God is not

A new way of looking at "God" / "Allah", the universe and all being. Discover what the might of "God" / "Allah" is and why "God" / "Allah" is almighty. Discover what is *not* and what is *be* and how *be* arises.

A new way of looking at "God", the universe and all being. Discover what the might of "God" is and why "God" is almighty. Discover why there was no big bang and the universe is infinite. Discover what is *not* and what is *be* and how *be* arises.

The insight »"God" *is* not« has nothing to do with atheism, and agnosticism it is only in the case that it is not a question and answer about the existence of "God". The term "God" can be explained, but not the question about the existence. The insight has something to do with apisty in the sense that it is not believed, but known. It is already known that Socrates' insight "I know that I know nothing" is a mistranslation and actually means "I know that I know not" (instead of believe). In this sense, the insight of »"God" *is* not« stands.

For many, there is a beginning and an end in their thinking. And thus the big bang theory with its big bang at the beginning is also very popular. This big bang could also have been the end of something. But this leads everything into the misleading. It is based on a thinking in a world of things.

If said »"God" *is* not"«, then many contradict. But with a closer look it looks different. The religions says: "God" = mental, not corporal.

»not« or »be«

Which was first: »not« or »be«?
The logical answer is »not«, but this contradicts those who say that in the beginning there was "God" and "God" *is* (inflection of *be*). Accordingly, in the beginning was not *not*, but *be*. That would be insofar conclusive with the thesis that there is no beginning and no end and everything *be* has always *been*. But it is a false conclusion which is based on a wrong ground: Only the perspective of »one by one« (step by step) is possible and from this perspective it can be said that one first and one second. There is a cycle, but there is no beginning and no end. In this cycle is *not* first. That has the reason, because in *not* also no thinking about *not*, because no *be*. Because it is wrong to say that *be* makes itself to *not* and *from* not to *be*. *be* is only a moment. The basis is *not*, but its not a beginning. But *not* is also only a moment (but »not« *is* not *be* and »not« *is* not *not*, but *not*).

The more familiar question is "Which was first: the egg or the chicken?". The answer is: egg laying (making). The scientific term for this is *oviparously* (a property word).

Note: »not« is not a thing (property). »not« is a property (word). »not« is the property (word) without property (word).

Now another fact is added. The universe is all — not and be. The universe is not only the observable universe. Also multiverses are always only a part of the universe in the universe. The universe is one (uni). The universe is *in* itself (versum). Exactly: The universe makes *in* itself (versum). Whereby it itself *is* not, but only parts *in* it. Many find it hard not to think in a world of things. It is hard for them to understand the universe without beginning and without outside.

»make« or »be«

How arises »be«? There is a term for the act from »not« to »be«. There is a common grammatical term and there is a physical term. The common grammatical term is »make«. The physical term is »acceleration«. With physical »accelerate« shall »move« or »not«. Without physical »accelerate« no »move«, also »not«. All that *is*, is only »move«, but not physical »accelerate«. Physical »accelerate« is the act of becoming of *be* space-time (space and time). Time is only change. Space is only »move«. Arise of »be«: Physical »accelerate« *in* / *out of* »not«.

Physical accelerate: accelerate, decelerate, change in direction.

not↔accelerate(make)↔move(be)

This "accelerate" (»make«) does not mean »accelerate« inside »move«, but »accelerate« from »not« to »be« or »not« to »be«. »make« is also »annihilate«.

"God" (is) only an another word of »make« (create). From »make« derived is *mighty* and *might* and all other words with *might* like *almighty*.

"God" *is* not. "God" *makes* (creates/annihilates). "God" = »make« (acceleration).

The conclusion »"God" *is* not« means not, that "God" = »not«, but it can be seen in this way. The question about the existence of "God" is the question about whether "make" (verb) *exists*, whether verbs *exist*. Basically, all verbs are property words (a type of *move*). So the question is whether properties *exist*. It should be noted that "not" is also a property (word). "not" has the property *without*.

Note that this is incorrect: "God" *is* »make«; "God" *is* mighty; "God" *is* almighty.
This is correct: "God" = »make«; "God" = mighty; "God" = almighty.

"God" not »move«. »move« = space = corporal = »be«. »change« = time = mental = »not«. "God" not *corporal*. "God" not »be«. "God" = »mental«. "God" = »not«. Always false: "God" »is«. This results in: "God" don't exist. Further false: "God" *is* dead, because "God" *is* not (alive).

Consider: "God" *is* not »move«. »move« = space. But *in* »move«, "god" *is* cognizable, because »move« comes from »accelerate«.

The religions say: "God" = mental. The counterpart of »mental« is »corporal«. This comes from the ancient mythology and was extended. Behemoth = land (corporal). Leviathan = water (mental, ghost). Zyz = air (mental mental, holy ghost). The differentiation is based on "touching": corporal = touch with fingers. mental = touch with mind. Bodies can be handled by hand. Water not. Air even less. Always the less = "God". "God" always the less or not cognizable. In this view: "God" always »not«. "God" = »not«.

At »not« lies the limit of language and thought. We cannot speak in »not« and cannot think in »not«. For that we would have to *not* speak and *not* think.

The same thing that applies here to "God" also applies to "Allah" or any other gods. "God" is derived from "good" in the pointing of *together*. The antagonist is *divide* and from this is derived "devil". "JHWH" = breathe [see: "Prana"]. The breath of life (The touch of life): breathe life into/out. "JHWH" – "Jehova" – "Eloah" – "Allah".

»not« or »god«

The universe was not created »by« "God", it was arise from nothing. That is and remains incomprehensible. The problem with "God" is that he is thought of as a body and therefore was a body first. Derived from this, it is supposed to be »the nothing«, i.e. an embodied »not«. This is wrong. »Not« is the property (word) »without« property. »Not« therefore as »without«. Still without or again without property. "God" is therefore »not«. The base is therefore »not«. The base is without property. The basic property / primal property is »movable«. Without movable is nothing, therefore not, therefore without property. There is no more fundamental property than »movable« respectively »not«.

»purity«

"God" was in earlier times localized in the air (later in the sky).
Air and thus "God" is physically perceptible as breath (Prana) and wind.
Air was regarded as godlike, since odorless, soundless and invisible — bodiless.
Air as pure mind (spirit) in the sense of a purity and thus intangibility.
Smells (olibanum) were and are applied as connection to "God".
Air was understood as "not".
"God" = air = not = god is not.

The process from barbarism to civilization is a matter of purity.
Purity of body.
Purity in mind.
Purity in behavior.