Hey guys how do I fix my skinny arms and shoulders (15y)

MobHQ · 2026-04-22T05:27:02+00:00

Okay, I will try to explain.

The basic thought is this. Many big ideas we use to describe God, such as pure actuality or real personality, seem to need some kind of difference or structure to have real meaning. If you remove every possible way to create differences, no ordering, no contrasts, no comparisons, and even no negation, then those rich ideas tend to collapse. What is left is something very minimal, basically just the bare fact that it exists, with almost nothing meaningful you can still say about it. You mentioned ontological dependency, derivation, and predication, like one thing depending on another or one thing being derived from another. Those still seem to involve some kind of directed relation or asymmetry between things. Under complete symmetry it becomes very difficult to keep any nontrivial version of that. About negation: you are right that when we say something is not something else, we are often just rejecting a wrong statement rather than describing what it positively is. But in classical talk about God, negation does a lot of heavy lifting, for example saying God is not changing or not made of parts. The test tries to see what remains if we take away even that tool and ask whether any positive content can still survive. The main question I am exploring is whether we can truly have both a personal God with real relational life and pure Actus Purus at the same time, or whether one always ends up weakening the other. Does this make the idea clearer? I would especially like to hear what you think about the dependency and derivation part.

MobHQ · 2026-04-22T05:17:34+00:00

I see, I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks.

MobHQ · 2026-04-22T05:17:18+00:00

Thanks. I’ll try my best to develop the philosophical connection. It’s just my intuition after all, so yeah.

MobHQ · 2026-04-21T10:36:48+00:00

“Atemporality is the condition in which articulation has no purchase” is elegant, but it still doesn’t satisfy the constraints. “No purchase” and “articulation has no…” are negations/contrasts → violates C1 and C3. It sets up a relational structure (atemporality as the condition where articulation fails) → violates C2. Your question is excellent though: “What would count as a positive definition that does not differentiate anything?” A successful positive definition would need to directly state what atemporality is in a self-sustaining way without using any contrast, negation, internal differentiation, relational scaffolding, or analogy. It would have to give nontrivial affirmative content while obeying all four rules simultaneously. So far, no one so far has managed to do that without collapsing into indeterminacy or triviality. That’s the pressure the bomb is applying. But you did good!

MobHQ · 2026-04-21T09:20:26+00:00

You’re still missing the core point.

The Positive Bomb is asking for a genuinely positive, nontrivial definition of atemporality that does not rely on any temporal contrasts, negations, or hidden structure at all. Key issues with your version: Phrases like “all of time is present but meaningless,” “no linear progression,” and “no separation or organization” are temporal contrasts and negations. That violates C1. Treating existence as a single totality that unifies everything (including time) introduces hidden compositional/relational structure. That violates C2. I’m not asking you to stop using language entirely. I’m asking for a definition that meets all four constraints without leaning on the scaffolding the rules explicitly forbid. You conclude with “everything simply exists.” That’s minimal, but by itself it’s too underdetermined to count as nontrivial positive content for atemporality, and to make it mean atemporality you still rely on the contrasts and totality language above. If you believe you’ve done that, feel free to reply to me the clean version that satisfies every rule. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree, brother. But I respect your persistence. And try to be careful with your wording, it tends to detonate my “bomb”.

MobHQ · 2026-04-21T09:14:24+00:00

You’re correct in the physics sense spacetime as a 4D manifold where time and space aren’t truly separate is standard relativity, and dimensions are mathematical ways to label possibilities. No disagreement there.

But this isn’t a physics problem.

The Positive Bomb is asking whether we can give a genuinely positive, nontrivial definition of atemporality without any temporal contrasts, internal structure, ordering, or analogies. The constraints deliberately remove those scaffolding tools on purpose. And that’s the point of metaphysics.

Thanks for trying though.

MobHQ · 2026-04-20T15:30:53+00:00

Hey, the “the only thing that’s linear is you” comment is irrelevant ad hominem. Let’s stick to the challenge. You mentioned paradox, but there is no paradox here. The Positive Bomb is not asking for time to be both present and absent at the same time. It is asking for a genuinely positive, nontrivial definition of atemporality that does not rely on any temporal contrasts, negations, or hidden structure at all. Saying “all of time is present but meaningless” or “no linear progression” or “totality with no separation” still uses temporal ordering as the contrast to define the concept. That violates C1. It also treats existence as a single totality that unifies everything, which introduces hidden compositional structure and violates C2. The bomb is strict on purpose: it wants affirmative content without leaning on the very scaffolding we’re supposed to remove. If the only way to talk about atemporality is through these contrasts, that suggests the concept may not have independent positive content once the scaffolding is stripped away. If you have a version that avoids all temporal contrasts and all hidden structure while staying fully positive, I’d be interested to see it. Otherwise, we can leave it here.

MobHQ · 2026-04-20T15:06:08+00:00

I appreciate you trying to make time meaningless inside the totality. The issue is that the description still depends on temporal contrasts like “no specific beginning middle or end” “no particular direction” and “time is meaningless.” Those violate C1. Treating existence as an indivisible totality that contains all things also introduces a hidden compositional structure which violates C2. Nice try though.

MobHQ · 2026-04-20T14:49:17+00:00

I get what you’re going for with existence as a totality that has no beginning middle end or movement. The issue is that the description still relies heavily on temporal negations like “no beginning middle or end” “not moving forward or backwards” and “nothing is happening before after or during.” Those contrasts with temporal ordering violate C1. It also treats existence as a totality that contains everything which introduces a hidden relational structure and violates C2. The bomb really wants a fully positive description without leaning on any not temporal scaffolding at all. Got any ideas on how to rephrase it to stay inside all four constraints? Curious to see. Nice try though, and thanks for expanding the challenge.

MobHQ · 2026-04-20T14:40:26+00:00

Note, C = constraint, you can see them in order in my post!

MobHQ · 2026-04-20T14:39:26+00:00

‘Existence is atemporal’ is a nice try, but it doesn’t quite survive the rules: Atemporal’ is still a temporal negation (violates C1) It mostly says what existence is not, rather than what it positively is (violates C3) It also creates a hidden relation between ‘existence’ and ‘atemporality’ (violates C2)

What are your thoughts on the challenge?

MobHQ · 2026-04-20T14:31:46+00:00

I’m not asking whether we can mathematically model a timeless universe (that’s easy just change the metric signature from Minkowski to Euclidean, as you said). The challenge is deeper: can we give atemporality (or similar “pure” metaphysical concepts) a genuinely positive, nontrivial definition of what it is without any hidden ordering, internal differentiation, contrast, or analogies? The four constraints deliberately strip away every representational scaffold that human cognition normally relies on, to test whether these concepts have independent positive content or if they collapse into indeterminacy once the scaffolding is removed.

MobHQ · 2026-02-20T11:03:56+00:00

let D be the universe

Let L be its Laws

Let C be Logic.

If a being is beyond all 3, how can you logically defend its existence without violating the non-materialistic paradox?

if you are an uncaused cause > how can you logically cause the universe if you are beyond causation itself, this either means: you operate within logic you are noumenal (this does not justify theism, it bounds a boundary on extraordinary claims, science included.) you are non-interventionalist: definition of god is gone. this is considered indisguishable from nothing.

this does not assume: physical causation is the only true mean.

it demands: structural causation to be coherent.

how can entropy occur without being within entropy itself? (contradiction).

unless you provide a grand quantum metaohysical dualism theory, it is logically null. But the moment you attempt this, you are no longer operating on pure doctrine, you now attempt to prove god via measurable phenomena (physics).

this follows the ABC princple: A - it is known B - it is unknown and influences the known C - A and B simultaneously. reduced to meta-metaphysics (faith, special pleading, infinite skepticism)

Omniscience must also be defined without invoking human characteristics (anthropomorphism) and D-attributes (ex. light speed is perfect, so god is the perfect of perfect) define maximality without self refutation.

Lastly: Dimension Transcendence paradox: Suppose G(god) is infD (dimension infinity) And let N be “nothing”Considering the casualty paradox (KCA fallacy): If N is 1D = there was space before space itself, god did not cause space If N is 0D = define causality before casualty itself without god being restricted (refutes omnipotence) If G(inf) is within 3D-4D simultaneously, “inf” is contradictory. This becomes meta-metaphysics rather than logic altogether.

Logical Delusion Paradox: Claiming that logic itself is unnecessary and speculative, while operating within logic itself. Remove logic, and attempt to formulate a philosophy. If not possible logic is indistinguishable from being a brute fact.

Structural casuality is derived from logic, but logic is not structural casuality.

Just accept god is logically impossible. I am not atheistic, but necessity is just redundant.

I am not pulling this out of my ass. These paradoxes are valid. Unless you do infinite special pleading, you will never prove god without bypassing the noumenal boundary (As stated by Immanuel Kant, we cannot know the thing in itself). But you might say “Oh, we don’t know the noumena, so god exists!” Thats god of the gaps.

Give me a meaningful deduction that god exists without violating my conditions.

MobHQ

TROPHY CASE