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 …
Ecmandu,
God is divinely simple. That means God is not dependent on His attributes. God is not dependent on God’s mind.
Meno,
This is not a search for meaning. This is a battle of ideas. Right, Ecmandu? Lol!
Meaning? Meaning is implied. Everyone wants their dreams to come true forever and nobody wants their consent violated.
Yes. This is about ideas.
When you say something like “god is not dependent on gods mind”. It makes me seriously question the lengths to which you will go to defend your concept.
Can you elaborate what you mean by that?
People always talk about “the mind of god”, I’ve never heard a theist talk about “the non mind of god”. Is like like some kind of Buddhist thing? Are you pulling my leg here?
One cannot separate a God not made of parts. So, every attribute of God is not a separation in God. God’s mind is an attribute of God, but so is God’s power and presence. So, God is not dependent on God’s mind as if God were separate from God’s mind.
Ok. So here’s the deal John. I call it ‘otherness’ (the ability to discern or distinguish anything including yourself).
So I see what your saying here… god is not dependent upon gods mind because the concepts ‘distinguish’, ‘dependent’ or ‘discern’ don’t apply to god.
I fucking read the Bible (which I think is bullshit) … but you take it to a whole new level of bullshit!
You say that god doesn’t distinguish, discern or is dependent (dependent implied from distinguish or discern). The Bible is not even that retarded.
God is more of a gnostic substance to the more modern versions then the One we usually associate with.
Ecmandu,
God’s mind is uncaused. God’s mind is not like a human mind. God is uncaused and without parts. God is divinely simple. This means God has no explanation by definition. You can’t comprehend God’s mind, because it has no explanation.
Right. God is not a substance of any sort. God is the uncaused reality.
Let’s pare this message down.
Gods mind has no explanation, but here you are explaining it exists. Think about your god for a moment. By definition (even of you) god is the only being in existence able to prove god exists.
So why are you even bothering?
What does it mean to you?
He’s being forced to do it by noumenal atoms that do not know they are forcing him to do it as they are not conscious, as consciousness is a magic produced by brains.
Ecmandu,
I prove, therefore I am.