[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
The text is too long so I had to cut out large parts of your quotes, sorry about that. Also I seem to have not communicated my point in some areas. Sorry for not being clear.
No problem. I appreciate all input.
Do you believe your theory or not? If you do, does it change? If it doesn't, then your theory is contradictory because it doesn't change. If it does, when and how?
Of course I don't believe in the laws of nature; because I don't have to. I base my constant adaptation on them as the foundation of fundamental truth. That ongoing adaptation process is aimed at trying to disprove the laws of nature. I will proceed like this until my death. That is adaptation to constant change, which is the instinctive behavior of all other lifeforms, to which I add the human ability of comprehending the consequences of all actions. Furthermore the instinct are the command line of our operating system (for lack of words); that instinctive command line are the laws of nature that we receive from nature, which is in charge over us, which we can prove by simply convincing our minds to commit suicide by holding our breath, which the survial instinct received from the outside will overrule by forcing us to breath. This also is an excellent exercise to comprehend your place in this ecosystem and just how close to death we are at any given time; as in; how close life and death are connected with each other.
As for how the laws of nature can represent fundamental (unchanging) truth..."opposites must coexist", because they're defined by each other. If you have a ecosystem based on constant change, where every statement would be an assumption; therefore not a truth, but a lie, then the rules that this state of change creates, which are governing it, have to be the opposite. Why? Because change is based on TIME initiating movement, which defines all existence as moving from a beginning towards an end, which for us life-forms represents inception (life) and death. That is what creates the first natural law "opposites must coexist", because they're defined by each other. See change is defined by steadiness. Only something that was steady before can change, and you can only steady something that changes. They are fundamentally defined by each other.
Nature isn't a "thing". What is "nature"? Are you just using "nature" so you don't have to use the word "God"? It seems like that. But then you're just calling God by a different name.
Thank you for pointing this out; it shows that you have higher discernment than most. This is an enclosed ecosystem and nature is the sum of all things within sustaining it. This is a self sustaining system in which all conscious beings and inanimate objects represent a different part of the whole machine. All creation comes from the ALL working together, not the ONE. You cannot form a thought that isn't inspired by what knowledge nature offered you, which is you using the materials offered (mimicking) to reshape it. The act of procreation is not just the male and the female interacting; it's the seed and the eggs, the thoughts in their heads, the contents within their bellies, the land they stand on, the life that maintains it, the air that they breath, the countries, the physics, the laws of nature governing it all and so on. It's the sum of all things that is required to work together to make the act creation possible.
Another example of creation without a creator is a drought, where all remaining life gathered around the last water source. There predator and prey will stand together while operating under a completely new set of temporary behaviors, which means they will not attack each other, because the survial instinct overruled everything. So without a creator, without the ability to form rules, or the ability to comprehended the consequences of rules for all; a new set of behavioral rules were created by the sum of all things coming together under that particular circumstances and all life there instinctively will follow these rules, without communicating them. The entire concept of the ONE is based on hedonists attacking the ALL (our unity) to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions; namely the ONE (hedonists) claiming ownership over the ALL (slavery of their own species, all infrastructure, all natural resources, all life, all fruits of our labor).
Now, what you correctly pointed out is that the term "nature" is a baseless assumption (so is God). This is why I operate in fundamentals, because I already dealt with this problem by pointing out that nature doesn't name anything, so that's the foundation of language for me. All lies. Nonetheless, until people like you fully comprehend this I still have to utilize it to help them out of it. The mantra I use is "simplicity means truth; complexity hides lies", which translates to me to dragging any complexity presented down to the natural foundation, which is why I can effortlessly adapt to whatever you present from within my mind. I seldom use quotes, I don't throw books or scripture at people and I avoid everything that requires a belief to work.
As for the different name for God...First let me explain to you the fundamentals of any story presented. There are three important foundations to any story; an author, his intent, and the target of his intent. Without engaging with one word from the story I already know 50% of what is presented...I'm the target and the intent is either positive or negative. Then I use commons on the author (doesn't matter one bit who he is)...is the presented story coming at me from above me or from below me? Why is that important? Because distributing of information requires infrastructure, requires a power structure (power always corrupts), has the selfish intent to maintain control of the power structure. Making the intent of all presented (vetted) information into a negative intent direct at me. On the other hand if the story comes from below or within my hierarchy; I can immediately deduce if the control structure above is trying to prevent me to have access to it (that's a story worth engaging with) or if it's suspiciously allowed to spread around (making it a tool of subversion from above).
Knowing all this and having figured out that the intent of the presented story contains a negative intent towards me; I can ask myself a crucial question.."what could be used to negatively influence me?" Now we go into the story and we see that all names, dates, locations etc. are nothing but props of storytelling. They can be infinity replaced at convenience. What cannot be replaced are the handful of core story lines that the limits of our ecosystem are allowing (this is also where your math ties into this, because existence is finite, hence there's only a limited amount to anything). Those story lines are for example order out of chaos or from zero to hero etc. All very simple concepts found in any and all stories presented. So anyone with the knowledge of that would never waste their time reading a story beyond the point where he comprehend the foundation of it. All the props are spectacles for the mindless believers; distractions of comprehension for mass population control. It's why 24/7 news (north, east, west, south) is using repetition to indoctrinate reactionary behavior at face value.
You can freely change God with Allah and Jesus wit Mohammad, and nobody would comprehend the difference; unless...you hold preconceived notions in form of beliefs, which would then create a contradiction to your reasoning, which you based not on natural reality, but on your beliefs. This is how mankind is being controlled, and this is also where the talmud comes into play, which made a doctrine out of utilizing contradiction against reason to prevent action (against them and for yourself). Of course the doctrine represents those in control vetting it for the utilization among lower classes, so the "contradiction of reason" - tool, has been used way longer then that.
Another important aspect of every story is the selfish (hedonism) use of analogies, which are all deliberate obfuscations of knowledge originating within nature. It's the usage of secrecy; justified as a teaching tools to make it easier for (lower) people to comprehend it. To see through that lie you need to comprehend that a student is defined by his teacher, which is a substitute authority to nature; which is the only real teacher, authority; source of knowledge. So we have here hedonists, withholding nature through secrecy to get into positions of power, so that they can claim ownership over those below them. They don't want those below them to raise; they want to stay in control and accumulate more power by exploiting everyone else. That is the starting point of how humans used secrecy to numb the comprehension of other humans towards learning from nature. Now add the systematic steering away of humans from nature through religions, and the abrahamic religions; pulling of the exchange of the laws of nature with the laws of men (the rules of hedonists, and you start to see the bigger game of control being played here.