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.
I’m making an admission of the one to point out the one doesn’t exist. You know why I hate human beings, they anthropomoize everything as narcissus did. The cosmos exploded in an infinite number of unique infinitesimals … not a single source. Every space is expanding from every space, not a central space.
And how does calculus work? It always starts somewhere. You believe in completed infinities, I don’t. You have no evidence to support a completed infinity.
God may live in the infinith dimension … one thing god will never see is an existence where there is either a completed infinity or an existence without otherness - just like the rest of us.
“don’t believe in completed infinities in physical reality.”
Ecmandu said:
“God may live in the infinith dimension … one thing god will never see is an existence where there is either a completed infinity or an existence without otherness - just like the rest of us.”
Is there a conjunction between them, or would that be possible, in some time, some place, imaginable or not?