My turn:
Divine impassibility is not a lack of passion, but an eternally unshakeable, rational passion.
Your turn:
Impassibility may be defined as follows: “God does not experience emotional changes either from within or effected by his relationship to creation.”
Why, then, is he portrayed as regretting and flooding the world?
You are going to have to rethink impassibility, for one. This is a Philosophy forum. We do that here. Start over.
Two, the appropriate response is the impassible response. Especially if you understand God is both transcendent and immanent, capable of subsuming all change, rather than being in false dichotomy (contradiction) with it.
This thread is for you to post your own aphorism, but I appreciate that you are challenging mine. However, I prefer that all challenges also offer their own aphorism that sets the aphorism they are challenging straight and actually says something (the truth of reality in place of the challenged aphorism) rather than only presenting a counterpoint. Here, the best offense/defense is a good alternative (I might need more coffee right now).
It has to be YOUR aphorism…one you hold to be true.
A counter-obligatory imperative is no imperative at all.
— Augustine of Hippo
(my translation, using deontic logic terms)
1 Like
I sent a rocket to therapy. Now it’s a guided missile.
1 Like
When life gave me melons i realized i was dyslexic.
2 Likes
Thanks for getting my thread moved to non-philosophical chat, dorks ;^)
It was worth the laugh.
1 Like
Creation is a fiction without which nothing would be true.
If everything is like everything else, and everything is entangled, then it is a different kind of meaninglessness than if everything is completely unrelated. Sense and nonsense.
A failure to see connections is just as much an impediment as seeing connections where they are not.