Sorry out of order. The assumptive roll back was not pursued?, because that depth of inqueru have been ruled out behind reason by categorical closures of modern inquiry witin the limits of it’s own set boundaries. The epoche sets reverse boundaries as ‘proof’ of the progressive necessity for logical derivation.
The boundaries are set by yourself. I am happy to pursue the subject any time.
Doubts of God and what God entails relate to the same limit that the ‘roll back’ categorically closes as a possible entailment, for beyond those set boundaries, only the mystics, the magi, the prophets , on one hand; and the relativist positivists of uncertainty are in a position to go beyond.
Doubts of God and what God entails relate to the same limit that the ‘roll back’ categorically closes as a possible entailment, for beyond those set boundaries, only the mystics, the magi, the prophets , on one hand; and the relativist positivists of uncertainty are in a position to go beyond.
Doubts of God or what God entails are one thing, doubts about the substance of God are another. The latter have been the ones you have been posing.
Beyond that, there is no positional right or wrong, for both are 'materially~substantionally similar contents (contentions) except one is positive and the other appears as negative.
I feel the mystics have really showed to fallacy beyond the contradiction, the movement of the linear asymptote has shifted from.the vertical to the degree that there can be more condusive(acute) correspondence then that generated toward obtuse degrees of dis similarity.
As far as God is neither right nor wrong, but simply is, I would say you are correct.
Agreed to a large degree:
Either way both are counter positional and apparently suffer the same reversibility that a transcendence and transubstantiation reduce toward their nominal contradiction
Both what?
But that question relate to the catholic idea of transubstantiation which members of that faith at times use ontologically similarly to transcendence.
I still don’t see what two things you are referring to.
Both God, and the form of God as both , body and spirit, are
consubstantial.
Lol
They are all still God.
So the quesiton remains, what does God entail?
God means good… what do you think god entails?
I suppose if God means good, the question becomes what does good entail?
I’m not sure that’s an apropriate description. I would agree that God is good, that that is entailed by God.
The reason I think is because God means more than good. “God” refers to more than good.
Uh, anyone else? 