The Fundamental Philosophical Identity of God.

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

If merely just uncaused attributes no God or gods are needed. Two things are two things, no God or gods are needed in order for two to be two.

You may need to flesh that out a bit. What do you mean by “thing(s).” Can something exist apart from the mind to conceive it? Is there a realizable concept of nothing in the absolute?

Maybe it's time to start Part III of this thread: The Fundamental Philosophical Identity of God--Mind.

 

[HankD]

• Well, maybe. ". . . wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. . . ." -- Jude 1:13. There is what has been identified as black holes in our known universe. Personally I do not believe in "black holes." I believe escape velocity is a matter of energy, not the velocity. Any matter at the speed of light, we are talking about more energy than in the whole known universe!

they definitely exist what they are and can do - well ...
supposedly there is one per galaxy,

 

[37818]

You may need to flesh that out a bit. What do you mean by “thing(s).” Can something exist apart from the mind to conceive it? Is there a realizable concept of nothing in the absolute?

Maybe it's time to start Part III of this thread: The Fundamental Philosophical Identity of God--Mind.

First off there has never been nothing. Which means there has always been something. Self evident truths are in evidence.

 

[37818]

they definitely exist what they are and can do - well ...
supposedly there is one per galaxy,

Yeah, gravational wells. Gravitational energy has been defined as E = GMm/r between two masses.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

First off there has never been nothing. Which means there has always been something. Self evident truths are in evidence.

Yes, at least it should be self-evident. But you ignored the primary part--about needing to flesh out your statement. And there has always been not merely something, but someone. There has always been God.

 

[HankD]

Yeah, gravational wells. Gravitational energy has been defined as E = GMm/r between two masses.

oo thanks

 

[agedman]

First off there has never been nothing. Which means there has always been something. Self evident truths are in evidence.

In order for there to be something, would it not follow that time must also exist. For something had to have a beginning and some measure of existence by some form of time.

If time does not exist, as it does not in eternity, then some thing may certainly be absent yet some one exist.

Someone does not oblige something.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In order for there to be something, would it not follow that time must also exist. For something had to have a beginning and some measure of existence by some form of time.

If time does not exist, as it does not in eternity, then some thing may certainly be absent yet some one exist.

Someone does not oblige something.

So far, he has failed to answer what he means by "thing(s)." He just skipped right past that and talked of some-thing and no-thing.

 

[37818]

In order for there to be something, would it not follow that time must also exist.

There would also have to be an attribute of existence first. Since nothingness never existed, or it would not be nothing, there would have to have always been an attribute of existence. An uncaused attribute needs no kind of god.

 

[37818]

So far, he has failed to answer what he means by "thing(s)."

Gibberish. There has to be an attribute of existence in order for there to be anything. Such an uncaused attribute of existence needs no kind of god.

 

[37818]

oo thanks

Relativistic velocity of a mass, v = c * sqr( 2 (E/(mc^2) + (E/(mc^2))^2)/(1 + E/(mc^2))

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Gibberish. There has to be an attribute of existence in order for there to be anything. Such an uncaused attribute of existence needs no kind of god.

If you cannot define what you mean by "thing(s)," then your own posts may rightly be interpreted as gibberish. But as we all know, God cannot be dissected, and one cannot "build God." God is fundamentally Himself. God must and does exist as God with all of His attributes.

Accusing those who know and believe this of effectively denying it when presenting certain ways of arriving at this inevitable conclusion is exhibiting condescending arrogance. It's very possible that this isn't clear, if one fails to recognize where the real philosophical starting point is for us created beings, us human beings.

 

[agedman]

There becomes an obvious conundrum when attempting to survey parcel of thinking as it relates to eternity.

All science and human constructs fail to be applicable.

Basically, the Scriptures resolve to one single presentation.

One must believe that “God is, and that He....”


Therefore, all discussion in which the “uncause” is referenced is limited to a perspective in which humankind cannot but take human principles and attempt some shadowy analysis of the eternal. This in itself is not evil, but may lead to evil if it leads to doubtful disputatious determinations.

There is this promise in Scripture.

Here, in this existence, we know and see in part, but then when that which is perfect comes, beginning with the eternal bodies rolling this earth during that perfect time (millennial reign) we shall know as He does know know us. That which is perfect is the Kingdom coming to this earth. Believers in their glorified state do rule, and do know.

Speculation is fine to a point, but ultimately it is speculation.

The “uncaused” can not be held to be scrutinized by the caused other than what the “uncaused” allows to be disclosed in part.

Other than that, whatever is not of faith is sin, be it eating, worship, devotion, and understanding.

 

[37818]

If you cannot define what you mean by "thing(s)," then your own posts may rightly be interpreted as gibberish. But as we all know, God cannot be dissected, and one cannot "build God." God is fundamentally Himself. God must and does exist as God with all of His attributes.

Accusing those who know and believe this of effectively denying it when presenting certain ways of arriving at this inevitable conclusion is exhibiting condescending arrogance. It's very possible that this isn't clear, if one fails to recognize where the real philosophical starting point is for us created beings, us human beings.

Anything. Furthermore, anything subordinate to existence is not any kind of god. I should not need to specify what thing.

 

[37818]

There becomes an obvious conundrum when attempting to survey parcel of thinking as it relates to eternity.

All science and human constructs fail to be applicable.

Basically, the Scriptures resolve to one single presentation.

One must believe that “God is, and that He....”


Therefore, all discussion in which the “uncause” is referenced is limited to a perspective in which humankind cannot but take human principles and attempt some shadowy analysis of the eternal. This in itself is not evil, but may lead to evil if it leads to doubtful disputatious determinations.

There is this promise in Scripture.

Here, in this existence, we know and see in part, but then when that which is perfect comes, beginning with the eternal bodies rolling this earth during that perfect time (millennial reign) we shall know as He does know know us. That which is perfect is the Kingdom coming to this earth. Believers in their glorified state do rule, and do know.

Speculation is fine to a point, but ultimately it is speculation.

The “uncaused” can not be held to be scrutinized by the caused other than what the “uncaused” allows to be disclosed in part.

Other than that, whatever is not of faith is sin, be it eating, worship, devotion, and understanding.

Only what is uncaused is God.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12:30 AM Pacific.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12:30 AM Pacific.