I am enjoying it, too, R.Hassan.

My article is foremost about language and how the human mind uses language.

When we use all-inclusive words, these words are not functional themselves. Most people 'walk into' the word itself, going for the details, not seeing that one cannot do that.

Write 'Universe' on a letter, and a postal person will not get any direction out of that word for delivering the letter. The word, real as it is, cannot portray a function.

For instance, we cannot say "The universe took a left turn at the intersection." We can envision the words, picture them in our minds, but that does not make the sentence truthful.

Let's use another example, but remember this is about words. Don't dive into the word right from the start, but let's stay at the surface of the word.

Discuss God as all-inclusive, and we don't have all that much to say at God's level. We cannot say "God had breakfast" even though we would understand the sentence's information just fine.

With God, we can indeed start the story of Everything. Yet then, we need to do something special. God had to use something real to create creation.

If we say that creation was willed into being by God, then we are not using our brains well. We are then doing two things in a row that should only be done once. Yes, of course, we can start with God, but, No, we can then not say that God did not need to use anything real to create creation. That is accepting a setup twice. Accepting a setup once is fine, starting with God. But willing creation then into being is an over-asking. That is like eating a meal and then eating another meal as if that second meal is the first meal and the stomach has plenty of room for that second meal.

God needs to be made real, and should not be given a function that is from nothing. God has to be real.

The only aspect that was available for God to use was God godself. From this, we can understand that God used parts of God to create creation.

That means that the current reality is creation plus (everything that is remaining of God). We cannot have the al-inclusive God all by itself any longer, because God had to use something real for creation.

--

I hope you get this. We can use words that are all-inclusive, but to discuss the details we have to break into the all-inclusive word, taking it apart into the actual parts.

And that is what Gödel showed about 100 years ago with his Incompleteness Theorems.

Gödel showed that if we start with an axiom (a truth), then we find the completed setup of that truth at a specific level, but not at the overall level.

We cannot say, for instance, that growing a mustache is a real human trait plus then taking it to the level where this applies to all human beings.

The completed box with people having the ability to grow mustaches will not contain children nor will there be many women in that box of completion.

In other words, the words human being can be applied to all, but no human being has all possible human traits. The whole is an incompleteness, because there is no single person who is male, female, young and old at the same time.

Do you see how language provides us structure, and then we sometimes ignore the structure in which we must think?

Thank you, R.Hassan, for the good conversation. I'll find out if you want to discuss more or if your time is limited.