Again, why can’t God be Otherness , as well! I do not think that this van be disproved.
Contrast? Between what and what?
Contrast on both levels, yes, but a delimitation will not work.
It’s similar to saying, the cosmos is based on circular impression therefore tautology is a valid form of expression.
That is what I was angling at to paraphrase Jesus re. the Caesar unscripted coin.
John,
You really don’t understand the most basic logic in all of existence!
If there is not internal and/or external, the object/being is non existent. That’s the definition of something that doesn’t exist (no otherness). I’m not even talking physical here, simply spiritual.
It’s ironic that the most basic logic in all of existence is rejected by someone presumably trying to use logic.
Thing is… you abandoned logic when the discussion got real for you!
How? Through the magic of creation ex nihilo?
Is this something you witnessed or an idea you believe?
The only thing we experience, and the only thing whose existence can be demonstrated, is human consciousness.
This applies also to physical energy, given the 1st law of thermodynamics.
PG
I’ve been watching the conceptual confusions and language games in this thread for a couple days now and I gotta say sumthin. It’s killing me.
You cant ask ‘how’ because the statement is meaningless. But a philosopher wouldnt notice this and a huge discussion about nothing would follow.
Wittgenstein and Hacker would tell you that you’re talking about - or expecting, rather - the word ‘consciousness’ to be a thing or an event… and it would have to be for that statement to make any sense. But there is no more meaning to the word ‘consciousness’ than how it is used to describe some behavior. Nothing could be known about some inner and hidden private self that could be called ‘consciousness’.
In different words, you add nothing to the body if you include consciousness.
Further, if you probed the brain, you’d never find where and how consciousness ‘emerged’ from the matter.
Consciousness is the only thing that is experienced and demonstrates it exists. Something that is not/is other than a person and that which that person experiences has never been experienced.
If you probed the brain, you would find that it is made up of your consciousness [consciousness=“your experience of something made out of your experience of it”]; it is not made up of matter [something that is not/is other than your consciousness].
God can’t be otherness, because then God would be caused by that otherness. God cannot be caused, or there would be something greater than God. God isn’t Supreme if there is something greater.
“Existence” is only a word. God is real without otherness.
Yeah, like I said. You abandoned logic when this started getting real for you.
You assert that god exists, but that exists doesn’t exist.
What the fuck have you even been reduced to saying here? Existence doesn’t exist!?!?! Really man?!?! And that’s your only defense of god ?!?!
Ecmandu,
The word “existence” generally means physical reality. It is circular reasoning to say only physical reality is true existence. I am not getting stuck in definitional circular logic traps.
Really?!?! You say god exists! That means spiritual reality as well!
Not all reality is physical reality requiring otherness.
Spirits are otherness. They have distinct form. Distinct form is how physical reality is defined. Otherness is always distinct form. Distinct form is always otherness. You use the word “god”. That’s distinct form. God is other than all other beings are or will ever be in existence according to you. That makes god physical reality … an otherness.
Ecmandu,
Spirits are created. God is uncaused. You cannot compare an uncaused being to caused beings. God is not a form.
My point exactly! If god is not a form, then you can’t make an argument for god.
Me, who believes god is not a form, has a great argument against god!
And what, pray tell, is this argument?
Umm… that god doesn’t have any form!
Ecmandu,
The argument for God is necessity albeit formless.
So your “good argument” against “god” is merely your idea that “god” doesn’t have a form? There are lots of things that exist that don’t have any form: any liquid, for example. Albeit everything that exists, to us, is made out of our consciousness (re: our experience of them).
Everything has a form, even a structure. Mountains move just like water except slower. Your computer moves like water too, just slower … are you going to say your computer has no form … that it’s just an illusion? Structure. Water is H2O.
No. What John is trying to say is that god has no internal and/or external. That’s the definition of a non-existent. I put him in a corner he can’t get out of and so he states something so absurd as to state “well god exists without otherness (form) - god doesn’t need an internal and/or external to exist, but then again, John also in his defense of god argument states that existence doesn’t exist.
I know with 100% certainty that existence exists and it is defined by otherness for all possible beings and that no being can destroy that truth. God cannot destroy otherness. God relies on it, necessarily to exist and because god is dependent on otherness, not the other way around, god does not have the power to destroy gods master… otherness. God cannot commit suicide and destroy otherness. Otherness is, has been and always will be greater than god.