Wanna get Deep?

[warpspeedpetey]

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

no, im not a closet atheist in the least, but i was as a teen and agnostic in practice if not name for most of my twenties. one doesnt drop his mind at the Church door.

from the arguments on contingency, the ontological argument, etc, we come to G-d as the maximal state of being, whose essence is existence. existence is then G-d, there is no reality apart from existence, because that would be nothing, and nothing doesnt exist as anything more than an artifact of language. kant bedamned, but existence is the predicate of all things, he didnt seem to realize that all reality must first exist, or it was nothing. something that cannot exist.

 

[James_S_Saint]

no, im not a closet atheist in the least, but i was as a teen and agnostic in practice if not name for most of my twenties. one doesnt drop his mind at the Church door.

from the arguments on contingency, the ontological argument, etc, we come to G-d as the maximal state of being, whose essence is existence. existence is then G-d, there is no reality apart from existence, because that would be nothing, and nothing doesnt exist as anything more than an artifact of language. kant bedamned, but existence is the predicate of all things, he didnt seem to realize that all reality must first exist, or it was nothing. something that cannot exist.

I would contend that you have been confused by the “strawman” of there actually being an argument.

This is the old Plato issue, but whether they worked it out long ago or not, today it isn’t really an issue (unless you make it one of course).

The resolve concerns whether a principle exists. In the mindset that you are currently displaying, I think you would say, “no. only in the mind”. I could add significant detail to that common response to display the resolve, but this isn’t the thread for it.

And btw, your definition of God has a serious issue with logic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would contend that you have been confused by the “strawman” of there actually being an argument.

i assure you there are a plethora of arguments, im, like many here a Thomist.

This is the old Plato issue, but whether they worked it out long ago or not, today it isn’t really an issue (unless you make it one of course).

i think its still relevant, Plato was one of the first to talk about the tangential issues, but i only draw in theat so much as the Scholastics did, im more influenced by leibniz and modalism, at least right now, im still evolving.

The resolve concerns whether a principle exists. In the mindset that you are currently displaying, I think you would say, “no. only in the mind”. I could add significant detail to that common response to display the resolve, but this isn’t the thread for it.

which principle is that?, admittedly these are deep issues and im somewhat confused here, about what you mean specifically, your not speaking in terms normal to the philosophies ive encountered. i live in the shallow end of the pool unfornutately, can you lay it out in terms specific, that i might get a better grip on it?

And btw, your definition of God has a serious issue with logic.

ok, what error do you see?, im still trying to string it all together, constructive criticism would be appreciated.

have you had any contact with a poster named greylorn?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, I guess a little distraction won’t hurt. No one really reads all the way through these treads anyway.

which principle is that?, admittedly these are deep issues and im somewhat confused here, about what you mean specifically, your not speaking in terms normal to the philosophies ive encountered.

My appologies. I wasn’t referring to a specific principle. The question is, “Does a *principle *have the property of existence outside the mind?”

This turns out to be extremely important in many religious and philosophical concerns.

ok, what error do you see?, im still trying to string it all together, constructive criticism would be appreciated.

G-d as the maximal state of being

1. Does the “maximal state” actually exist?
2. Who determines the “maximal state”?
3. What determines the “maximal state”?
4. What is the definition of “a god” (little “g” from which the cap “G” can be realized)?

After answering all of those, does your “G-d” fit the description given throughout the OT and the NT?

have you had any contact with a poster named greylorn?

I don’t think so, but then I have been gifted with almost perfect forgetfulness.

 

[Matthias123]

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

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.

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.

The Trinity is like an egg – you have the egg shell – you have the egg whites – and you have the egg yolk – however there is still one egg. This trinity is needed if we understand God as Love. Love true love cannot be self-directed. So the Father’s love explodes towards the Son, and the Son’s love explodes towards the Father, and the shared love between them is the Holy Gost.

The Trinity is the hardest thing to describe. However it is written that creation was God the Father’s plan, and God the Son actualized it through the Holy Ghost. So I am thinking that God the Father is the Formal cause, God the Son is the efficient cause and the Holy Ghost is the affect. One person cannot do more then one role because the persons are equal. They are one in being, the one true God. So perhaps asking why there has to be an affect is asking why there has to be God the Holy Ghost?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Although I’m sure that I understand what you are saying, I think that the “egg” example is not the way to go. {is too easy to argue details}

“Father” == impetus (just as the sperm and egg example) - Cause (Affect)/Creator/Priori

“Son” == the actuality or manifestation of the same pattern (image) - Effect/“Created identical pattern”/“Physical replication of the spiritual principle”

“Holy Spirit” == Whole (Holy) cause and effect principle - Motion/Change/Creating/“Whole Balanced Spirit”

In all things there is the impetus, the effect, and the flow/spirit.

In Science terms, this is merely saying that all things are made of energy.

And yes, basically, I am asking why there logically MUST be a God within Reality. But I am NOT, NOT!!, asking for proof that there is God. I am specifically asking for the logic that would dis-permit any Reality from being void of that which creates a universe, God.

Or, "Why couldn’t Reality have been without anything affecting anything and thus empty?"

 

[Matthias123]

hmmm well God must exist because he is being.

Why does being have no potential not to exist? Well becausae he is pure actually, he can’t have potential not to exist.

So why must there be God (being)? Because…well…ummm…then there would be cheeky people like us asking questoins.

I think it is beyond human reason.

Who can claim to comprehend God? Like Thomas Aquinas said, compared to God, all this philosophy in the end is just straw.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think it is beyond human reason.

Well it might just be, but then that is why I said, “My questions to God;”

Like Thomas Aquinas said, compared to God, all this philosophy in the end is just straw.

True, but then bricks get tough to make without straw.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I guess a little distraction won’t hurt. No one really reads all the way through these treads anyway.

My appologies. I wasn’t referring to a specific principle. The question is, “Does a *principle *have the property of existence outside the mind?”

This turns out to be extremely important in many religious and philosophical concerns.

i wouldnt say so, though we speak of them that way i think we usually refer to things as an act rarther than the principle that describes it.

1. Does the “maximal state” actually exist?

sure the maximal state of any quality is perfection, to lack nothing in that quality. in being that is existence. to be a perfect in being is to be unlimited in existence.

1. Who determines the “maximal state”?
2. What determines the “maximal state”?

nothing, its a function of perfection, completeness.

1. What is the definition of “a god” (little “g” from which the cap “G” can be realized)?

for me there is no little g. the definition would be the maximal state of being.

After answering all of those, does your “G-d” fit the description given throughout the OT and the NT?

i dont see a contradiction, this a traditional explanation, modalized.
I don’t think so, but then I have been gifted with almost perfect forgetfulness.

 

[fhansen]

Or, "Why couldn’t Reality have been without anything affecting anything and thus empty?"

Because then there wouldn’t be anything other than itself, whatever it is. But if it possessed mind and will and willed to create that which we know, we might conceive of that Reality as God. Just a stab.

 

[fhansen]

Or, "Why couldn’t Reality have been without anything affecting anything and thus empty?"

For anything to have been implies existence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

For anything to have been implies existence.

Yes, but the alternative is to pose the question this way:

Why couldn’t

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

It is true because it is impossible for there to be absolutely nothing. If there were absolutely nothing, then it would be true that there was absolutely nothing; but then it would be something because it would be objectively true that there was absolutely nothing, but there is no truth in that which is absolutely not real. Thus it cannot ever be state of how things truly are. Thus there must be an “ultimate reality” that is by definition “ontological and absolute truth” and it also must be an “eternal and perfect act”, which is just another way of saying that there is a being that is existence by nature rather then by participation. This “existence”, would have the highest degree of power, because a being which is as such that it defines the difference between being and non-being cannot be limited in any way accept by its own nature; it must exist perfectly; and thus there is meaning in such being by necessity of its nature. Since we can see that there are beings which change and potentially exist and are limited, it must be the case that existence has the power to create other realities; the power to bring other potential truths into actual existence. This ultimate reality, we call God.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It is true because it is impossible for there to be absolutely nothing.

“It is impossible because it is impossible” …? emm… thks.

If there were absolutely nothing, then it would be true that there was absolutely nothing; but then it would be something because it would be objectively true that there was absolutely nothing, but there is no truth in that which is absolutely not real.

You seem to be asserting that any true statement necessitates existence. Although I agree that any statement being made requires that the one making the statement already exist, such a thought is not in the question at hand.

I don’t see how the truth that Reality is empty would necessitate that it not be. How does a “truth” of a situation alter the situation itself?

Can’t I say, “the box is empty” without that truth filling the box with something, “a truth” maybe? Or are you saying that universal emptiness would be an object in itself? I have to disagree with that in that for an object to exist, there must also be a non-object.

 

[ELROD]

Dear James, please, take your medication, just like the Dr. told you and try to get some rest!

 

[fhansen]

Yes, but the alternative is to pose the question this way:

Right, like if one thinks about it hard enough, why couldn’t…there be married bachelors?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t see how the truth that Reality is empty would necessitate that it not be.

Reality is by definition that which is “real”. Absolute nothingness is not real, thus there is no truth in it; there is no objectivity or being. Nothing is merely a privation of being. It is not a thing or a reality in itself. For instance, to say that something is empty is not the same as saying that nothing objectively exists, since you are saying that there is “something” which is empty; thus there is something that exists which is empty. But absolute nothingness is nothing at all, no truth, no being, no reality. Thus it cannot be an objective truth about reality.

I have to disagree with that in that for an object to exist, there must also be a non-object.

I see no reasonable reason why you should disagree. What do you mean by a non-object, and what do you mean by implying that it must also exist in relation to an object? A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time. It either exists or it doesn’t. There is no such thing as that which does not exist. It is meaningless to speak of it as a reality or a state of being or a truth. Truth deals with that which is real; that which is true of beings or reality. Unreality has no truth in it. To say that Mark no longer exists, is to speak of a privation in respect of that which exists.

There is simply beings which participate in that which is absolute being. There is no such thing as an objective absolute nothing. When one says that there is nothing in a room, one is not speaking of a positive entity. One is merely describing that in this particular room there are no objects, accept for the “room”. In either case there is always a real object, whether its the room or any entities that might exist inside the room. An object cannot exist in nothing, since nothing is a privation of being; its not a being.

Why is such a simple truth so difficult for people to understand? I really don’t understand why you cannot see it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

More and more evidence of why such a question must be asked of God. Humans, in this primordial state, have too much trouble merely understanding the question, not to mention the logic required to actually answer it.

And also displays the impetus for making question (1) the qualifier for question (2).

{{shallow fish can’t swim in deep waters}}

 

[fhansen]

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.

I’ll take a wild stab at your question.

Selfishness/narcissism desire isolation-nothing other than self. Love desires variation-something to love outside of self-or even more than self. The reason why Reality would desire -and thus cause -difference, is because it loves. The ultimate expression of that difference is another, separate, reality that can also love. Difference is the logical expression of a Reality that loves.

The answer to #2, although I’m really not quite sure I understand it, is that the affected difference-us, that part of creation that also has the capacity to love- must, for righteousness’ sake, fall in line with this order and choose to love as well.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’ll take a wild stab at your question.

Selfishness/narcissism desire isolation-nothing other than self. Love desires variation-something to love outside of self-or even more than self. The reason why Reality would desire -and thus cause -difference, is because it loves. The ultimate expression of that difference is another, separate, reality that can also love. Difference is the logical expression of a Reality that loves.

The answer to #2, although I’m really not quite sure I understand it, is that the affected difference-us, that part of creation that also has the capacity to love- must, for righteousness’ sake, fall in line with this order and choose to love as well.

Thats a very interesting take on the subject.