Is it possible to disprove this statement?

Question

Whatever could not be as part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment could not be unity.

Is it possible to disprove this statement?

Answer 1

"Whatever could not be as part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment could INDEED be unity."

There. It's equally disproven and proven.

Answer 2

It is possible to disprove the following points:

1. Link: If on a webpage, the number 1 or the text "unity" is written, and is not a link(hyperlink), it is still unity.
2. Unity can not have INFLUENCE on MULTIPLICATION and DIVISION.
5/1=5.
3. Unity can not have SENSATION, also. See above point.
4. When something is NOT origin(0,0), it CAN assume the value 5.Something NOT DERIVATIVE is INTEGRAL. INTEGRAL of 0 can be constant and can assume the value 1.
6. God is one is not a RULE (hindu tradition).
7.the statement if(x == 5) is a CONDITION but no unity.
8.Yes intent can come without unity, several people can have different intents.

Answer 3

Whatever in part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment has as it purpose to disrupt and divide, cannot be unity.

Answer 4

I'm laughing so hard at Paul's answer. Really funny!! Anyways... It is possible to disprove both the statements pretty easily. 1- A rose can represent a kiss (Old hindi movies)... there is no equivalence in them. 2- There is no clear definition of "what-I-am" and it is pretty arbitrary. For a goat, a rose is a food item and for me it is a beautiful flower.

Answer 5

All of these conditions were a result of the Fall, ie the separation from the Divine. Separation of the Sexes, The Fall, Partaking of the Tree of Knowledge - that was the eating of that apple. When we started to see ourselves as separate and not in Union with the One and Only (God if you wish to put a name on it). It is duality in motion. All that is in duality is not Unity.

So no, you cannot disprove this statement.

Answer 6

It depends on whether you are taking the Platonic or Aristotelian path to knowledge.

If you choose Platonic Forms as your model of Unity...all is but a reflection of it's perfect form...

If you choose Aristotle, A is A...a table is a table. A unity is a Unity, not a reflection of a perfect unity or having that attribute.

So, using Platonic Forms, you could not disprove it.

Using Aristototlean Logic, you could.

Your use of could not twice is a double negative, though you mean it to be...it is poor grammar...the use of commas is a throw off to your quizzing...especially the comma between part and whole...the lack of a break to separate your end could not is not only puzzling, it is forcing the statement to be a non sequitor. 30 - Love.

Answer 7

As opposed to your previous question, the phrasing of this question makes it clear that you are equating Unity with God. Since God is the original cause of all causes, and since everything that is, emanates from Him, anything that could not be part, whole, equivalence, etc...of God, cannot be God.

God is greater than the sum of His parts. Nothing can be God, except God, and since unity is the sum of the parts of God within God, unity is synonymous with God. One plus one equals one.

Thus, it is not possible to disprove the statement.

Answer 8

The statement would first have to have at least the attempt to PROVE it before it could even be approached in efforts to DISPROVE IT !!
So as opposed to disproving a Statement
It is YOUR'S to attempt some Proof of this !!!

Answer 9

as it already contains mutually exclusive terms, self-contradictory posits...and therefore as an a priori "falsehood", meaningless collection of verbage, it is impossible to disprove a false statement..
in formal logic...not (not A) --/--> A
also, some of the "descriptives" are not germane to "unity"

Answer 10

Whatever could not be as...equivalence...could not be unity.

A man and a woman are not equivalent, yet they can form a unity.

******************************************

(Your statement is pessimistic and therefore lifeless, yet you continue to ask questions about it. What is your obsession with it?)

(Is this about Nirvana? Is "emptiness" the unity you're trying to understand? Your statement seems to eliminate all else, including our perception of all else.)