J
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
God cannot will the existence of a square triangle anymore than God can will evil. It is logically impossible for God to do evil. It is logically impossible for God to will the existence of a square-triangle. Its not simply a matter of whim. Such things cannot possibly exist in Gods nature. Gods will is the same thing as his act of reality; and therefore to do good and to love is what it literally means for God to exist full-stop. God does not choose the standard, he is the standard!!! The possibility that God could do evil, alone would make God cease to exist as a perfect reality; and the same would be true in regards to the possibility of a square triangle since it is a contradiction of the intrinsic and perfect order of esse. God is the existential antithesis of a square triangle. Omniscience or Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything we can conceive of or do. It never did and never will.God cannot contradict God; thus a square-triangle cannot exist; it is nothing and therefore meaningless.
Exactly. It is because God does not will it that it does not exist.
Jesus was both fully a man and fully divine. His divinity was not his humanity, and his humanity was not his divinity. Jesus as a merely a “man” is called God only insofar as the fact that Jesus is also the word of God incarnate - the Christ. However, the physical object (the homosapien) through which the word was expressed is not by itself “divine”, but was rather a finite representation (or an analogy if you prefer) of Gods living word to mankind. Jesus Christ is also representative of what “man is by its true nature” when in conformity to Gods will. It is clearly not the same thing as a square triangle.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Mind
I’ve lost track of why we seem to be in disagreement.
All I’ve said is that we shouldn’t say God cannot do certain things that seem impossible to us. The reason they seem impossible to us is that God has not willed them to be possible.
But when you say God cannot do certain things, you are placing limitations on Omnipotence. Either God is omnipotent or He is not. If God does not will something, that is as much a part of His omnipotence as what He wills. God does not will evil because that would oppose His Goodness. It is not that He can’t will evil. It is that He will not will evil. That is what makes Him God … Infinitely Good Omnipotence.
So again, I say never say God cannot do anything. There are things He wills to do, and things He wills not to do. In neither case is His omnipotence subject to challenge.
But because we are not Omnipotent, we can do both good and evil. But our doing evil is a sign that we will evil, and therefore are less than Omnipotent.
Jesus was not a Man here and a God over there. He was a God-Man. This is a mystery of our faith, and is at least as incomprehensible as a square triangle. But the Son chose to be God-Man, and that expressed his omnipotence. It is not that being God-Man was impossible. It is that He did it and by doing so demonstrated Omnipotence.
It is not that God cannot create a stone so large He cannot lift it. It is that He would not have any reason to will to do so, and that it is silly of us to even ask such a question.
I’ve lost track of why we seem to be in disagreement.
All I’ve said is that we shouldn’t say God cannot do certain things that seem impossible to us. The reason they seem impossible to us is that God has not willed them to be possible.
But when you say God cannot do certain things, you are placing limitations on Omnipotence. Either God is omnipotent or He is not. If God does not will something, that is as much a part of His omnipotence as what He wills. God does not will evil because that would oppose His Goodness. It is not that He can’t will evil. It is that He will not will evil. That is what makes Him God … Infinitely Good Omnipotence.
So again, I say never say God cannot do anything. There are things He wills to do, and things He wills not to do. In neither case is His omnipotence subject to challenge.
But because we are not Omnipotent, we can do both good and evil. But our doing evil is a sign that we will evil, and therefore are less than Omnipotent.
Jesus was not a Man here and a God over there. He was a God-Man. This is a mystery of our faith, and is at least as incomprehensible as a square triangle. But the Son chose to be God-Man, and that expressed his omnipotence. It is not that being God-Man was impossible. It is that He did it and by doing so demonstrated Omnipotence.
It is not that God cannot create a stone so large He cannot lift it. It is that He would not have any reason to will to do so, and that it is silly of us to even ask such a question.
T
tdgesq
Guest
I haven’t.Mind
I’ve lost track of why we seem to be in disagreement.
The question is whether God can will a logical contradiction. Can God be both omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time in the same sense? No.
On the contrary, everybody should proclaim that God cannot do certain things: like be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time and in the same sense. If you disagree, please cite a dogmatic teaching of the Church that requires your conclusion, or even suggests it for that matter.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
On the contrary, everybody should proclaim that God cannot do certain things: like be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time and in the same sense. If you disagree, please cite a dogmatic teaching of the Church that requires your conclusion, or even suggests it for that matter.
The Eucharist is both Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine simultaneously. That is a contradiction … and a doctrine.
God does not will to be not omnipotent. Why would He even try? How silly are you going to get?
Again, you are putting cans and can’ts on God, Who is omnipotent and not subject to your human judgments of what He can or cannot do.
STOP saying God cannot do this or that. God does what He wills to do. Period!
Tell me where it says in the Bible or in the Catechism that God’s omnipotence is limited by our idea of things He cannot do, that make Him therefore less than omnipotent.
The Eucharist is both Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine simultaneously. That is a contradiction … and a doctrine.
God does not will to be not omnipotent. Why would He even try? How silly are you going to get?
Again, you are putting cans and can’ts on God, Who is omnipotent and not subject to your human judgments of what He can or cannot do.
STOP saying God cannot do this or that. God does what He wills to do. Period!
Tell me where it says in the Bible or in the Catechism that God’s omnipotence is limited by our idea of things He cannot do, that make Him therefore less than omnipotent.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Sorry to say, but you do not hold a correct view of God. To be God is to be perfect. To be God is to be good. To be God is to be the antithesis of nothing. These are not potential attributes that God chooses to have. They are intrinsic aspects of what “God” is by nature and what God means.
To say otherwise is to promote heresy.
J
JDaniel
Guest
TDG:
That wouldn’t be a “logical” contradiction. Rather, that would be an ontological contradiction.
Hmmm. . . I’m not so sure that that is correct. I can certainly see why He wouldn’t do that. But, I’m not absolutely sure that Omnipotent Being cannot self-annihilate. (If He were to will such a thing, I hope He has a backup plan, a way to re-boot, so to speak.) I think God can do anything, but just doesn’t do things that are irrelevant.
That’s an unsatisfactory response to your question, I know, but, though it may be unsatisfactory, it is not, thereby, untrue. Omni-being does not do that which would make it non-being. All of God’s attributes are positive and perfect (even though some can only be made intelligible to us through their negations). Self-annihilation would be a negative attribute, implying an imperfection in God. But, we are given to understand, from our own logic and from Revelation, that God is the (Perfect) act of Perfection. Now, perfection and omnipotence do not stand alone. In other words, it’s either all of God’s determinants, i.e., a package-deal, or none of them. So, each determinant has an a priori, perhaps circular manner of existence with all of God’s other determinants. They are so bound to God that God is said to be His determinants.
God’s determinants are His nature. I don’t think the notion of not being His nature would ever enter His thoughts. In the same way, a cat can easily self-annihilate, but the idea never occurs to it. So, it’s not a matter of “cannot,” it’s a matter of “does” not.
Can God Will a logical contradiction? I would say that He can. He can alter “logic” so that we mere humans would not recognize it. Can He make a square circle? Of course; He could easily alter our naming convention.
God bless,
jd
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Mind
**
Sorry to say, but you do not hold a correct view of God. To be God is to be perfect. To be God is to be good. To be God is to be the antithesis of nothing. These are not potential attributes that God chooses to have. They are intrinsic aspects of what “God” is by nature and what God means. **
You want to put words in my mouth. Where did I say God is not perfect?
**
Sorry to say, but you do not hold a correct view of God. To be God is to be perfect. To be God is to be good. To be God is to be the antithesis of nothing. These are not potential attributes that God chooses to have. They are intrinsic aspects of what “God” is by nature and what God means. **
You want to put words in my mouth. Where did I say God is not perfect?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
JDaniel
**Can God Will a logical contradiction? I would say that He can. **
Yes, He has already done it. He has made His Body and Blood appear to be mere bread and wine … thereby annihilating the logical principle of self-identity.
He willed that contradiction because it was necessary. He did not ask Himself if He could or could not do it. He just willed it … and it was so.
Every miracle is a logical contradiction in mere secular logic.
**Can God Will a logical contradiction? I would say that He can. **
Yes, He has already done it. He has made His Body and Blood appear to be mere bread and wine … thereby annihilating the logical principle of self-identity.
He willed that contradiction because it was necessary. He did not ask Himself if He could or could not do it. He just willed it … and it was so.
Every miracle is a logical contradiction in mere secular logic.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
T
tdgesq
Guest
Actually, it is both. The logical law of non-contradiction as stated by Aristotle: "It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect.” In symbolic logic, ~(p & ~p), or (S is P) and (S is not P) where they are mutually exhaustive and mutually inconsistent. The statement “God (S) is omnipotent (P) and God (S) is not omnipotent (P)” involves a logical contradiction. It is not logically possible.
As you observed, it is also not possible for such a state of affairs to ontologically exist. Why? Because the laws of logic apply to reality. In fact, there is no possible world in which God can be both omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time and in the same sense.
Logic is more than just some arbitrary tool that God created that may be changed. It reflects the mind of God. If the premises of a valid syllogism are true then the conclusion must also be true. If God can alter the laws of logic then apparently he can also alter the truth. “As in God the subject (of cognition), the object (of cognition), and the act of cognition, are identical, it follows that God is The Absolute Logical Truth.” Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 33.
If God has the ability to “do anything,” then does he also have the ability to not “do anything” at the same time and in the same sense? Yea or nay?
J
JDaniel
Guest
TDG:
You are correct: it is an apparent ontological impossibility reduced to a logical proposition a priori. And, you must certainly see that that which is ontologically contradictory holds the weight and power over the merely logical. In fact, it would appear that Aristotle recognized the law of non-contradiction from an ontological ground: because the law of non-contradiction is indemonstrable.
TDG, you are still going back and forth by conflating ontological with logical; can you see that? The dilemma you presented is an ontological scenario that just happens to fit the bill for a logical principle. If you had said “ontological,” in the first place, there would not have been any confusion. There are things that are not ontologically possible but are not logically impossible. Such as,
(1) Whatever astronomical theory is mathematically certain is the true theory of heavenly movements.
(2) The geocentric theory is mathematically certain.
(3) Therefore, the geocentric theory is the true theory of heavenly movements.
Here we have an example of the ontology of the heavenly movements around the earth. The first and second premises are correct and true. Yet, today, we know the conclusion to be false. If we would but change one word in the first and second terms, a new conclusion would appear that would be logically correct, i.e., it would correspond with ontological truth. We know that the Ptolemaic theory was very complicated and the Copernican theory was much simpler. Simply replace the word “certain,” in terms 1 and 2, with the word “simple,” and Voilà!
God can be both Omnipotent and non-omnipotent logically. In the logical proposition the two additional parameters: “at the same time” and “in the same respect,” do not have to be in the proposition at all (as you no doubt know). For example, the Creation of being requires omnipotent productive energy, but, God’s Loving contemplation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, do not require it. In one scenario, God exercises His Omnipotence (as omnipotent “productive” energy); in the other, He does not. Both Omnipotence and non-omnipotence exist simultaneously in one God. It’s harder to see Omnipotence simultaneously with non-omnipotence from an ontological viewpoint. We sense the effects of His creative activity, but, we do not sense anything of His contemplation of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Then you limit God.
A bold statement from such a tiny perch.
See above.
He can alter the laws of logic to comport more with Truth, despite our sentiments.
I absolutely agree.
Earlier, in another thread entitled, Can God Uncreate (I think), St. Thomas was pointed out as having said in one article that God could annihilate, then, in the very next, He said that He doesn’t annihilate. So, I’m in good company.
God bless,
jd
T
tdgesq
Guest
All knowledge originally comes to us through the senses. The laws of thought and logic are abstracted from sensory experience. The most basic of these is the law of non-contradiction. Ontological reality only takes temporal precedence. We perceive empirical reality prior to abstracting logical concepts from it. If you are suggesting that the ground of the law of non-contradiction (LNC) is merely from inductive evidence (on the evidence that no physical example of a contradiction has been observed) then you don’t understand Aristotle, or Aquinas for that matter. The laws of logic are not based merely on inductive evidence, but rather, on abstraction of universal concepts from sensory experience.
The primary value of our ability to abstract universal principles (logic) from particular instances of ontological reality is just that - the principles are universal. And not just as applied to abstract symbolic notations, but as applied to reality. There is no conflict, as you suggest, between logical impossibility and “ontological impossibility.” Valid logical propositions that contain in their premises truths (or untruths) about reality are valuable precisely because the truth or falsity of the conclusion tells us something true or false about the ontological.
I’m afraid it is you who is confused. I posited that all logically impossible propositions that contain ontological content are also ontologically impossible. If you disagree, then not only have you destroyed the universality of the laws of logic (in which case you should stop discussion now since you can’t be certain any of your arguments are logical), but it also begs the question as to what would ever constitute an ontological impossibility.
I didn’t think I needed to since a logically impossible state of affairs is also ontologically impossible (usually referred to as practically impossible or just “impossible.”) Unless of course you want to proclaim that logic does not apply to ontological scenarios, which destroys knowledge.
So what? I completely agree with that. My point is that anything that is logically impossible is also ontologically impossible. Not the converse!
The two “additional parameters,” as you refer to them, are necessary. Otherwise we are not describing LNC. Assuming you accept this, you just affirmed a logical contradiction. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The proposition: “God (S) is omnipotent (P) and God (S) is not omnipotent (P)” satisfies the definition of LNC. It is a logical contradiction by definition, regardless of your feelings otherwise.
These are not just my uninformed opinions. I didn’t originate these ideas. The Catholic Church and dogmatic theologians did:
- God “can neither deceive nor be deceived.” First Vatican Council, Chapter 3, para. 2.
- “As God’s power is identical with God’s Essence, it cannot imply anything which contradicts the Essence and Attributes of God. Thus God cannot change, cannot lie, can make nothing that has happened not to have happened . . . cannot realise anything which is contradictory in itself.” Ott, FCD p.47. (God is almighty. De fide.)
- “It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.” S. th. I 25, 3.
T
tdgesq
Guest
. . . continued
I answer that, As was said above (Question 7, Article 2), there does not fall under the scope of God’s omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction. Now that the past should not have been implies a contradiction. For as it implies a contradiction to say that Socrates is sitting, and is not sitting, so does it to say that he sat, and did not sit. But to say that he did sit is to say that it happened in the past. To say that he did not sit, is to say that it did not happen. Whence, that the past should not have been, does not come under the scope of divine power. This is what Augustine means when he says (Contra Faust. xxix, 5): “Whosoever says, If God is almighty, let Him make what is done as if it were not done, does not see that this is to say: If God is almighty let Him effect that what is true, by the very fact that it is true, be false”: and the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2): “Of this one thing alone is God deprived–namely, to make undone the things that have been done.”
S. th. I 25, 4.
Why not? Because it violates LNC. The bottom line is, God cannot do things that conflict with his essence. It makes him less powerful, less perfect to assert otherwise.
Lol. Aquinas unequivocally taught that God cannot uncreate the past:Earlier, in another thread entitled, Can God Uncreate (I think), St. Thomas was pointed out as having said in one article that God could annihilate, then, in the very next, He said that He doesn’t annihilate. So, I’m in good company.
I answer that, As was said above (Question 7, Article 2), there does not fall under the scope of God’s omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction. Now that the past should not have been implies a contradiction. For as it implies a contradiction to say that Socrates is sitting, and is not sitting, so does it to say that he sat, and did not sit. But to say that he did sit is to say that it happened in the past. To say that he did not sit, is to say that it did not happen. Whence, that the past should not have been, does not come under the scope of divine power. This is what Augustine means when he says (Contra Faust. xxix, 5): “Whosoever says, If God is almighty, let Him make what is done as if it were not done, does not see that this is to say: If God is almighty let Him effect that what is true, by the very fact that it is true, be false”: and the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 2): “Of this one thing alone is God deprived–namely, to make undone the things that have been done.”
S. th. I 25, 4.
Why not? Because it violates LNC. The bottom line is, God cannot do things that conflict with his essence. It makes him less powerful, less perfect to assert otherwise.
J
JDaniel
Guest
TDG:
But, in this sense, God is not unable to do a thing because of the LNC, but because it would mean that God contains imperfection. God’s Supreme Wisdom, i.e., Perfect Knowledge, guides His Perfect Will. A Perfect Will chooses a good from indifference. IOW, God needs not do anything except Will and Love Himself (by a necessity of His nature). And, since God is not necessitated to this act by anything outside Himself, He is absolutely free from all coercion.
Further, this activity of Perfect Will is of His essence. As we do not change our being from human to fish, God does not change His being from one essence to another. It is not the LNC that is causing this to be so, as the LNC would restrict God, and a god that is not unrestricted is not God. But, we can certainly say that God grounds the LNC, inasmuch as God is Truth.
St. Thomas’s article is all about ontological contradiction, i.e., a contradiction from Reality, not a contradiction from an abstraction. Reality is first and the abstraction (which is the LNC verbalized) is second and derived.
God bless,
jd
B
BubbaFL
Guest
I would humbly rephrase that to say that it is God’s will that pi is a constant 3.1415927…
If He so desired, pi could become non-constant and make possible the “impossible circle” being discussed. This would, of course, cause radical changes in reality as we know it.
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
Well…(part one, criticism very welcome
Lets say we take 100 examples of imaginary people with assigned personalities at a crosswalk.
The people in our experiment range in emotional stability from 1 through to 100.
A truck is coming full steam ahead.
a)The individual with highest emotional stability 100, has a choice. He can wait for the truck to pass, or he can step out in front of the truck and get demolished.
b)The individual with lowest emotional stability 1, also has a choice. He can wait for the truck to pass, or he can step out in front of the truck and get demolished.
In all 100 examples make an imaginary graph showing the individual danger from very very high to very very low, relative to a choice, in stepping out in front of the truck.
The line from very very high risk…toward very very low risk of danger may appear in perfect diagonal proportion, ( taking into acount a perfect selection of individuals and all unconscious activity) …representing a choice in being very compelled to walking out, to not compelled at all.
What we will see is a marked requirement for choice in the middle of the graph, and virtually no choice required for the two extremes.
In order to make a choice which has significance in the necessary volume of what choice suggests…“the perimeters allowing for the requisites of choice must exist and represent themselves”, otherwise there is little to no choice as seen in graph, at shown extremes.
It would then be both fair & reasonable to have a look at the properties of choice and its inseparable relationship with need. The only way a quantifiable choice can be introduced is out of a need to give consequence, to acknowledged perimeters in a given occurrence.
Our graph easily demonstrates these above un-deniable characteristics in human emotion-behavior, relative to our understandings in expressed need , power or will and outcome.
By the understandings of choice, the only way a quantifiable choice can be in motion and require its property deliberation, is if there is need to express a desired perimeter expressing the “need for deliberation in the choice itself”
The number 100 individual with really no choice but to wait for the truck to pass, requires no deliberation, therefore there is no choice, although the power for the choice exists, the will in self preservation is “not” implicated. No decision exists as logically there is no need for a decision. The momentum of stability is 100 and in complete conformity with the perimeter self survival. There is no choice, no deliberation, the will is not subject to alternate options although available. Therefore relative to crossing the street the 100 individual does NOT engage the properties of the will, nor choice. The 100 hundred individual can only “be” in this instance an expression of already confirmed characteristics
of personality allowing maximum stability.
Above individual in this example is simply a momentum of individual stability. There is no will, there is no choice, there is no temptation in the exposure to perimeter allowing for choice. He has out-powered the circumstance of deliberation. Deliberation is thus eliminated from the equation.
Creator would be a momentum of itself, without a quantifiable subjectivity to choice. God would have no choice in anything but, to be God. A momentum. Not the will of God…the momentum of God. Thinking and choosing is for choice. Choice is for biological existence.
God cannot think to construct a square circle, because God is a momentum, not a conspiring entity like the human tricky dicky biological entity. God does not think, he is simply God-momentum.
God is also not aware of anything which contradicts his perfect god like momentum So…when we have the Holocaust and unspeakable rapes of young children, these hateful mind dispositions are entirely cut off from God because he cannot fix anything in experience to understand or conceive the nothingness in the atrocity of anti thought. The horror in the victim and recourse to order in god, would be the only comprehension possible to the higher power. This partly explains and I may get into this later, the mystery in saints being terribly stretched out or the like and having no pain. The dedication and benevolence of god is so strong that a union between saint and god is made…the saint then cannot mentally acknowledge the physical happenings and thus like god…does not comprehend such…
Lets say we take 100 examples of imaginary people with assigned personalities at a crosswalk.
The people in our experiment range in emotional stability from 1 through to 100.
A truck is coming full steam ahead.
a)The individual with highest emotional stability 100, has a choice. He can wait for the truck to pass, or he can step out in front of the truck and get demolished.
b)The individual with lowest emotional stability 1, also has a choice. He can wait for the truck to pass, or he can step out in front of the truck and get demolished.
In all 100 examples make an imaginary graph showing the individual danger from very very high to very very low, relative to a choice, in stepping out in front of the truck.
The line from very very high risk…toward very very low risk of danger may appear in perfect diagonal proportion, ( taking into acount a perfect selection of individuals and all unconscious activity) …representing a choice in being very compelled to walking out, to not compelled at all.
What we will see is a marked requirement for choice in the middle of the graph, and virtually no choice required for the two extremes.
In order to make a choice which has significance in the necessary volume of what choice suggests…“the perimeters allowing for the requisites of choice must exist and represent themselves”, otherwise there is little to no choice as seen in graph, at shown extremes.
It would then be both fair & reasonable to have a look at the properties of choice and its inseparable relationship with need. The only way a quantifiable choice can be introduced is out of a need to give consequence, to acknowledged perimeters in a given occurrence.
Our graph easily demonstrates these above un-deniable characteristics in human emotion-behavior, relative to our understandings in expressed need , power or will and outcome.
By the understandings of choice, the only way a quantifiable choice can be in motion and require its property deliberation, is if there is need to express a desired perimeter expressing the “need for deliberation in the choice itself”
The number 100 individual with really no choice but to wait for the truck to pass, requires no deliberation, therefore there is no choice, although the power for the choice exists, the will in self preservation is “not” implicated. No decision exists as logically there is no need for a decision. The momentum of stability is 100 and in complete conformity with the perimeter self survival. There is no choice, no deliberation, the will is not subject to alternate options although available. Therefore relative to crossing the street the 100 individual does NOT engage the properties of the will, nor choice. The 100 hundred individual can only “be” in this instance an expression of already confirmed characteristics
of personality allowing maximum stability.
Above individual in this example is simply a momentum of individual stability. There is no will, there is no choice, there is no temptation in the exposure to perimeter allowing for choice. He has out-powered the circumstance of deliberation. Deliberation is thus eliminated from the equation.
Creator would be a momentum of itself, without a quantifiable subjectivity to choice. God would have no choice in anything but, to be God. A momentum. Not the will of God…the momentum of God. Thinking and choosing is for choice. Choice is for biological existence.
God cannot think to construct a square circle, because God is a momentum, not a conspiring entity like the human tricky dicky biological entity. God does not think, he is simply God-momentum.
God is also not aware of anything which contradicts his perfect god like momentum So…when we have the Holocaust and unspeakable rapes of young children, these hateful mind dispositions are entirely cut off from God because he cannot fix anything in experience to understand or conceive the nothingness in the atrocity of anti thought. The horror in the victim and recourse to order in god, would be the only comprehension possible to the higher power. This partly explains and I may get into this later, the mystery in saints being terribly stretched out or the like and having no pain. The dedication and benevolence of god is so strong that a union between saint and god is made…the saint then cannot mentally acknowledge the physical happenings and thus like god…does not comprehend such…
F
FurtherSuntime
Guest
Continuing…Part 2 (criticism welcome
There seems to be allot of talk about determinism and free will., gods will ect ect
If you all are going to maintain that we have a higher power, then you are all obliged to recognizing the perimeters of his creation to conform with, the higher power itself.
So…no matter what…if Babe Ruth, John Wayne, or Rusty Red makes something , that something is somewhat determined to be within the perimeters of the creator …even if its god.
I have some thoughts on these issues and thought I would toss a couple of things out first.
We have our free will I would think, but it is not only relative but variable in an accelerated progression toward choice which must in fact represent all contributed reasoning.
So does the higher power know our outcome and whats going on anyway? God does not know anything other then his God momentum. He does not need to think and conspire, that is what thinking is…conspiring toward whatever. These are all personal and fanciful ideas which since the idea of the Sun God man tries to reach out and grab the Sun
How could the Sun not , be the nose right in front of our face with regards to a God momentum, simple sunshine when out from cover. An array of nutrients which are healing but…only in allowable proportion to a reasonably paced progress toward order…IOW…we can only progress one step at a time otherwise the skin will burn.
So to recap…
The Higher power obliges a determined perimeter in that all good relative to all, including individual consequence at lifes end, will win out in the end. It is not a thought out will or contrived thinking, it is the Higher Power Momentum of itself being, God.
God only knows you when you are in union with him as being out from the shade in sunlight and fresh air. He does not comprehend or know the intracasies of failure as a child could not possibly be tutored in an understanding of the hatred in the mind of a soldier shoveling the fathers lively body into a furnace. Its just not possible. There is nothing what so ever in experiencing to allow the comprehension. Innocence and simplicity is important to understand…you cannot have one without the other and not include complexity…(a bed of simple grass with the complex root system…also interesting much like the progress of man.
My view is that God would be simple in function, yet very complex in construction or diversified unity within the one entity. The unity is important to understand as well, God would be all unity as…we know in our experience of mutual god like consciousness and flecks of God or stardust, unity is our chief quest, individually in stability of mind and body, allowing for collective unity allowing for mutual progress and flourish…Gods momentum…not will.
The elements of individual and collective human history relative to a determined outcome are in a sense real, but, they are subject to a path in progress which represents our free will.
There seems to be allot of talk about determinism and free will., gods will ect ect
If you all are going to maintain that we have a higher power, then you are all obliged to recognizing the perimeters of his creation to conform with, the higher power itself.
So…no matter what…if Babe Ruth, John Wayne, or Rusty Red makes something , that something is somewhat determined to be within the perimeters of the creator …even if its god.
I have some thoughts on these issues and thought I would toss a couple of things out first.
We have our free will I would think, but it is not only relative but variable in an accelerated progression toward choice which must in fact represent all contributed reasoning.
So does the higher power know our outcome and whats going on anyway? God does not know anything other then his God momentum. He does not need to think and conspire, that is what thinking is…conspiring toward whatever. These are all personal and fanciful ideas which since the idea of the Sun God man tries to reach out and grab the Sun
How could the Sun not , be the nose right in front of our face with regards to a God momentum, simple sunshine when out from cover. An array of nutrients which are healing but…only in allowable proportion to a reasonably paced progress toward order…IOW…we can only progress one step at a time otherwise the skin will burn.
So to recap…
The Higher power obliges a determined perimeter in that all good relative to all, including individual consequence at lifes end, will win out in the end. It is not a thought out will or contrived thinking, it is the Higher Power Momentum of itself being, God.
God only knows you when you are in union with him as being out from the shade in sunlight and fresh air. He does not comprehend or know the intracasies of failure as a child could not possibly be tutored in an understanding of the hatred in the mind of a soldier shoveling the fathers lively body into a furnace. Its just not possible. There is nothing what so ever in experiencing to allow the comprehension. Innocence and simplicity is important to understand…you cannot have one without the other and not include complexity…(a bed of simple grass with the complex root system…also interesting much like the progress of man.
My view is that God would be simple in function, yet very complex in construction or diversified unity within the one entity. The unity is important to understand as well, God would be all unity as…we know in our experience of mutual god like consciousness and flecks of God or stardust, unity is our chief quest, individually in stability of mind and body, allowing for collective unity allowing for mutual progress and flourish…Gods momentum…not will.
The elements of individual and collective human history relative to a determined outcome are in a sense real, but, they are subject to a path in progress which represents our free will.
- Status