5D6tCaLd

1NOTE: Please FORGIVE the CAPS. I'm not shouting. I'm trying to clearly demarcate and delineate the MATHEMATICAL BOUNDARIES.
2
3>>> Yes, to claim that nothing can be defined absolutely cannot be true as it is contradicting itself, which does not prove you right tho
4
5Correct (1) AND Incorrect (0). It does not prove that I'm universally right (THE FOREST) but it does prove that I'm CERTAINLY RIGHT in the context of the question (THE TREE). If a question is posed in which there are ONLY TWO possible OUTCOMES and Option A is CERTAINLY FALSE, THEN Option B must be CERTAINLY TRUE. The TREE is CERTAINLY VALID, but if we want the FOREST to be CERTAINLY VALID we need to ask more than one question. When THE FOREST is CERTAINLY VALID and EVERYTHING that is NOT FOREST is CERTAINLY FALSE, we will have arrived at ULTIMATE TRUTH. 
6
7>>> Btw...me saying that is an attempt to define something by making use of other definitions...does not mean anything in the absolute sense
8
9Yeah it does. You just haven't gotten to the end of the trail yet. Everything starts and ends somewhere.
10
11>>> Although i am saying nothing can be defined...which means it is not contradictory but mainly meaningless
12 
13Correct. Because you're still BOUNDED by the FOG of CONTEXT, which means ALL of your conclusions can NEVER be accurate because you're still inside the BOX. That's Godel's second proof (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsSecondIncompletenessTheorem.html). STEP OUTSIDE of the BOX and escape the PRISON. When you unfold a three dimensional CUBE (space), you get a two dimensional CROSS. Think that's a coincidence? A CUBE has 22 facets; the same number of letters in the HEBREW ALPHA-BET. It has 3 dimensions (the Hebrew Mother Letters), 12 edges (the Hebrew Simple Letters) and 7 terminators: 6 sides + 1 point in the center (the Hebrew Double Letters). Also, if you have two cubes (dice) there are 22 possible combinations that can be rolled. Think that's a coincidence? NOTE: THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST is 666. You'll also find 666 in the cruciFIXion (NOT cruci-ficTion) of Christ because there are three NAILS and the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Waw) means NAIL. Also, Carbon 12 (the basis for all organic life) has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. The fake ball earth is allegedly tilted at 66.6 degrees, orbits the sun at 66,600 MPH, has .666 ft of curvature in the first mile and is 26 miles wider than it is tall. NOTE: 26 is the sum of the letters Y (10) + H (5) + V (6) + H (5). 
14
15I can do this ALL DAY bud. No matter where you look, it always leads to CHRIST if you're searching for TRUTH because given enough time, any search for truth will always arrive at THE ULTIMATE TRUTH because the SET of LESSER TRUTHS is FINITE. You can think of this like a circle. If all of the truths are contained in the boundaries of a CIRCLE, the ULTIMATE TRUTH is the BULLS-EYE or point in the center. The relationship between THE POINT in the center and it's OUTSIDE EDGE is what DEFINES a CIRCLE. E.g: Circumference of a circle is (2r * Pi). Area of a circle is (r^2 * Pi). ALSO: Pi is an irrational number. It doesn't ever end. The CLOSEST APPROXIMATION you can get using integers is.......WAIT FOR IT....WAIT FOR IT.... 22  / 7. THINK THAT'S A CO-INCIDENCE?
16
17https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A7&version=KJV
18
19https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A32&version=KJV
20
21https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A20-22&version=KJV
22
23https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5%3A4&version=KJV
24
25BEHOLD I STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK. For WHATSOEVER is BORN of GOD OVERCOMMETH THE WORLD and THIS IS the VICTORY that OVERCOMMETH THE WORLD. Is any of this registering yet?
26
27>> An axiom is the "base" you need to have to even start reasoning
28
29No. The base of reason is not (necessarily) an AXIOM. The base of reason is KNOWLEDGE. That KNOWLEDGE can either be based on a set of DATA (you or someone else collected) or it can be based on a set of IRREFUTABLE SOFTWARE LAWS (that you or someone else discovered).
30
31You're arguing from a FALSE FOUNDATION because you're using a bad EPISTEMOLOGY (i.e. empiricism + logical positivism). Contrarily, a conclusion derived from AXIOMATIC REASONING and APOPHATIC REDUCTION must always be IRREFUTABLY CERTAIN. You're still approaching things by trying to prove what's PROBABLY TRUE. That's backwards. You've got to approach it from the perspective of trying to prove what's CERTAINLY FALSE and eliminating it. You need to change the ALGORITHM (aka EPISTEMOLOGY). Pick up the sword, and cut out all of the zeros and all you will have left are ones. Carve out zeros long enough and you will inevitably arrive at ULTIMATE TRUTH because you have a descending gradient. 
32
33Any line that continues to go down will eventually arrive at the bottom. It's mathematically impossible for it not to arrive there. Note: The word PROFOUND (pro fundus) means TOWARD the bottom. OT: [I encourage you to read Murray Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and all of the works of the Austrian Economists if you want a strong framework for understanding axiomatic reasoning]. Until you change the ALGORITHM you CANNOT get there because the EPISTEMOLOGY you are using was designed by SATANISTS (eg Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey) to make arriving at ULTIMATE TRUTH impossible and instead make you a sucker for whatever DATA they feed you (eg the moon landing, 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin, etc, etc). Fuck data man. CHANGE THE CODE. No amount of input can correct a bad function.
34
35>> It is logically impossible to prove an axiom true, 
36 
37You've got that backwards. It's impossible to prove that an axiom is FALSE (because all attempts to do so are self-contradictory). That's the definition of an AXIOM.
38
39>>> You, and everything you see/feel/sense/think in any way is controlled by me. Now, we would both agree that it is not true. But you cannot disprove it
40
41YES it is TRUE AND I can DISPROVE IT. We're having a conversation. This response I'm writing is controlled by what you wrote previously so you ARE controlling my behavior.
42
43>>> Using the same kind of reasoning as you have, i can actually claim i am in full control of you
44
45No you can't. You could IF the FOUNDATION of ALL of your reasoning was axiomatic, but your reasoning isn't axiomatic. It's empirical. It's based on the sensory experience that we are having a conversation and if your reasoning is based on physical evidence then it's FOUNDED ON SAND(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Wise_and_the_Foolish_Builders). Even the quantum mechanists will admit that the physical world isn't REALLY REAL. What they won't tell you is that the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from that is that all of their “science” is that it's all BULLSHIT and GIBBERISH.
46
47https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=science+falsely+so+called&qs_version=KJV
48
49>>> Whatever you think of, using that axiom, i made you think that, there is no way you get around it
50 
51Correct (1) and Incorrect (0). I can't get around it left-right wise(because your logic is solid),but I can leap over it quite easily (as I just did) by proving you ARE controlling my behavior). Why? Because your original ASSUMPTION was unsound. The problem was you tried to derive a certain conclusion based on things that can NEVER be certain (sensory experience, instrumentation, etc).
52
53
54>>> In the human-made system of axiomatic reasoning there must be an original truth to start with
55
56Correct. We've already established that and called it The ULTIMATE TRUTH. The problem is you're moving backwards and you think you're moving forwards. You're trying to affirm things are TRUE by framing them in the POSITIVE. That cannot possibly work. You have to prove things FALSE by proving they are contradictory, therefore honing down the set of possible values, cutting off not just BAD IDEA (X), but everything else that is based on BAD IDEA (X). EG: If the earth is flat and outer space does not exist, then Darwinism, Mormonism and Scientology must also be false because they are ROOTED in false premise of heliocentrism. Strike the branch at the root and all it's corrupt fruit falls to the ground. In other words, PRUNING.
57 
58 
59>>> this does not imply that there actually is one.
60>>>>>>> Yes it does. 
61>>> No it does not. I said it myself... IN ORDER TO define something, you need something else....
62
63See. You just proved it again. In order to define truth, you must also define the certain boundary for ULTIMATE TRUTH. If truth exists, ultimate truth must exist also. You also stated it again in the previous paragraph saying “It is our way of thinking that needs some origin [sic]”. The problem is you're looking for a point of DESTINATION. You need to be looking for THAT point of ORIGIN. Otherwise, you're just WANDERING around in the world walking BACKWARDS; picking up tiny little snippets of INFORMATION (most of which are MEANINGLESS) in an ever increasing sea of NOISE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Communication). It's like trying to glean raindrops from the ground in the middle of a hurricane.
64
65ULTIMATE TRUTH is ORIGIN not DESTINATION. You only find it by by coming around full circle. See The Fool card in the Major Arcana, whose letter is Aleph; AN OX. IE: a CIRCLE (O) and a CROSS (X). STOP WALKING BACKWARDS.
66
67
68>>> “Jesus Christ is the messiah”...We have not established that. 
69
70Yes we have. You just don't realize it yet.
71
72>>> i have not seen any logical reasoni g for that
73
74Here it is again, but this time we need to ADD a DIMENSION. Previously we've been working with binary states (equalities and inequalities) like 1=1, 0=0, 1 != 0 and 0 != 1. Note that there can only possibly be FOUR of them, just like the number of letters in the name of God (YHWH). Now we need to deal with TERNARY states because in order to draw a conclusion from two binary states, you need the potential for a third state: THE RESULT. EG: 1 + 1 = 2. Or 1 AND 1 = 1. A triangle like this:
75
76------------------------
77         1 (conclusion)
78       1  1 (source)
79------------------------
80
81
82NOTE: Christianity is the only religion that teaches that divinity is tripartate (in three parts). Why? Well because it's IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE OTHERWISE Because this FORM is the FIRST FORM that is MATHEMATICALLY INDESTRUCTABLE. A Triangle is the simplest possible SHAPE and it is defined by exactly THREE POINTS. No more, no less.
83
84Not coincidentally, there are THREE Boolean OPERATORS also: AND, OR and XOR (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/XOR.html). Here's a truncated truth table:
85
861 AND 1 = 1
871 AND 0 = 0
881 OR 0 = 1
891 XOR 0 = 1
901 XOR 1 = 0
91
92
93Make sense? Now: How will we know when we have arrived at ULTIMATE TRUTH? Well it requires some Boolean Algebra. 
94
95>>> I am doing reasoning, but i don't need a messiah or god to show me the way, 
96
97Yeah you do. We all do. We're all bounded by the fog of context, so none of us is INFALLIBLE. We're inside the creation we are NOT the creator (again see Godel's second proof). The only thing that's infallible is YHWH and the LAWS (LOGOS) he set forth when he ordained the KOSMOS. And if you're not INFALLIBLE you are by definition LOST and wandering around in confusion.
98
99>>> I'm using my very own senses (what if they're controlled by someone O.o )
100 
101And that's why you're in the FOG. You're still COLLECTING DATA. Stop relying on empiricism and start using MATH. You can't arrive at ULTIMATE TRUTH by empiricism. At best all you can have are HEURISTIC PROBABILITIES. The only way to arrive at DETERMINISTIC CERTAINTY is to use a language framed by AXIOMS (eg economics, algebra, trigonometry, etc). PROOF: For all you know, we could be hallucinating this entire experience or just arrived from a parallel universe. There's no empirical claim that can EVER BE definitively proven true. All claims about experience are HEURISTIC. DETERMINISTIC CERTAINTY exists only in spaces BOUNDED by OTHER CERTAINTIES (ie axioms). EG: The longest side of a RIGHT TRIANGLE will always be equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides. IT HAS TO BE. The Pythagorean Theorem is not an emperical THERORY. It's an AXIOM of Euclidean Geometry. 
102
103CONSIDER: Suppose we have a triangle and we KNOW three things to be certain: 1. The length of Side A is 4m (Empirical Knowledge). 2. The length of side B is 6m (Empirical Knowledge). 3. The measure of angle AB is 90 degrees (Empirical Knowledge). Now we want to determine two things: 1. What is the length of side C? 2. Whether or not all right triangles will share the identical properties. Ok? 
104
105So how do we do that? Well, empiricism would tell you to collect data; to get out a ruler and measure side C. But how do we know the instrument we are using (ie the ruler) is accurate? You don't and it can't be. You can only compare it to other rulers and see if the numbers are the same. But no matter how many rules you compare it to, it will never be certain because there are always more rulers and you don't EVEN KNOW whether the ones you are comparing your ruler to are even right either. That's ASININE. ALSO: the units you are using to measure (eg centimeters) are completely arbitrary. 
106
107Furthermore, physical measurement only tells us about this SPECIFIC right triangle not the SET of ALL POTENTIAL right triangles. So it doesn't solve point #2 either. And how many triangles would we have to measure before we could be CERTAIN that ALL right triangles have the same relationships to their sides? An INFINITE number because the SET of POTENTIAL right triangles are infinite. So you can never FIND AN ANSWER. Contrarily, AXIOMATIC REASONING says that GUESS WHAT: WE DONT HAVE TO PHYSICALLY MEASURE ANYTHING. INFACT, THE TRIANGLE DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO EXIST. Why? Because we understand the ALGORITHM. I don't need a ruler to get the length of side C because it's inherent in the constraints of THE SYSTEM. Not only can we figure it out without measurement, we can still come to the ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN CORRECT CONCLUSION even if the triangle is a complete figment of imagination and that will always be the case no matter what happens because the physical properties of right triangles are a PRODUCT of the LAWS that create them. 
108
109So what then are the answer to our questions? Well, the answer to question one is that C = 2 * sqrt(13) because A^2 + B^2 = C^2 and that's ALWAYS the TRUE. The answer to question number two is YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE ALGORITHM because you have two competing systems: one where it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to be RIGHT (Empiricism) and one where it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to be WRONG (Axiomatic Reasoning). There is no third option.
110
111Remember our triangle?
112
113------------------------
114         1 (conclusion)
115       1  1 (source)
116------------------------
117
118Let's change it up a bit. Here's your MATHEMATICALLY CERTAIN FORMULA for ULTIMATE TRUTH:
119
120ULTIMATE TRUTH (1) = PENULTIMATE TRUTH (1) AND PENULTIMATE TRUTH (1). Or:
121
122----------------------------------------
123         1 (ULTIMATE TRUTH)
124       1  1 (two penultimate truths)
125----------------------------------------
126
127THEREFORE: WE CAN PROVE IRREFUTABLY THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH BECAUSE ITS THE ONLY THING THAT IS:
128
129(1) Completely Unique = 1 
130AND
131(2) Completely non-contradictory = 1 (despite multiple authors over thousands of years)
132
133In other words: COMPLETELY UNIQUE (1) + COMPLETLY NON-CONTRADICTORY (1) = FINAL TRUTH (1). You can't go any further from there. It's mathematically impossible to proceed past this point.
134
135Congratulations. You've just received: A MICROSCOPIC GLIMPSE INTO THE MATHEMATICAL MIND OF YHWH; THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE AND LIVING GOD.
136
137>>> I think, i don't know but i am nearly convinced, we both actually mean the same thing, just out of different perspectives
138 
139Correct. That's the only way it could possibly be. We are both headed towards the same point, but from opposite directions. If someone is headed towards TRUTH they are always headed towards the ULTIMATE TRUTH (CHRIST). Of course, we all came from different points of origin which is why everyone who CHOOSES to ARRIVE at ULTIMATE TRUTH has a different TESTIMONY. The DESTINATION is the same (because it's the ULTIMATE ORIGIN), but the point of PERSONAL ORIGIN (the debarkation of birth) can never be identical.  
140
141REPENT, ACCEPT THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD JESUS CHRIST, BE BAPTISED for the REMISSION of SINS and YOU WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE IN PARADISE. IT'S MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE OTHERWISE. YOUR ONLY ALTERNITIVE IS FREE WILL: YOU CAN DENY CERTAIN TRUTH AND SPEND ENTERNITY IN THE LAKE OF FIRE.
142
143The BAD NEWS is that we're ALL SINNERS, but the GOOD NEWS of the GOSPEL is that the GIFT of GOD is GRACE and MERCY to anyone who SINCERLY asks for it. You just have to accept the truth and the mathematical order of things and admit that you aren't God.
144
145https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sqmBqOpWVE
146
147“But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, PULLING THEM OUT of THE FIRE; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” - Jude 20-25