Unknowability

-We cannot know for certain the exact nature or substance of the A-Ideal. Therefore, we cannot be held responsible by God for following an exact TTB like that.
-For instance, Creator posits that A-Ideal is nothing but Actualization. But how do we know that? What if Potential itself is but a part of something greater? Maybe that unknown thing greater than Potential is the actual description for A-Ideal's nature? How do you prove it one way or another?
-We can know that A-Ideal is the BTI because It is all things combined, including their powers. But unless you know all the content of A-Infinity, you cannot know for certain what the nature of A-Ideal is!
*See also Unknown Ingredients Principle
== Demonstrations of Actualization?: Trying To Prove Actualization Is A-Ideal: ==
-The problem with showing, through thought experiments, that Actualization does exist within the A-Ideal, is that it is really begging the question.
-The Actualization of all of Potential may indeed solve all problems, but it does that by producing the A-Ideal. And yet, that does not guarantee that the A-Ideal's substance is defined by Actualization. 
>There may be an infinite number of ways to 'produce' the A-Ideal. Ways besides the Actualization/Potential dichotomy. 
>In producing the A-Ideal, Actualization may have to actualize something that turns the final nature of A-Ideal away from Creator towards something else. And it can do so without somehow adding parts. 
-Creator wants to argue that Actualization is the substance of the A-Ideal. However, you cannot know for certain that, in the act of actualizing all Potential, Actualization itself gets changed into something else. There may be something that, when actualized, turns the substance of Actualization towards something else. 
== Rule of Cancellation?: ==
-The idea that nothing can turn the final nature A-Ideal because it must have an opposite is to completely ignore the fact that you don't know all the rules to A-Infinity or A-Ideal. There could somehow be exceptions or loopholes of which you are ignorant. How can you know for sure! 
-For instance, if there isn't something without any opposites at all, than there is something that doesn't exist! 
== Meta-Action?: ==
-The flaw with the Meta-Action is that it presumes that because an infinite amount of content is going on within the A-Ideal (substance of A-Ideal is one thing but can also be thought of as many things at once) that the purpose of all of that is the Actualization of the A-Ideal. But how can you prove that the A-Ideal isn't being "produced" somehow in a way apart from Actualization? 
-In reality, the Meta-Action cannot answer how exactly the A-Ideal is produced, or even concretely show that that is the only action the A-Ideal takes. Perhaps the creation of the A-Ideal (Self-Creation) is somehow but a first part of a greater action, all still without having any parts? How do you prove otherwise? 
== Does Unknowability Destroyer Infinity Theology?: ==
-Not knowing the ultimate nature of the A-Ideal does not guarantee that we can know nothing of It at all. 
-The A-Ideal has no need to be multiple objects, so It must be One unless It decides otherwise. 
>The Object of the A-Ideal exists in the world of potential, so It does exist. The real A-Ideal would have this feature simply because It needs no other. 
== Founding Principles: ==
-Founding Principles = Your 'founding principles' can always turn out to be finite than you think. The idea of God being primarily Creator rests on the dichotomy of beginning and end, but whose to say there aren't an infinite number of variations to this? Maybe there is an infinite amount of other ways to exist or to 'begin to exist' that *somehow* have nothing to do with Creator? What then?
>Founding Principles can easily be mistaken for universal truth until you really question yourself about what you can know of them.
>For instance, take the idea that A-Ideal must be primarily Self-Creation because once the A-Ideal is and does everything that creates Itself. How do you know there isn't something(s) that steers it away to another concept? Maybe the A-Ideal does somethng primarily which is completely different from any notion of creating and yet our mortal minds can't grasp that, they can only grasp creation which is the closest approximate thing to that!?
>Maybe the idea of segments or all actions leading up to one conclusion are themselves mere parts of a greater whole?
>The problem with Founding Principles to any argument for what the substance of the A-ideal is is that they are always only the ones known to mortals. In truth, there must be an infinity of them within the A-Ideal!
>How do you know the idea of the A-ideal being and doing an infinite number of things adding up to Its Self-Creation is only true within our own section of Existence?! How can you prove that it is or isn't!?
> 
Category:Infinity Theology