Wanna get Deep?

[James_S_Saint]

My Questions to God;

1. What is the foundational logic of the impossibility of indifference?
2. From my situation, what can I do to prevent humans from replacing themselves or each other?

The first question is my qualifier to comment on the second.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My Questions to God;

1. What is the foundational logic of the impossibility of indifference?
2. From my situation, what can I do to prevent humans from replacing themselves or each other?

The first question is my qualifier to comment on the second.

im game, im always ready to be shown my ignorance, happens quite often, my skin is becoming as thick as my skull.

1. the PSR
2. man isnt indifferent to replacement of self, as long as his will is accomplished he may dance to any tune.

admittedly i have no idea what the question even means, but my ignorance speaks as loudly as my knowledge, and i would be loath to silence the whip the drives me on.

 

[Matthias123]

My Questions to God;

1. What is the foundational logic of the impossibility of indifference?
2. From my situation, what can I do to prevent humans from replacing themselves or each other?

The first question is my qualifier to comment on the second.

no idea what the question is. Can you rephrase?

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. the PSR

Acronyms are a bit meaningless to me. What is PSR?

no idea what the question is. Can you rephrase?

The question is one that as far as I can tell, no human, throughout the recorded history humankind, has ever answered. Yet the answer’s actualization is the very essential essence of creation without which there would be no creation at all. All creation after that point has been explained.

Jesus proposed that no human can ever comprehend the answer to that question. It is the only philosophical question that I have never been able to answer. The answer is the very core and make of God himself.

The second question can only be accurately answered by the one who answers the first.

Explanation of the question;

It can be observed and understood that due to difference, all things logically derive. That derivation is currently beyond today’s accepted Science.

Science tends to do as all religions before it. It merely names an observed effect without understanding of its make, thereby creating “superstition”. Notably, the “forces” of magnetism (named after “magic”), gravity, strong, and weak forces are all merely perturbations of the electric force. That electric force is created merely by affect. It could be any affect and from it an entire universe would be spawned.

This does not mean that Science is wrong, but merely “egotistically” ignorant.

The cause to effect of everything after the existence of affect can be logically explained, most with precision and detail. The one question that remains is simply,

"Why MUST there be affect?"

Any difference at all is the creation of affect and has been said to be “God”. All angels are formed from that one actualization. But because difference exists and has apparently done so for all eternity, post and prior, it can be concluded that it is logically impossible for difference to NOT exist. Nothing is possible until something is impossible.

The remaining question is, "Why? - By what logic (reasoning) is it impossible for non-existence to be the state of Reality?

We know that such is the case. The question is "Howcome?"

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Acronyms are a bit meaningless to me. What is PSR?

principle of sufficient reason.

The question is one that as far as I can tell, no human, throughout the recorded history humankind, has ever answered. Yet the answer’s actualization is the very essential essence of creation without which there would be no creation at all. All creation after that point has been explained.

Jesus proposed that no human can ever comprehend the answer to that question. It is the only philosophical question that I have never been able to answer. The answer is the very core and make of God himself.

The second question can only be accurately answered by the one who answers the first.

Explanation of the question;

It can be observed and understood that due to difference, all things logically derive. That derivation is currently beyond today’s accepted Science.

Science tends to do as all religions before it. It merely names an observed effect without understanding of its make, thereby creating “superstition”. Notably, the “forces” of magnetism (named after “magic”), gravity, strong, and weak forces are all merely perturbations of the electric force. That electric force is created merely by affect. It could be any affect and from it an entire universe would be spawned.

This does not mean that Science is wrong, but merely “egotistically” ignorant.

The cause to effect of everything after the existence of affect can be logically explained, most with precision and detail. The one question that remains is simply,

"Why MUST there be affect?"

i dont get this part, what do you mean by affect? the words effect and affect or often confused, and im not that clear how you mean this.

Any difference at all is the creation of affect and has been said to be “God”. All angels are formed from that one actualization. But because difference exists and has apparently done so for all eternity, post and prior, it can be concluded that it is logically impossible for difference to NOT exist. Nothing is possible until something is impossible.

The remaining question is, "Why? - By what logic (reasoning) is it impossible for non-existence to be the state of Reality?

We know that such is the case. The question is "Howcome?"

observation i suppose, cogito ergo sum if pressed, but for me, im coming to the idea that nothing does not exist. non-existence does not exist, there being no “state of nothing” no set that can define nothing, without being nothing. as to the why, i think existence is the predicate defining all things, the greater or lesser degree to which we exist is that difference from which we draw logical inferences, etc. to not exist is then impossible. maybe.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Btw, the answer is also what was actually meant by the term, “First Cause”.

what do you mean by affect? the words effect and affect or often confused, and im not that clear how you mean this.

Affect is the ability to change something. Effect is the result of affect.

i think existence is the predicate defining all things,

With that statement, you just excused God out of the picture entirely. Are you a closet Atheist?

…the greater or lesser degree to which we exist is that difference from which we draw logical inferences, etc. to not exist is then impossible. maybe.

Logic is independent of existence and did not derive from it nor is it altered by any alteration of existence. We could get embarrassingly deep on that one too, but I would rather not get distracted.

 

[Matthias123]

Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): “God is truly and absolutely simple.”

That being said we do know there are differences in the persons of God. As we know in God exists Father, Son and Holy Ghost – one in essence. Could this be the differences that have existed from eternity?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Perhaps I should mention that when I say “indifference”, I am referring not only to emotional indifference, but any difference at all in anything, even subatomic particles and the degree of forces within them - the metaphysical indifference.

 

[Matthias123]

I think that non-being(non-existance) cannot be the state of reality because God himself is being(existance). It is not possible for God(being) to not exist.

Also when did Jesus say that we couldn’t answer this question? (I am not arguing I am just wondering )

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think that non-being(non-existance) cannot be the state of reality because God himself is being(existance). It is not possible for God(being) to not exist.

The question is asking why such is true, not whether it is true.

Also when did Jesus say that we couldn’t answer this question? (I am not arguing I am just wondering )

When he said, “no human can comprehend God”. Or words to that effect.

---

God is “cause of difference”. From that cause (First Cause), all existence comes into being. Moses understood this and utilized it in the plagues of Egypt. Jesus used it to harmonize the disharmony of life created by the misuse of the concept. By thus, Jesus restored life and could ensure its eternal continuance - salvation.

 

[Matthias123]

Well I think being cannot be non-being because it would be contrary to the very essence of being (God)

It seems as if it is a logical contradiction.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well I think being cannot be non-being because it would be contrary to the very essence of being (God)

Well that is a pretty safe statement to make.

It seems as if it is a logical contradiction.

It would be to argue with your first statement. But the question does not propose any need to be contradictory. Such would not be “logical” as requested.

Realize that when I (in particular) say “deep”, I am speaking of the issues that even Jesus could not answer, nor Moses, the Buddha (a plural term), Aristotle, Lao Tzu, or any prophet or philosopher recorded throughout the history of mankind.

This does not necessarily mean that no one has really ever known the answer, but rather that the genius merely was not accepted by the ethos of his time and thus was not recorded and thus unnoticed and forgotten.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Today, many still claim that energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed even though it has been proven that energy certainly CAN be destroyed.

It is destroyed by removing difference. Without difference, energy cannot exist.

The challenge now is how to create energy, to create difference that wasn’t already really there. Man accepts that he has become God because he can destroy difference and can rearrange difference such as to manipulate existence.

But the truth is that he has yet to actually cause difference from that which did not already have difference within.

Of course even if he did, he would merely have control of an “engine of creation”, but could never actually BE the real God, but rather be somewhat as Moses in manipulating what is and maybe, once matured a bit more, even as Jesus in learning to harmonize existence.

 

[Matthias123]

1. If being was non-being
2. Then being would not exist.
3. Therefore non-being will not be able to exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for being to be non-being.

Don’t see any other way around it.

If 1 == 0
Then:
1 != 1
Therefore if 1 == 1
then
1 != 0

I think it is a logical contradiction.

 

[Matthias123]

Today, many still claim that energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed even though it has been proven that energy certainly CAN be destroyed.

It is destroyed by removing difference. Without difference, energy cannot exist.

The challenge now is how to create energy, to create difference that wasn’t already really there. Man accepts that he has become God because he can destroy difference and can rearrange difference such as to manipulate existence.

But the truth is that he has yet to actually cause difference from that which did not already have difference within.

Of course even if he did, he would merely have control of an “engine of creation”, but could never actually BE the real God, but rather be somewhat as Moses in manipulating what is and maybe, once matured a bit more, even as Jesus in learning to harmonize existence.

woaaaaaah that is crazy cool!

 

[Matthias123]

Except for the fact that Jesus’s human nature was special only because of His Divine Nature, in the sense that His human nature can see the face of the Father. While Moses had the closest relationship to God as any man did – he never saw His face. That was for the “greater prophet” the New Moses who would mediate an even greater covenent the the Old. One that would span both ews and Gentiles.

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. If being was non-being
2. Then being would not exist.
3. Therefore non-being will not be able to exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for being to be non-being.

I am not asking about your premise.

You are confusing “Existence” (“Being”) with Reality.

I am not asking why existence is not non-existence. I am asking what logic prevents Reality from having no existence as its state.

Obviously the real state of Reality is that it does have existence and we could not even be asking the question if it were not so. But logic is the set of principles that specify what MUST be true of existence (in a sense, true logic is the voice of God, the Angel Michael). So my question is, “what logic specifies that existence itself must be a part of Reality?”

This is asking, “why, at all, must there be energy?”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My Questions to God;

1. What is the foundational logic of the impossibility of indifference?

It seems that language cannot answer this problem, because language analyzes through the use of distinction. This is not to say that the foundational logic you’re talking about cannot be understood by the human mind, but I very much doubt it can be communicated.

That said, the Trinity itself seems to hint at some sort of “distinction without difference” – or perhaps it would be better to say “personality without distinction”. But that phrasing is awful, too. You see the problem? Words just get in the way when we try to talk about something that is antecedent to the possibility of language.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): “God is truly and absolutely simple.”

That being said we do know there are differences in the persons of God. As we know in God exists Father, Son and Holy Ghost – one in essence. Could this be the differences that have existed from eternity?

Sorry, I had missed that post but now I find the same thought being expressed;

It seems that language cannot answer this problem, because language analyzes through the use of distinction. This is not to say that the foundational logic you’re talking about cannot be understood by the human mind, but I very much doubt it can be communicated.

Certainly in today’s environment of contest, language is a serious issue in that language strongly affects thought. I had enough trouble just getting the question communicated. No telling what the answer might be like.

That said, the Trinity itself seems to hint at some sort of “distinction without difference” – or perhaps it would be better to say “personality without distinction”.

My understanding of the term “Holy Trinity” might not be the proper Catholic understanding and since they invented the term, I’m sure they better know what they intended it to mean.

How I have understood it for a long time is that it is really referring to 3 perspectives or understandings of the same Reality. The Secular world calls this sort of thing “parallel universes”.

If you were raised thinking of God as the “Father”, you might have difficulty grasping how God could be the “Son” as well because of your learned mindset or mental language.

If you were raised thinking of God as the “Holy Ghost”, then you might have difficulty comprehending how it could be the “Father” as well.

I accepted that the Church merely created the term Trinity so as to express that despite the difficulties that learned mental languages pose, those who understand the “Father” concept, those who understand the “Son” concept, and those who understand the “Holy Spirit” concept are all looking at the same thing and need not argue, but rather seek a broader mental view.

Perhaps this is not at all what they intended. It is just what seemed apparent to me.

But this is an issue of learned mental languages in contest. My question is about actual difference within the same understanding, not parallel universes of thought.

 

[wussup]

1. If being was non-being
2. Then being would not exist.
3. Therefore non-being will not be able to exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for being to be non-being.

Don’t see any other way around it.

If 1 == 0
Then:
1 != 1
Therefore if 1 == 1
then
1 != 0

I think it is a logical contradiction.

i believe this to be a syllogistic error