; good luck trying to maintain a forever thought); thus it exists (temporarily) in their mind.

3.) That which exists both in reality and (temporarily) in the mind is greater than that which exists in reality alone (meaningless assumption No. 2).

That which exists in my mind is greater than that which does not-exist in reality. That which exists in reality in opposition to that which is conceived of falsely is greater. That which is conceived of in greater form in the mind increases the probability of its existence in reality. I can conceive of a living dead man; but it does not exist in reality; therefore its existence is greater in my mind. J Language merely breaks down here; it is simply meaningless. TTWNGCBC is meaningless; why; it is self-evident; it can’t be conceived of. Also the misuse of the word “greater” leads to further meaningless statements.

4.) God (temporarily) exists in the mind, as people (temporarily) believe in God, (temporarily) talk about God, and even if they (temporarily) do not believe in God, are aware of the concept (temporarily, when it crosses their mind; temporarily). If God only existed (temporarily) in the mind, and not also in reality, then it is not truly GOD. . . . Assumption No. 3 (This argues the opposite of the intent).

God that exists only temporarily (as the idea crosses a group of neurons to the next; in mind); is not truly GOD. = True.

. . .  as God which only exists in the mind (temporarily) is less great than a God which exists in reality. (Once again true; a figment of my temporary imagination would equal less than a real God; but conversely an imagined temp.thought God ≠ a real God). Assumption No. 4 (Opposite of the intent).

5.) Therefore God exists in reality.

The final conclusion is utterly silly and not based on logic; argument; its own arguments; which are actually the opposite of what is intended (corrected conclusion below).

5.) Therefore God has NOT been demonstrated to exist in reality; but temporarily in your mind. Further if God did exist; it might be greater (in importance) than a temporary thought.

Instead of terminology induction and multiplication to pointless exegesis; reduction seems more in order.

Simple terminology reduction: TTWNGCBC is actually a question. This question is a reduction of God (or Gods) having being; or existence; to what it truly is: a question; à and nothing more. 

Thus from now on God is now longer to be referred to as God the being; but as God the question.

Thus: God : is =>  Q-God?

Case closed.

Same as it ever was; God is Q-God? it is transcendent knowledge; a question thereof; until it is NOT.

Just like Calculus was; transcendent knowledge; until it was NOT.

Just like DNA was; transcendent knowledge; until it was NOT.

Just like the BIG BANG was; transcendent knowledge; until it was NOT.

Until super-nature1; including Q-God? And all things within this set of known-unknowns; is in actuality manipulated2, it is a NOT.

 

Footnotes:

  1. Super-nature; superior to what we think nature is; that which is beyond current understanding; or that nature we deem beyond the nature we think we can know; or transcendence. It is apparently super till known; then it is just nature.
  2. Unless you can manipulate reality; it is an unknown; mere assumption. We would have to be able to systemically; and with certainty; with repetition; be able to induce a Q-God? reaction, even if we were unsure of the results prior to inducing the reaction, to have proof(!).