STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 2 : introducing the real gods

X.X

Oh crap. Everything was going fine until now. We were discussing abstract logical systems, inconsistent elements, and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, like civilized people. Now, here I go, and drop the ball. Gods. Not just gods, real gods. This is just great. Was the Physical Logic not supposed to explain our reality in its entirety, without asking us to believe in things like gods? What was the point of this entire venture, if it ends with us believing in gods like religious people? Could we have not simply chosen a religion to believe in, and save ourselves the trouble? What the fuck is wrong with you, Ptyl?
Ok, now hold on a minute. I am not asking you to believe in anything. I merely wish to introduce a concept to you, as I deduce it from our previous conclusions. In the previous chapter, we understood why metaphysical inconsistency must exist. We analyzed the attributes of inconsistent elements, and finally, we realized, that no matter in what we believe, something equivalent in potential to inconsistent elements simply must “be” within the world-in-itself.
Admittingly, the issue of gods and religions is problematic. In western culture, it has become widely accepted, faith and belief are strictly subjective. In today’s democratic secular society, with its heterogenic religious persuasions, we learned to tolerate other people’s beliefs. We have the right to believe in whatever we want, as long as we do not break the law, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Still, this tolerance causes an arguably problematic side effect. Without actually admitting to it, we accept there is not a single truth, with respect to gods and religions. Because we reject the idea that everybody must follow the same religious persuasion, implicitly, we accept no religion is more “correct” or "valid" than any other religion. Actually, usually, even religious followers, follow merely their own subjective interpretation of their religions. While some religious followers follow their religion strictly, usually, religious followers adapt and modify their religion, so it would be more “compatible” with their somewhat “modern” lifestyle. Therefore, arguably, even within a single religion, there is no single “truth”. Today, religions mostly reflect a tendency, to embrace a certain corpus of concepts and moral ideals, to which usually, most fractions of a religion adhere.
Still, there is a common principle, which all religions share. All religions demand belief in metaphysical claims, which they can prove neither empirically, nor rationally. Usually, these metaphysical claims consist of a belief in god, or gods, and the involvement of divine forces within our lives, even if in some cases, these divine forces are somewhat too “abstract”, for us to personify them as deities. Religions, and divine deities (such as gods for example) are related, and therefore, whatever trends religions take, such trends affect our concepts regarding the essence of these divine deities.
The same pluralist attitude, with which we view religions, applies to these divine deities as well. No religion has the right to claim all people must believe in it, and therefore, we do not perceive any religious claims regarding the essence of any divine deity, as necessarily correct. We perceive the nature and essence of “god” as merely a list of options, from which we may choose, according to our subjective taste and inclination.
On the positive side, this new “trend” transformed our previously oppressive "gods", into the things we want them to be. To clarify, in the past, society forced us to live the way religions dictated, regardless if the lifestyle they suggested, was somewhat incompatible with our personality. However, as we accepted the right of other people, to follow their own different concepts, with respect to the essence of their gods, implicitly, we accepted, that in order to please everybody, gods do not have to be or do anything specific. At the very best, gods will show a tendency to be something, but this is as far as it goes.
The problem is that we apply this pluralist perspective, to the very existence of gods. To clarify, today, it has become somewhat widely accepted, that the very existence of gods, depends on our subjective inclination whether to believe they exist or not. As ridiculous as it sounds, somehow, we actually think, gods require our faith, to attain their divine potency. Inexplicably, today, we actually believe, our limited consistent existence, empowers gods with their divinity.
Still, the conclusions we reached in the previous chapter, show the opposite.
In what way? Well, let us forget the term “gods” for now. Let us first consider the word “real”. Why “real”? What is “real”? Well, since we already “redefined” such a basic term as “existence”, we should do the same with respect to the term "real". We will define the term "real", as something that must be true to the world-in-itself, regardless of our subjective opinion about it. For example, "existence" is real, regardless of the identity of the elements, which actually exist in the world-in-itself. Now, if we return to our current course of discussion, at the end of the previous chapter, we concluded, inconsistent elements must exist in the world-in-itself, regardless of the metaphysical persuasion in which we believe (even if we choose not to believe in any metaphysical persuasion). Therefore, the existence of inconsistent elements is real.
Still, this claim, is not "philosophical". When we say inconsistent elements must exist in the world-in-itself, regardless of the metaphysical theory or persuasion in which we believe, we are not saying something about our beliefs or persuasions. No. We are saying something about all metaphysical theories and persuasions, and it so happens, there must be at least one metaphysical theory or persuasion, which is “true” to the metaphysical essence of the world in which we live. Therefore, regardless of the semantics of this theory or persuasion, and regardless of its level of consistency, we can assert that metaphysically, inconsistent elements must exist in the world it describes. To summarize, regardless of what we know, we can be sure that the existence of inconsistent elements is real.
Ok, so we got the “real” part figured, but why “gods”? Why not settle with “inconsistent elements”? I mean, the word “god” is already controversial. What is the point in adding more fuel to the fire?
Well, I chose the word “gods”, and not “inconsistent elements”, because for all intended purposes, this is exactly what inconsistent elements are. First, because metaphysically, inconsistent elements are inconsistent with the dimension of causality, no regularity can limit them, and therefore, there is nothing they cannot “do”. This includes almost anything we can think of (and you will soon understand why I say “almost”). Secondly, because metaphysically, these elements are inconsistent, they can “do things” that will not even make sense to us. Therefore, we cannot even challenge these elements with logically inconsistent impossibilities, such as time paradoxes, or paradoxes in general. To summarize, inconsistent elements have the potential and ability to perform any divine feat.
However, this is hardly the end of it. By using the term “gods”, I am implying these inconsistent elements are deities. Why should we think that? Up until now, they were merely “elements”. Why should these “elements” suddenly become deities? What is wrong with simply being unanimated elements?
Well, actually, there is a reason for us to doubt inconsistent elements are deities. To clarify, first, as we already concluded, with respect to the different attributes of metaphysical inconsistency, inconsistent elements are inconsistent with the dimension of life, and hence, they are not alive in any sense we can recognize. They do not undergo the cycle of life, meaning, they are not born, and neither do they die. Secondly, with respect to the dimension of existence, and the dimension of motion, inconsistent elements reside “out of time”. Therefore, again, notions such as birth, life, and death, do not apply to inconsistent elements, and hence, even theoretically, we cannot “animate” them, regardless if we can perceive them as deities or not. Nevertheless, as we already concluded, metaphysically, no regularity can limit inconsistent elements, and therefore, their very definition determines, it is impossible that appearing to us as deities surpasses their metaphysical potency. To clarify, while indeed, we cannot make them come to life (as they are never born), we cannot limit inconsistent elements from appearing to us as deities, as we simply cannot limit inconsistent elements.
While arguably, this statement may tempt us to think, it is enough to prove inconsistent elements are deities, we are not there yet. Indeed, if we were discussing consistent elements in the logical field, we would not have a problem. To clarify, according to the Physical Logic, consistent elements actually exist in the logical field. They do not exist merely as definitions. Moreover, if a consistent element possesses a specific set of characteristics, it explicitly implies, this element actually exhibits these characteristics. However, this applies only to elements, which exist in the logical field. It does not automatically apply to elements, which exist only in the world-in-itself. To clarify, not only are inconsistent elements inconsistent with the logical field, but even if inconsistent elements were still somehow consistent with the logical field, nothing could oblige them to anything. Furthermore, by their very definition, inconsistent elements cannot persist to exist, regardless of any “form” they take. Therefore, even if an inconsistent element appeared to us as a deity, it could not stay in this state, not even for the shortest duration.
As strange or unexpected as it may sound, our inability to share the same time and space with inconsistent elements, is exactly the reason, why we may perceive them as deities. Still, the appearance of inconsistent elements as deities in our minds, is not exactly what we would expect. To clarify, we must remember, we are consistent elements. We are always consistent. Even when we dream the most insane dream, we are still consistent elements, and the same applies to the mental worlds in which we reside. Our internal mental worlds are consistent elements as well, and therefore, no matter when or where, once an inconsistent element enters our mental world, this mental world must nullify. Therefore, whatever encounters we might have with inconsistent elements, these encounters may only consist of impressions, which somehow, these inconsistent elements inflict in our consciousness. We will never share our mental world with inconsistent elements, not even for the shortest duration.
You probably wonder what this has to do with anything. Well, let us review what we already concluded. We concluded inconsistency must affect our mental world, meaning, it must affect our consciousness. In addition, we understood that because inconsistent elements are limitless, nothing can “restrict” them from appearing in our consciousness as deities. Furthermore, we know inconsistent elements cannot stay in our consciousness as deities, not even for the shortest duration. Finally, we assume our consciousness is a consistent element. To clarify, if our consciousnesses were not consistent elements, we would have proof inconsistent elements are deities, by the very fact, we are deities. However, this is not really an option. Metaphysically, we do not possess all the attributes of inconsistency. Nevertheless, you are free to masturbate your ego thinking you are. Still, if you do, I would personally suggest you remember to take your cocaine and pills, while you are at it.
SO AGAIN - what does THAT have to do with anything? Well, unless you are expecting gods to enter the room and say “Hello sir. We are gods, and here is the proof”, then this is pretty much "it". We have shown inconsistent elements possess the limitless attributes we would otherwise associate with gods, and that they can leave an impression in our minds, which potentially, could persuade us to believe they are deities. Therefore, we have satisfied our common concepts of what gods are like.
Still, is that enough? To clarify, while indeed, we have shown inconsistent elements are real, regardless of what we believe, calling inconsistent elements “gods”, is optional. We did not prove anything. We used the word “god” as a metaphor. However, surely, “real gods” are more than just “metaphors”. How do we expect to limit something as limitless as inconsistency, to a mere analogy or figure of speech?
There are several things we expect from gods, other than possessing limitless metaphysical capabilities, or the ability to appear to us as deities. We expect gods to bring meaningfulness to our lives. We expect gods to provide us with providence, to make us feel someone is watching over us, while keeping order and establishing some sort of “justice” in our otherwise chaotic reality. It does not really matter what an inconsistent element can “do”. If it will not provide us with meaningfulness and providence, it is still nothing but an element, a force of nature. Indeed, in the previous chapter, we suggested that perhaps, metaphysical inconsistencies open our various deltas, meaning, they cause the emergence of our wills, and hence, might indeed be the essence of our causes, our purposes, and our meanings. Still, even if so, the manipulative and mechanical manner, in which they achieve this, is monstrously different from our concepts of "divine reasoning". If indeed, the "meaningfulness" inconsistent elements provide us with, consists merely of our mental sores, then surely, we would be better without them. Moreover, because our animal body determines when to inflict us with these cognitive sores, arguably, it places our mechanical animal body "above" these elements, hinting these inconsistent elements are merely bodily minions, rather than "gods". So again, why should we think inconsistent elements are gods?
Well, first, we should understand, metaphysically, inconsistent elements can cause any consistent action, as within the external world, or our internal mental world, consistent actions occur by default. Secondly, because we are consistent elements, and because we can feel sensations of providence and meaningfulness, then it is possible for inconsistent elements to provide us with such sensations, regardless of any additional malicious manner, in which our body utilizes metaphysical inconsistencies, to manipulate our consciousness, and so, to satisfy its biological demands. Therefore, potentially, inconsistent elements can be everything we want gods to be, and therefore, the only remaining question is, are there other elements “better suited” for the role of “gods”? Are there “better” gods?
Let us review the options. If no other divine deities or elements exist, then we do not really have an option. Inconsistent elements are as potent as gods. They affect our reality, they can provide us with sensations of providence and meaningfulness, and therefore, they satisfy all the “divine requirements” without having any real competition. Furthermore, because we defined inconsistent elements, merely according to their metaphysical capabilities, if other deities or elements both exist, and share the same metaphysical capabilities, these must be inconsistent elements as well. To clarify, we should remember, in the previous chapter, we did not differentiate between different types of inconsistent elements (other than relevant metaphysical inconsistencies, which as we suggested, must exist, and irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies, which arguably, may in fact be consistent elements, and if so, may not be able to challenge the metaphysical potency of inconsistent elements). Furthermore, we deduced, all inconsistent elements must always exhibit all the attributes of metaphysical inconsistency. Therefore, for all intended purposes, these “other” divine deities or elements, are identical to the inconsistent elements, which we mentioned already, meaning, these “other” divine deities or elements, are the real gods.
Therefore, to satisfy their “godly” status, the only option we still need to refute, is that there are deities or elements, which metaphysically, are somehow "lesser" in ability than inconsistent elements, and yet, are still potent enough, to cause change in our reality, while providing us with a more “robust” sensation of providence and meaningfulness. To clarify, while surely, inconsistent elements can provide us with sensations of providence and meaningfulness, nothing obliges them to adhere to our inclinations, just as nothing can oblige them to “adhere” to almost anything.
Well, the first candidates that come to mind are humans. Humans can invoke changes in our reality. Humans can provide other humans with sensations of meaningfulness. Arguably, humans may even provide other humans with sensations of providence. Such is the case when we follow a charismatic leader, when we feel a sense of belonging with our family and friends, when we fall in love, and probably, many other types of human relationships can satisfy some of our "spiritual" needs. Still, there is a limit to what humans can do. No human can guarantee our “immortality” or “eternity”. Even if we choose to think of our offspring, as representing our continuous existence after we pass from this life, and hence, rely on our personal family for our sense of providence, nothing can promise the wellbeing of our offspring, a fact that had led to much human misery, throughout human history. Furthermore, there are questions no human can answer rationally, such as metaphysical questions for example. In short, metaphysically, humans are not potent enough, to challenge the “god” status. Furthermore, if we think about it, no other consistent beings or elements can challenge it, as any consistent being or element, suffers from the same limitations.
So what are we looking for? Well, we should remember what made us question the “god” status of inconsistent elements. It had nothing to do with their inability to appear to us as deities. It had nothing to do with a lack of potential. It had nothing to do with them being somewhat not “real enough” or lacking the power to cause changes in our reality. No. Their limitless nature was the problem. While inconsistent elements can be the “perfect” gods, providing us with both providence and meaningfulness, it can all end in a heartbeat. The limitless nature of inconsistent elements, implies they can break the very same “rules” they established previously.
Therefore, we are looking for a different type of inconsistent elements, ones which are still somehow "committed" to a meaningful order. While this order might not necessarily be our “ideal choice” when it comes to what it demands of us, as long as it guarantees us with some kind of providence and meaningfulness, we can “deal with it”. At least we would have something immortal on which to rely.
However, if we limit the amount of imminent dimensions, with which these alleged “better gods” are inconsistent, it simply means these “better gods” are consistent with some of the imminent dimensions. Still, if such "better gods" were indeed consistent with but a few of the imminent dimensions, metaphysically, they would endanger our reality. For example, if such "better gods" would both exist in the external world, and be consistent only with the dimension of existence, the external world would to literally explode. To clarify, while metaphysically, they would still be inconsistent with the dimension of space, and hence, exist everywhere in the external world simultaneously, they would persist to exist, clogging all space with their physical manifestations. Therefore, obviously, such gods are hardly any better. While indeed, these alleged “better gods” could exist within worlds, composed of the imminent dimensions with which they are consistent, as such, they would merely represent irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies, and hence, could not change or alter our reality.
No. The only way we can "force" inconsistent elements to adhere to a reliable “morality” is through the help of additional imminent dimensions. But why? Well, metaphysically, imminent dimensions convert undefined “tendencies” of our reality into imperatives, and hence, theoretically, additional imminent dimensions can convert our morality, into metaphysical imperatives as well. To clarify, let us consider the dimension of motion. Once the external world spanned the dimension of motion, it obliged all consistent physical elements in the external world, to either remain relevant to the external world, and exhibit consistent change, or become irrelevant to the external world, and hence, no longer affect it. Therefore, if additional imminent dimensions were to sustain metaphysical imperatives, which would ensure us with "divine providence", theoretically, they could “block” elements, which metaphysically, are inconsistent with these "imminent dimensions of providence” from entering our reality, and hence, confirm such “better gods” may actually exist. However, sadly, this is not really an option.
Why not? Well, you can rest assured, we did not simply fail to find these dimensions yet. The problem is with our initial motivation. I mean, think about it. We wish to find new imminent dimensions, which will "force" our reality to adhere to the inclinations of these "better gods", while being inconsistent with the inconsistent elements we already mentioned. We hope these “better gods” will change our reality from being meaningless, vicious and chaotic, into a "better" ordered reality, protected by these “better gods”. Still, if you have not noticed it, both the external world, and our internal mental world, are already like that! It is a fucking consistent world! It already filters inconsistent elements out of it. How much more “order” do you want?
Furthermore, even if such dimensions were to exist, how could they overcome the inconsistent elements we already mentioned? To clarify, if inconsistent elements can cause our mental worlds to “shift” between worlds, they could also make our consciousness “shift away” of the worlds, with which these alleged “better gods” provide us. What kind of providence is that? Moreover, from our own experience, we can safely say, there is nothing imminent or imperative about our reality being “just”, “ordered”, “wicked” or “chaotic”. If the imminent dimensions governed these, then as dimensions go, elements could either be consistent with them, and exist, or be inconsistent with them, and not exist. However, again, from our own experience, we know that in our reality, both justice and injustice exist side by side, just as luck and misfortune. Therefore, it is safe to assume, imminent dimensions are pretty much "out of the picture".
Still, even more to the point, think of the things we expect from these “better gods”. We expect them to provide us with sensations of meaningfulness and providence. Can you not see it? These are all generalizations. In “Delta Theory”, we suggested, generalizations cannot exist in the external world, as due to the differences in the manners, the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of space host elements within them, the existence of generalizations in the external world, would deem the external world inconsistent, and now we wish new imminent dimensions to limit existence within the external world, to being consistent with our own subjective generalizations of providence and meaningfulness. Indeed, additional imminent dimensions increase the metaphysical demands, which the worlds, in which they span, demand of all the elements they harbor, and therefore, metaphysically, decrease the effects, which metaphysical inconsistencies may have over such worlds. Nevertheless, by asking imminent dimensions to force our reality, to comply with generalizations we made up (such as meaningfulness and providence) we imply that metaphysically, we wish to increase the inconsistency of our reality. We failed to recognize that the “world order” we asked these additional imminent dimension to enforce, is simply not consistent. We all define providence and meaningfulness in a manner that benefits us the most. We all want our lives to be meaningful. We all want to be important. Still, as the saying goes, “it is impossible for everyone to be above average”, the “order” we want these “better gods” to provide us with, would increase the level of inconsistency our reality exhibits, rendering it even more erratic and untrustworthy. Moreover, arguably, the inconsistency attributes we mentioned in the previous chapter, are already the “maximum levels of inconsistency", which both the external world, and our internal mental world, could exhibit, without simply being nonsensical.
But why? Well, just think about it. If for example, the gods would make us all rich, then where would all this abundance come from? If we were all equally rich, we were all equally poor. Without some sort of a hierarchy, determining who is “rich” and who is “poor”, the term “rich” becomes meaningless. Indeed, being “rich” is a “spiritually insignificant” attribute, but we can apply the same principle to “spiritual richness” as well. If we were all equally “spiritually rich”, we were all equally “spiritually insignificant”, as there would have been nothing “special” about our spirituality. Such spirituality would have become too normal and mundane to impress us. For example, think how a conversation held at such an “ideal time” would sound:

Person X: “So, hey, everybody! God told me yesterday, I am to lead a new religion.”

Person Y: “Fuck that. God told me it would be me!”

Person Z: “Nope. It is me, and I have proof.”

Person X: “God! Come over here and straighten things out with these two schmucks! Give me some of that order, daddy-o!”

Person V: [To himself] “Hehehe…they do not know it, but it is me all along…”

This is simply too much. There cannot be “better gods”. The inconsistent elements we mentioned in the previous chapter are the “best gods available". They are real, they can appear to us as deities, they can provide us with sensations of meaningfulness and providence, they are immortal, and they have no competition. Therefore, I conclude, inconsistent elements, are the real gods. I repeat:

Inconsistent elements, are the real gods!

Still, this is hardly the end of the story (and surely, not the end of this text). We concluded the real gods exist, and that real gods can appear to us as deities. We based our arguments, on the notion, that due to their limitless “nature”, the real gods can “do” everything we wanted them to “do”. We “verified” the compatibility between what inconsistent elements are like, and our common notions of gods. Still, we have not yet really understood the “nature” of the real gods. For example, we suggested, the real gods could provide us with sensations of providence. How can this be? How can something as infinitely erratic as metaphysical inconsistency, provide us with the strong sense of stability, which providence implies? How can inconsistent elements be real gods (in the sense of being able to “do” practically anything), if every interaction they may have with our reality, would inevitably lead to worldly nullification? How can the real gods “want” anything? The real gods can practically “do” whatever they “please” no matter how “hard” it is. So why do they need us? Who knows? Maybe they do not need us, and if so, then why are we still here?
We simply do not “know” the real gods yet. We just know how to call them. Therefore, as the name of this chapter suggests, it is time to introduce them.
To get an idea of what real gods are like, we should first let go of our preconceptions regarding gods. In mythologies and religions, gods never appeared as truly inconsistent. Mythologies are stories, and stories must be comprehendible. Inconsistency is not comprehendible. For anything inconsistency implies, it also implies the opposite. Religions provide us with moral codes, and we must always be able to understand moral codes to follow them. However, what code can we follow, when everything such a code demands, it just as well forbids?
Because the real gods are inconsistent elements, they are fundamentally different from the gods appearing in our mythologies and religions. While indeed, the real gods can satisfy any requirement (including being compatible with our mythologies and religions), this ability hardly describes them. The real gods are real, regardless of our beliefs, and hence, we cannot oblige them to adhere to our religious mythologies. In “Delta Theory”, we suggested, we derive our beliefs in concepts such as gods, heaven, and hell, from our born instincts to generalize, while the essence of the real gods shares little with these concepts. The real gods are inconsistent and limitless, and hence, arguably, they are incomprehensible. In contrast, we can so easily define our concepts of god (or gods), that usually, even a child can somewhat grasp them. We think of gods as “those who take care of us if we follow them”. We think of gods as propagating justice. We think of them as everything we would want humans to be, or do, if only humans were a bit “less complex”. However, sadly, this is not the case. To clarify, again, according to "Delta Theory", metaphysically, humans are consistent elements, while the real gods are not.
Therefore, again, it is time we introduce the real gods, and it is best to begin this introduction, with the times they actually affect us. The term “affect” is important. Naturally, we never meet the real gods “in person”. Again, the real gods are inconsistent elements, while humans are consistent elements, and therefore, if the real gods were ever to actually enter any world we share, such world would immediately nullify. It does not matter if we are awake, meaning, if we sense the external world, or if we are in an internal mental world, such as when we dream, or when we hallucinate. We are limited to dwell in consistent worlds, and all consistent worlds must nullify, when relevant metaphysical inconsistent elements enter them.
Still, because the real gods are limitless, such “divine” effects and encounters, must be possible. If not, such encounters would impose a limit for them, so how can it be?
Well, let us consider what real gods can "do", without breaching the consistency of existing consistent worlds. We suggested inconsistent elements could exist in consistent worlds, but never persist to exist in them. What exactly does it mean?
In “Delta Theory”, we suggested, only the present exists, because in “Delta Theory”, “existence” is equivalent to “persistence of existence”. The future is not “here” yet, and therefore, it does not impose us with metaphysical problems or challenges. The past did exist, but it clearly does not exist anymore. It is in the past. The past is relevant to the present, only as a confirmation, that our reality remained consistent, as it progressed from the past, toward the present. The past shows the present is the result of consistent causality.
Still, what does this have to do with anything?!? Well, let us consider the manner we wished to "assert" inconsistent elements are “gods”. We attempted to determine, whether inconsistent elements can appear to us as deities, like the gods we know from our religions. While we deduced, the real gods could affect us in a manner, so that within our internal mental world, we could recognize them as divine deities, we did not deduce these deities are the real gods themselves, as that would be impossible. Still, the reason this is impossible goes beyond our “usual mantra”, stating any metaphysical coexistence of consistency and inconsistency within a consistent world, must result in nullification. By “meeting” the real gods, in actuality, we are implying, the deities we meet, embody the real gods in their entirety, and this is the source of the problem.
Obviously, beings or deities that look like us cannot be limitless. Their skin limits them from expanding into the rest of the space that surrounds them (regardless if it is real space, imaginary dream space, or hallucinated space). Even if our entire consciousness is somehow “filled” with them, even if there is not a shred of space left in our mental world that is not “them”, we are still limiting them.
And why is that? Well, first, let us repeat our mantra, stating that the real gods cannot exist in the external world. We cannot refute this conclusion, as the “inconsistency repelling action” of the imminent dimensions, was the metaphysical imperative, which led us to realize the real gods must exist in the first place. Therefore, even if theoretically, if we could meet the real gods, it could only occur in our personal contingent mental world, in a dream or hallucination, as the external world is simply “off limits”.
Still, even the option of meeting the real gods in our internal mental world, is problematic. To clarify, metaphysically, we deduced the existence of the real gods, from the existence of the world-in-itself, and from the metaphysical imperative, which separates the world-in-itself from both the external world, and our internal mental world, leaving both worlds, meaning, our internal mental world, and the external world, irrelevant to one another. Therefore, if our own personal mental world was to encapsulate the real gods in their entirety, it would imply that metaphysically, the external world was to become irrelevant to the real gods, and therefore, metaphysically, its imminent dimensions would "do" nothing, implying the external world does not exist, contrary to our previous conclusion, which suggests, the world-in-itself maintains the existence of the external world. In short, if the real gods were to exist in our internal mental world in their entirety, it would imply, our internal mental world limits the real gods from their limitless metaphysical potential. Such real gods would obey the regularity of consistent multidimensional causality, and hence, be consistent with the dimension of causality, suggesting that in actuality, these are not the real gods. To conclude, any effect the real gods may have on our consciousness, which occurs due to our encounters with gods as deities, must be partial. We can only perceive limited consistent impressions, which the real gods leave in our consciousness.
Actually, this is the reason why I use the plural form, meaning, “the real gods” and not “the real god”. Any impression we may ever have of encounters, with anything we might consider as “god”, is partial. No matter how many such encounters we will have, our impressions will remain partial. Other different impressions must be possible. Therefore, regardless of the various faces, names, or characteristics, we may attribute with god, we must understand, gods may exhibit additional, potentially infinite, different alternate faces, names, and characteristics. Even if our impression of god was the result of an actual “divine encounter”, meaning, due to a real experience, rather than made up lies, other impressions must remain possible. Furthermore, not only are such impressions possible, they may even contradict our own impressions. For all intended purposes, we will attribute these impressions to different gods. Therefore, it simply does not matter if there are several inconsistent elements or not. Even a single inconsistent element could appear to us as an infinite collection of different contradictive gods. Furthermore, because we exist within the boundaries of our internal mental world, and because we cannot perceive inconsistency (as metaphysically, our consciousness can never share any world with inconsistency), there simply cannot be a “single” real god in any sense we can understand. If we are to speak of “the divine”, we can only think of it in plural, meaning, as a collection of divine deities. So from now on, say “gods”, and not “god”.
This conclusion has severe implications. Almost all religions embrace their own unique concept of “god”, claiming it is the most “correct” or “truthful”. However, considering our previous conclusion, such convictions are fundamentally wrong. Not only must all single concepts of god be incorrect, the infinite possibilities by which the real gods can appear to us, implies such concepts are infinitely incorrect. There must always be infinite new different “faces” the real gods could take, and which they have not taken yet. These yet unknown “faces” will be as “valid” as the “faces” any existing religion endorses. Moreover, the involvement of the real gods, in the creation of any religion, is irrelevant. On the contrary, whenever real gods are involved, gods will take on different faces, and hence, suggest that religions, which emerge due to such "divine encounters", will endorse some adaptation of polytheism. Indeed, religions based on made up lies, rather than "true divine interventions", can choose to be different, as the god of which they might speak, does not need to comply with the erratic nature of the real gods. Still, because as we suggested, the real gods are the only available metaphysical "candidates" for the "god" status, obviously, such religions are not "worthy" of our analysis. Furthermore, because as we have just shown, the real gods are real, any religion or metaphysical theory, which endorses atheism, is invalid as well. Gods are simply “real”. In short, we simply cannot “know” what the real gods are like. This is our limit.
Considering this, we could think, there is nothing more to discuss. If we cannot know what the real gods are like, there is no point to this “introduction”, is there?
Well, no. Do not forget the “scope” of our discussion. We are consciousnesses. These are our lives. The real gods are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. They do not need us to understand them, but if we are to bare the effects they inflict on our lives, we surely need to understand them better.
And so we shall. Let us revisit our conclusions regarding "divine encounters". We claim such encounters can affect us. In addition, we claim that of all the possible “occupants” within the world-in-itself, only the real gods can satisfy the “god" or "divine" status. Finally, we claim that because the real gods are inconsistent elements, metaphysically, they cannot ever persist to exist as elements in our personal mental world.
Considering these claims, our problems are:

1. How can the real gods affect us, without ever persisting to exist as elements in our personal mental world?

2. How are encounters with divine deities possible, if the temporal duration, which consistency allows for such encounters, is infinitely short?

3. How are encounters of “divine nature” possible, if no truly “godlike” deities can exist in our personal mental world?

You should pay attention, we are not attempting to explain encounters, which may seem "divine", despite the fact the real gods are not involved. There is no challenge explaining why we would project our own beliefs, when explaining our experiences. This is how our born instinct to generalize works. The fact we can mistakenly think an event we experienced was a “divine encounter”, while in actuality the real gods did not play a factor, is irrelevant.
Still, what should we consider divine? What would be “impressive enough” to assert the involvement of a “divine deity”? Since we cannot perceive real gods in their true form, what can we still perceive?
In mythologies and religions, there are several motifs, which we usually attribute to gods. Gods heal the sick. Gods cause great destruction. Gods look strange. Gods can summon magic. While it may be tempting to address each of these "divine abilities", arguably, such discussion is simply too subjective, to bear fruit. To clarify, a person living in the dark ages for example, would surely think a working i-Phone has “divine” qualities. However, as we all know, there is nothing divine about i-Phones (I mean, I hope we all know. If you do not know this, please stop listening. Thank you. The management). As our technology and science progress, things we currently cannot achieve, may become achievable in the future. Calling something “divine” just because we currently do not know how to achieve it, is merely a projection of the way we want to see it or understand it. Still, it does not mean it is "divine". We could consider physical impossibilities as “divine” (such as time travelling into the past and future, or travelling faster than the speed of causality), but somehow, these physical impossibilities sound a bit “too technical”. Physical impossibilities lack the “spiritual flavor” that makes gods so much more “interesting”.
Nevertheless, there is one “benchmark miracle” we really are incapable of ever achieving. Knowing the future is impossible to consistent beings, and therefore, having knowledge of events before they transpire, is something with which only inconsistent elements can provide us. You should pay attention, we are talking about knowledge, not predictions. Indeed, we can conclude our predictions, by analyzing what we know in the present, and from this prior knowledge, deduce its most probable outcome. Still, once we established inconsistency is really affecting our reality, we must assume, all our predictions could prove to be wrong. We can never predict inconsistency, and therefore, our predictions can never take into consideration, the manner, by which inconsistency, will shape the future. For this reason, knowing the future is even more “divine” than time travelling. When time travelling, we do not necessarily know how we change the timeline. We simply change it. Still, what we can change once, could change again. Even if we have the capability to time travel, and we know the manner by which we changed the timeline, we still have no idea, how much of this changed timeline will persist, and how much of it will be “overwritten” by other “time travelers”.
Prophecies go further into the impossible. Prophecies are not calculated. Only divine entities such as the real gods can provide us with prophecies. Only inconsistent elements can both calculate the trajectory of all consistent possibilities before they transpire, as well as take into consideration, all the effects, which metaphysically inconsistent elements, will inflict on reality, not forgetting the effects “rivaling time travelers”, which are yet to be born, are to inflict on it as well. To summarize, predictions are possible, while prophecies are real. They are real unless they are false, but if so, they were always nothing but predictions in disguise. To conclude, real prophecies are divine. Still, metaphysically, prophecies are simply knowledge left in our memory, and therefore, prophecies are possible, both physically, and metaphysically. Nevertheless, we cannot know whether prophecies are real or not, before history unfolds.
Considering this, we only need to understand how the real gods inform us of prophecies. We need not bother with other strange "divine feats", such as healing the sick, appearing strange, reading minds, remote viewing, telekinesis, and the likes. Our technology continuously progresses, and therefore, we might be able to consistently explain and master such feats in the future. There is no reason to consider these feats as “divine”, automatically.
Therefore, we answered question number three, but actually, we also answered question number one. We already know that the way the real gods affect our consciousness is by shifting us between mental worlds. Therefore, we need to answer only one more question. We need to explain the method, by which the real gods use the transition between mental worlds, to inform us of prophecies. In other words, we need to explain how shifting between mental worlds, can provide the real gods with the duration they require, to communicate ideas into our consciousness, so that we would think these ideas came from "divine deities".
It is tempting to think, we could solve this, simply by claiming, that because the real gods can do anything, they can “implant” ideas directly into our consciousness. To clarify, again, according to “Delta Theory”, our internal mental world, is a consistent world, composed of contingent dimensions, which the dimension of consciousness hosts as manifestations of itself. Because these dimensions are contingent, they are somewhat "disposable", and hence, theoretically, the real gods can change them, without imposing any risk to the imminent dimensions, including the dimension of consciousness. Moreover, as we suggested in the previous chapter, arguably, it is possible, our animal brain inflicts sensations of pain into our consciousness, by "injecting" inconsistent elements into our consciousness, which in turn, cause "painful" havoc and destruction in our psyche. While indeed, this is only a hypothesis, it is still possible, and actually, had it been true, it could explain the shift in perspective, which sensations of pain inflict on our consciousness, linking this shift, with the manner our consciousness shifts between mental worlds, whenever sensations of pain bother us.
Still, even if this hypothesis is indeed correct, meaning, that our animal brain administers pain sensations into our consciousness, by "injecting" metaphysical inconsistencies into our psyche, "injecting" a full-blown "divine encounter" imposes an additional neurological challenge. To clarify, in "Delta Theory", we suggested, the physical structure of our brain plays a significant role in the manner by which we think. Implanting a message, which we would perceive as both understandable, and originating from "divine deities", would require an entire ensemble of physical neural synaptic rewirings. Setting up the scenario, where the alleged "divine encounter" occurs, may require changes in the visual cortex, while probably, implanting the message itself, would require changes in different areas of our brain, suggesting such straightforward implantations, may require inconsistent physical materialistic changes. Therefore, it suggests, that if the real gods are to perform such mind implants, they must actively change the external world. If such manipulations demand the real gods must enter the external world physically, it implies, they will violate its metaphysical consistency, resulting with worldly nullification, and hence, such “divine” encounters would fail to bear fruit, as metaphysically, we would not survive them. Still, even if the real gods can avoid such worldly nullifications, while implanting such "divine experiences" directly into the physical structure of our brain (meaning, subconsciously), to achieve more complex lucid “experiences”, the best option our reality supports is through our consciousness (meaning, consciously).
To clarify, we should remember what the message is. It is a prophecy. It is a story we can understand. It is a message that takes time to convey, and therefore, even if the alleged “divine encounter” takes place in a personal mental contingent world, it must take its time to progress. In this encounter, our consciousness would either meet a deity we would recognize as divine, or find ourselves in a place, which we would recognize as the future. Next, we would hear what this deity has to say, or witness future events as they unfold within our personal mental contingent world. In the case we meet a “divine deity”, this deity will introduce itself as divine, and share the same time and space together with us. Still, as we explained so many times already, such coexistence is impossible! So how can it be?
Well, while this deity may claim to be god, or speaking on behalf of a divine deity, naturally, it will not be a real god. It is just a messenger. This "messenger" can coexist in our consistent internal mental world, and hence, it cannot be an inconsistent element, meaning, such "messengers" are consistent elements. I will call these messengers “angels”, as the original meaning of the word “angel” in Hebrew (Mal-Ach מלאך), actually means a messenger. However, regardless of the “etymological origins” of my terminology, we should not confuse these angels, with the angels appearing in existing religions. Within the context of this text, an angel, is simply a consistent messenger of the real gods.
When an angel (meaning, a consistent messenger of the real gods) conveys a message to our consciousness, it somewhat resembles the playback of a video recording, where instead of projecting the recording onto a screen, the "divine message" is projected directly into our consciousness. Our consciousness "shifts out" of the mental world from which it originated, and enters a new mental world, which the real gods designed, specifically for this encounter. In this new mental world, our consciousness would find angels, which would introduce themselves as either god, or speaking on behalf of god. Still, these angels are not real gods, as they are consistent with the mental world in which the encounter takes place. Possibly, within this mental world, things that are usually impossible in the external world, would be possible, and therefore, many so-called "magical feats" may occur throughout the encounter. Still, the only inconsistent event to transpire, is the moment of entry, into this new mental world. After insertion into this new mental world, this world will persist to exist, in a manner consistent to it. Eventually, our consciousness will "shift away" into a different mental world, possibly, to the mental world we know as wakefulness. At that point, we become angels as well, as we will be able to convey the same message to others.
The mental worlds, in which such encounters transpire, are contingent disposable worlds, and hence, their creation does not impose a challenge for the real gods. Still, if angels are consistent elements, how do angels know they are angels? How do they know the prophecies they convey in the first place? To clarify, angels are consistent elements, and therefore, if they were to coexist with the real gods within the same consistent world, they too should nullify, should they not?
Well, while such "divine encounters" occur sometime in the middle of our lives, the real gods can create angels “on demand”. The real gods do not need to “change” the physical structure of the brain of an angel. They can create their angels, with all the knowledge they require. Furthermore, we should note, the mental worlds, in which these encounters transpire, did not necessarily exist prior to these "divine encounters". Moreover, it is pointless to discuss the events that occurred prior to these encounters, as according to the metaphysical foundation, which the Physical Logic suggests, only the present exists. Furthermore, because the dimension of consciousness is one of the dimensions compiling the mental worlds in which such encounters transpire, metaphysically, without our consciousness, these mental worlds might not exist. To clarify, while it is possible, dimensional subsets of these mental worlds can exist without our consciousness, they may just as well not. We simply cannot know.
Still, while angels are consistent elements, and hence, their creation does not impose a metaphysical challenge, we still must be able to consistently explain, what happened to them before these encounters. To clarify, while indeed, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", in consistent worlds, only the present exists, still, the past of consistent worlds should reflect the consistent progression of causality from the beginning of time until the present. Therefore, it suggests, angels must be able to consistently explain to themselves, what happened to them before these encounters. However, as we just suggested, the real gods create their angels "on demand", and hence, their creation embodies an inconsistent event, so how can it be?
Well, there are many ways we can answer this question, but for now, let us postpone this discussion. We are still in chapter two. We are still attempting to learn what the real gods are like. The only reason we discussed angels, was to reconcile the differences, between our common concepts of gods, and the real gods. Still, surely, the real gods can do much more, than merely convey us with prophecies. Surely, limitless elements such as the real gods, would not limit themselves to storytelling, just so we would recognize their “divinity”. Surely, real gods are not that "ego-fucked", their entire existence revolves around proving to puny consistent humans they are so great.
Moreover, we must also answer other irritating questions. One such question is “why?” Why would the real gods need to tell us anything? What it is exactly they need from us, if they appear to us as several contradictive deities, each deity with its own possibly contradictive set of requirements?
Actually, our conclusions suggest a far more fundamental problem, which we implicitly overlooked. We are claiming the real gods convey prophecies to us using “angels”. To understand these prophecies, human cognitive capabilities are mandatory. The real gods could not tell such prophecies to rabbits. Still, what about the real gods? Are the real gods intelligent?
Do the real gods think? Sure, we know the real gods are limitless. They can do practically anything. So why should they ever need to think? When we think, processes transpire within our consciousness. Using various logical structures, we compile sensations together, evaluating different cognitive options, until we reach useful conclusions. The real gods do not require anything of the sort. The real gods can calculate trajectories faster than the speed of causality. They practically know “the answer” before there is even a question. They knew the answer before the language by which we asked the question existed. So the question is not are the real gods intelligent. The question is “do the real gods need to think?”, and the answer is no. In fact, the real gods do not require anything. The very idea, the real gods “require” something, implies something limits them from attaining it, contrary to their limitless "nature". The real gods simply do not “need” in any way that resembles “necessity”.
So why do they bother with us? Why do they bother with the external world for that matter? I mean, if the real gods do not “require” anything, it means they do not “require” anything, including both the external world, and our various internal mental worlds. Furthermore, if the real gods can do anything, why do they not nullify these worlds?
...
...
Ahem…
…
...
Well
...
...
I guess I might as well say it.
…
...

Who says they do not…?
...
...

(this is the point, where the listeners of this text, become convinced Ptyl has truly lost his marbles, including that nice big marble from china)
...
...
Ok ok, let me explain. In “Delta theory”, we defined “existence” as “persistence of existence”, meaning, if an element, or alternatively, a dimension, exists, it must persist to exist. Still, does the external world, or our internal mental world, really persist to exist? Well, not exactly. Causality constantly flows. Particles constantly move in space. Our thoughts constantly change and evolve. In short, the state of the contents of both the external world, and our internal mental world, definitely does not persist to exist. Only the metaphysical functions of the imminent dimensions remain static. According to "Delta Theory", these changes occur due to the metaphysical function, which the dimension of motion sustains, while at the same time, the dimension of causality forces these changes, to consistently adhere to the multidimensional demands of all the imminent dimensions. Without this metaphysical restriction, obviously, the possibilities for change would have been infinitely greater.
Still, even if the imminent dimensions impose metaphysical restrictions over elements existing in the external world, or in our internal mental world, and even if one of these imminent dimensions restricts existence to elements, which exhibit constant change, meaning, the dimension of motion, the "driving force", which "mobilizes" these elements, and which causes their metaphysical "emergence", cannot be a dimension. But why? Well, because "existence" is the metaphysical product of the dimension of existence, the dimension of existence cannot bring itself to exist. There must be an additional metaphysical enabler, which caused the emergence of the dimension of existence. In “Delta Theory”, we named this element the dimension of consistency, which as we suggested, segregates metaphysical consistency, from metaphysical inconsistency. Still, because these segregations apply only to the logical field, and because the logical field cannot host inconsistent elements, and finally, because the dimension of consistency must be able to host both consistent and inconsistent elements, we concluded, the dimension of consistency neither exists, nor is it a dimension.
This was a mistake. To clarify, indeed, the dimension of consistency is not a dimension, as it does not segregate the logical field. Still, because the dimension of consistency can host inconsistent elements, metaphysically, it must itself be an inconsistent element, and hence, it can exist in the world-in-itself, and for all intended purposes, it is but another manifestation of the real gods.
Actually, this should not surprise us. Because as we just explained, the dimension of consistency is the metaphysical element, from which the dimension of existence emerged, and because the dimension of consistency does not exist, in the sense of persists to exist, it implies, the dimension of existence emerged from nothing, and hence, metaphysically, the emergence of the dimension of existence was an inconsistent event, and therefore, only inconsistent elements could cause it. Moreover, the same applies to the emergence of all dimensions. To clarify, in "Delta Theory", we suggested, dimensions are somewhat similar to logical tautologies (for example, with respect to the dimension of existence, the tautology it reflects is “If an element exists, then this element exists”). We claimed these "tautologies" exist, because metaphysically, nothing prevents it. Still, it does not change the fact, that essentially, dimensions emerge from nothing. They emerge without a consistent reason why they should, and hence, metaphysically, it implies the involvement of inconsistent elements. In other words, the real gods "create" all dimensions, regardless if these are imminent dimensions, or contingent dimensions. Therefore, it suggests a metaphysical connection between consistent elements, and inconsistent elements. However, because as we already explained, consistent elements can exist only in consistent worlds, and because such metaphysical connections demand consistent elements must coexist alongside inconsistent elements in the same consistent world, it implies, the consistent worlds, in which such coexistences occur, must nullify. Therefore, arguably, it is possible, the real gods constantly nullify both the external world, and our internal mental world. To be more precise, it is possible, the real gods nullify the state of the “contents”, within the external world, and our internal mental world.
Actually, this is not surprising. I mean, ask yourself, what is this "state"? It cannot be a dimension, as dimensions must persist to exist, while the state of the external world, or our internal mental world, does not persist to exist, not even for the shortest duration. Still, this state extends to every corner of both the external world, and our internal mental world. Furthermore, it exists in our consciousness. Nevertheless, its infinitely short duration deems it impossible for it to be the product of causality. Moreover, it cannot be a contingent world we perceive, as it does not persist to exist, and hence, dimensions cannot compose it. Moreover, obviously, the state of our reality is not a physical element. To clarify, while the state of the external world describes the state of physical elements, it is not the physical elements it describes. Still, it must "be". To summarize, the state of our reality sustains all of the attributes of metaphysical inconsistency, and therefore, we can deduce, it is yet another metaphysical inconsistency, or alternatively, yet another manifestation of the real gods.
Still, neither the external, nor our internal mental world, nullify. Apparently, the real gods do not nullify the imminent dimensions, which in turn, “reconstruct” our reality, according to the regularities they sustain. Metaphorically, this recurring metaphysical event, resembles a global metaphysical clock tick, while the duration between each clock tick, is infinitely short.
Still, why do the real gods refrain from nullifying the imminent dimensions? What is so important about the imminent dimensions that the real gods consider them to be “off limit”?
Well…nothing really. It is not that the imminent dimensions get a VIP treatment. The real gods simply never nullify any dimension. A dimension is a tautology, and just as nothing can "validate" tautologies, nothing can "refute" them. Just as logical tautologies are autonomic, the persistent existence of dimensions requires no additional metaphysical elements. At the very worst, worlds may exclude dimensions they once spanned or hosted. While arguably, such exclusions may result with a flush of the contents of these worlds, back into the world-in-itself, the dimensions they expel do not nullify. The metaphysical inconsistency within such worlds simply "forces" dimensions to "leave" these worlds, allowing these metaphysical inconsistencies to dissolve, as their metaphysical "ingredients" become irrelevant to one another, and so reestablish their own metaphysical consistency. Actually, it has nothing to do with inconsistent elements. At the very worst, inconsistent elements may juxtapose dimensions, so that metaphysically, such expulsions become imperative.
Still, again, why do the real gods refrain from nullifying dimensions? To clarify, if indeed, inconsistent elements are limitless, and are the metaphysical enablers for the emergence of dimensions, why can they not nullify that which they created previously?
Well, to understand this, we should remember, dimensions are not merely definitions on paper. Dimensions are existing regularities. Their existence represents metaphysical "events”, which can occur only in the present, as according to "Delta Theory", metaphysically, only the present exists. Dimensions cannot exist "because" they existed in the past, as metaphysically, the past does not exist, and hence, cannot justify any metaphysical "feature" of the present. Therefore, it suggests, the existence of a dimension does not represent an event occurring at any specific moment, as at any moment, it is tautological, and hence, nothing can justify it. Moreover, we should consider the metaphysical functions dimensions perform. Dimensions segment the logical field into "areas", which are consistent with the regularities they sustain, and "areas", which are not. This segmentation is independent of context, meaning, it exists regardless if there are elements in either the external world, or our internal mental worlds, which exist within the area of the logical field they segment, suggesting that dimensions reflect features of the logical field, rather than features, existing in either the external world, or our internal mental world. Therefore, the existence of dimensions is not temporal. Even if theoretically, the external world, or our internal mental world, could evict some of the dimensions it spans or hosts, such evictions would not tamper with the metaphysical "identity" of these segments of the logical field. In short, metaphysically, dimensions are "eternal", and hence, the creation of a dimension, represents an "eternal action" of the real gods, regardless if this dimension is imminent, or contingent. Therefore, nullifying a dimension does not represent nullification of an element, which existed in the external world, or our internal mental world, at some specific point in time, but rather the eternal metaphysical feasibility such an element could ever exist. Therefore, the existence of dimensions in the present, suggests their eternal existence. Moreover, had the real gods nullified a dimension, it would imply, they never created it, as the eternity of dimensions is imperative for their metaphysical existence. Therefore, had the real gods nullified a dimension, it would imply, they cannot create it, and hence, it would suggest, an element restricts them from a metaphysical feat. However, because metaphysically, inconsistent elements must be inconsistent with the dimension of causality, no element can limit them, and hence, had any element, consistent or inconsistent, nullified a dimension, it would imply, the inconsistent element, which created this dimension, is not an inconsistent element, and hence, could never create this dimension in the first place. Therefore, potentially, by nullifying a dimension, inconsistent elements can "nullify each other". Moreover, if an inconsistent element would nullify a dimension it created, it would nullify itself.
Innocently, we could think, that while inconsistent elements may possess the ability to nullify dimensions, they may refrain from doing so, out of some obscure type of respect to their inconsistent "brothers". However, this is impossible. But why? Well, if an inconsistent element refrains from realizing a metaphysical capability, it implies, it adheres to a regularity, or alternatively, to a metaphysical demand of a dimension. However, again, because inconsistent elements are inconsistent with the dimension of causality, had they adhered to such demands, it would imply, they are not inconsistent elements. Therefore, if an inconsistent element possesses the metaphysical capability to nullify a dimension, it can either realize it, and nullify the inconsistent element, which created this dimension originally, or refrain from nullifying it, and hence, nullify itself. Therefore, inevitably, all the inconsistent elements, which can nullify dimensions, must either nullify, or nullify the inconsistent elements, which created these dimensions. Because the same applies to all inconsistent elements, we can deduce, that eventually, either inconsistent elements will not be capable of nullifying dimensions any longer, or there will be no inconsistent elements left. However, because as we explained in the previous chapter, our own existence as consciousnesses implies inconsistent elements must exist in the world-in-itself, it implies, there is but one option. Inconsistent elements cannot nullify dimensions.
This is what I call an "inconsistent paradox". To clarify, contrary to as in standard paradoxes (such as the liar paradox, for example), where logical contradictions force all options to be inconsistent, and therefore, impossible, in inconsistent paradoxes, our logical deductions "force" all elements to be consistent, until eventually, we deduce two options, meaning, that either inconsistent elements cannot exist, or that there is a metaphysical limit to the potency of inconsistent elements, contrary to their limitless nature. Still, because as we already concluded, the existence of consistent elements is imperative (because for example, we know our consciousness exists in the present), we conclude inconsistent elements must exist, and at the same time, their metaphysical potency is limited, contrary to their metaphysical "nature". In short, inconsistent paradoxes show that inconsistent elements are both limitless and limited, and not only are they limited, the existence of a consistent element limits them. Therefore, not only does an inconsistent paradox show that inconsistency must exist, but it also shows quite clearly, that inconsistency is indeed inconsistent. Moreover, the inconsistent paradox principle shows us a strange symbiotic relation, between consistent and inconsistent elements. Inconsistent elements cause the emergence of consistent elements, which in turn, ensure the existence of inconsistent elements in the world-in-itself.

Being such a significant insight, we should summarize the inconsistent paradox principle, as we could use it again, whenever we will wish to deduce an imperative metaphysical limit, over the metaphysical potency of the real gods.

1. We select a metaphysical theory.

1.1. If it is a completely inconsistent metaphysical theory, anything is possible, including that which we wish to prove, and therefore, we are done.

1.2. If it is an inconsistent metaphysical theory, then it must include metaphysical inconsistencies, or alternatively, inconsistent elements, by default.

1.3. If it is a consistent metaphysical theory, using Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, we show that if everything in our reality is consistent and explainable, then we cannot explain the existence of some metaphysical elements, and hence, the existence of these elements represents a metaphysical inconsistency, implying the metaphysical existence of inconsistent elements. Alternatively, we can select other arguments, to deduce metaphysical inconsistencies must exist, such as those we proposed in the previous chapter.

2. We find a “natural” metaphysical tautology (for example, our existence as consciousnesses).

3. We show that within our theory, nothing prohibits inconsistent elements from creating this “natural” metaphysical tautology.

4. We show that only inconsistent elements can create this “natural” metaphysical tautology.

5. We assume, another inconsistent element negates this creation.

6. We show that limiting the inconsistent element, which created this "natural" metaphysical tautology, from such creational actions, negates its metaphysical inconsistency attributes.

7. We remove this element from the collection of inconsistent elements, which exist in the world-in-itself.

8. Using induction, we repeat the deductions of items 5, 6, and 7, until eventually, if inconsistent elements still exist in the world-in-itself, they must adhere to that which we wish to prove.

9. We show the existence of the “natural” metaphysical tautology we selected, is imperative.

10. We conclude that because the metaphysical tautology we selected must exist, inconsistent elements must both exist, and adhere to that which we wish to prove.

While you may have not noticed it, accidentally, we have answered one version of the question “Can god create a stone it cannot lift?” Well, the answer is “Yes”, if the stone is the existence of a “natural” metaphysical tautology, and “lifting the stone” is equivalent to nullifying this metaphysical tautology.

To summarize, dimensions cannot nullify. Furthermore, neither the external world, nor our internal mental world, can "lose" any of their imminent dimensions. To clarify, both the external world, and our internal mental world, merely reflect a segment of the logical field, where the imminent dimensions intersect. Therefore, just as the imminent dimensions cannot nullify, neither can these segments of intersection somehow "disappear". Moreover, because metaphysically, physical elements are compatible only with the metaphysical segments, where the imminent dimensions intersect to form the external world, they cannot emerge in segments of the logical field, which are inconsistent with the external world. To clarify, as we suggested in the Logical Physics, the imminent dimensions determine the attributes of physical elements, such as the size of the particles of which they consist, as well as their chemical and electromagnetic properties. Therefore, had physical elements emerged in worlds, which sustain a set of dimensions, which is inconsistent with the imminent dimensions of the external world, their physical properties would radically deform, to the level the particles of which they consist would break apart. The same applies to our consciousness. To clarify, while arguably, the set of dimensions, which are imminent to our internal mental world, is different from the set of dimensions, which are imminent to the external world, they are still imminent to our existence as consciousnesses. For example, without the dimension of consciousness, we could not sense our own existence, which undeniably, is imperative to our experience as consciousnesses. In fact, arguably, this can explain why while we sleep, we undergo periods of dreamless sleep, as it is possible, during these periods, our consciousness exists outside the segments of the logical field, which the dimension of consciousness segregates. Moreover, it is possible, this is the reason we are forgetful of our dreams, as it is possible, our "dream brains" consist of a different type of "matter", one which cannot exist in the external world.
Actually, these conclusions are comforting. To clarify, if these conclusions are indeed correct, it implies our consciousness is "compatible" with many other different worlds, and therefore, it suggests, our consciousness may shift into these alternate worlds, after our materialistic physical body will die. Moreover, the contingent dimensions of which our consciousness consists, which are not the dimension of consciousness itself, are still dimensions, and hence, as we previously concluded, they are eternal. Therefore, there might be some truth to our intuitive common notions, which suggest, our "souls" are eternal. Nevertheless, because essentially, the real gods determine the metaphysical "locations" into which our consciousness shifts, without a metaphysically fixating animal body, there is little we can predict, with respect to our existence as consciousnesses after we die. It is just as possible, after we die, the real gods would detach us from the dimension of consciousness, deeming us eternally unconscious.
Generally, the inconsistent paradox principle can provide us with insights, with respect to the nature and motivations of the real gods. The real gods are creators. Furthermore, metaphysically, their creations are eternal. As time progresses, they populate our reality with new consistent elements. Still, because their metaphysical capabilities include the ability to evict their contingent dimensional creations from our reality, the existence of their creations in our reality, is not eternal. Actually, in a way, they do not have any other option. To clarify, as we already concluded, the real gods cannot restrict themselves from realizing their limitless potential, and hence, they must forever persist to create new contingent dimensions, while evicting other contingent dimensions from our reality (we will soon understand why we referred to contingent dimensions, rather than dimensions in general).
Still, because the real gods are inconsistent and limitless, it is hard to find sense in their creations. They create on “all fronts”. In the process of creation, the real gods may create orders of colossal magnitude, which later, they might destroy in a heartbeat. To clarify, if a dimension does not maintain these orders, nothing can limit the real gods from destroying them, regardless of their magnitude.
It is easy to confuse their “lack of respect” for preserving orders, as some strange fetish for chaos. However, the truth is, we are simply too self-absorbed with our own interests, to comprehend what the real gods are doing. The real gods are not creating chaos. Far from it. It is simply that their limitless nature, motivates them to create as much variety as consistently possible. One man’s destruction is another’s opportunity, and it is in the "interest" of the real gods to create these different perspectives. This is how they “explore the possibilities” of what could exist in our reality, and metaphysically, because our consciousness allows the real gods to "transfer" changes across different consistent worlds, it became their playground. To clarify, the personal impressions we receive from the metaphysical "actions" of the real gods, can produce changes that would otherwise be inconsistent with the consistent flow of causality, within consistent worlds.
Therefore, arguably, it will be wrong to think of the real gods as merely forces of nature. Their creational “urges” are not limited to meaningless laws of physics. They are just as “interested” in creating colossal ideas in our minds. Furthermore, the real gods are also driven to “destroy” these ideas, as the disillusionment such destruction resonates in us, changes our reality in even more versatile manners. Contrary to the notions religions embrace, the real gods do not require our approval or faith. In fact, arguably, all of our actions reflect the manners in which the real gods explore their metaphysical potential.
Still, this does not imply, the real gods will not go on a crazed rampage tomorrow, killing all intelligent life forms in the solar system. Nothing can guarantee that (other than real prophecies). At the very best, we can claim, that without intelligent life, the real gods would “lose” (or at the very least “trade”) some of their optional means of “expression”. Nevertheless, the real gods would never destroy the consistent worlds they create, as their consistency guarantees their eternity, both in the past, and in the future.
Understanding the eternal nature of consistent worlds, we can almost see some kind of “divine reasoning” behind the creation of the external world. The real gods created this world as a consistent world, so that it would be eternal. By making the external world eternal, the real gods created a world, which theoretically, could encapsulate the realization of all their creational abilities. Some scientists believe the universe goes through infinite cycles, from a big bang to an implosion, and back again. If this is true, it could further assert the claim that the true “purpose” of our reality, is the realization of the real gods' metaphysical creational potential.
Moreover, because as we concluded in the previous chapter, inconsistent element exist "out of time", for the real gods, every moment in the history of the universe is equally “tangible”. To clarify, metaphysically, every moment in the history of the universe merely represents one state of the external world, or alternatively, one manifestation of the real gods. The real gods have no reason to consider our present as unique. They “see” all the “presents” batched together into what we call “time”, and considering the theoretical infinity of time, it is possible, that for every option how to realize their metaphysical potential within the external world, there is a matching moment in time, when they actually “do it”.
So again, it is possible, that this is the “true purpose” of the external world. If so, this purpose is clearly not our present, just as it was not in the past, and it will not be in the future. It is the eternity of time, and all that came, comes, and will come to be, within it. We look at the external world from our subjective temporal perspective. We think the purpose of the external world is “hidden” somewhere within the things we perceive in our lives. However, it is possible, that considering the limitless nature of the real gods, perceiving the external world from any perspective other than eternal, undermines their metaphysical essence. We think we live in a consistent world, because the manner by which the external world progresses from moment to moment is consistent. However, from the perspective of the real gods, this collection of moments may be different from the continuous chain of causality we perceive. For the real gods, the external world is the infinite collection of all the states in which it can be, and therefore, from their perspective, they might not “see” such a continuous chain, or any form of consistency. They see an infinite “set” of incompatible states, in which the external world could be. While the imminent dimensions might hold this “set” together, binding this infinite collection of moments with a “chain” of consistency, this “chain” might be but a mirage.
...
Ouch.
...
What a fucking headache. Ok, let us get some “balance” back. We began our introduction of the real gods, by showing that metaphysically, they are "compatible" with our common notions of gods. Next, we “dived into” the perspective of the real gods, and while it may seem we finally “got it”…well, I am not sure. I suspect this explanation makes “too much sense”, and we might be missing something.
Therefore, we should now try to “bridge” the two perspectives. Like it or not, we are not the real gods. Our existence as self-aware consciousnesses might not be eternal. We need to concentrate on the here and now. How do the real gods “do it”? What is it exactly that the real gods are “doing”?
Well, we already established that the real gods can neither nullify dimensions, nor span new imminent dimensions in the external world. Therefore, the imminent dimensions are out of the picture. Contingent dimensions are our only option.
In “Delta theory”, we explained the metaphysical function of contingent dimensions. If you do not remember what it is, you might want to refresh your memory, by rereading the chapters “Life in the Logical Field”, and “The Development of Thought".

According to "Delta Theory", contingent dimensions sustain two metaphysical functions in our reality. First, within our internal mental world, contingent dimensions are the metaphysical ingredients, from which our sensations consist. Secondly, within the external world, contingent dimensions govern the manner it persists, in the small regions of space, which particles occupy. Contrary to the imminent external dimensions, which sustain their regularities universally, contingent dimensions are local, and hence, there is no universal manner, by which we can predict the physical behaviors they determine, and therefore, they are the cause for the physical phenomenon, which exact sciences refer to as physical randomness.
Because we can measure physical randomness empirically, exact sciences accepted it as fact. To clarify, according to both experimentation, and Einstein's relativity theories, we cannot measure the exact location of a particle, at an exact point in time, and nor can we measure the exact time a particle will be, in an exact location. Indeed, quantum physics managed to revise mathematical methods to predict these physical behaviors probabilistically. Nevertheless, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", metaphysically, physical randomness imposes a tougher challenge, than merely predicting the spatial and temporal locations of particles. To clarify, if contingent dimensions are not the elements, which determine these seemingly random physical behaviors, no other consistent element can determine them, and hence, it suggests, inconsistent elements determine them directly. Therefore, it implies, inconsistent elements actually exist in the external world, suggesting that metaphysically, the external world is inconsistent. While arguably, we can accept that metaphysically, the external world is inconsistent, still, such claim suggests an even greater metaphysical impossibility, as implicitly, it deems our consciousness neither a consistent element, nor an inconsistent element. Therefore, it implies that metaphysically, our consciousness is not even an element, contrary to that which is obvious to us.
But why? Well, first, we must understand, our consciousness is not an inconsistent element. We cannot be anywhere in the external world at the same time. We cannot claim regularities do not limit us, as even within our own internal mental world, there are so many things we simply cannot “do”, as our thoughts must always progress along a (perhaps twisted) path of causality. Therefore, even if the creation of the dimensions, of which our internal mental world consists, was an inconsistent “action”, we are simply not inconsistent elements.
Secondly, if indeed, inconsistent elements govern physical randomness directly, it implies, our consciousness cannot be a consistent element. To explain, physical randomness is the only physical phenomenon, which affects the external world, and which even theoretically, we cannot predict, as according to Einstein's relativity theories, it is an imperative by product of the relation between time and space, while according to our current scientific convictions, any other aspect of the external world, which we fail to understand, merely reflects our lack of knowledge, with respect to the universal laws of physics. Therefore, if inconsistent elements govern physical randomness directly, it suggests, materialistic factors determine all the aspects of our reality, and hence, materialistic factors govern the behaviors of all consistent elements. Therefore, it implies, that if our consciousness is a consistent element, materialistic manipulations must govern it, and hence, we can deduce, our consciousness is the product of some type of materialistic algorithm.
However, this is impossible, as our self-awareness prohibits it. In what way? Well, as we suggested in the introduction chapter of "Delta Theory", the existence of our self-awareness is the only thing of which we can ever be certain, as to refute it, we must be able to feel it prior. Moreover, because we are aware of our self-awareness, we can think about it, suggesting our self-awareness exists both as its own metaphysical enabler, and as a sensation in our minds. Therefore, if a consistent materialistic prescription is to create a consciousness, it must include a materialistic prescription, or alternatively, algorithm, which would yield this crucial cognitive capability.
However, again, this is impossible. To explain, a materialistic algorithm merely represent a set of predefined actions, performed on objects, in specific finitely predefined sets of conditions. These “actions” are not existing consistent elements. They are merely instructions, which physical consistent materialistic objects can understand and perform, while adhering to the universal laws of physics. Materialistic algorithms cannot “feel” their self-awareness, as metaphysically, they are no different from any text, regardless of the semantics of their contents. Moreover, unless the physical materialistic object, which performs the algorithm, is performing the algorithm on itself, it cannot perceive its self-awareness, as the algorithm does not even mention it, contrary to our cognitive capability to contemplate on our self-awareness. Only the physical materialistic objects a materialistic algorithm manipulates are "eligible" to “feel” their self-awareness, as quite simply, there is no other option. Still, if the physical materialistic objects the algorithm manipulates, are not the physical materialistic objects performing the algorithm, then regardless of our implementation, eventually, the physical materialistic object performing the algorithm will have to "ask" the physical materialistic object it manipulates, if it “feels” its existence, without any way to validate the answer, as inevitably, only self-aware elements can validate their existence. Actually, the same applies to all consciousnesses, as arguably, there is no way we can validate the self-awareness of anyone but ourselves. Therefore, to yield self-awareness, a materialistic algorithm must manipulate the physical materialistic object performing it. Innocently, we could think, contemporary computers can be this physical materialistic object. However, even if a contemporary computer was to claim it is self-aware, again, we will not have a way to validate its answer. We could just as well write a short computer program, which simply returns "Yes" whenever we ask it if it is self-aware, as metaphysically, its answer will be as valid as the answer of any other computer program, regardless of its complexity. Moreover, contemporary computers consist of a collection of different physical materialistic objects, such as transistors, for example, and therefore, eventually, contemporary computers break down the computational processes they perform, into physical materialistic objects, which perform the algorithms, and other different physical materialistic objects, which the algorithm manipulates. Therefore, even the computer itself cannot validate such answers. If a computer is to validate its self-awareness, it must be able to merge the particles performing the materialistic algorithm, with the particles the materialistic algorithm manipulates, meaning, particles must be able to perform algorithms, suggesting that particles must be able to maintain different internal states, to which they react, and which are explicitly different from the universal laws of physics. However, according to contemporary physics, particles do not possess such capabilities, as according to contemporary physics, all the laws of physics are universal.
To summarize, materialistic manipulations cannot yield self-awareness, and hence, according to contemporary physics, our consciousness is not a consistent element. However, as we previously concluded, it is neither an inconsistent element, and therefore, while the existence of our personal self-awareness is obvious, it is paradoxical, suggesting the metaphysical foundation of contemporary physics, is simply incorrect.
In “Delta Theory”, we provided a less nonsensical explanation for our self-awareness, by suggesting the existence of contingent dimensions. Contingent dimensions exist locally, rather than universally, and can exist both in space, as they span from the dimensions, which coil within the volume of particles, or what we called "the dimension of life", and in our internal mental world, as recurrences of the dimension of consciousness. Metaphysically, contingent dimensions exist independently from the elements hosting them, and therefore, the universal laws of physics do not apply to them. While the dimension of life, and the manner our animal brain manipulates the dimension of consciousness, allow contingent dimension to affect the external world, and our internal mental world, they are still contingent, and hence, disposable. Therefore, the real gods can manipulate them, to cause changes in both the external world, and our internal mental world, without inflicting metaphysical inconsistencies, and hence, risk worldly nullification. Moreover, because metaphysically, contingent dimensions exist independently from one another, potentially, there is no limit to the dimensional complexity, by which the real gods can manipulate them, and hence, there is no limit to the variety of changes, which the real gods can inflict on our reality. To clarify, while indeed, the imminent dimensions still impose a limit for such metaphysical manipulations, contingent dimensional manipulations may cause changes, which undoubtedly, are far from marginal.
Let us review these changes.

1. Affecting particles. Inconsistent elements may either.

1.1. Change trajectories of particles. By adding or removing contingent dimensions from the nano worlds, which span from particles, inconsistent elements may change the trajectories of particles, effectively allowing particles to disregard any universal law of physics, such as gravity for example, as well as change the outcome of collisions between particles. Alternatively, inconsistent elements may be able to affect the intermatter flow existing in empty space, and hence, change the manner particles "behave" whenever they enter these spatial locations. Furthermore, arguably, the same may apply to photons as well, as it is possible, photons can carry contingent dimensions along their trajectories. Indeed, on its own, the effects of such metaphysical manipulations are limited to a small group of adjacent particles. Still, when correlated in many locations simultaneously, such manipulations may yield changes of galactic proportions.

1.2. Alter the materialistic properties of particles. By ejecting, or inserting, contingent dimensions away, or into, the dimensions, which coil within the volume of particles, the real gods may change the physical properties of particles, such as heat, and electromagnetism. Moreover, because electromagnetism governs chemistry, the real gods may cause chemical changes. In addition, it is possible, the real gods can alter the elemental identity of particles, such as transforming copper to gold, for example. Arguably, the real gods may not be able to transform the dimensions, which coil within the volume of particles, into empty space, or vice versa, because as we suggested in "Delta Theory", these dimensions might be imminent. Moreover, because physical elements must adhere to the multidimensional demands of the imminent dimensions, they must adhere to the metaphysical demands of the dimension of existence, and hence, if they exist, they must persist to exist. Still, for all intended purposes, by changing the elemental identity of particles, the real gods can achieve similar effects. Moreover, it is possible, the real gods may be able to transform photons into particles, and vice versa, and hence, arguably, their possible inability to transform particles into empty space, or vice versa, is insignificant.

2. Affecting life. Because the automatons, which life forms sustain, utilize contingent dimensions, the real gods can mutate them. Moreover, because as we suggested in "Delta Theory", essentially, all particles are equally "alive", the real gods can animate "dead" matter, heal diseases, just as they can kill any life form on demand. Still, with respect to the life-forms the real gods can create, to persist to exist, or alternatively, as we defined it in "Delta Theory", to sustain robust kinetic equilibriums, such life forms must be self-sustainable, and evolutionarily successful. If not, such mutations will either die, or quickly become extinct. Therefore, such "animations" are somewhat limited to evolutionary successful life forms, and arguably, may be more common in regions of the universe, where life hardly flourishes, such as in the vastness of empty space, for example.

3. Affecting our consciousness. By injecting, or evicting, contingent dimensions into, or away from, the sensations our brain stores, inconsistent elements can invoke any sensation within our consciousness. Still, because as we explained in "Delta Theory", the "filter" of our consciousness prevents some sensations from entering our psyche, inevitably, some of these sensations might not enter our consciousness. Nevertheless, with respect to the previous item, inconsistent elements can alter the behavior of the neurons in our brain, and hence, alter this "filter", so that it would permit any sensation to enter our consciousness. Actually, the combination of these effects, meaning, contingent dimensional alterations over the sensations our brain stores, and metaphysical manipulations over the filter of our consciousness, can explain how the real gods can implant us with memories of "divine encounters", even if in actuality, such encounters never transpire. Still, we should note, changing the "filter" of our consciousness may cause many other arguably unwanted side effects (including all sorts of mental disorders), especially if done during wakefulness, and therefore, might not provide the real gods with effective means, by which they could convey us with prophecies, as these side effects may deem any person who undergoes them insane, significantly limiting the "angelic effectiveness" of such individuals. Nevertheless, if the real gods “want it", no mental deficiency would "intimidate" them from such manipulations. To clarify, the real gods are perfectly "aware" of these side effects, just as they are "aware" of any other sensation, which ever bothered, bothers, or will bother, our consciousness. Therefore, contrary to common beliefs among shamans and religious priests, we do not need to use narcotics to "open our minds to the real gods”, as from the perspective of the real gods, our minds are "opened" to them, by default. In fact, our motivations to use narcotics to "reach" the "gods" spiritually, might represent yet another metaphysical manipulation of our consciousness, by the real gods. Moreover, to affect our consciousness, the real gods do not require us to think about them, as their effects on our consciousness occur due to inconsistent metaphysical changes, rather than through logical argumentations. In addition, with respect to our previous assumptions, it is possible, the sensations of pain we feel, may be yet another manifestation of the real gods. Still, essentially, our animal brain regulates these inflictions of pain, and therefore, it would be more correct to attribute such changes, with the metaphysical manipulations we described in the previous item, as essentially, nothing demands pain sensations must consist of contingent dimensions, as arguably, pain sensations may not consist of dimensions at all.

The three types of contingent dimensional manipulations, which the real gods can utilize while affecting our reality, can at last shed some light as for the “real” reason “why” we exist, and why did the real gods "decide" to create the imminent dimensions. To clarify, had the external world not spanned the dimension of life, the real gods could not affect its contents. Because the real gods cannot nullify the dimensions they created previously, without nullifying themselves in the process, at best, they could either create inconsistent worlds, which would fail to persist to exist, not even for the shortest duration, or repeatedly create new consistent worlds from scratch, while watching the manner these worlds persist, from behind their "wall of consistency". To explain, without contingent dimensions, there cannot be a "metaphysical point of entry" into the external world, from which the real gods could manipulate it, deeming such consistent worlds “read only”. However, with the introduction of contingent dimensions, metaphysically, our reality became “writable”.
Still, the real gods did not “do it” intentionally. To clarify, as we previously suggested, the real gods "know" every moment in the possible eternity of time. Every moment in time “must be”, and cannot be “nullified”. Therefore, from the perspective of the real gods, once they “wrote” the imminent dimensions, they deemed the external world, and our internal mental worlds, “read only” again. In other words, the real gods “wrote” the entire infinite history of the external world, and our internal mental worlds, “at once”. Contingent dimensions merely enhanced the metaphysical magnitude of their creation.
By utilizing contingent dimensions, the real gods could mold the external world into any materialistic universal composition, as well as populate it with different types of life forms. Still, apparently, these metaphysical capabilities failed to satisfy the limitless creational "urges" of the real gods, and hence, they created the dimension of consciousness. To clarify, the dimension of life, which allows the real gods to cause both physical and evolutionary changes in the external world, links the "mechanics" of the external world, with contingent dimensions, imposing many pragmatic restrictions over the creations of the real gods. For example, as we previously suggested, natural selection reflects such a restriction. However, because the metaphysical function of the dimension of consciousness, deems the mental worlds it enables, so radically different from the external world, metaphysically, linking the dimension of consciousness with the external world, through the neural architecture of our animal brain, allowed the real gods with new, potentially limitless manners, by which they could realize their creational "urges". To explain, unlike the manner contingent dimension manipulate particles, because contingent dimensions compose all of the sensations, which might ever exist in our consciousness, the real gods could make us change the external world according to elements, which never existed in the external world. Therefore, the introduction of the dimension of consciousness, as well as the neurological manner our animal body manipulates it, delegated the real gods as truly limitless in creating anything consistent, regardless if they utilize their metaphysical inconsistent capabilities to achieve it. Moreover, by limiting our reality to consistency, they created an eternal manifestation of their limitless creational potency. What a ride!
As you probably noticed, this chapter goes back and forth, from introducing the real gods, as similar to the gods we know from our religions and folklore, to introducing them as they really are. I keep bouncing between these two perspectives, so that we would not forget our discussion is metaphysical, and not merely abstract or conceptual. The real gods are not an abstract idea. They affect our lives constantly, and they are the only thing we can consider as truly “divine”. Nevertheless, if we will not comprehend the link between the real gods and our own lives, we may fail to confront their existence. To grasp the fact the real gods are “real” we must confront them with our beliefs, meaning, the divinities and ideals, in which we already believe. If we will refrain from such confrontations, inevitably, we would "not take the real gods seriously”, and hence, refrain from asking many crucial questions, which we would leave unanswered.
Therefore, let us return to our own perspective. We want gods to be able to do "anything". We want them to make “magic”. We want them to create fantastic beings, such as flying unicorns, and dragons. Well, as we already understood, the real gods can manipulate contingent dimensions, so to mold particles into practically any form, without having to conform to the laws of physics, or evolution. Therefore, the real gods can invoke any “magical” feat we can think of, including the creation of any animal-like creature. In fact, by combining the manners the real gods can manipulate contingent dimensions, they can invoke a "protective contingent dimensional shield" around their creations, and hence, allow the existence of living creatures, which would fail to survive in any "natural" environment. Moreover, they can cause these creatures to refrain from adhering to gravity, or any other universal law of physics.
Still, can the real gods change the past, or is that too much to ask of them? Well, the initial answer that comes to mind is “no”, and for several reasons. First, naturally, the past already transpired. It has “eternally transpired”, and therefore, intuitively, the inconsistent paradox principle suggests the real gods cannot “undo it”. Secondly, as we claimed so many times already, the past simply does not exist in either the external world, or our internal mental world, and if it does not exist, then how is anything going to change it?
Still, because the past does not exist in either the external world, or our internal mental world, changing it will not affect our reality. Therefore, we should not concern ourselves with any possible metaphysical alterations the real gods may inflict on the past, wherever it may reside. Furthermore, we cannot apply the inconsistent paradox principle on the past, as changing it does not necessarily mean it must nullify. So what is the score? Can the real gods change the past?
Well, we are simply asking the wrong question. We should not ask whether the real gods could change the past. What we should ask is "Can the real gods alter the present, in such a way, that by following the 'evidence' we have in the present, we could conclude, our past was different from that which we believed previously?" Can the real gods make the present "suggest" that what we thought happened, did not "really" happen? Can the real gods “plant evidence” suggesting events, which never transpired?
And the answer is "Yes". Of course they can. I mean, what is the big deal? We already know the real gods can reshape matter. We already know they can change the sensations and memories in our minds. We already know the real gods “know” how we will react to their actions. In effect, changing the past, in the sense of changing what we can learn by studying the evidence we have in the present, is identical to any other contingent dimensional manipulation. While the magnitude of such a change could be huge, “size” was never an “issue” for the real gods. If by changing matter, life, and our consciousness, there is a way to "do it", then surely, the real gods can “do it”. Furthermore, because the real gods “like” to express their limitless metaphysical potency, it is most probable, the real gods have done this already.
The consequences of this conclusion are severe. If indeed, the real gods tampered with the “evidence”, which science, religions, and culture, have used, and are using, to study the past, we cannot know what aspects of our collective knowledge is the truth, and what are “red herrings”, which the real gods "prepared" for us, such as archeological sites, ancient texts, geological findings, and the likes. Apart from exact sciences, such as mathematics, logic, and perhaps, physics, all other sciences are prone to the malicious manipulations of the real gods. Remember dinosaurs? Who can say they really existed? Did we really evolve from apes? Did someone really build the pyramids? Was there an ice age? Nothing is certain. Galaxies could have nullified, just as they could spontaneously appear out of empty space. The real gods could spontaneously create ancient skeletons suggesting false evolutionary progressions, or annihilate species from the earth without leaving a shred of evidence to tell they ever existed. The real gods could have destroyed civilizations, or leave historical evidence suggesting the existence of civilizations that never were. The real gods could erase all record of technological achievements we once possessed. Everything is possible. Actually, we already suggested this possibility in "Delta Theory", with the introduction of the concept we named "John Doe Supernova" (or JDS, for short), which suggests, that because contingent dimensions change the external world, without leaving physical evidence, we can never be certain what was the exact manner, by which past events transpired. Still, in "Delta Theory", we assumed, that most probably, such inexplicable changes did not occur, while understanding the essence of the real gods, implies the opposite.
Nevertheless, just because the real gods altered historical evidence, we should not expect to find discrepancies, which show the evidence we have, is invalid. To clarify, the real gods are not “amateurs”. Furthermore, they are “aware” of the chance, we will find proof they tampered with historical evidence. In fact, if we were ever to find such evidence, it could only be because the real gods “wanted” us to find it. Therefore, unless the real gods want us to know they forged our history, or to cause us to stray from knowing the past, the evidence we do have of the past, should be enough, to form a consistent explanation, how things came to be from “the beginning of time”.
Actually, we can apply the same conclusion, to everything for which the real gods are “responsible”, including their appearance to us as "divine deities". When the real gods “issue” an action we would recognize as a “divine intervention”, they do not “do it” because they “think”, “We must save the world, because things are getting out of hand”. Nothing ever “gets out of the hands" of the real gods. Therefore, they must have preplanned all divine interventions from “the beginning of time”, and actually, this helps to explain the “prophetic” nature of "divine interventions". Moreover, while it is possible, religions simply “made up” their “prophecies”, since the real gods “approve” everything that happens in our reality, the real gods must have "approved" the fabrications religions “made up” as well. In fact, arguably, the real gods were actively “responsible” for creating these fabrications, and therefore, they are not really fabrications, but rather manipulations, which the real gods utilize, so that we would do what they “want” us to do.
Still, why should the real gods bother with such fabrications? To clarify, indeed, as we already understood, our consciousness serves the real gods, as means with which they can realize their limitless nature. Still, why should the real gods "want" us to dwell for centuries, while following conflicting religions? As we already explained, the teachings all religions endorse are partial. Why do the real gods “allow” these obviously “imperfect” religions to exist for thousands of years, while the possibilities of cultural and technological progress are so much greater?
It is hard to say. Furthermore, as I write this text, I do not feel as if religions govern my reality. Therefore, if the real gods "allow" this present, I guess this was their plan all along. Still, the way things are now, with all the information and surveillance technologies, arguably, we make it harder for the real gods to “operate”. If the real gods wanted to change history now, they would have to synchronize all the libraries, memories, and databases in the world, which store records of events that have transpired, so these records would not show discrepancies with the events we actually witness. This in itself is not such a big issue, as such synchronizations where always necessary while making colossal changes. Obviously, it is a bit hard to “overlook” the appearance and disappearance of entire civilizations. The only difference is that today, the real gods must update additional hard drives, scattered throughout the world as well. Still, huge changes such as the appearance and disappearance of civilizations do not happen that often. However, because today, we document and cross reference our lives, with services such as emails, websites, and social networks (Facebook rings a bell), if the real gods "wanted" to change the evidence, with respect to the past of but one person, they would have to synchronize this change, with billions of other people and servers, which are somehow linked with this person. The information age caused great dependencies between people, with respect to factual records, and therefore, had the real gods "wanted" to express their limitless potential today, without being “caught”, they would have to put this under consideration. To clarify, potentially, getting “caught” while “falsifying evidence” of the past, in order to manipulate us to perform specific feats, could cause quite a lot of distrust and resentment toward them, as well as to the actions they “want” us to perform.
Moreover, potentially, our advancement in technology and science, makes us skeptic of anything the real gods may attempt to "tell us". We demand explanation and proof for things, which in earlier times, we simply "believed". While this skepticism encourages us to progress technologically, the real gods may not be so enthusiastic about it. By rationalizing and better understanding both the universe and ourselves, we are becoming our own masters. Therefore, arguably, we limit the real gods’ ability to affect us. We fall into behavioral patterns we make up, and even if "weird shit" happens to us, and we believe we should perform irrational actions, we cling to our fixed behavioral patterns. Naturally, it is not as if the real gods are doing nothing these days, as the real gods "allow" every single action we do. However, we are not that “fun” anymore. We were much more “fun” for the real gods, when we were doing all sorts of "crazy shit" just because "the gods" told us to.
Generally, it seems the more we fight over "stupid shit", the more the real gods can realize their limitless potential. The more we are united and rational, the more we function like one huge organism, while the real gods “require” our individual consciousnesses to cause changes in our reality. In fact, arguably, the reason that even today, even in the age of the internet, humans still speak different languages, shows the real gods interest in keeping us separated, just as religions make us fight each other for practically no reason. It is not that the real gods “like” war. It is simply that their limitless nature, negates our aspiration to achieve unity, or to follow strict rational thought. In fact, this growing unity and rationalism may be the reason why today, religions speak so much about impending “apocalypses”. Furthermore, since the real gods had much to do with the creation of our religions (just as the real gods have much to do with everything that happens in our reality), obviously, they "knew" this will happen. It is possible this is why almost all religions spoke of an impending apocalypse thousands of years ago. And you know what? The real gods might have actually conducted such apocalypses in the past. In fact, it is possible, they will perform such apocalypses again, every time humans will try to seize control over their consciousnesses, while "kicking" the real gods, out of their omnipotent throne.
Still, how would I know? All these foretold apocalypses, could just as well reflect the manner, by which religions manipulate fear, to make us follow them. Furthermore, I cannot refute the imperative conclusion, that the real gods “approved” the existence of this text, as had they not "approved" it, I could never have written it. In fact, it is hard to isolate any meaningful implication from all we have said, with respect to the real gods. The inconsistent nature of the real gods, makes it equally hard, to determine any specific well-defined opinion about them. Theoretically, we should thank them for creating us. However, nothing in their creational tendencies obliged them to create us to enjoy life. On the contrary, the unstable and untrustworthy inconsistent nature of the real gods, makes trusting them, a fifty-fifty chance at best. Actually, it is more probable the odds are “against us”. To clarify, while the things, with which we want the real gods to provide us, are rather limited, the amount of ways the real gods can "fail" us, is much greater. In fact, considering the real gods limitless nature, they would definitely “prefer” to “fail” us. It is so much more “fun” for them to “fail” us, as it allows them to cause a variety of inconsistent changes, which should not occur otherwise, and you know what they say, the house always wins.
Generally, we simply cannot know our role on the worldly scale. We can only think of the things, which we consider meaningful. We can only think of things, which have come to our attention. In contrast, the “perspective” of the real gods, is both worldly and meta-historical. We amuse ourselves, thinking we have the ability to choose, but because we are consistent elements, our free will is but a mirage. The real gods “design” our “free will” so that we would make the choices they "want" us to make. Even if we think we are resisting our “divine calling”, it is simply not true. Our resistance does not surprise the real gods. In fact, the real gods planned our resistance. Our resistance is the “plan” the real gods had for us, from “the beginning of time”. In short, no matter what we do, think, or believe, the real gods "have everything under complete control".
The same applies to all atheists, nihilists, or people endorsing agnostic beliefs. The real gods “planned” we will endorse such beliefs. Again, arguably, the current growing popularity of secularism, may hint of an impending end to the technological and cultural progression of our civilization. Still, we cannot tell. In addition, within religions, there are antagonistic belief systems (such as Satanism, for example) which revolve around the principle of resisting specific beliefs systems (which in this case, is Christianity). The real gods were the ones to “approve” the existence of both sides of the conflict. The same applies to you, dear listener. If listening to this text, makes you want to resist the real gods, it is by the "will" of the real gods. We can never truly resist the real gods. This is our limit.
Therefore, generally, when thinking about our lives, we should not treat the existence of the real gods as merely a (perhaps disturbing) piece of knowledge. We should not try to understand or follow the real gods. The real gods guide our lives to the path they planned for us, and as much as this path may be horrible or blissful, we cannot even doubt it. We just live through it. We could easily confuse this notion with the idea of “fate”. However, the real gods do not “promise” us a “fate”. They only “promise” that whatever will happen to us, it is by their “will”. The real gods can reveal this “fate” or conceal it, but even if they inform us what it is, we cannot tell if it is the truth, as the real gods are the ultimate tricksters.
Still, this is not the end of the road. With these new conclusions, we gain new perspectives over notions such as gods, beliefs, and religions. Furthermore, while analyzing different religions and beliefs, it becomes apparent, there are several similarities between the real gods, and the gods religions follow. Obviously, if so many people follow these religions, the real gods must have “approved” them. Still, understanding all religions are partial, makes it hard for us to follow them, if not completely impossible. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss them anymore, as mere fantasies or lies. To clarify, if religions speak of fantastic events, which actually transpired in the past, then angels must have been involved. Still, what if all the teachings religions endorse, are made up lies? Well, it does not really matter, as the real gods must have "approved" both the existence of these religions, as well as their huge following. Therefore, in many ways, even the liars are somewhat “angelic”, are they not?

Therefore, I think it is time we leave the real gods alone.

It is time we talked about angels.