Pandora's Noah's Ark Box
Uncritical Monotheism

The Logical Problem of Uncritical Monotheism.

The common popular, and wrong, conception of monotheism – as espoused by most religious believers of some kind of standard religion to be found anywhere today – runs foul of simple experienced reality and maths and physics.

There is in reality, all of the following:

things that grow

things that stop growing

things that move

things that do not move

things that are

things that are not

things that are labelled for their profiles of being

things that are labelled for their status which is never changing

The case is not, that some of these things exist, but not others; the fact is, they all exist.

In mathematics, we use the term symmetry, to disclose that there is a face on one side, and another face when you turn the thing around on its axis.

And, one salient fact is, that if there is a ‘God’ (let’s just call it that for now) the standard definition for it includes that it is ‘unchanging.’

The symmetry of ‘God...’ ...(the opposite ‘facet’ thereof, its obverse), is all of the natural material existence within the physics of the Universe that we are acquainted with.

Thus there is at least a logical reason that there should be such a thing as an Eternal Unchanging ‘God’ in reality, since there is such a thing as a time-space continuity of ever-changing material things which ‘terminate.’ The combination of BOTH facets are what constitutes actual reality. And as ice is with fire, the two facets are opposed and different. We seem to be as humans, so much more habituated to simplistic false-antithesis, that when we see a different idea, one that is taken from the seemingly to us, upside down perspective, we cannot immediately comprehend it. The obvious logical reason that there – by the necessity of mathematical symmetry – must be a ‘God,’ is that we have the evident personal experience that there is so much of a ‘not-God!’ So much changing, terminating surface ‘stuff,’ that we don’t expect it’s symmetrically-necessitated obverse: the Eternal Unchanging. Worse yet, what we really don’t expect, is that there is not just us and a God – but that there is a THIRD thing: 1. us, 2. God, and 3. ‘us’ (IE terminating things) AND God permanently encompassing both; an uncategorised type of concept in human thinking, that comprises both the non-existent, the only ‘part-of-the-time existing,’ and the always existing unchanged but then which also includes things that do change inside of it.

The key issue that requires thinking about, when it comes to pondering that there is or that there might be, actual intelligent creatures, beings, who traverse such vast distances across the galaxy, perhaps across many galaxies, is that of the breaking of the space-time wall. It is required, that ‘ice and fire’ somehow meet and retain enough of themselves that they are not catastrophically altered in the process. Sᴇaʀ*ᴄh the (F)indNƟvᴇl.ɴet website on Gøøglᴇ to access chapters of novels early and in the highest quality.

And there is simply no logical reason to suppose that we are in fact not dealing with what in the past were termed angelic beings, or even something that proceeded literally from ‘residence’ in some real form of ‘Eternity’ – and that is because of the caprice of individual agency, which we as humans have, but which we cannot be allowed to say logically exists at all, once we have broken the space-time barrier.

And why not?

Because if we go back to the EMF dynamics data archiving ‘thought experiment’ example or model, if we merge one data set (as actual contained, coherent EMF patterns or ‘sets’) with some ‘Borg’-like EMF data structure, then contention between non-commensurable patterns means impossible harmonics, problematic and destructive resonance (in fact catastrophic ‘dissonance’) – in other words, it’s impossible. It’s impossible in terms of the power imbalance, it’s impossible in terms of mathematical harmonics. It’s plainly, just altogether impossible.

No ‘power imbalances’ can persist because it is sheerly mathematically impossible; it’s impossible in physics. The greater will overpower the lesser.

Thus, on the one hand ‘Ultimate Reality’ cannot itself be ‘monolithic’ since it must have symmetry, and yet it must contain ‘Eternity/Divinity’ too – we have described why this is so, in the immediate above paragraphs – and therefore both Ultimate Reality and Ultimate Divinity are the same thing, but then a thing outside of our expressions of number as such at all; about ‘one’ as opposed to many, about ‘thing’ as opposed to ‘no thing,’ about ‘impermanence’ as opposed to ‘not ending at all’ (which say, a geometry principle is an example of).

The impossibility of power imbalance means that if, as in the Hebrew religious context, ‘Shekinah’ is identifiably ‘feminine’ it cannot be less powerful than any other identity of ‘God.’ In the Sanskrit Vedas, if Shiva is identifiably masculine, and Adi Shakti feminine, they cannot be actually different in Godhead or Supremacy of Godhead at all. But they are harmonically tuned and balanced.

Why There is Deadly Danger To This Understanding.

It’s easy enough to point out, bringing things down to the level of the actual human individual person – that if someone were not in harmonic equilibrium with some putative ‘Divine’ let’s call it ‘Borg’-like ‘super-mind/super-computer’ consciousness, by reason of power imbalance at such large differentials, the human being would be extinguished in any direct ‘confrontation.’

And this is reflected in so many of the most ancient religious narratives: if you see God you die, if you look inside or even touch ‘the ark’ you die, et cetera. And that is because these religious narratives are all based on actual reality, quite possibly indeed of experienced things over historical passages of human time.

Sᴇarch the FindNovel.net website on G𝘰𝘰gle to access chapters of novels early and in the highest quality.