|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 30, 2021 2:09:43 GMT
The ideas of the designer, as part of the designer, are part of the creation as these ideas give it form. God, as existing through the chain, may exist independently of the chain but because of his omnipresence he exists as part of the chain and as existing as part of the chain exists through its contingencies.
For example in scripture there where times where Jesus could not perform miracles because of the absence of faith. Dually he was able to create miracles because the people had faith. God exists as not contingent upon creation in one respect as he can exist without creation however in a dual respect because of his omnipresence allows for a contingency through creation. Omnipresence must encapsulate both contingency and absence of contingency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2021 12:26:13 GMT
Must say I don't hold the view God subordinates anything. For me God is the one who creates anything, while not creating anything, and not created source.
According to John Scott Eriugena:
• natura creans et non creata,
• natura creans et creata,
• natura non creans et creata,
• natura non creans et non creata.
God is I and IV.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 16:37:21 GMT
Must say I don't hold the view God subordinates anything. For me God is the one who creates anything, while not creating anything, and not created source. According to John Scott Eriugena: • natura creans et non creata, • natura creans et creata, • natura non creans et creata, • natura non creans et non creata. God is I and IV. If God is not subordinate to anything then God is not omnipresent. God is both not subordinate to anything but allowing to be subordinate through his generosity. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 12, 2021 16:54:43 GMT
Must say I don't hold the view God subordinates anything. For me God is the one who creates anything, while not creating anything, and not created source. According to John Scott Eriugena: • natura creans et non creata, • natura creans et creata, • natura non creans et creata, • natura non creans et non creata. God is I and IV. If God is not subordinate to anything then God is not omnipresent. God is both not subordinate to anything but allowing to be subordinate through his generosity. I don't think if God is not subordinate to anything then God isn't omnipresentit's not necessary. We don't know how God's will and thought works. All what we can hope that He does know what will be, and so on. He could get planned everythinng since the beginning, so what on earth necessity for Him to be omnipresent in ours daily sense? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 17:02:21 GMT
If God is not subordinate to anything then God is not omnipresent. God is both not subordinate to anything but allowing to be subordinate through his generosity. I don't think if God is not subordinate to anything then God isn't omnipresentit's not necessary. We don't know how God's will and thought works. All what we can hope that He does know what will be, and so on. He could get planned everythinng since the beginning, so what on earth necessity for Him to be omnipresent in ours daily sense? Scripture, through the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, shows Gods will subordinate to the needs of the people. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 12, 2021 17:08:36 GMT
I don't think if God is not subordinate to anything then God isn't omnipresentit's not necessary. We don't know how God's will and thought works. All what we can hope that He does know what will be, and so on. He could get planned everythinng since the beginning, so what on earth necessity for Him to be omnipresent in ours daily sense? Scripture, through the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, shows Gods will subordinate to the needs of the people. Yes, surely I agree with it. But! Nobody can reject that God has already known it, and made it possible to appear in a proper moment to help. Let's say E asked G about A in a time T to do something. G knew E would ask G in a time T, so previously G appeared in a proper moment T to perform the action A. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 17:33:28 GMT
Scripture, through the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, shows Gods will subordinate to the needs of the people. Yes, surely I agree with it. But! Nobody can reject that God has already known it, and made it possible to appear in a proper moment to help. Let's say E asked G about A in a time T to do something. G knew E would ask G in a time T, so previously G appeared in a proper moment T to perform the action A. Yet that proper moment of appearance is God being subordinate to the time and space of the people's needs. By appearing in the time and space of the people's need God is making himself subordinate to his own creation (ie time and space). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 14, 2021 2:47:28 GMT
Yes, surely I agree with it. But! Nobody can reject that God has already known it, and made it possible to appear in a proper moment to help. Let's say E asked G about A in a time T to do something. G knew E would ask G in a time T, so previously G appeared in a proper moment T to perform the action A. Yet that proper moment of appearance is God being subordinate to the time and space of the people's needs. By appearing in the time and space of the people's need God is making himself subordinate to his own creation (ie time and space). God has his will. God isn't necessary omnipresent: "But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”" (Genesis 3: 9-11) |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 10, 2021 21:37:36 GMT
Yet that proper moment of appearance is God being subordinate to the time and space of the people's needs. By appearing in the time and space of the people's need God is making himself subordinate to his own creation (ie time and space). God has his will. God isn't necessary omnipresent: "But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”" (Genesis 3: 9-11) God as not omnipresent is God as not all powerful. God as not all powerful is making God subject to another principle that permeates everthing and therefore not God. Relative to the questions, God already knew the answer but asked the questions in such a way to force Adam to be accountable to his (Adam's) actions. God as omnipresent thus relates to the subject states of the observers. This ability to relate to the subjective states makes God exist through the totality of being, ie existing in both time and outside of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 11, 2021 6:59:16 GMT
God has his will. God isn't necessary omnipresent: "But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”" (Genesis 3: 9-11) God as not omnipresent is God as not all powerful. God as not all powerful is making God subject to another principle that permeates everthing and therefore not God. Relative to the questions, God already knew the answer but asked the questions in such a way to force Adam to be accountable to his (Adam's) actions. God as omnipresent thus relates to the subject states of the observers. This ability to relate to the subjective states makes God exist through the totality of being, ie existing in both time and outside of time. It's a human decision to call God omnipresent. It's a human perspective of view, or a tangle of a view. In all the cases we can easily change the omnipresence into: the presence, the maximum of all of any human know |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 16, 2021 21:48:26 GMT
God as not omnipresent is God as not all powerful. God as not all powerful is making God subject to another principle that permeates everthing and therefore not God. Relative to the questions, God already knew the answer but asked the questions in such a way to force Adam to be accountable to his (Adam's) actions. God as omnipresent thus relates to the subject states of the observers. This ability to relate to the subjective states makes God exist through the totality of being, ie existing in both time and outside of time. It's a human decision to call God omnipresent. It's a human perspective of view, or a tangle of a view. In all the cases we can easily change the omnipresence into: the presence, the maximum of all of any human knowIf God is not omnipresent then God is not all powerful. One definition of God is as "all powerful". To say God is not omnipresent is to be pointing at something else other than God. This omnipresence is necessary for God to be all powerful given that anything outside of God's observation would in fact be God not having complete power over everything (this is considering one must observe something in order to have power over it.). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 17, 2021 5:19:54 GMT
It's a human decision to call God omnipresent. It's a human perspective of view, or a tangle of a view. In all the cases we can easily change the omnipresence into: the presence, the maximum of all of any human knowIf God is not omnipresent then God is not all powerful. One definition of God is as "all powerful". To say God is not omnipresent is to be pointing at something else other than God. This omnipresence is necessary for God to be all powerful given that anything outside of God's observation would in fact be God not having complete power over everything (this is considering one must observe something in order to have power over it.). Wrong again. It's another time you've made this mistake. And I see that many people do, so it's not something unusual. In your explanation there might be some deity or force that – in case God isn't omnipowerful – is able to move Him or to cause Him some harm. No, it is true only if there are some deities. But thinking them as existence and presented is wrong again, because God cannot be reached by any deities, and (!) at the same time He can be called as "the maximum powerful", not omnipowerful. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2021 22:34:13 GMT
If God is not omnipresent then God is not all powerful. One definition of God is as "all powerful". To say God is not omnipresent is to be pointing at something else other than God. This omnipresence is necessary for God to be all powerful given that anything outside of God's observation would in fact be God not having complete power over everything (this is considering one must observe something in order to have power over it.). Wrong again. It's another time you've made this mistake. And I see that many people do, so it's not something unusual. In your explanation there might be some deity or force that – in case God isn't omnipowerful – is able to move Him or to cause Him some harm. No, it is true only if there are some deities. But thinking them as existence and presented is wrong again, because God cannot be reached by any deities, and (!) at the same time He can be called as "the maximum powerful", not omnipowerful. You are going to have to rewrite your point as it makes no sense to me. 1. God is present in all of existence. 2. All existence is good. 3. What is evil is the absence of a thing existing to its full potential yet this absence of fulfilled potential does not take away from the fact said thing is good in the respect it exists. For example rape is the absence of a balanced relationship yet this absence of balance does not take away from the fact that the conception of a child is nature working to its own ends (with the ends of nature being "good"). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 19, 2021 3:34:53 GMT
Wrong again. It's another time you've made this mistake. And I see that many people do, so it's not something unusual. In your explanation there might be some deity or force that – in case God isn't omnipowerful – is able to move Him or to cause Him some harm. No, it is true only if there are some deities. But thinking them as existence and presented is wrong again, because God cannot be reached by any deities, and (!) at the same time He can be called as "the maximum powerful", not omnipowerful. You are going to have to rewrite your point as it makes no sense to me. 1. God is present in all of existence. 2. All existence is good. 3. What is evil is the absence of a thing existing to its full potential yet this absence of fulfilled potential does not take away from the fact said thing is good in the respect it exists. For example rape is the absence of a balanced relationship yet this absence of balance does not take away from the fact that the conception of a child is nature working to its own ends (with the ends of nature being "good"). If it doesn't make sense for you, so just think harder. About what "all" (everything) are taking about? What can you tell me about that "all" (everything)? You don't know anything farther you're able to do, so what how can you claim anything about "all"? All your points about God are wrong. Don't try to understand God by your mind, nobody can ever do it. All we know about God is only what we do know about Him. 1"No one has ever seen God,(A) but the one and only Son, who is himself God and (B) is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known" (John 1:18) |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 23, 2021 22:23:04 GMT
You are going to have to rewrite your point as it makes no sense to me. 1. God is present in all of existence. 2. All existence is good. 3. What is evil is the absence of a thing existing to its full potential yet this absence of fulfilled potential does not take away from the fact said thing is good in the respect it exists. For example rape is the absence of a balanced relationship yet this absence of balance does not take away from the fact that the conception of a child is nature working to its own ends (with the ends of nature being "good"). If it doesn't make sense for you, so just think harder. About what "all" (everything) are taking about? What can you tell me about that "all" (everything)? You don't know anything farther you're able to do, so what how can you claim anything about "all"? All your points about God are wrong. Don't try to understand God by your mind, nobody can ever do it. All we know about God is only what we do know about Him. 1"No one has ever seen God,(A) but the one and only Son, who is himself God and (B) is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known" (John 1:18)1. "All" is the totality of being past present and future. 2. "All" as the totality of being (past, present and future) is defined by the fact it exists. Its existence is derived from the formlessness of this totality being observed approximately through image where each image is a facet of the whole. As a facet of the whole it is connected to the whole. 3. God in God's totality cannot be understood by the mind. God, existing through images, can be understood by the mind as facets of God are observed through these images. God can be observed through the "All" in the respect that every image observed is a reflection of God. God exists through all images. |
|
