|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2022 22:52:43 GMT
1. God is universal.
2. As universal God is fully aware.
3. As fully aware God must know all things.
4. As part of all things God must know what it is like to not know all things (as not knowing all things is a subset to knowing all things.
5. God must both know and not know all things.
6. Point 5 is a contradiction therefore if point 5 is true God is contradictory.
7. God as contradictory is beyond the senses, as contradictions do not make sense.
8. This beyond the senses is necessary for God to be universal and we cycle back to point 3.
9. For God to be universal God must be both contradictory and not contradictory and this is a contradiction.
10. The universality of God results in Contradiction.
11. God is beyond the senses thus is beyond being.
12. God is no-thing.
13. As no-thing God is the foundation of being under the introduced premise that being is founded in nothing as only being exists (only being existing makes being without contrast thus indefinite).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 10, 2022 18:28:38 GMT
a) God is not universal = because God doesn't have to be universal
b) God is not fully aware = because it's possible for God to not know something still being God
a) = God is God, and God is not non-God. If God is universal, then there is nothing else, except for God, since this isn't true, God isn't universal
b) = God's knowledge >> anyone else's knowledge. If God knows 100%, and someone else knows 10%, then even if God knows only 90% God still knows much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 16, 2022 19:51:44 GMT
a) God is not universal = because God doesn't have to be universal b) God is not fully aware = because it's possible for God to not know something still being God a) = God is God, and God is not non-God. If God is universal, then there is nothing else, except for God, since this isn't true, God isn't universal b) = God's knowledge >> anyone else's knowledge. If God knows 100%, and someone else knows 10%, then even if God knows only 90% God still knows much more. If God does not have to be universal then God does not have to be God as universality is a premise definition of God. If God in turn results in no God then God is universal as God goes beyond being (ie No-God). This is a paradox or contradiction, however you see fit, thus if the argument is true then God exists through contradiction and contradiction becomes valid if God is viewed as valid. Dually 1. Universality is a definition of God. 2. Being is universal as there is only being. 3. Being equates to definition of God. 4. The definition of God is inseparable from God. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 17, 2022 17:58:41 GMT
a) God is not universal = because God doesn't have to be universal b) God is not fully aware = because it's possible for God to not know something still being God a) = God is God, and God is not non-God. If God is universal, then there is nothing else, except for God, since this isn't true, God isn't universal b) = God's knowledge >> anyone else's knowledge. If God knows 100%, and someone else knows 10%, then even if God knows only 90% God still knows much more. If God does not have to be universal then God does not have to be God as universality is a premise definition of God. If God in turn results in no God then God is universal as God goes beyond being (ie No-God). This is a paradox or contradiction, however you see fit, thus if the argument is true then God exists through contradiction and contradiction becomes valid if God is viewed as valid. Dually 1. Universality is a definition of God. 2. Being is universal as there is only being. 3. Being equates to definition of God. 4. The definition of God is inseparable from God. "If God does not have to be universal then God does not have to be God as universality is a premise definition of God" - is either moral fact or a linguistic fact. If it's a latter, then for me it's meaningless. Let's say this is a moral fact. If it is, then I see no reason to consider it to be true: If God is ordered or He has to accomplish some moral duties, then your statement is self-contradictory. "...God ...results in no God then God is universal as God goes beyond being..." - Why on Earth God results in something? Of course He does not. It is literally impossible for to be God and no-God? I don't even realize for what can this be? "Universality is a definition of God" - partially this has some sense, but just partially. If God has created a man, then He wants to make a man be free. Another reason wouldn't be the act of mercy. Because of God's omnipotent He is merciful, and His mercy - is the biggest mercy ever. So, by this He creates a man to be free. This means that a man has some power to change something. And a man's intentions and wishes may be covered from God. However! This does not mean God will not find out about this. - Here, I think there is a very important moment that has to be emphasized: God is omnipotent, and this does not mean (!!) that God never delays something. He lives in eternity, and He lives forever, so if He wants He is able to do that tomorrow. So, for a limited time a man can be free, thus free of God's knowledge, and hence for a limited period of time God may not be universal. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 17, 2022 19:57:49 GMT
1. God is universal. 2. As universal God is fully aware. 3. As fully aware God must know all things. 4. As part of all things God must know what it is like to not know all things (as not knowing all things is a subset to knowing all things. 5. God must both know and not know all things. 6. Point 5 is a contradiction therefore if point 5 is true God is contradictory. 7. God as contradictory is beyond the senses, as contradictions do not make sense. 8. This beyond the senses is necessary for God to be universal and we cycle back to point 3. 9. For God to be universal God must be both contradictory and not contradictory and this is a contradiction. 10. The universality of God results in Contradiction. 11. God is beyond the senses thus is beyond being. 12. God is no-thing. 13. As no-thing God is the foundation of being under the introduced premise that being is founded in nothing as only being exists (only being existing makes being without contrast thus indefinite). From various things that are being said, your term "Universal" means "Everything", and "God" is not used (as some people have used it), to mean "The Whole" of existing things (in the eternal time). Not being the Whole, your God is a PARTICULAR/INDIVIDUAL being which at the same time is all particular beings BUT is distinct from them. This is a contradiction. What exists cannot be ONE and Many at the same time; on the contrary, the many and the whole of the many are quite distinct, have contrary attributes; unlike particular beings, the Whole is infinite in space and time, etc. // As for knowledge or awareness, your God [Universal] is fully aware, IF all particulars are self-aware, which is empirically unverifiable. // "God is universal" = "I call God the sum of all particular beings". The use of the term "God" is unnecessary for a thinker of Being. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2022 22:11:50 GMT
If God does not have to be universal then God does not have to be God as universality is a premise definition of God. If God in turn results in no God then God is universal as God goes beyond being (ie No-God). This is a paradox or contradiction, however you see fit, thus if the argument is true then God exists through contradiction and contradiction becomes valid if God is viewed as valid. Dually 1. Universality is a definition of God. 2. Being is universal as there is only being. 3. Being equates to definition of God. 4. The definition of God is inseparable from God. "If God does not have to be universal then God does not have to be God as universality is a premise definition of God" - is either moral fact or a linguistic fact. If it's a latter, then for me it's meaningless. Let's say this is a moral fact. If it is, then I see no reason to consider it to be true: If God is ordered or He has to accomplish some moral duties, then your statement is self-contradictory. "...God ...results in no God then God is universal as God goes beyond being..." - Why on Earth God results in something? Of course He does not. It is literally impossible for to be God and no-God? I don't even realize for what can this be? "Universality is a definition of God" - partially this has some sense, but just partially. If God has created a man, then He wants to make a man be free. Another reason wouldn't be the act of mercy. Because of God's omnipotent He is merciful, and His mercy - is the biggest mercy ever. So, by this He creates a man to be free. This means that a man has some power to change something. And a man's intentions and wishes may be covered from God. However! This does not mean God will not find out about this. - Here, I think there is a very important moment that has to be emphasized: God is omnipotent, and this does not mean (!!) that God never delays something. He lives in eternity, and He lives forever, so if He wants He is able to do that tomorrow. So, for a limited time a man can be free, thus free of God's knowledge, and hence for a limited period of time God may not be universal. 1. If God is being and God exists beyond being then God exists beyond God. Considering there is nothing beyond being and God is both being and beyond being, then God is both everything (being) and nothing. He is the beginning and the end as scriptures state. 2. If Universality is a definition for God and God is not Universal then God is not God and we are pointing to some other phenomenon and calling it God. 3. If God is universal then God is a contradiction as contradictions are part of this universality. 4. If there is something absent of God then there is something beyond God and God is not universal. Considering God is beyond being, as God is universal, then God exists as nothing. Nothing, or no-thingness, is God and as such God is contradictory as God exists where God is not present...this reflects back to point 3. 5. God exists through his creation thus any action of creation is an act of God's will. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2022 22:23:59 GMT
1. God is universal. 2. As universal God is fully aware. 3. As fully aware God must know all things. 4. As part of all things God must know what it is like to not know all things (as not knowing all things is a subset to knowing all things. 5. God must both know and not know all things. 6. Point 5 is a contradiction therefore if point 5 is true God is contradictory. 7. God as contradictory is beyond the senses, as contradictions do not make sense. 8. This beyond the senses is necessary for God to be universal and we cycle back to point 3. 9. For God to be universal God must be both contradictory and not contradictory and this is a contradiction. 10. The universality of God results in Contradiction. 11. God is beyond the senses thus is beyond being. 12. God is no-thing. 13. As no-thing God is the foundation of being under the introduced premise that being is founded in nothing as only being exists (only being existing makes being without contrast thus indefinite). From various things that are being said, your term "Universal" means "Everything", and "God" is not used (as some people have used it), to mean "The Whole" of existing things (in the eternal time). Not being the Whole, your God is a PARTICULAR/INDIVIDUAL being which at the same time is all particular beings BUT is distinct from them. This is a contradiction. What exists cannot be ONE and Many at the same time; on the contrary, the many and the whole of the many are quite distinct, have contrary attributes; unlike particular beings, the Whole is infinite in space and time, etc. // As for knowledge or awareness, your God [Universal] is fully aware, IF all particulars are self-aware, which is empirically unverifiable. // "God is universal" = "I call God the sum of all particular beings". The use of the term "God" is unnecessary for a thinker of Being. 1. "Everything" equates to the whole. "Universality" as "everything" is "Universality" as the "whole". 2. God is the whole and as the whole exists through the parts as the parts result in the whole. 3. "The many" and "the one" exist at the same time. Take for example a line with a point at the beginning, a point in the middle and a point at the end. A line exists between two points, thus between the beginning and end points are one line. Within this one line are two lines: the beginning and middle point and the middle and end point. Three lines thus exist as one line. The repetition of the line means only the line exists. 4. The distinctions between beings, which results in the many, are manifestations of singles. Considering the multitude of phenomenon share this quality of being single the multitude exists as one through this underlying relationship. 5. A part is the summation of further parts thus is a whole. A whole is a single event and as a single event exists in contrast to other wholes thus is a part. A whole equates to a part and a part equates to a whole. 6. The relationship of one phenomenon to another is the self awareness of God as being relates to being and there is only being. |
|
