“Ego sum qui sum” can be literally translated as “I Will Be What I Will Be”. “I will be what I will be” is a personal proposition from the POV of God. As such, it reveals that God is at least conscious being. That would be the quality of being we share with God if we share no other. What are the implications that follow from this proposition if accepted? Do the implications cast a favorable light on the nature of being? Or, does the existence of evil necessarily so taint the conceivable character of putative conscious being that the only tenable position is atheism? I submit faith that acknowledges uncertainty [doubt] and includes trust in conscious being as a viable alternative.
That some faith there ; a doubting faith that includes trust.
Isn’t this faith in and of itself a leap of faith? Doesn’t it vanish the minute doubt enters?
I can agree with that.
No. on the contrary, this is precisely the difference between a human and the God.
If we were able to know what we exactly are, there would be no difference between the God and us.
with love,
sanjay
It’s faith in an ultimately conscious being. It doesn’t vanish in the presence of doubt because consciousness itself doesn’t vanish. As long as I remain conscious, the possibility that ultimate reality itself is conscious remains. Why is a leap necessary when the proposition “I am that I am” has already been posited? There are arguments against it, but none disprove it finally. And it has positive value insofar as it gives us a connection with source of everything. It implies a basis for an ethics of sentience. Since it is based on faith, it allows freedom without the intrusiveness of an absolute all powerful being.
I did not claim that we know exactly what we are. I claimed that we and God are both conscious according to the proposition. For the proposition implies that God is conscious. Otherwise, God would not know what God is. And it implies that we are conscious otherwise why address us with the proposition at all?
To me, and maybe for no good reason, “I am what I am” implies free will in addition to consciousness. A sort of self-directedness. If that’s the case, then I think the existence of evil can’t impune every instance of consciousness, because each instance of consciousness has the ability to avoid evil.
Though, i can agree with your intention but not with the statement of OP as it gives the impression that both humans and the God are at par in the context of consious, which is not the case.
God is fully conscious but we are not. But, it is also true we are not completely unconsciouss either. The quantity varies while quality is the same.
with love,
sanjay
I believe I have encountered that reading before, as if the statement implies God willing Itself into being. That leads me to wonder, if a statement of self identity somehow necessarily implies that it could be different. Could God have said, “I’m not what I am?” What would that imply? Your inference might be necessary. I’ll withhold judgment.
I was looking at faith as the guarantor of freedom because God is present only to faith. If God were fully known, there would be no possibility of freedom. The presence of undeniable absolute power would reduce autonomous power to nothing. But, faith cannot be the source of freedom since freedom is present where faith isn’t. Theology needs to find the source of freedom in God. I’m just not seeing it in this statement at the moment.
We can’t avoid every evil can we? I mean there might have been someone who could not avoid being hit by that typhoon right? This proposition doesn’t seem to rule out the possibility of evil originating with God. There is the implication that “I am what I am…deal with it.” Even through the OT prophets the idea that God created both good and evil persists. The idea that God cannot be evil originated with Plato in the Republic. At least that’s the earliest mention I’ve seen.
I’m not asserting that our consciousness is the same as God’s, only that p implies that both God and we are conscious.
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM [or, “I Will Be What I Will Be”]: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
That was obvious the minute the bush started talking. Moses wanted a name. What he got was “Fuck You, I am what I am, and will be whatever I want to be. Tell the children of Israel that.”
And yes, orneriness is a sign of self consciousness.
That translation, “I Will Be What I Will Be” supports the idea that we are free because God is free.
We’re free from what? And I’m still laughing at a doubting faith. Talk about a weak faith.
I don't know. How God's ethical nature interacts with His will and so on seems to me to be one of those things about which we know absolutely nothing- no revealed religion AFAIK claims to have any insight in this direction. It seems to me to be one of those things that theists only talk about in response to some skeptical attack.
I don't think our freedom can be found or understood purely through an understanding of God, because God being omni-this-and-that makes our freedom harder to understand, not easier. How is it that we can exist in a free state with God being God, the power and knowledge we have? I think there's an answer to this question, but it's a counter-intuitive answer. We can say "we have free will because God ceded control over that aspect of His creation", but that's not something you're going to arrive at through contemplation of the philosopher's God. That's pure revealed religion stuff, and not [i]every[/i] religion, either.
Depends on what you mean by ‘we’. If we have free will, then it seems as though it was possible that we as a species could have avoided every evil. We didn’t. If you mean ‘we’ like, the people that happen to be alive right now, then yeah I think you’re right- the world being what it is thanks to us and other actors, we may well be forced into situations where we have to do evil things now and then.
I explained what we’re free from above. You’re laughing at something I did not assert i.e. doubting faith. So, your laughter is a straw-man argument.
Faith implies uncertainty. Faith is unnecessary when knowledge is certain. Faith that does not acknowledge this situation seems strong but is in fact deluded, because it does not acknowledge it’s epistemological situation.
I take it then that by “avoiding evil” you mean we can avoid doing evil because I don’t see how we can avoid suffering it.
Knowledge enhances freedom by making more options and choices available.
Also it is possible to know about a deity then choose to not think about it.
I don’t see where those statements conflict with what I’ve said. The kind of faith I’m suggesting is different than knowing about something. It involves placing your trust in what you can’t prove. There is an element of risk so courage is required as there is with any existential choice.
Right. V posted that definition too. I accept that. I don’t think it changes the OP significantly. If you think it does, please tell me how. It could also be “I am who I am” and I think the OP would work. I considered those three. I didn’t consider “I will be what I will be” which implies that God is free to the point of being self-creating which is a literal translation. The different translations suggest different nuances of meaning. They all imply consciousness of both the speaker and the hearer which, along with being itself are the essential to the OP. In fact I’m going to “a conscious being” to conscious being" to imply that god is being itself not a being. Thanks.
I can accept this when I change “avoid” to “overcome.” It is by faith that we overcome.