|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 19, 2021 18:32:23 GMT
If God is the creator and man is made in the image of God then man is a creator; therefore the creation of the term "God" is man working in image of the creator with the creator creating the creator through the created.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 9, 2021 22:57:57 GMT
1. For God to transcend Being would be God to occur as Nothingness given nothingness is not being (as what is outside of being is nothing). God is both Being and Non-Being. 2. Space is universal before the creation of forms. 1. No way. God became Human – Jesus Christ. God could appear to humans as a flaming bush, or as the whole universe. Your "version of God" is a version of a metaphysical concept, nothing more. You talk about God the way He is not a person. I don't like it, and have no wish to continue discussing God in this way. It's not even a polite way to diminish God to HIS OWN parts of creation. It's the same as to say: there exists one God's creation by which God can be controlled... It is a pure nonsense. 2. The same is here. So what if the universal is prior to the others creations. (Which is not true, by the way. The universe is a totality of the union, or the set of things. One thing is not the universe, or else God would be universe also. But God does not create Himself!) 1. You are misreading what I am saying. If God is Universal he would have to become human. 2. Jesus, as God made man, submitted to his creation (humans) through his many miracles which where a service to mankind. God created himself as a man as a submission (ie "service") to man. 3. God as Universal would both have to be above creation and below creation, ie the "Alpha" and the "Omega". 4. A universal is a paradox. 4a. A universe is a totality of things. 4b. As a totality of things the universe is composed of parts. 4c. Each part is a whole given each part is a singularity; it is an expression of being through its singleness. 4d. This singularity is a summation of parts thus a whole is composed of further wholes as each thing, which is composed of things, is a whole. 4e. The wholeness of the individual part, as a singular thing, mirrors the wholeness of the greater whole and vice versa where the larger whole mirrors the lesser whole as composed of many wholes. 4f. There is both one and many wholes thus one and many universals (universes).
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 9, 2021 23:07:10 GMT
If God is the creator and man is made in the image of God then man is a creator; therefore the creation of the term "God" is man working in image of the creator with the creator creating the creator through the created. Instead of dealing with the term "God", which is an English word, you are dealing with one connotation of the concept "God" and you interlace it with the human creation of.... the term? .... the concept?.... //To avoid ambiguity, I like these scribing modes, which everybody should use: (1) The creation of the term "God" -- if you wish to talk about this very English word, "God". In this case, you are a linguist. (2) The creation of "/God/" = The creation of the concept which in English is expressed by the word "God". ["/Ho Theos/", in Greek] (3) The creation of "/god/" = The creation of the generic concept which in English is expressed by the word/term "god". (4) The creation or the generation of a god --if you wish to deal with what the term "god" denotes [in one's own mind, whether the denoted thing is real or imaginary/fictitious]. In this case,you are a theologian. For #2: In this case,you have to be a culture historian, who may not deal separately with the creation/formation of the concept and the invention of the linguistic term. If you want to deal with the formation of the concept in today's individuals [who have a liguistic inheritance], then you are a philosophical psychologist.... 1. There are many terms for God thus the concept of God is created in many ways. Each term as a symbol is an approximation, a mirror image, of that which it points to. To observe the term God is to observe that which it points too, as an image points, thus in pointing towards said phenomenon (ie "God" in this case) one is making an observation of said phenomenon. In observing God one is creating a vision or likeness of God which is to create God through a degree as an image is a degree. Observation is creation as it is the connection between subject and object with this connection being a phenomenon in and of itself. 2. "If one does x then they are y", as the sole foundation of your argument, then you are creating terms that are connected to a set of relations. In observing a set of relations, and creating a term to point to them, you are acting as a creator. To point to something is to create an observation thus creating a phenomenon; creation is observation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2021 17:29:34 GMT
1. No way. God became Human – Jesus Christ. God could appear to humans as a flaming bush, or as the whole universe. Your "version of God" is a version of a metaphysical concept, nothing more. You talk about God the way He is not a person. I don't like it, and have no wish to continue discussing God in this way. It's not even a polite way to diminish God to HIS OWN parts of creation. It's the same as to say: there exists one God's creation by which God can be controlled... It is a pure nonsense. 2. The same is here. So what if the universal is prior to the others creations. (Which is not true, by the way. The universe is a totality of the union, or the set of things. One thing is not the universe, or else God would be universe also. But God does not create Himself!) 1. You are misreading what I am saying. If God is Universal he would have to become human. 2. Jesus, as God made man, submitted to his creation (humans) through his many miracles which where a service to mankind. God created himself as a man as a submission (ie "service") to man. 3. God as Universal would both have to be above creation and below creation, ie the "Alpha" and the "Omega". 4. A universal is a paradox. 4a. A universe is a totality of things. 4b. As a totality of things the universe is composed of parts. 4c. Each part is a whole given each part is a singularity; it is an expression of being through its singleness. 4d. This singularity is a summation of parts thus a whole is composed of further wholes as each thing, which is composed of things, is a whole. 4e. The wholeness of the individual part, as a singular thing, mirrors the wholeness of the greater whole and vice versa where the larger whole mirrors the lesser whole as composed of many wholes. 4f. There is both one and many wholes thus one and many universals (universes). Ok, I might be wrong at the Universal. You're right. I think we're taking the different meanings of this word. As you put it throught 4a-f this concept is hightly metaphysical, so in turn to agree on yours is not so easly. But not because your explanation isn't correct or profound; I think that God is above, or highter, or beyond logic. Logic is something to be IN the reality of the created by God wholeness where we all live. About the creation or the created. Maybe here is the same. But! Why God is needed to create anything? He need not anything for anything to appear. In other words, to wish, to think, and to perform for God is the same. It is Him who orders, or applies, or pushes, or... any relevant verb you can imagine... things. If God would need in something only then He would create. So, as human beings, or as people, we used to call or we just use this word to create to sign or to transfer the meaning. But God doesn't need to transfer any meaning or something. God is absolutely free to do anythign. Absolutely. No logic or any other laws, things, universes, people, etc are needed for God to act.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2021 17:37:03 GMT
If God is the creator and man is made in the image of God then man is a creator; therefore the creation of the term "God" is man working in image of the creator with the creator creating the creator through the created. Instead of dealing with the term "God", which is an English word, you are dealing with one connotation of the concept "God" and you interlace it with the human creation of.... the term? .... the concept?.... //To avoid ambiguity, I like these scribing modes, which everybody should use: (1) The creation of the term "God" -- if you wish to talk about this very English word, "God". In this case, you are a linguist. (2) The creation of "/God/" = The creation of the concept which in English is expressed by the word "God". ["/Ho Theos/", in Greek] (3) The creation of "/god/" = The creation of the generic concept which in English is expressed by the word/term "god". (4) The creation or the generation of a god --if you wish to deal with what the term "god" denotes [in one's own mind, whether the denoted thing is real or imaginary/fictitious]. In this case,you are a theologian. For #2: In this case,you have to be a culture historian, who may not deal separately with the creation/formation of the concept and the invention of the linguistic term. If you want to deal with the formation of the concept in today's individuals [who have a liguistic inheritance], then you are a philosophical psychologist.... Oh, thanks for this addition. I think it shows how accurate we must be with words. Even this term has so lotta references, and (in turn?) meanings. (I'd say to have n references is to have n meanings doesn't work, because usually n references is greater, than m meanings. I might be wrong here. I'm certain only in that the number of the references and meanings isn't necessary the same.) By the way, quite typical arguments came from W. Quine from his gavagai: Indeterminacy of translation refers to the inability to ever fully translate the meaning of a word from one language to another. While this refers mainly to translation between natural languages, it can also refer to individuals using the same language trying to understand one another's full meaning. When approaching the problem of understanding a word, there are two parts that must be taken into mind. There is the sound of a word, which can be referred to as the "phonetic part". In this part, an individual learns the proper way to vocalize the sound of the word. Then there is the more complex part of the word which relates to its actual meaning, and that is known as the "semantic part". When an individual speaks the word that he has phonetically learned, he then refers to something outside of himself. Usually this is a reference to an object, though it can also be a more abstract reference to an idea. When it comes to learning the semantic part, though, more is required than just hearing the sound. One must be able to "see what is stimulating the other speaker". When words refer to abstract ideas, there can be a problem, because the meaning of words can be determined by an individual's mindset and experiences. Therefore, even when speaking the same language, two individuals can be speaking about the same thing but have a different idea of it in their minds and therefore not be able to fully communicate about it. Indeterminacy is something that can be seen even more apparently with differing languages. Quine uses the example of the foreign word "gavagai," which is uttered when a native speaker points at a rabbit. A linguist trying to understand the language has to decide whether the native speaker's utterance means "rabbit," "undetached rabbit parts," or "rabbit stages". The problem is that in the native language, there may be a different system of reference than in our language, and so there may be words that mean more than one thing, just as we have words that can have an exact referential meaning and a more "abstract singular term" at the same time. While the physical ostension that a native makes to an object when she says a word can be noted, it cannot be known for sure what she is speaking about without understanding the conceptual foundations that the language exists upon (see inscrutability of reference). Therefore, while translations can be inferred with a decent amount of accuracy, there is never a certainty that all meanings are understood in all contexts.The Source
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2021 23:06:18 GMT
xxxxxxxxxI've also found something additional to the though I've been trying to tell you. This video partially recalls the same (it starts from the relevant moment):
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:50:10 GMT
1. You are misreading what I am saying. If God is Universal he would have to become human. 2. Jesus, as God made man, submitted to his creation (humans) through his many miracles which where a service to mankind. God created himself as a man as a submission (ie "service") to man. 3. God as Universal would both have to be above creation and below creation, ie the "Alpha" and the "Omega". 4. A universal is a paradox. 4a. A universe is a totality of things. 4b. As a totality of things the universe is composed of parts. 4c. Each part is a whole given each part is a singularity; it is an expression of being through its singleness. 4d. This singularity is a summation of parts thus a whole is composed of further wholes as each thing, which is composed of things, is a whole. 4e. The wholeness of the individual part, as a singular thing, mirrors the wholeness of the greater whole and vice versa where the larger whole mirrors the lesser whole as composed of many wholes. 4f. There is both one and many wholes thus one and many universals (universes). Ok, I might be wrong at the Universal. You're right. I think we're taking the different meanings of this word. As you put it throught 4a-f this concept is hightly metaphysical, so in turn to agree on yours is not so easly. But not because your explanation isn't correct or profound; I think that God is above, or highter, or beyond logic. Logic is something to be IN the reality of the created by God wholeness where we all live. About the creation or the created. Maybe here is the same. But! Why God is needed to create anything? He need not anything for anything to appear. In other words, to wish, to think, and to perform for God is the same. It is Him who orders, or applies, or pushes, or... any relevant verb you can imagine... things. If God would need in something only then He would create. So, as human beings, or as people, we used to call or we just use this word to create to sign or to transfer the meaning. But God doesn't need to transfer any meaning or something. God is absolutely free to do anythign. Absolutely. No logic or any other laws, things, universes, people, etc are needed for God to act. 1. God as universal exists across all phenomenon thus God is both logical and illogical. 2. If God is free to do anything then God is free to not be God, this negation of God is the negation of the freedom of God to do anything as existence is necessary for freedom. God existing through creation is God as having limits as creation exists as part of God but is not God in his entirety. However God as having limits is unlimited given perpetual limits (creation) occurs; the infinite number of limits is God as unlimited.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:52:22 GMT
xxxxxxxxx I've also found something additional to the though I've been trying to tell you. This video partially recalls the same (it starts from the relevant moment): If God exists beyond the limits of sense then God is non-sense. If God is good, and God is non-sensical, then non-sense can be good. You are assuming non-sense is bad, but non-sense is strictly the absence of sense. One senses forms, thus God as non-sensical is God as absence of form.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 16, 2021 22:32:59 GMT
xxxxxxxxx I've also found something additional to the though I've been trying to tell you. This video partially recalls the same (it starts from the relevant moment): If God exists beyond the limits of sense then God is non-sense. If God is good, and God is non-sensical, then non-sense can be good. You are assuming non-sense is bad, but non-sense is strictly the absence of sense. One senses forms, thus God as non-sensical is God as absence of form. Hold your horses, beyond which sense? I think this might end non-constructively. Discussing (anything) we may do: 1) define terms (giving definitions or axioms, etc); 2) not defining terms; A) use logic (some rules, or prescriptions); B) not using logic. I don't know which one we've been playing 1A or 2B? Anyway, I think to get some agreement or to find some answers there has to be explained and accepted some points. The sense is one of such. After Joustos explained me few important points about the reference and meaning, I think I should be careful further. I meany definitions of sense, now I can bring three of them: a) a point, a destination (the final of some chain sequence); b) context or conditions, which support a meaning to have a certain value (quite the same way as a propositional function works); c) a sentence or such a word-combination (a phrase) that is able to have a logical value. So, let me provide a brief analysis whether God within or beyond sense: (Honestly I don't like where it goes. My point is that God is deserve loyalty and respect. It's not so polite to discuss God as like we're discussing a thing. THIS is what costs much attention.) a) God has a point, and His point is coincidence with His begging. In other words, God's will starts and does together or simultaneously b) I see no this type of metaphysics asking God & context... It's not impossible, but... Okay, God is a context for anything as the real cause of the existence of things c) Can God have sense?.. I suppose such a question lacks of any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 16, 2021 22:44:15 GMT
Ok, I might be wrong at the Universal. You're right. I think we're taking the different meanings of this word. As you put it throught 4a-f this concept is hightly metaphysical, so in turn to agree on yours is not so easly. But not because your explanation isn't correct or profound; I think that God is above, or highter, or beyond logic. Logic is something to be IN the reality of the created by God wholeness where we all live. About the creation or the created. Maybe here is the same. But! Why God is needed to create anything? He need not anything for anything to appear. In other words, to wish, to think, and to perform for God is the same. It is Him who orders, or applies, or pushes, or... any relevant verb you can imagine... things. If God would need in something only then He would create. So, as human beings, or as people, we used to call or we just use this word to create to sign or to transfer the meaning. But God doesn't need to transfer any meaning or something. God is absolutely free to do anythign. Absolutely. No logic or any other laws, things, universes, people, etc are needed for God to act. 1. God as universal exists across all phenomenon thus God is both logical and illogical. 2. If God is free to do anything then God is free to not be God, this negation of God is the negation of the freedom of God to do anything as existence is necessary for freedom. God existing through creation is God as having limits as creation exists as part of God but is not God in his entirety. However God as having limits is unlimited given perpetual limits (creation) occurs; the infinite number of limits is God as unlimited. You're saying God is both: logical and illogical. Until your logic lacks explanations it stays unclear. Of course you can fog your thoughts, but why? Even Hegel demonstrated his talent in both ways, and Hegel wrote enough clear books. So, that coincidence may appear in the next cases: a) there's no such subjects: "x is 5" or "x is not 5" is wrong if "x is a snake"; b) there are degrees: "x is black" or "x is white" are both wrong since x is grey; c) the future: "it is raining tomorrow" or "it is no raining tomorrow" both are wrong if nothing like a rain will occur further; d) the transcendental type of logic: "x is true", or "x is false" is a false dichotomy if both are possible, but we are never sure in it, or the subject are transcendental to us. 2. You do think wrongly here. It's like you're talking knowing God better, than God knows Himself... Can you realise God is really beyond? Really, not "speculatively". God is ULTIMATELY free. So, how God would compare or free Himself not even being able to compare Hisself to anything? From what God can be free? From being God? – This is not possible. This is completely wrong by you thinking God is "unfree" being God. Again, you haven't been speaking of God, but of the term or the name. So you are misleading your own interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 6, 2022 19:28:31 GMT
If God exists beyond the limits of sense then God is non-sense. If God is good, and God is non-sensical, then non-sense can be good. You are assuming non-sense is bad, but non-sense is strictly the absence of sense. One senses forms, thus God as non-sensical is God as absence of form. Hold your horses, beyond which sense? I think this might end non-constructively. Discussing (anything) we may do: 1) define terms (giving definitions or axioms, etc); 2) not defining terms; A) use logic (some rules, or prescriptions); B) not using logic. I don't know which one we've been playing 1A or 2B? Anyway, I think to get some agreement or to find some answers there has to be explained and accepted some points. The sense is one of such. After Joustos explained me few important points about the reference and meaning, I think I should be careful further. I meany definitions of sense, now I can bring three of them: a) a point, a destination (the final of some chain sequence); b) context or conditions, which support a meaning to have a certain value (quite the same way as a propositional function works); c) a sentence or such a word-combination (a phrase) that is able to have a logical value. So, let me provide a brief analysis whether God within or beyond sense: (Honestly I don't like where it goes. My point is that God is deserve loyalty and respect. It's not so polite to discuss God as like we're discussing a thing. THIS is what costs much attention.) a) God has a point, and His point is coincidence with His begging. In other words, God's will starts and does together or simultaneously b) I see no this type of metaphysics asking God & context... It's not impossible, but... Okay, God is a context for anything as the real cause of the existence of things c) Can God have sense?.. I suppose such a question lacks of any sense. To sense is to be impressed by a form; the form leaves an impression on the psyche. God is not limited to forms thus God is beyond sense. However just because God is beyond sense does not mean God cannot be sensed. Considering God exists through forms, but is not limited to them, God can be sensed. God is both sensical and nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 6, 2022 19:37:59 GMT
1. God as universal exists across all phenomenon thus God is both logical and illogical. 2. If God is free to do anything then God is free to not be God, this negation of God is the negation of the freedom of God to do anything as existence is necessary for freedom. God existing through creation is God as having limits as creation exists as part of God but is not God in his entirety. However God as having limits is unlimited given perpetual limits (creation) occurs; the infinite number of limits is God as unlimited. You're saying God is both: logical and illogical. Until your logic lacks explanations it stays unclear. Of course you can fog your thoughts, but why? Even Hegel demonstrated his talent in both ways, and Hegel wrote enough clear books. So, that coincidence may appear in the next cases: a) there's no such subjects: "x is 5" or "x is not 5" is wrong if "x is a snake"; b) there are degrees: "x is black" or "x is white" are both wrong since x is grey; c) the future: "it is raining tomorrow" or "it is no raining tomorrow" both are wrong if nothing like a rain will occur further; d) the transcendental type of logic: "x is true", or "x is false" is a false dichotomy if both are possible, but we are never sure in it, or the subject are transcendental to us. 2. You do think wrongly here. It's like you're talking knowing God better, than God knows Himself... Can you realise God is really beyond? Really, not "speculatively". God is ULTIMATELY free. So, how God would compare or free Himself not even being able to compare Hisself to anything? From what God can be free? From being God? – This is not possible. This is completely wrong by you thinking God is "unfree" being God. Again, you haven't been speaking of God, but of the term or the name. So you are misleading your own interpretation. 1. Logic demands axioms which are justified through strict belief. Logic rests on a bed of illogic. Beliefs exist through logic where the said belief is defined through another belief thus necessitating logic as the definition of beliefs through other beliefs. Illogic is observed through logic as the contrast of one illogical form to another.
Logic and illogic are different sides of the same coin of being.
2. God is limited to being, anything beyond being is not a thing but rather nothing. Gods freedom of being is God existing through limits considering limits are necessary for being to occur. If a being is free to do "x" then "x" is a limit through which this freedom occurs; limits and freedom go hand in hand given limits allow for the structure of being to occur with this structure of being allowing a freedom to act given action requires a prerequisite of existence and existence requires structure. God as completely free is thus both free to act within the limits of being, thus is limited, and free from being (thus is "no-thing").
|
|