An Arguement for the Existence of a Timeless Non-Physical Cuase

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReapReason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Division by zero is a mathematically invalid operation, so it is not simply an error. The fact that 1/x as x–>0 tends towards infinity does not mean that 1/0 is actually infinity.
Click to expand...
My point was that calculators/computers report it as a “division by zero error” and I did not say it actually is infinity merely that a claim is made that it seems to approximate it. I did not advocate either one, but thanks for the clarity.
 
From the standpoint of computer science, zero is treated like any other number in that it consumes the same amount of memory as any other number, regardless of how many bits are used to store the information.

“I have no apples in my basket” is as meaningful as “I have two apples in my basket”.

I think Reapreason and I can’t agree on definitions of objective, meaning, and truth. But that’s okay. To each his own.
 
Peter_Plato said:
My point was that calculators/computers report it as a “division by zero error” and I did not say it actually is infinity merely that a claim is made that it seems to approximate it. I did not advocate either one, but thanks for the clarity.
Click to expand...
Understood. But, for what it is worth, the computers and calculators give that result to indicate to you what went wrong with your (name removed by moderator)ut. It could just as easily say “Undefined operation” or “NaN” (short for Not A Number) but you would be scratching your head for some time trying to find out where you went wrong.
 
ReapReason said:
I explained exactly what i was saying, and peter Plato helped alot by attempting to explain my argument in clearer terms, and yet neither you or norain seem able to grasp the simple distinction between asking what the abstract concept of nothing is and the question of whether or not absolutely nothing is a logically possible state of affairs.
Click to expand...
I’m asking what exactly you mean by “a logically possible state of affair”.

I’m not even sure what a “logically possible state” is.

On the other hand, logically possible simply means that you have a statement or set of statements that are internally consistent.

“Unicorns might wear pajamas if they existed and behaved like human beings” is a logical statement that does not claim the existence of unicorns. It demonstrates consistency.
 
I came across an intriguing quote by John Scott Eriugena (9th century), that has a bearing on this thread as regards being and nothingness: “We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being.”

The East is very big on the concept of nothingness, emptiness, void (Buddhism, Taoism), as was Meister Eckhart.
 
I came across an intriguing quote by John Scott Eriugena (9th century), that has a bearing on this thread as regards being and nothingness: “We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being.”
Click to expand...
The “dumbing down of America” is complete. This thread has hit the nadir of stupidity. 😦
 
empther said:
The “dumbing down of America” is complete. This thread has hit the nadir of stupidity. 😦
Click to expand...
That quote which you describe as taking this thread to the “nadir of stupidity” was penned by a medieval Irish theologian, not by a contemporary American.

Meister Eckhart, another non-American (he was German) wrote of a, “breakthrough to the nothingness of the godhead.”

What these theologians are trying to say is that God transcends being and transcend thought, concepts.

The Taoists spoke the same, when they said, “the Way that can be named is not the eternal Way.”

In other words, as soon as we start to talk about or even conceptualize God, we immediately fail. God is beyond language, beyond thought – and, possibly, beyond being. Therefore, God is (from our perspective) a kind of de facto nothingness.

As Eckhart wrote, “If I say: ‘God is wise,’ that is not true. I am wiser than he. If I say: ‘God is a being,’ it is not true; he is a being transcending being and a transcendent nothingness.”

If contemplating the “negative theology” of a Meister Eckhart is responsible for the dumbing down of America, I would hate to see what a “smartened up” America would look like.

Quoting Snooki, perhaps?
 
Well, if we asked God, I’d think He would say “I am”, rather than “I am not”.

Rather than say he is nothing because he transcends being, I would say he is everything, even transcending being.

Unless transcending being would violate logic. Even God cannot go there, and I’m pretty sure of that.

But, what do I know. 🤷
 
norain said:
Well, if we asked God, I’d think He would say “I am”, rather than “I am not”.

Rather than say he is nothing because he transcends being, I would say he is everything, even transcending being.

Unless transcending being would violate logic. Even God cannot go there, and I’m pretty sure of that.

But, what do I know. 🤷
Click to expand...
I hear you, Norain… Most of us – in the west, especially, and I am a westerner too – aren’t in the habit of speaking of God as “nothing.” To the contrary, God is the fullness of Being, is Being itself.

It seems what Eckhart was getting at was closer to the Buddhist idea of “emptiness” (which is also an elusive concept). How could the nature of all reality be a kind of emptiness?

Speaking seriously, how could the kingdom of heaven be like a mustard seed? It is “smaller than all the other seeds,” is it not? Why would Christ use something so diminutive as a metaphor for the kingdom of heaven?

Still speaking seriously, following another paradox, how can love be more powerful than violence? How could the soft and yielding be more powerful than the hard and rigid? How could water be the unlikeliest greatest force in nature, able to move mountains?

This is very Taoist in orientation, but Christ spoke of it too. How in the world can the the little things - practically nothing – be what is highest? How can the kingdom of God be like a child? How can the last be first?

How can the origin of all that is most complex in this world, be utter simplicity? (again, like transparent water).

There’s a line in the Tao Te Ching that goes, “when people hear of the Tao, they laugh at it; and if they didn’t laugh, it wouldn’t be the Tao.” It seems too simple, too unlikely. Too unintimidating, like a child or like that mustard seed. Or like when Luke met Yoda 😉

Here’s the full stanza, which I think echoes some of the paradoxes of Christ (heaven is a tiny mustard seed; children are like the kingdom of heaven; many of the first will last, and many of the last will be first; or, perhaps, that the way to know God is not to fill your mind, but to empty your mind):

Higher people hear of the Tao
They diligently practice it
Average people hear of the Tao
They sometimes keep it and sometimes lose it
Lower people hear of the Tao
They laugh loudly at it
If they do not laugh, it would not be the Tao

Therefore a proverb has the following:
The clear Tao appears unclear
The advancing Tao appears to retreat
The smooth Tao appears uneven
High virtue appears like a valley
Great integrity appears like disgrace
Encompassing virtue appears insufficient
Building virtue appears inactive
True substance appears inconstant
The great square has no corners
The great vessel is late in completion
The great music is imperceptible in sound
The great image has no form
The Tao is hidden and nameless
Yet it is only the Tao
That excels in giving and completing everything
 
Portofino,

Now you’re talkin’ 🙂
Code: 
Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,

And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
    'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.

When true simplicity is gain'd,
    To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,

To turn, turn will be our delight,
    Till by turning, turning we come 'round right
youtube.com/watch?v=fYi9Vr8bHJY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Gifts
 
Portofino,

Remember too that Christ emptied himself out completely for us, on the cross. More than the miracles, I think that’s the singular most God-like thing he ever did.

Perhaps that is what to become “nothing” is all about.
 
Remember too that Christ emptied himself out completely for us
Click to expand...
Simply means that he gave up anything he wanted for himself, in his human nature, that would benefit only his human nature.
It has nothing to do with his existence, or his dual nature required for the Redemption.

Don’t let imprecise words fool you.
As for “God not existing because he transcends being,”
a completely ridiculous idea being thrown around on this madhouse of a thread,
at least one person said this was going beyond what even God could do.
Good for that person! 👍 😃
 
norain said:
Code: 
Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,

And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
    'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.

When true simplicity is gain'd,
    To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,

To turn, turn will be our delight,
    Till by turning, turning we come 'round right
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing that 🙂
 
empther said:
As for “God not existing because he transcends being,”
a completely ridiculous idea being thrown around on this madhouse of a thread,
at least one person said this was going beyond what even God could do.
Good for that person! 👍 😃
Click to expand...
I think what Eckhart was trying to say – and Taoism tried to say, for that matter – is that God exists beyond all conceptual thinking, as mentioned. Being, insofar as we think about it, is a mental concept; non-being, insofar as we think about it, is a mental concept. God, however, is beyond our concepts of being and non-being.

Taoists – and Eckhart, apparently – even went so far as to say that God is beyond concepts of goodness. God is not good. He is beyond the concept of good and beyond all dualities, which are conceived out of human limitation.

When many Jews write, “G_d”, one interpretation is that they are acknowledging that the nature of God’s being is ineffable (“the way that can be named is not the eternal way”).

To say, “God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere” (Empedocles) is similarly paradoxical.

But here is a more orthodox formulation of this, lest it seem to be attempting to subvert the foundations of orthodoxy:

“God is nameless, for no man can either say or understand aught about Him. If I say, God is good, it is not true; nay more; I am good, God is not good. I may even say, I am better than God; for whatever is good, may become better, and whatever may become better, may become best. Now God is not good, for He cannot become better. And if He cannot become better, He cannot become best, for these three things, good, better, and best, are far from God, since He is above all. If I also say, God is wise, it is not true; I am wiser than He. If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness. Concerning this St Augustine says: the best thing that man can say about God is to be able to be silent about Him, from the wisdom of his inner judgement. Therefore be silent and prate not about God, for whenever thou dost prate about God, thou liest, and committest sin. If thou wilt be without sin, prate not about God. Thou canst understand nought about God, for He is above all understanding. A master saith: If I had a God whom I could understand, I would never hold Him to be God” (Meister Eckhart)
 
Portofino said:
That quote which you describe as taking this thread to the “nadir of stupidity” was penned by a medieval Irish theologian, not by a contemporary American.

Meister Eckhart, another non-American (he was German) wrote of a, “breakthrough to the nothingness of the godhead.”

What these theologians are trying to say is that God transcends being and transcend thought, concepts.

The Taoists spoke the same, when they said, “the Way that can be named is not the eternal Way.”

In other words, as soon as we start to talk about or even conceptualize God, we immediately fail. God is beyond language, beyond thought – and, possibly, beyond being. Therefore, God is (from our perspective) a kind of de facto nothingness.

As Eckhart wrote, “If I say: ‘God is wise,’ that is not true. I am wiser than he. If I say: ‘God is a being,’ it is not true; he is a being transcending being and a transcendent nothingness.”

If contemplating the “negative theology” of a Meister Eckhart is responsible for the dumbing down of America, I would hate to see what a “smartened up” America would look like.

Quoting Snooki, perhaps?
Click to expand...
John Scotus Eriugena is not considered a Catholic theologian - though he may have considered himself to be one - but more a pantheist and was largely unknown to Catholic theologians of his day.
newadvent.org/cathen/05519a.htm

Meister Eckhart repudiated any of his statements that were questionable and submitted to Pope John XXII, after his writings were called into question, so his writings cannot be accepted as having authoritative weight.
newadvent.org/cathen/05274a.htm

While the Tao Te Ching of LaoTzu has much charm, there is also a great deal of ambiguity in terms of how the words may be read and applied. I would class him as a very wise, “naturally” good and inspired human being along the lines of Socrates or Gandhi, but for all the poetic worth of his writing it is not clear that theological clarity can be attributed to him. The ambiguity in his writing could just as easily lead to error as to truth. Care needs to be taken here.

As far as dumbing down America is concerned, looking at American society, culture, politics and economic policy, it is not clear that there is much at risk. Merely sampling what are considered to be “learning” programs on network television is evidence of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top