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.
We are quantity quantifying our selves. We have what’s called “self recursive awareness” … we know we exist. Are you saying god doesn’t know god exists?
There is only one existence. You can’t split it up into caused and uncaused. A caused existence implies that something caused it, but that means something existed before it, which means there was already existence before it. Either what you’re calling caused existence isn’t existence per se (but something in existence) or you’ve got an infinite regress on your hands.
Please address my point about the H2O molecule. I gave that analogy so that you’d understand where I’m coming from. Just as an H2O molecule is still water, an indivisible unit of spacetime is still spacetime. You need to explain to me how this isn’t the case for spacetime if you want to move beyond this point.
I. THE ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBILITY (BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The argument from possibility proves the existence of God by demonstrating that physical reality in the Cosmos must ultimately derive from an uncaused Creator reality with the greatest intelligence possible we call God. An uncaused Creator reality must be real, because the Cosmos cannot come from nothing. If the Cosmos came from nothing, then nothing would still be the case because something cannot come from nothing. In order for nothing not to be the case, then something indestructible must always be the case, and only that which is without parts is indestructible because destruction is the disassociation of parts. Only an uncaused reality is without parts, because there is no causal explanation for an uncaused reality without parts to supply a causal explanation. Therefore, the indestructible reality that must always be the case must be an uncaused reality. All physical reality in the Cosmos is made of parts, and therefore caused by those parts. Because all physical reality is caused, then the cause of physical reality must ultimately be this indestructible uncaused Creator reality.
Because this uncaused Creator reality is not made of parts, then the decision on the creation of physical reality cannot be predicated on the working of parts. This uncaused Creator reality must be capable of creating any physical reality that is logically possible, because without parts there is no casual chain of parts necessitating one creation of physical reality over another. Because there is no causal chain necessitating the creation of any particular physical reality, then this uncaused Creator reality must be free to choose to create physical reality. Because this uncaused Creator reality is free to choose to create physical reality, then it must know of all logically possible creations in order to choose. Intelligence requires knowledge of the possible. This uncaused Creator having knowledge of all that is logically possible for physical reality must have the greatest intelligence possible. We call this uncaused Creator with the greatest intelligence possible God.
The ultimate question. is whether reason or substance , logic , or the essential precedes. Intelligence can not possibly face this choice, of such sequence was determined. Bit of OT was undermined, the same confusion arises.
Therefore , at some point the two must meet, only to appear to divide again vice versa
Appearance and reality are an endless cycle of chains, AMD that chain itself is dynamic and variable.
The source and the effect are not , and are disti -guistinguishable at various stages,
They are equal and opposite. , contemporously significant and remotely significant.
Intelligence requeres levels of organization to coalesce and disperse.
To atomize and variably redact to identify by a superimposition of levels unto an absolute which transpires unto It’self, while dispersing into other than .
This process is a necessary condition of what transpires, as appearance and reality, and such demonstration becomes apotheosis by the virtue of it’s aposarance, rather then it’s assumed opposite negation.
That opposite, is demonstrateable nominally , unconsciously.
Levels of unconscious , preconscious, subconscious, conscious and superconscious states are similarly quantified into variable bubbles of significance.
This is the material substance to John’s logical argument.
Creation of otherness in physical reality from non-existence means that God can exist without the otherness of physical reality. However, God’s intelligence is certainly aware of otherness.
bannon, when are you gonna get in the game and forget about god? that fucker is either dead, or so fuckin old he’s entirely useless. stop with the metaphysical geriatrics already.
God is not obsolete. Something’s got to be uncaused or we wouldn’t be here. That’s still true today. I can show that this uncaused reality must be maximally intelligent due to the necessity of divine simplicity. That’s God!
“God is not obsolete. Something’s got to be uncaused or we wouldn’t be here. That’s still true today. I can show that this uncaused reality must be maximally intelligent due to the necessity of divine simplicity. That’s God!”
Right. It can’t possibly be proven but it needs to be hypothesized as an absolute, absolutely. …
In other words, “to be or not to be” will draw to an inconclusive epoch, within fragmented series of fractured relatives of recall. Recall recounts the absolute infinitely veriable absolute return.
The FACT is being = an imminent proof of existence, therefore, it’s negative is a simulated apprise simulations within sub-marginal reductions toward absurdity.
Every possible being in existence requires otherness to distinguish itself. John is talking out his ass here.
By ‘otherness’, I don’t mean duality. (Or the trinity). I just mean that something else must exist besides yourself forever in order for you to exist; true for all possible beings.
God may not be caused, but god for sure, is dependent. We are not caused either. We are infinite souls. Eternal forms are not the creation, they are separate from creation. Our souls have lived forever, and they will continue forever, and just like a hypothetical creator, all of them need otherness.
The point You are making is both: an admission of the One, and It’s very denial in an imminent proxies.
However, this causes a retrograde fallacy. Not that this forum generally suffer from it, with John 's admission that there is no regression at all, invites again his pronouncement , and not argument against absolute regression.
While noteworthy , its not absolutely convincing, …
However , although he misses the necessary steps in a contingent argument, he maintains it unconvincingly.