fructus ex omni - the fruit out of everything,
the same as the fruit that is everything,
fructus id est omni...
i don't care for urban latin, i only dare
to attain the ****** version,
perhaps with latin words,
but nonetheless, with english grammar,
and that does not bother me one bit,
since i know i'm not speaking
japanese.
nonetheless there are two fruits in
the story, the fruit of confusion that
was promised as being the fruit of lucidity,
but also that celestial fruit,
which promised omni-: potence,
science, presence etc.,
but instead trapped the deity in a prison,
what can you really make of a deity
that is bound to a prison of all things omni-?
the idea of omni-traits of a god,
are nothing more than an omnicarcer...
an all encompassing prison...
which later becomes the "eloquent"
but rather sly argumentation for
pantheism...
which makes it all the more impossible
to "argue", since my hand and my toe
and my toenails are all: "god"...
hence my argument that "god" is
a paraphrase...
of all the cul de sac of arguments
provided by man, this one has
to top it all off,
man ate an apple, god ate a cherry...
and no, i don't mean there's a need to "cherish"
the existence of with prayer,
that lunatic gesticulation ritual,
but sparing a thought is the least harmful of
all things possible, otherwise?
the argument goes down the toilet,
it's easy feeding nothing as a replacement,
after all, a res cogitans easily
feeds res vanus and this easily provides
enough atheists...
thought feeds nothing first,
but i wonder: why does feeding nothing
always attract so many rhetorical questions,
so many retorting post scriptums?
the more the argument is heard,
the more the theologians calms down,
while the atheist becomes more & more angry...
i have a sincerity do the argument of:
an omnipresent omnipotent "god" is confined
to a straitjacket,
a straitjacket of our cyclic arguments,
our cul de sac arguments,
because, by now, my **** is god,
and it all comes down to the ridiculousness
of giving all imaginable power,
to a being, that, perhaps, has no ultimate power,
given that such power, would abolish
the theatre of human freedom being expressed...
it's still boiling down to the point of
infantilism of counter-arguments, on & on until
both parties agree: 1 + 1 = 2.
i don't know why atheists ever cite kant,
if you read him, he clearly states:
i'm tired of the counter-arguments against
a god,
just like aristotle was wrong about
the origin of flies...
the non-existence of: said being,
and the the big bang theory...
well, that's just as obsolete as in the biological
canvas of anomalous generation:
the notion of spontaneity! maggots spawn from
the rotting flesh of fish!
nonetheless, maybe this "god"
of omni- etc. attributes became an atheist
himself, when it became all too ridiculous
reaching the pinnacle of pantheism?
maybe god didn't die in auschwitz as the jews
suggest, maybe he just became
pantheistically altruistic?
i.e. why bother doing anything,
if i can do everything? i can be lil jimmy's
thumbs up at a football match,
why bother the dimension of absolutism,
when everything is nicely relative?
of said primates,
it can only be said that the civilisation
with an eloquent argument for,
or for no "god" will fair best...
unless i'm really ****** at counting,
i must have counted 1 billion indians and
1 billion chinese...
and no, i don't believe in atheists
who have the tenacity to have their arguments
guarded with overt emotional stipulation,
hyping, hyping...
to argue against subjectivity
with overt-sensitivity and fiasco theatre of:
never the calm nut on the ward...
goes... nowhere...
i still find it funny how
you can translate biology's anomalous generation
in a microscope, translate it via
the telescope into the big bang, and find
that: nothing doesn't exactly conjure up
nothing, or whatever that original phrase was:
nothing can conjure up everything?
everything was... nihil contra nihil?
never mind,
it's still a prison of pantheism,
and no argument will ever be sensible regarding
this prison + straitjacket...
it's a trap, and i know it, because
whatever argument there is to release
the spectator "god" out of it,
is about as pointless as: reinventing the wheel.
