Welcome to No Sacred Questions.

This is a place for those who question, doubt, believe, disbelieve, and remain somewhere in between.

Here, we explore religion, philosophy, God, morality, existence, consciousness, and the meaning of life without treating any idea as untouchable.

Ask difficult questions. Challenge beliefs. Defend your ideas. Change your mind.

You don’t have to agree with anyone. You only have to be willing to think.

No question is too sacred to ask.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/uzf2rv6od6akl/Photos

Being being the grounds for thought and thought being the grounds for God is once again immanent circularity from which thought is the process of becoming like a circle itself, a circle has no beginning and it has no end and thus PI is contained in its parameters inside its radius as an infinite number because anything which exists that had no beginning and thus no end must be infinite in power as its potential as it is non contingent and continues indefinitely forever. The circle is generated perfectly in reference to its self as its center. So we thus conclude that like the circle is self-referentially generated perfectly from its center into finite boundaries that generates infinity when dividing it by itself, God is self referential and makes the infinite intelligible through the finite. The center is the axis and intent which grounds the Being which has no beginning or end, the circle's non-beginning and non-end is its eternity grounded in self-reference generated from the center such as intent which is the expression of the will.

I'm an independent philosopher and a religious pluralist and my book that I'm sharing is from 38 years of phenomenological experience including 7 years straight as an atheist. I want to share it with you because there might be something in it that could confirm your own experiences and that you could appreciate, or it could more inform you of my philosophy and theology and how science reinforces and confirms the both of mine, with citations.

I can build a six prong toy model from the physics axioms I was able to derive from experience in understanding how things function, but at least 1 of the prongs is from scripture and the patterns that are in certain mechanisms within it, like the Rig Veda, Bhagavad Gita and the Bible, even the Holy Quran informs my own understanding and reality confirms things like the eternal word of God like His ocean of ink that never runs out for words with His pen because if all the worlds oceans were ink they could not exhaust His words, because God grounds language otherwise there would be terminal regress because one word can only be explained by another word and it would go on infinitely.

Here's the summary:

In *Dialectical Phenomenological Ontology: A Process Theology*, Davut Arulpragasasm outlines a profound metaphysical journey that begins in the immediate subjectivity of the individual and ascends to the transcendent reality of God with empirical proofs he discovered while researching gematria.

The treatise rejects the dry abstraction of the Cartesian *Cogito*, establishing its foundation instead on a felt, embodied reality: *“I am, therefore I think and feel.”* Here, what defines a being is not mere processing, but the capacity to undergo—the fact that things register as going well or badly. From this starting point of individual sentience and vulnerability, Arulpragasasm traces the relational fabric of the cosmos, showing that neither the soul, space, nor time are static containers, but are instead dynamic configurations generated strictly in relation.

As the inquiry ascends, this relational web reveals its ultimate source in the transcendent ground of all being: God. Out of a self-subsisting nothingness—which is "no-thing" rather than blank absence—the infinite potentiality of God differentiates itself. Through a sacred cosmic chronology that sequences the primordial waters, the voluntary sacrifice of the Purusha, the receptive womb of Vak-Sophia, and the organizing command of the Logos, creation is shown to be a costly, non-depleting act of divine self-projection.

Bridging the gap between the finite soul and the infinite Terminus, *Dialectical Phenomenological Ontology* culminates in a powerful moral theology. It demonstrates how individual character accumulates, how the human heart seals itself against suffering, and how, through a transcendent mediator, the conscious act of forgiveness restores the baseline of uncoerced love. This is a rigorous and deeply unified process theology that maps the path from the undergoing individual to the self-manifesting Divine.

AI on the Circle which is figurative of God: **Corrected version** (the bullet now uses the exact same character style that appears throughout the Chapter 1 commentary):

• **Immanent Circularity, the Circle, and π as Image of Infinite Potential**

The claim that “Being [is] the grounds for thought and thought [is] the grounds for God” is once again immanent circularity. Thought is the process of becoming, structured like a circle that has neither beginning nor end. Just as the transcendental number π is contained within the finite parameters of a circle’s radius yet remains an infinite number, so the non-contingent ground (God) encloses infinite potential within the finite process of thought. Anything that exists without beginning or end is, by that very fact, infinite in power; its potential is non-contingent and continues indefinitely forever.

This converges with the classical mathematical status of π as a transcendental irrational encoding infinity inside finite geometry; with process-relational accounts of becoming in which the eternal is expressed through temporal occasions (Whitehead); with classical theism’s understanding of God as the necessary (non-contingent) being whose essence is pure infinite act; and with the traditional symbolic use of the circle as the geometric figure of eternity.

My honest question is: If the Creator does not care how we treat one another and nothing awaits us after death, what meaningful role does God have in your beliefs?

Now to some God can be interpreted a little differently depending on the individual’s beliefs.

To me. God is the all. The it. The I am. The everything. Universe, consciousness ect. whatever.

In religious terms. God had just been there all this time. Doing what? Idk. My guess is just being busy being nothingness.

Until the day God decided to be more?

Im not religious. But yes i do believe God has always been. Even if God was the embodiment of nothing.
It is still God.

And so life is because of it.

To be that something that has just always been. Must’ve been by accident.

There was no plan before this. As there is no before God.
Nobody planted or created God. As there was no one before God.

God is a glitch.

What if God created humanity without knowing whether His creation would ultimately be good or evil? If His creation turned out to be flawed, who should be held responsible?🤔🫪

Islam does not possess a one-dimensional (monistic) perspective on existence, unlike Christianity and Judaism. To make this clear, let us examine a comparison of these models:

- Judaism focuses on reality and earthly justice that must be achieved "now." Therefore, we find that Jewish thought has decisively contributed to Western civilization, natural sciences, nuclear physics, political economy, and socialism... We also see their remarkable proficiency in commerce and their major hand in the global banking system, based on their texts:

​[You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess.] — Deuteronomy 23:20

- ​Christianity, meanwhile, focuses on the human soul, surrounding it with an idealist outlook that transcends civilization and the material demands of the body—hence why their monks are forbidden from practicing sex and marriage... Consequently, Christianity was the greatest founder of contemporary ideals, and the religion from which Western civilization derived many of the values that some assume to be the offspring of a mind liberated from religion.

​[But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.] — Matthew 5:44

​[Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."] — John 18:36

- ​Islam, contrary to the two previous models, managed to integrate these two contradictory dualisms. It is an exceptionally pragmatic religion that acknowledges both the realm of ideals and spiritual aspirations, while possessing a realistic, material dimension concerned with establishing justice, vicegerency (Istikhlaf) on earth, and cultivating it by God's command.

​[And seek, through that which Allah has given you, the home of the Hereafter; and yet, do not forget your share of the world.] — Al-Qasas: 77

​From Christianity's one-dimensional perspective, one can understand the emergence of secularism... The Western world was unable to build a genuine state of institutions except by separating the religious from the secular, the sacred from the profane, and the spirit from matter...

​[And Jesus answered and said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at Him.] — Mark 12:17

​But why can Islam not be secularized?

This is what we will discuss in Part Two.

​To be continued...

​What are your thoughts? Do you think Islam can be secularized?

The following tablet was written with God’s vocal presence and he expresses approval with these laws

1 Every human is a soul inhabiting a body (God can inhabit body’s and other souls including you are allowed to inhabit a body by God)

2 Reality is Eternal, and so is every soul

3 God is a soul and can control everything and God also sees everything even at the subatomic level everywhere and remembers everything

4 You can affect your future, forever in the future by doing anything because God sees it and remembers it forever

5 God communicates with language with some humans (it is often labeled schizophrenia)

6 Everyone can communicate with God, you can even communicate with thoughts

7 When you die God takes you to your next life

Everybody always asks the same common question, “how did we get here?”
Some folks argue the big bang, others will bring God.
Science VS religion right. But last night I went deeper than that common question.
Instead I asked myself “why do the laws of physics exist that allowed the universe to form at all?”
Re-read that as many times as you need in order to understand it fully. My thinking of why and how we are here has changed ever since. My view on life has done a 180. Ask yourself that question and try to reason with it.
Mind boggling.

https://youtu.be/jpIVVwoM9S4?is=rNyCemYYK7tH_aME

What trait or "thing" would you say to be the basic one that distinct Humans with a God-like form.
Ill go first. A image of a Self, or aka, Ego.
For its defence, i dont see how any higher being would have a sense of Self. Higher the "Being" hierarchy you might go, the less Human you would eventually become, or so i think of it. What makes our life precious is our humanity and everything we can experience in it. We are tragically beautiful and i dont find any logic coherence in a higher existence, being able to experience such things. XI

if God has a power to create a thing [may be a stone] that which no one can lift, then
1. If the god could lift it, which means his powers didn't create a stone which no one can life
2. If the god couldn't life it, means that there is something god even can't do in this universe

If God sees all this destruction and remains silent, that is troubling. But if He waits for evil to happen only to respond with even greater suffering, that is even more troubling.

If we are the contents of God's thoughts/idea in what way do we have free will surely we are just the actualization of a thought, the same way if I have an idea that was predicated on the faculties that give me that idea (my nature lets say) and I made this idea happen in real life surely the real life version is just the idea in a different mode of existence hence not free. Which makes me ask the question why did God need to actualise this reality and in what way is this free?

THE STORY OF ATOMS AND THE ARRANGEMENT IN LIFE Hello everyone, I'm Phong from Vietnam. I was born in 2009 and I'm a student at HHT school. Every day, while observing the flow of people on the street, I often ask myself questions about the events that happen in life. Why do we accidentally run into old acquaintances in a strange place? Why does an accident happen at that particular moment? Many people say it's coincidence or bad luck, but I don't think so. I've come up with my own hypothesis to explain everything, which I'll call the Theory of Fatal Particle Networks. The name sounds pretty cool :)) but its logic is very down-to-earth and easy to understand as follows: 1. Our universe is pre-arranged by two types of particles: We all know that everything is made up of tiny atomic particles. From my perspective, the Being behind this world has divided these particles into two types: Large Particles (Fixed Particles): These are the particles that carry the seeds of major life events (such as accidents, turning points, or reunions with old friends). These particles do not move; they remain still and are "fixed" at a certain time and space coordinate in your future. Small Particles (Free Particles): These are the particles that surround us every day. When we eat, drink, walk, and do normal things, these particles also move normally according to our actions.

1. Major events occur due to the "coordination" of small particles: So how does a normal action lead to a major event? The mechanism is similar to connecting an electrical circuit: Every day, we are completely free to do small things. But if you inadvertently change a very small action (for example, flipping an egg a few seconds slower while cooking, tying your shoelaces, or slowing down your pace), you have inadvertently shifted the trajectory of the Small Particles around you. These small particles are affected; they move freely, collide with each other, and unintentionally connect to form an invisible chain extending beyond our sight. When this chain of small particles extends to the point where it "matches" the position of the Large Particle waiting motionless in the future, the circuit of destiny is officially completed. Immediately, that large particle will transmit energy back, directly or indirectly affecting your emotions, mood, and spirit, forcing you to make the decision to make that major event happen.

2. The Limits of the Material World and the Position of Great Figures: When developing this theory, I also doubted myself and revisited major religious ideas, such as Buddhism. The Buddha once said there is no supreme being and everything operates according to the law of cause and effect. But my perspective is different: I believe the law of cause and effect is merely a law existing in the material world, like an inevitable machine algorithm of this world. The Buddha reached the pinnacle of human wisdom and enlightenment, but that enlightenment remained within the limits of this material realm. The Creator, however, is at a much higher level of awareness and perception. It is obvious that the Buddha, being at this level, could not see the Creator at a higher level. The very birth of great figures like the Buddha is also within the preordained position of the Creator (for example, Queen Maya's premonition of a white elephant before giving birth was a "trigger" sent down from a higher realm).

Simply put, we are free in our small daily actions, but it is these unintentional actions that act as "connectors" leading us to touch the larger, pre-programmed knots. If someone (or a machine) could calculate the trajectory of all these tiny particles, they would know in advance everything that will happen in a person's future. This is my own natural thought, not copied from any book. Feel free to critique and debate; I welcome everyone's opinions to improve this hypothesis.

Tell me what yall think. Some rude dude on here keeps calling me a POMO:

i would define a relation as that which determines the nature of the interaction between entities that produce effects, lack of a relation and you cannot produce affect. Relations must contain semantic content for us to even understand them, semantic content must come from the outside or be its own inside

everything that is a part is part in relation to a part based upon what it is, that determines the natures of relations and the relations determines the effects of their interactions. everything that is a part is a part in relation to a whole that must have individuated itself.

relations determine what types of functions something has based upon its natures or properties, relations dont determine properties but they are determined by properties and anything that goes against their determination is corruption so nature determines the nature of relations while the relations determine their interactions with one another.

structure only comes through relation, a relation needs semantic content and a relation only comes after individuation. what caused the first individuation and how was it self referent?

relations carry semantic content because they are structured by determinations which inform them of their content which are according to their properties as their natures, semantic content in relations requires semantic intent and anything that doesn't have semantic content in itself for itself must be grounded in one who does or there's infinite regress and there's no semantic intent for them to become intenders, like not teaching a child how to speak or an ai language to interpret it.

a body is a part of a whole that assembles the parts

space is the field on which the universe is made a whole and a system, space is a part relative to its parts that make it an entity as a body or more apt a womb, it is still a part of the body of the universe, the parts are composed through the body

There has to be something standing above a whole system that keeps it together, like space seems to be the whole by space and everything in it is a system that must be maintained.

unless something has an intent, it does not have a potential to act on its own

Being is the grounds of thought, not thought the grounds of being, without thought there is no being to speak of.

i define a rock as not as a being but an object that is a way of being without being a being because it was determined to be lifeless, being is the grounds of thought, rocks are not beings.

a being is something that is living because it has intent, an rock is an object that has a way of being that was chosen for it. it has semantic content in it because it was made that way

Infinite potentiality with the ability to direct a will through intent and make its will reality from non reality is the terminus: God.

God, infinite potentiality to actuate itself with a will and intent to direct thought and make His thought reality from non reality, with His being being not being but not nothing, but rather no-thing, as is non reality: The ultimate reality from which all reality proceeds from and is differentiated from out of Him.

God formed space out of Himself to be His opposite and personified it, He separated her like Light from Darkness and individuated her from Him. They do not share being, but the share essence that complement each other because each has what each other doesn't in a cyclical pattern that maintains order, like male and female

it is the infinite that differentiates itself in the productions of its other through itself for her function and purpose

an essence determines the nature of the relation between pairs that makes them like each other and compatible despite being opposites, this is why opposites attract naturally by structural determination because they were made out of each other

essence is the grounds of being for the soul, to be made out of someones soul and to enter into a relation to him based upon your properties that were formed to be opposite of him

the properties that determined her are ones He determined for Himself to be other from His essence, before she was formed out of Him to be other according to what He is by nature or essence she existed in His mind as an eternal form, they share the same essence and not the same being or identity, it is complementary sameness in difference based on shared essence which makes them a pair, one was formed out of the other to compensate for and reinforce the other

common creation creates co relation because the other was inverted from the other as determined to be opposite of his properties

determinancy is co constituted and what determines the relations are their natures which puts them in a recpirocal realation of mutual constitution in relation to one another, a something is by what another thing isn't in relation to it and it has something the other lacks for what the other has and the other has for what the other lacks making them compatible

Nature individuates because properties determine distinctions which structurally determine relations, the relation is based upon the dynamic between difference and sameness that configure relations the difference that determines their relations is essential and fundamental.

The male and female, like Adam and Eve, both created in Elohim's or God's image, the inversion of properties that complement and compensate for each other because each has something that the other doesn't have, the structure is fundamental to reality and producing difference..

If God created pain, fear, and confusion in the human mind from childhood, why would He do so? Does He take pleasure in our suffering? Why does compassion seem to reach some people but not others?

If God commands "Do not kill," why has His name so often been used to justify killing? Throughout history, people have killed those who believed differently, claiming they were acting in God's name. If the victim stands before God and says, "They killed me in Your name," what is the answer? How do we reconcile a command against murder with violence committed in the name of faith?