John said,
“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.
Meno,
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.
In a block universe, how many times can you divide spacetime between time A and time B?
Answer: infinite number of times.
So, what is the difference between one frame and the next frame in terms of change?
Answer: nothing except it’s a new frame
So, how is motion possible in a block universe when there are an infinite number of unchanging frames?
Answer: there is no motion. The block universe’s conception of time is wrong.
Enter my friend, Occasionalism. And my friend needs a Creator God.
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.
Infinitesimals can’t do anything. You can’t get through an infinite number of identical frames.
Infinitesimals can’t do anything. You can’t get through an infinite number of identical frames.
It’s poetic John. Though not quite poetic!
Let’s take a number expansion like:
0.11234
And then add to it forever…
0.11111234…
And forever!
0.11111111111111111111111234
Understand?!
Existence is always a process. Just like infinitesimals.
The start and go on forever.
Do you know an infinitesimal that never started?
Of course not!
Where did they all start from? Where did any number start from? Zero? Nothing? Is that your god? Nothing?
Infinitesimals are calculus. Don’t confuse math with physical reality. You can’t move through an infinite number of the same frame.
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.
I don’t believe in completed infinities in physical reality.
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.
John said :
“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?
deleted purposely
Mysterioum coniunctionis
Upon learning of ‘occasionalism’ one wonders it’ s resemblance to mysterium conjinctionis, as a form of heideggarian intentionality. .
To me this is a more compelling argument then that offered by scholastic thinkers, though the modern derivations, perplexingly offer lot’s of insight into it. Almost tangential alchemically speaking.
This page was left preemptively purposeless.
Ecmandu,
A physical reality alla the block universe is a completed infinity. And because God’s mind is uncaused, the concept of otherness is also uncaused. Moreover, God’s mind is a completed infinity. However, physical reality requires creation to exist. That means a God must exist. That means the block universe concept of time is wrong. The correct concept of time is Occasionalism. Why? Because an infinite subdivision of spacetime frames cannot move. An infinite number of the same frame never changes. Movement requires a finite number of frames, but that requires a God to create each new frame and remember the previous frame. New frames must be created because there is nothing between frames and a new frame cannot be caused by nothing. Occasionalism can mimic every phenomenon of relativity, so it’s completely compatible with modern physics.
John bannan wrote: “because gods mind is uncaused, the concept of otherness is uncaused”
Me: at least you admit that otherness is uncaused. What this means is that god did not create otherness. Which, like I stated before, god is a dependent being.
As for infinity… you’re just talking out your ass again. Infinity (by definition!) is never completed. Just like god cannot exist without otherness, god cannot be a completed infinity.
Causation is at the crux of occasionalism. That is the nominal metaphor for it, essentially. Why not go from there, instead of raising to linguistic analysis? That merely demonstrates solopistic reasoning., through a regressive dualism
It may not necessarily apply for this kind of endeavor, to navigate through, as of yet , within these uncertain contextual levels.
But such could come through primary inquiry within questions posed through secondary derived considerations.
If anyone disclaims understanding the above ,then certainly it would pit the contentious issues faced here between John and EC into a repetitive search for meaning. I thought , by now, we could be beyond that level of secondary preoccupation.
However, I suppose, time is not really of an essence here
John says,:
“This is not a search for meaning. This is a battle of ideas. Right, Ecmandu? Lol!”
Why can’t it be reversely, "This is a search for ideas, not a battle for meaning? " which is the subset of which? Isn’t it said of ideas, that their misrepresentation is what results in conflict,
But is this merely a quibble, after all that has been said of causation?
After all God does speak thus, so as to be understood.!?!
“This is not a search for meaning. This is a battle of ideas. Right, Ecmandu? Lol!”
But of course right and me no should be the first to understand!
But still , there is the hidden retrograde that defies Itself …