ok oliver as-i-like-to-ask-logus-[logic]-for-answers i will attempt to convey-that-my-logic-reveals-me to-reply.

from-your-statement

[quote]
''Previously, I have-been-meaning a-Realm-of-the Remotest-Value from-other-realms,''...

[as-i-previously-quoted
a realm ,
has a boundry that defines it because it has its natural [unique] order that-defines-it

[thus-is-it-able to be deemed a-realm by-its-sovereign-version-of-order ,or even 'its' non-being of dis-order.]

a-realm of 'the remotest value'' , yet has its unique 'value' [logus] logic [order] that deems it a-realm


a circle [or square ;or whatever ]of nothing is yet a realm-of-nothing

..'' ...God-and-the-Universe.''
one is realm
[the other determines the logic-[logus]-withing the-realm]

..'' All are to be independent-constructs to-retain the-internal consistency of-each-construct.''...

[life is infinatly vairiable'

[like each has thier own finger prints]
so to is uniquness-a-constant to-god [who-knows every-barb from-every feather on-every-sparrow-that falls ]

..'' Can-such-a-realm contain-form-u-la-e?''..

it-must to-be called a-realm

realm ;
n.
1. A community or territory over which a sove-reign rule-s;
a kingdom.
2. A field, sphere, or province: the realm of science.[logic/sepperated from non-logic]

not-that-it-is-for men to deduce or discover which ''certain formula' or indeed which set-of-formulations ,except-via their-own unique versions-of-logus [logic]

mine is that the 'living ' god reveals himself via 'life '

that being the 'life-giver' is served by life living
[not death]
death-is-that-which- 'takes' life death-serves-god-not]

further any-deliberated-intentional-death can be said to demean god

but in-this-realm we are-allowed to believe as-we chose-to-believe -OR_NOT.
god [the life giver] is the light sustaining life into love
good=god

god saw the-light [and it was perfect]
i know i-should have quit while ahead.

anyway
jesus said even-a-beast knows the-voice of his-master

god being-knowable-via-the-logic-in-life = [love ] sustaining the dust to live
Life-rules this-realm for a certainty [via-logic]

where-ever logic is he-must-be

where insanity is love is rejected
[not absent]

But we are free to accept or reject in-so-doing-WE-{ME}-create our own after being realm [H or H]
one is in the light [but the other for those chosing to reject light ]
The-light-is-good [it-all comes-from god [the-only-good]
sorry about preaching

thanks for making me think

Pericles,

Gretings friend. Yep, I am guilty of a little deliberate side-stepping, but I am looking towards, we, collectively, working through a process. Not skulduggery, rather, anapproach, which treats "god", "the universe" and "formulae" as separate constructs on questions of existence. Once these are treated as scales with internal consistence, one cannot have, God + Realm [one under god], as the atomic construction. Each must stand-alone. Thence, we can make deductions from both; and The Universe, of course.

Juan under God,

Logic:

F. logique (13th c.), ad. med.L. logica, ad. Gr. (first found in Cicero; ellipt. for , rendered in med.L. by ars logica), fem. of (whence L. logicus) pertaining to reasoning, f. word, oration, reasoning, reason, etc.: see LOGOS. The word is current in all the mod.Rom. and Teut. langs.: Sp. lógica, Pg., It., Du. logica, Sw. logika, Ger., Da. logik. Cicero uses also logica neut. pl. = Gr. ‘logics’ (see 1b below).]

1. a. The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of inference and of scientific method. (Prof. J. Cook Wilson.) Also, since the work of Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), a formal system using symbolic techniques and mathematical methods to establish truth-values in the physical sciences, in language, and in philosophical argument.

The proper scope of this department of study has been and is much controverted, and books on ‘logic’ differ widely in the range of subjects which they include. The definition formerly most commonly accepted is ‘the art of reasoning’; for various modern definitions see the later quots. At all times the vulgar notion of ‘logic’ has been largely that it is a system of rules for convincing or confounding an opponent by argument. OED - Unabridged

LOGOS, above, has a OED link to its own separate etymology, which, in short, relates to Hellised Theology and Neo-Platoism.

-cont-

One Under God,

cont.

Appreciate your contribution.

Some later uses of Logic:

1776 ADAM SMITH W.N. V. i. (1869) II. 354 Logic, or the science of the general principles of good and bad reasoning. 1837 SIR W. HAMILTON Logic i. (1866) I. 4 Logic is the Science of the Laws of Thought as Thought. 1843 MILL Logic Introd. (1846) 9 Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. 1870 JEVONS Elem. Logic i. 1 Logic may be most briefly defined as the Science of Reasoning. 1903 B. RUSSELL Princ. Math. I. i. 4 But now Mathematics is able to answer, so far at least as to reduce the whole of its propositions to certain fundamental notions of logic. 1932 LEWIS & LANGFORD Symbolic Logic v. 118 This logistic method requires that the first branch of logic to be developed should be the calculus of propositions. - OED Unabridged

What is the calculus or formulae of God in context with all formulae and The universe? [Noting Lewis above]. Mill's [1843] Logic is in direct opposition to Logos of a contemporary period:

a1834 COLERIDGE Lit. Rem. (1838) III. 158 If Christ be that Logos or Word that was in the beginning. 1882 S. D. F. SALMOND in Encycl. Brit. XIV. 803/2 Heraclitus holds that nothing material can be thought of without this Logos, but he does not conceive the Logos itself to be immaterial. - OED Unbridged.

Is logos material or immaterial? Neither? ... in a theist's world view? If neither, you have adopted a realm of non-existent existence: metaphysical perhaps, but, said metaphysical construct is not immaterial.

My aim, with the valuable help of our OLO colleagues, is to build a formulation of God, The Universe and All Formulae, without a priori bias. [Theists to me jump steps before commitment.]

We will create these constructs, examine interactivity, analyse, and draw deductions, empirically. Herein, my posit is, that theorical constructs could exist without Logos; i.e, without the existence of God. Contrarily, reasoning can be applied to build our conceptual model.

Ludwig,

Thank you. No space.

clearly-i am-uneducated.
all the-thinking-you-proposed-[quoted]-goes-largly-over-my-head, but these-quotes i-will-try to-respond-to

''Is_logos_material_or-immaterial? ''..

logus[logic]-is-aether[immaterial[but-its-basis-is logiclly-based-in-the-material]

... ''in-a-theist's_world-view?''...

as-in a-'christ' that-became-man?

read the-many-teachings [none-can-look-upon-me and live et-al]

mine-father_and_i-am-one_is-via-our-logus-[logic]-not-the material-of logus-[god become flesh-ie all-flesh-That-you-did-to-the-least-you-did-to-ME[HE]-god is-not-one-body but-the-logus of-all-bodies

[it is written gods throne is our heart
heart is-the-symbol-[immaterial]-of-love
gods love-and-logus is-our [lifes/\lives] animism

Ye-shall-have-no-god_before-me [nor-son , nor-image , nor-rite , nor-ritual]

[this is where gods-own dont-get-god]
they [WE]have-the 'holy'texts , the-circumzision, the-holy-land , even the arc-of-the-covenant
[all-of-which they [WE]put before god][ME]
[mE-inverted-becomes-wE]

[even-those of-islam [meaning to-follow gods_will ] put-the-prophet[MAY-PEACE-BE-UPON-THEM-ALL] and-his-[their]-texts before the-living_loving=god

[one bit of leaven [materialism] spoils the-whole-batch]

...'you have adopted a realm of non-existent existence'...

very insightfull [i am but one outcast and rejected even by his own] ,
my-reality-consists-solely in-responding-and-communing via-the-web blogging-about god_and_his-creation

but as-i eat as-i use a key-board, and get-angry-i am of-course material as an undenyable reality, gladly-awaiting-the-day-this-material-realm-drops-the-veil-between-the-heavens-and-the hells,and this realm[just-as-god-is-one-so-too-

'metaphysical perhaps, .... said meta-physical construct is not immaterial''....

you-lost me-there
[but-words-are-not-the-best-conumication-medium

[i knew god-was-real before i read the holy-texts [of many-prophets]it might seem sick
but i only love humans because god does
[i trust him to know better
than my own-realised-experience with his 'huh-manity

..''to-build-a-formulation-of-God'',...

ok-divide-eternity-into-infinity
times mass
=EL

is-not-possable
your the formulation [from god]
[we all are ]

god thunk us into being
[he has but to say [and it is , and behold we all are]

..''The Universe and All Formulae, without a priori bias.''...

is impossable [god allways was [allways will be [no begining NO end[not for god [logus]

lets say material realm began with a big-bang ,the initiation of the bang was god saying ''BE' ,lets say we live in an expanding [rather than eternally recycling universe]

Moving away from big-bang 'material matter expands out till mere specks that in time fall in to a lump the size of ["."][a fullstop], then it changes state ['be']
[A big bang]and time begins again

[god was in the beginning as well as the end]
as well as was logus at the beginning etc
[ie all beginnings [and all ends]]

one under god, if you want people to read your posts, I strongly suggest that you refrain from all those hyphens.

We know that you use them to circumvent the word limit - this latest effort was in reality 533 words long, according to my word editor - but the problem is, it actually makes the posts more difficult to read.

You might get more respect for your views if you played by the rules.

Just a suggestion

as im restricted to 5 posts per day thank you Pericles,
for helping me to waste one on essentially nothing but a complaint about word numbers

have you thought of becoming or are you a moderator?

it dosnt appear you had much else to say
but your good at word counting
not athiest are you?

have you anything else to say?
any comment on the content?
not its length or words

but i guess your right to say is equal to my right to say
that being said

do you have any valid contribution to make to the problem?
any wisdom to contribute
its funny [it would never have occured to me to count words[unless i was trying to make some relitive point or trying to stop the posters comments in some way]

well i have 4 left [one ,more on this post for today]
hoping next ytime there is a valid response not just petty word counting
if what i say has upset you
complain about what has upset you
not the number of words i needed to respond to the topic
[oh and if you are by chance a forum moderator]
please put it into the rules ,
but not because someone who has no thoughts other than police things they dont want to be heard ,then look for ways to shut them down

i only regret i had to post this response to a provacaative non respondant ,but i dont turn the other cheek

cheers eh
may next time you have a real comment [on topic]
not just a complaint about teqnique