In the first instance of everything..?

In the first instance of everything., would there be a primary duality, something like God and Satan? What would there need to be as the fundaments of existence; something which defines – communication, info, law, principle, maths, material. then something which resists that and causes entropy, illusion and deception, death and disease. Many Christian sects like perhaps the Templars, associated the world and material existence as the product of satan.

Am I adding stuff into something which actually has none of the above features?


Well, any entity has to have a beginning. A God cannot just magically come into existence, it had to evolve. We can guess but, not know for certain at this time. Our scientists only have access to material on this planet and maybe moon. So:::: damned if I truly know and I doubt anyone else could truly know. Good questions though.

There was no “first instance of everything”.

By definition, “God” is eternal, without beginning or end.

No one knows … until they learn. But don’t say that no one has learned.

That would be true.

Satan is not the antithesis of God, more like God’s “left hand”.

A) Affecting - Giving
B) Being affected - Taking
Literally all existence stems from those most fundamental acts (Affectance). Entropy occurs when there is too much giving in one region. Anti-entropy occurs when there is too much taking in one region. Anentropy is the balance.

As subatomic particles form, they slow down the affecting and thus promote being affected, They become “mass” with “inertia” because they cannot be affected much more than they are already, thus they resist change or acceleration.

That is the physical existence. The conceptual existence (ideas, math, laws, principles, info, so on) involves no changing whatsoever; no entropy, no anti-entropy, perfect anentropy.

Who’s definition of God? I said not know for certain. Someone may have learned but, proving it has yet to be done so there is no certainty.

Just about anyone in the religious world. You certainly can’t use an atheist’s definition for “God”.

Which religion?

There cannot be a beginning to reality itself, even if there really was a Big Bang.

Using your same degree of assurance, I can say that you cannot be certain of that. :sunglasses:

An infinite being wouldn’t, but then I wonder what constitutes its infinity or infinity et al. For example, why isn’t there chaos at root, what is it which defines an infinite being? Makes it that ‘shape’?

Perhaps ‘the lacking of definition’ is the key to understanding it? Infinity = unlimited, a definition requires limits. Nothing is defining God because it is the fundamental thing of reality which itself lacks definition. Can’t really call that a God/god, but calling it, ‘it’, seams to lack any compassion. If it is a fundament of reality then surely it is a fundament of our reality too?

Like hands - but there would need to be a third party governing those, and before any that you need the principles governing them, or what they are making utility of, and that which defines the principles.


Why doesen’t chaos shape infinity?


ow could chaos be defined or visualized or anything without a pre-conception of what finity is? Infinity is chaos, in this sense.

Because, we can only approximate that, which is bounded. Beyond that it can only be surmised.


It’s really simple actually…

Let’s say you start with zero and start counting back and up (in order for infinity, individuals must be abstracted)… Everytime you move back and up…

-1, 1, -2, 2…

You have discrete points which can be considered “beginnings”

Not really. What is there gives all it has and takes all that it is given. There need be no governor other than time.

What is there, is the giving and taking, the mutual affecting, Affectance.

And you cannot be certain either :sunglasses:

That is a definition that uses only three religions or belief systems, hardly the absolute truth.

Chaos has stuff in it being chaotic, and emptiness has nothing in it. Hmm I see what you mean though, infinity also has to be defined such to be an infinity [does it though?] – the same as God or any primary concept. In which case any attempt to make that definition would result in chaos. That is, where things become increasingly abstract and reach beyond denumerable amounts and sets etc.

so chaos = something greater than the infinite, such to define it in its wake – so to speak. at least from the perspective of chaos it is. from that of the infinite, chaos may simply be a vain attempt to define the indefinable. at most chaos at such scale is something which is part of the mix, there is still the infinite, the cosmic blender and everything else in the mix.

  • so chaos is not at base.

Time is cyclical.
The third party is our conscious ability to categorize terminology conceptually. Cause and effect does not exist without this ability.
Every thing is anthropomorphism accept for what is unknown and yet to be known.
Theorizing a beginning and end to every thing has too many grotesque fallacies to vouch for.
Certainty is impossible, nothing exists (knowledge especially) without doubt.
A question implies an answer, but the answer is not the paradigm.