An End To The God Debate
This will depend on how we understand the terms perception, conception, perspective and belief. Therefore, allow me to give my stipulative definitions of them:
1. Perception is the generation of percepts. It is how we relate to actual objects/subjects that are distinctly not self and is derived from sensation. This means any actual thing beyond the awareness/recognition of our identity can be a percept.
2. Conception is the generation of concepts. It is how we develop objects/subjects in relation to percepts and without any direct connection to actual existences which influence the senses.
For example, if we generate the concept of an elephant, it is not an actual elephant but may relate to one depending on what elements of perception it is derived from. However, the perception of an elephant is directly derived from the sensation acquired. That is, we can conceive of something like a pink elephant bouncing on its tail but we can't perceive such.
3. Perspective is the frame of reference we use to relate to any and every object/subject in whichever condition they represent to our awareness. This means that both percepts and concepts are included in perspective.
This would then mean that information about God, universe and dark matter is perceived because we acquire it through sensation, we read it. However, God, universe and dark matter as distinct objects/subjects can only be concepts.
From the above, I can only say that:
4. Belief, in the sense of faith, corresponds to perspective than to something based on ignorance. It is just as much a relation to our percepts and concepts as perspective is.
My point is, it would be illogical to ask for proof of the universe just as much as proof of God because, presently, they are just concepts. Perhaps in the near future we'll have proof of dark matter or the universe and, maybe, eventually God, but only if they're actual existences.
Can this be the end of the God debate?
1. Perception is the generation of percepts. It is how we relate to actual objects/subjects that are distinctly not self and is derived from sensation. This means any actual thing beyond the awareness/recognition of our identity can be a percept.
2. Conception is the generation of concepts. It is how we develop objects/subjects in relation to percepts and without any direct connection to actual existences which influence the senses.
For example, if we generate the concept of an elephant, it is not an actual elephant but may relate to one depending on what elements of perception it is derived from. However, the perception of an elephant is directly derived from the sensation acquired. That is, we can conceive of something like a pink elephant bouncing on its tail but we can't perceive such.
3. Perspective is the frame of reference we use to relate to any and every object/subject in whichever condition they represent to our awareness. This means that both percepts and concepts are included in perspective.
This would then mean that information about God, universe and dark matter is perceived because we acquire it through sensation, we read it. However, God, universe and dark matter as distinct objects/subjects can only be concepts.
From the above, I can only say that:
4. Belief, in the sense of faith, corresponds to perspective than to something based on ignorance. It is just as much a relation to our percepts and concepts as perspective is.
My point is, it would be illogical to ask for proof of the universe just as much as proof of God because, presently, they are just concepts. Perhaps in the near future we'll have proof of dark matter or the universe and, maybe, eventually God, but only if they're actual existences.
Can this be the end of the God debate?
Comments (133)
People dislike the "God debate" primarily because they get frustrated that their conversation partners aren't convinced by the same things as them. The problem lies with the way we engage in the debate, not in the debate itself.
How is the experience acquired? If conjured up by the mental faculty then it is a concept. If from an external source (external to the identity of self) then it would be a percept. I think what you mean is intuition, the products of which, are concepts until determined otherwise.
Another way of looking at it is that, the source of a percept is objective in its relation to different percipients while the source of a concept is always subjective no matter how closely a concept resembles that of another concipient. Without an external phenomenon that distinctly amounts to God, His role in our perspectives will always be limited to that of a concept. However, this does not discredit His influence on us since the mental faculty is the crux of all our activities.
Sorry, I got a little dramatic with the title. I should have said, "an end to the 'proof of God' debate."
Couldn't have said it better. Thanks.
Ignorance can only be observed as an absence considering it exists dually to knowledge. It is not a thing in itself but rather a statement of relation, hence separation. One who is ignorant is one who is separated from knowledge.
The God argument is just beginning under these terms as argument both stems from a moves towards a point of synthesis through extremes/opposition/Hegelian thesis/antithesis.
Pronouncing is an argument. Asking questions are also arguments consider a question has multiple answers determined by the question itself.
We are not talking about square circles, and if we are we would be observing a relation between a square and circle as "1" relationship.
Ignorance as an absence of knowledge observes absence as a deficiency. A deficiency observes a state of relation; hence multiplicity. For example I may observe a deficiency in red, but this deficiency of red is determined relative to another color. Hence a deficiency in red is a relationship between one color as existing and red as determining that color by its non-existence. Red as deficient is red as a negative boundary.
So using the above example of color we can observe a form of multiplicity in color between red and x color.
Ignorance, as an absence of knowledge, in turn exists as a form of knowing in itself (For if one know they are ignorant they know they are separate from knowledge; hence observing knowledge generally and the self are a part of that knowledge). Ignorance if known, is knowledge, but not complete knowledge; hence a part of it. As a part it necessitates a form of multiplicity for a part exists through other parts. A part is an observation of multiplicity.
In these terms to observe a part of knowledge is to observe a gradation of knowledge as unified, with these parts existing through gradation being grades in themselves. Because ignorance, as gradation and a part of knowledge, exists as a part it cannot exist on its own terms without some knowledge already being there.
To argue a form of agnosticism where one cannot know is in itself to set a premise for knowing. Agnosticism as an absence of knowing is still knowing.
First, you have no argument of value as evidence in the last post. If you do not like the longer version, that is fine, but address the briefer version. If you want to debate the paradox of the square circle elsewhere, just create the thread and pm me when it is ready.
But considering that is too much, here is a shorter version you can start with:
To know ignorance is to know; hence knowledge.
We can start from there.
Yes and No.
My argument:
1) We all are aware that we are aware; hence we all know something; hence because of this reflective quality in knowledge the question of ignorance comes down to choosing to reflect or not to reflect.
2) If one is aware that they do not know everything then they are aware of there ignorance. If one claims they are aware of everything then they claim to know a framework of knowledge that encapsulates knowing.
3) To be convinced the framework they are aware of is all encompassing and they know everything in that framework is to be ignorant of the nature of the framework being composed of and composing further frameworks.
4) This ignorance of the nature of the framework as repeating through other frameworks is an absence of reflection in thought with reflection in thought being the formation of thought through repitition.
For example I think of x.
I observe that x is directed towards y.
Now y may be directed towards z but is also directed back towards x.
X and y are connected; however as connected they form a.
Z is directed to z1 but in turn is directed back to y.
Z and y are connected as b
Z is also directed back to x, through y, as b1.
And so on and so forth.
5) What we observe in this thought process is a form of defintion through connection and seperation (with separation being the projection of one variable away from itself towards another). We also observe the maintainance of variables in anothet respect along with tne dissolution of variables into firther variables.
This act of reflection observes the variable as it is directed towards another variable. Reflection in turn, in brief terms, is the direction of one's observations which effectively gives them form and function. Reflection, is a form of structure what one knows and does not know with knowing existing through structures/order.
6) Now considering knowledge is premised in reflection, with Socrates arguing that definition of man as being one who reflects, ignorance is premised in an absence of reflection as knowledge is the repitition of limits as structure with knowledge itself being order.
7) For one to be ignorant of his ignornance would be for him to be ignorant of the fact he reflects, or ceasing to reflect on the fact he reflects. Now this argument may stem further, necessitating that All men:
1) know
2) are absent of knowing
3) are ignorant of their ignorance
All at the same time in different respects considering it is premised in a depth of perception that exists through a penetrative act of will. So knowledge and will are interlinked in these respects because of the nature of reflection.
So men who are ignorant of their ignorance may do so from weakness, choice and the inhernet formless nature of the subjective nature within the self.
Nothing is being negated.
I'm just saying that the argument needs to be represented in the right perspective.
Well, I think that the effort of thinking about one's beliefs, including the proof which may or may not exist is vitally important to the whole debate as well. Any thinker worth their salt should be testing their beliefs to see if they still hold up to scrutiny.
Again, it's the intention with which a lot of people engage in such debates that causes its often nonconstructive form. If one engages in such discussions not to refine one's own beliefs, but to seek confirmation (in the form of being able to convince someone of one's own beliefs), the reasons for discussion are wrong to begin with and people are bound to get frustrated.
Well said. However, is there any part of the OP that contradicts any logical proceeding on the topic. I should hope I have neither over nor under estimated the value of any analytical undertaking. Again, I'm merely emphasizing adherence to appropriate perspective.
The God debate could be useful if we faced the evidence it has produced, which is, the investigation in it's current form is going nowhere. That is actually quite useful information.
As example, imagine that I'm trying to repair my car. I have a solution theory and put it in to action. But my plan doesn't work. So I try again. Still not working. I try twelve more times. Same result as before, nothing. After some amount of consistent failure I'm going to stop working my plan, stand back from the job, and look for a faulty unexamined assumption that my plan is built upon. Right?
If we were willing to do this with the God debate, it could be useful to continue the investigation.
But if we're not willing to face the evidence provided by a consistent pattern of failure, if we're determined to continue endlessly repeating the same old arguments to no effect, then the best that can be said of the God debate is that it provides ego entertainment for extremely nerdy typoholics such as ourselves.
If the God debate is to serve any constructive purpose beyond inflating our egos, the next step would be to identify the assumptions the debate is built upon, and try to find one or assumptions which are false.
Here's one example.
There seems to be almost universal agreement among theists and atheists that a God either exists, or not, one or the other. We might be suspicious of the fact that this widely shared assumption appears to be taken as an obvious given which requires no examination.
If we were to examine reality without the burden of this blind assumption, we might see that the vast majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales, space, does not fit neatly in to a tidy simplistic dualistic "exists or not" paradigm.
Thus, it's at least possible that the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon may not accurately represent reality, which if true, tends to turn the entire God debate in to a big pile of pointless rubbish.
Upon seeing this, some people may wash their hands of the God debate and turn their attention to other matters. This seems a reasonable choice. Other people may choose to dump the questionable "exists or not" assumption and then continue a God investigation on that basis. This seems a reasonable choice too.
Most people will ignore all of the above because they've memorized a collection of beliefs and arguments which they use to publicly inflate their ego, and they don't want this fun game spoiled by some party pooper. Ok, I suppose this is reasonable too, but perhaps not all that interesting.
The "exists or not" paradigm is just one example of a foundational assumption of the God debate which is typically taken to be an obvious given, but which may not be true.
There are other such questionable but unexamined assumptions underneath the God debate. Perhaps you can find them?
The negation of "everything" results in a continuation of nothing, as nothing is merely an inversion of being.
The negation of nothing, while resulting in being, still requires a continual negation of nothing considering the negation of being results in nothing in one respect. Any form of negation results in a infinite regress.
The God argument, results in a continuum, with this continuum being infinite resulting in a definition reflective of God. The dialect of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, qualitative positive existence/negative existence/neutral existence , or even a quantitatve 1/0/Possible observes this nature of the argument (through different degrees of perspective) as having a triadic nature resulting in a continuum.
This continuum as a definition of God, observes God as having a triadic nature where God is perpetually synthetic.
The question of perspective leads to what is the right perspective, or even if there is one. This argument not only results in a continuum of perspectives, but through this multiplicity the nature of perspective is a continuum...This is considering this argument itself is a continuum. Under these terms we are left with the premise, which even in the face of contradiction maintains this form and still justifies itself as rational (I may have to elaborate on this sentence), that all perspective is directed movement.
God, existing through perspective hence as perspective, is pure movement. Under these premises where God is pure movement, we are left with a Platonic/Pythagorean/presocratic atomist argument at minimum, where God can be premised in the Monad(s).
Because of this Monad(s) foundation God, much like the triadic synthetic nature argued above, God exists through the Triad of the Point, Line, Circle (which where observed as divine in themselves in much of presocratic/socratic/post Socratic philosophy) which exist as infinite directed movement as no movement.
Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. :wink:
But the children's merry-go-round to nowhere nature of the debate can be proven, yes?
Quite an interesting point of view. I will consider your perspective.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Unfortunately. But, a man can hope.
Well said. And we might asks exists how? Presumably not like an asteroid. If God is a 'spirit,' then this already suggest some strange mode of existence. What did those early writers have in mind? Probably lots of different things, and probably nothing quite exact. Chances are that they were calling some part of the experience God.
Quoting Jake
Exactly. The idea that existence is a singled-meaning predicate that switches on and off seems very questionable. That kind of crude, binary understanding may even mostly exist because it makes a certain game possible.
Quoting Jake
Indeed. Hegel and others seem to be in the second category.
Quoting Jake
Nice. I think you just described quite a few philosophical issues.
This is the answer I had in mind. For me, it represents the right perspective.
It's so nice to meet an incurable optimist. :wink:
Well, I am an optimist on this matter, in that I feel the God debate could potentially serve a useful purpose. I am an optimist in that I feel the God debate has delivered useful information.
I would admit that I'm a bit of a pessimist in that there's not a lot of evidence many people are all that interested in that information. But, this lack of interest tends to deliver even more useful information, so....
What if God both exists and does not exist?
This concept of the Monad, in a pluralistic state as Monads, observes the Monad in a multiplicious form under the term atom where this multiplicity is founded in an inherent dualism as opposing forces resulting in multiple localized states in continual flux: Epicureus, Anaxarchus, Democritus, Leucippus, Metrodorus of Chios, Nausiphanes, Heraclitus, Liebniz, etc. as well as a list of eastern schools too long to count.
This concept of God as Both 1 and Many is reflected in a trinitarian concept universally observed in many religions:
Many world religions contain triple deities or concepts of trinity, including:
the Hindu Trimurti
the Hindu Tridevi
the Three Jewels of Buddhism
the Three Pure Ones of Taoism
the Christian Holy Trinity
the Triple Goddess of Wicca
The Shield of the Trinity is a diagram of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
Christianity
The threefold office of Christ is a Christian doctrine that Christ performs the functions of prophet, priest, and king.
The ministry of Jesus lasted approximately three years (27–30 AD[citation needed]).
During the Agony in the Garden, Christ asked three times for the chalice to be taken from his lips.
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his death (Sunday, April 9, 30 AD).
The devil tempted Jesus three times.
Saint Peter thrice denied Jesus and thrice affirmed his faith in Jesus
The Magi – wise men who were astronomers/astrologers from Persia[citation needed] – gave Jesus three gifts.
There are three Synoptic Gospels and three epistles of John.
Paul the Apostle went blind for three days after his conversion to Christianity.
Judaism
Noah had three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth
The Three Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
The prophet Balaam beat his donkey three times.
The prophet Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a large fish
Three divisions of the Written Torah: Torah (Five Book of Moses), Nevi'im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings)[8]
Three divisions of the Jewish people: Kohen, Levite, Yisrael
Three daily prayers: Shacharit, Mincha, Maariv
Three Shabbat meals
Shabbat ends when three stars are visible in the night sky[9]
Three Pilgrimage Festivals: Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot
Three matzos on the Passover Seder table[10]
The Three Weeks, a period of mourning bridging the fast days of Seventeenth of Tammuz and Tisha B'Av
Three cardinal sins for which a Jew must die rather than transgress: idolatry, murder, sexual immorality[11]
Upsherin, a Jewish boy's first haircut at age 3[12]
A Beth din is composed of three members
Potential converts are traditionally turned away three times to test their sincerity[13]
In the Jewish mystical tradition of the Kabbalah, it is believed that the soul consists of three parts, with the highest being neshamah ("breath"), the middle being ruach ("wind" or "spirit") and the lowest being nefesh ("repose").[14] Sometimes the two elements of Chayah ("life" or "animal") and Yechidah ("unit") are additionally mentioned.
In the Kabbalah, the Tree of Life (Hebrew: Etz ha-Chayim, ?? ?????) refers to a latter 3-pillar diagrammatic representation of its central mystical symbol, known as the 10 Sephirot.
Buddhism
The Triple Bodhi (ways to understand the end of birth) are Budhu, Pasebudhu, and Mahaarahath.
The Three Jewels, the three things that Buddhists take refuge in.
Shinto
The Imperial Regalia of Japan of the sword, mirror, and jewel.
Daoism
The Three Treasures (Chinese: ??; pinyin: s?nb?o; Wade–Giles: san-pao), the basic virtues in Taoism.
The Three Dantians
Three Lines of a Trigram
Three Sovereigns: Heaven Fu Xi (Hand – Head – 3º Eye), Humanity Shen Nong (Unit 69), Hell Nüwa (Foot – Abdomen – Umbiculus).
Hinduism
The Trimurti: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer.
The three Gunas found in Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy.[15]
The three paths to salvation in the Bhagavad Gita named Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga.
Zoroastrianism
The three virtues of Humata, Hukhta and Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds) are a basic tenet in Zoroastrianism.
Norse mythology
Three is a very significant number in Norse mythology, along with its powers 9 and 27.
Prior to Ragnarök, there will be three hard winters without an intervening summer, the Fimbulwinter.
Odin endured three hardships upon the World Tree in his quest for the runes: he hanged himself, wounded himself with a spear, and suffered from hunger and thirst.
Bor had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Vé.
Other religions
The Wiccan Rule of Three.
The Triple Goddess: Maiden, Mother, Crone; the three fates.
The sons of Cronus: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.
The Slavic god Triglav has three heads.
Esoteric tradition
The Theosophical Society has three conditions of membership.
Gurdjieff's Three Centers and the Law of Three.
Liber AL vel Legis, the central scripture of the religion of Thelema, consists of three chapters, corresponding to three divine narrators respectively: Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
The Triple Greatness of Hermes Trismegistus is an important theme in Hermeticism.
Wikipedia: 3
Now this nature of unity and multiplicity is premised in the foundation of all being fundamentally being directed movement, with this directed movement occurs through a process of repitition or "mirroring" where the movement itself as a constant is reflected through a variety of phenomenon both abstract and empirical. This repitition of these common limits, allows for not just continuity but an inherent connection where symmetry in form and function necessitates a form of unity.
We can see the circle represented in:
1. Pythagorean Monad / Hindu Bindhu.
2. Sun and/or moon Worship in Various Cultures, observed with the Egyptian Aten.
3. Presocratic and Socratic emphasis on the Divinity of the circle.
4. Stonehenge
5. Taoism
6. Muslim Dome of the Rock
7. Circle dance of many cultures, specifically Jewish culture and 3rd world tribes.
8. Philosophers such as Hall, or the Occult book the Kybalion.
9. The 24 philosophers definition of God, with one as sphere.
10. Marcus Aruellius meditations.
11. Platonism
12. Book of Ezekiel Wheels within Wheels
13. The golden rule / "you reap as you sow".
14. Reincarnation
15. Moderation as cycling of extremes.
16. Nichmachean ethics.
17. Ecclesiastes "For everything their is a season".
18. Moral reciprocation (to give x is to receive x)
This is further reflected in natural and artificial phenomena.
1. Orbit of planets and stars.
2. Atoms
3. Circulatory, Respiratory and Nervous system.
4. Alternating current.
5. Seasons and weather patterns of nature.
6. Migratory patterns of birds.
7. Hunting/foraging patterns of wolves, deer, Turkey, etc.
8. Ocean currents
9. Reproduction as cycling of genetic material.
10. Movement of water to clouds to rain.
11. Alternation of emotions.
12. Personal habits
13. Standard conversations.
14. Wheels
15. Flying Saucers
16. Various dance and martial art moves.
17. Cycling action of semi automatic weapons.
18. Ball/puck/marbles
19. Various sports.
20. Mirror Effect in psychology.
21. Eyes, breasts, buttocks, various facets of human body, specifically female. Joint movement.
22. Economic exchange in cultures and between cultures.
23. Alternation of common traits amidst various people (personalities, physical traits)
24. Evolution.
25. Genome.
26. Political Spin.
27. Revolver, rolling, bullet spin.
28. Centrifuge.
29. Gyroscope.
30. Movements of elements.
31. Tornado, whirlwind, whirlpool.
32. Forms of liquids, solids, and gases.
33. Bipolar disorder.
34. Multiple personality disorder.
35. Various rolls for meals or desert.
36. Etc.
X. ALL triads, dualisms, and monads.
To cycle back to the premises:
1. Isomorphism in math and logic.
2. Godel's incompleteness theorems
3. ALL definitons in dictionary cycling back to previous defintion.
4. Addition and multiplication.
5. Wittgenstein observation of sets.
6. Subject-predicate looping in paragraphs.
7. Noun verb alternation in paragraphs.
8. binary code
9. Word through word as sentence, sentence through sentence as paragraph, paragraph through paragraph as page, page as page through book, book through book as volume with all cycling back to words.
10. ALL numbers as cycling of 1, 2 and or 3.
11. ALL languages looping through each other.
12. Set through set, definition through definition, concept through concept, etc.
13. Etc.
Then you're equivocating?
sounds more like the start of the God debate than the end of the God debate. :)
Sounds to me more like the God debate would finally be getting somewhere. That is, folks would finally be inspecting and challenging some of the "taken to be an obvious given" assumptions that have had the God debate going endlessly round and round in a small circle to nowhere.
We are left with observing the nature of equivocation, from the framework of logic, as a fallacy where 1 exists as many and many as one considering the fallacy of equivocation is a fallacy where many definitions are equated to one.
However, the fallacy of equivocation is left with its own cancelation (as the fallacy of equivocation has multiple definitions) into just equivocation as being a constant.
Equivocation is a continuum in these respects, where all definitions of God as equivalent show them as one continuous definition of God. In a separating respect, these equivocation resulting in multiple definitions of God observes equivocation as formless where what is equivalent is separate and equivocation is reducing to a point of inversion of unity/multiplicity.
Where God exists as equivocation, God is one and many.
Equivocation is a semantic issue, and a fallacious one when used in an argument. You're saying that God is a semantic issue? (That's just the first problem with that.)
We are left with God as the third variable of this dualism, being/nonbeing, as existing as both and neither. God as both takes on a nature of synthesis, or "joining" reminscient of Hegel, Pythagorean concept of three, Socratic dialogue (resulting in plato/aristotle), reproductive natural law, etc.
Joining observes many as one, hence God as synthetic is God as 1 with 1 being active synthesis. God exists as an active continuous state of synthesis.
Considering this synthesis is continual, God is neither synthetic nor not synthetic as this continuuity to synthesis necessitates something beyond synthesis as a cause of synthesis.
So synthesis as a form of joining through multiplicity is caused by structure for all deterministic cause are an observation of structure. Structure is cause, as a cause of syntheis for all synthesis occurs through percicevably separate structures as the self cancellation of void.
Equivocation is not an issue of language, but measurement and definition that lends itself to problems in all schools of thought.
"Definition" is a linguistic issue.
Equivocation is using a word in two different senses as if you're NOT changing senses, and it's particularly a problem when you're presenting an argument as if a sense of a term is consistent rather than referring to two different things.
Except that reality doesn't seem to care all that much about all this little human reason stuff. The overwhelming vast majority of reality is space, which can not definitively be said to exist or not exist, one or the other. Whatever space is, it doesn't seem to fit neatly in to the tidy little categories our minds create.
Space is simply the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter. So it definitely exists.
1. Movement as a form of repetition, where a phenomenon replicates itself given a specific framework with the framework acting as a replicating phenonemon, observes an inherent multiplicity as the foundation for a phenomena.
2. This replication of phenomena, as movement through multiplicity, occurs if and only if directed; hence replication occurs through direction.
3. Infinite replication, as directed movement, gives foundation to consistency where movement at a rate of infinity becomes effectively still. An example would be a wheel spinning at the rate of infinity appearing still.
4. Space as unified would be infinite movement, where any perceivable change would be space folding through space as space. Space can effectively replicate itself considering space exists relative to other space. What differs one spatial limit from another is its rate of movement. However if space is composed of infinite movement as no movement, we are left with one infinity inverting to multiple infinities.
5. The question is how can a space change to further space, or rather how can space multiply if space is space. A unified space inverting to multiple space, as multiple rates of movement with one infinity being greater than another, necessitates this inversion of space as directed movement being a form of change in itself.
6. So 1 space inverting to another space observes space as nothing. This nothingness, where space inverts to further space, observe void voiding itself under its own nature.
7. Nothing cancels itself out into directed movement where this directed movement encapsulates nothingness. Considering nothing cannot be observed as it does not exists except as the inversion of unity, what we see is multiple spaces with matter being atoms as 0d point space inverting to further point space.
8. Hence space as directed movement would be equivalent to ether, with void observe the ether as 1d point space directed towards eachother.
9. Space is determined by its directional qualities where space as void, is strictly multiplicity as various rates of infinity.
10. An infinity closest to point 0, or space continually individuating, would be matter.
Thought would be the quickest of movements followed by matter as a lower degree of the same space.
the phenomena directing away from its origins into a new phenomena (seperation).
Or multiple phenomena directed towards eachother as eachother (connection).
This act of definition occurin g though language is not limited to language itself.
The matter paradox, still breaks down to a question of form and no form, directed movement and multiple directed movement.
So how's that coming along? I predict the end of the God debate is not just around the corner.
For now, I'll settle for just playing my part. This is not an easy nut to crack.
Say what? Do you mean that you're describing how individuals think about something when forwarding a definition?
It's a relation. Relations exist but don't necessarily weigh anything. It supervenient. Again, it's the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter.
Doesn't meet definition of existence.
What definition of existence do you think things need to meet and why do you think things need to meet the definition in question? Who came up with the definition you're using, and why would we follow suit?
The gravitational pull of volume occurs through its mass, as this gravity is a pulling together of volume as form through as vacuum of no form. Volume is pulled through mass, with mass acting as a vacuum or void. This causes a further acceleration of the volume further giving volume to further mass where gravity effectively cancels itself out perpetually resulting in a cycle.
Density as volume and mass is a localization of this cycle of volume and mass respectively observing volume and mass existing in proportion due to there ratios. An object of with a density relatively high in mass will have a greater grativational pull, while a density relatively higher in volume will have less of a gravitational pull but will be pulled towards an object, through gravity, that has a higher ratio of mass to volume.
Mass can be associated with 0d point space acting as a boundless field, where gravity is one of the foundational points (pardon the pun) for quantum entanglement. This gravity, through mass, observes itself as a inversive by nature where volume alternates between a state of unity and multiplicity that is foundational to its structure.
Matter is mass as formless void, volume as this formless void canceling itself out into directed movement through acceleration and density as the cycling of volume and mass maintaining both.
Matter is tri-fold in nature and reflects the basic 0d point, 1d line, and 2d Circle as the foundation for the defintion of God. Matter is an approximation of God, an image, that does not exist on its own terms but rather as an extension.
1. A is separated through B where A not just projects to a further defintion, but in this projection separates itself. One defintion leads to another with these definitions occurin g through a separation which is observed in accordance with time as a process of individuation (multiplication/division of definition).
2. A is directed towards B, but in doing so B is directed towards A. A is connected to B, through A, as C. C is the connection of A and B.
3. All defintion occurs through directed movement. Projecting away from an origin results in separation. Phenomenon projected towards eachother, through eachother, as eachother is connection.
Definition is existence through linear movement as directed movement with this directed movement being the foundational for all abstract and empirical phenomena (mind, emotion, material).
There is nothing extant without form.
What, exactly, are you talking about here?
?
B is a person? Re "A" what the heck are you talking about re "its origins" and re "projecting"?
A as an axiom cannot exist on its own terms unless it exists through other axioms.
A must project to further axioms, as A on its own terms is effectively nothing/point 0/void.
All axioms, or self-evident truths, exist as the foundation for all phenomenon. They may be observed physical or abstract phenomenon that while observed form the observer so that the axiom is simultaneously an extension of the observer.
Axioms, observe all being as having an inherent element of consciousness in these regards as a perpetual measurement point of origin where reality is defined by the limits given to it, with these limits existing as the foundation for complex phenomena as limits in themselves.
The axiom existing through further axioms, with the axiom in itself being nothing/void/point 0 observes the axiom as not just rooted in consciousness but effectively the void of consciousness with consciousness stemming from a point 0 in these respects.
Consciousness is founded in point space, and this point space reflects through all being.
So A and B may be persons, where a person projects past their identity to form a new identity, a person projects past themselves through off spring, but it is not limited to persons but any form of movement.
From a different perspective, An atom must project past its localized position to another position in order to exist, however because the atom exist in a different position the atom is changed.
Or one can use "emotion", where anger is directed past its own origins into another emotion, such as joy which is the negation of anger by its dissolution. Anger dissolves into Joy, with both these emotions composed of further sub emotions (happiness, rage, jealousy, fear, contentement, whatever).
The directive nature of any axiom observes the axiom as effectively separating itself, through itself, into another axiom.
A self-evident truth:
1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity).
2) References a loop, where the "truth" as evident to the self contains not just a nature of self-referentiality but consciousness as well. In these respects all truths, that which exists, has an inherent nature of consciousness.
3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God".
You're saying that "self-evident truths" observe things?
Axiom, A self-evident truth:
1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity).
2) References a loop, where the "truth" as evident to the self contains not just a nature of self-referentiality but consciousness as well. In these respects all truths, that which exists, has an inherent nature of consciousness.
3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God".
4) The axiom as composed of an composing all axioms is void in itself in the respect it is relative to other Axioms. In these respects, this observes the Axiom as nothing being equivalent to God as "Ending/Beginning" as a point of inversion conducive to nothingness. God is a 0d point.
5) The axiom as all axioms, where all axioms are extensions of eachother, observes all Axioms as 1 "everything", this is Equivalent to "God as Everything". God is pure being observed as a 1d point.
6) God as both Everything and Nothing, 1d/0d point space observes God as "Origin" as both "Cause" (pure structure through 1d point space) and "Acausal" (pure void as 0d point space). This point space, with the "point" rationally and intuitively being not just the foundation of axioms but the most axiomatic of all axioms for being "as is", is a definition of God and a foundation of consciousness within man as measurer.
7) God as Origin, is beyond Origin as Origin alone necessitates a dualism of both pure being and void, hence God is beyond point space an axioms. Beyond "Origin" is "definition" as the separation and connection of Origin, and "Power" as the maintainance and dissolution of "origin". The rational capacity for man to be original, define and exhibit power observes man, and consciousness, as a reflection or "mirroring of God synonymous to repetition or recursion" observes man as an extension of God.
8) All axioms, existing in accords to the other axioms which give origin, definition and power (maintainance), observes the axiom itself as a limit with all limits being the foundation of being.
9) The axiom as a limit, which is the foundation to all structure and order considering all being stems from structure and order through these foundational limits (with these foundational limits existing as limits in themselves) observes all axioms as proof through existence.
10) Existence is proof of God through the axiom.
? Top"Terrapin Station;226570"]
Holy crap, dude. You've got to be joking that you continually type that much when I ask you something yet you never even answer what I ask you. LOL. 90-something percent of the posts on this board are like you're in a loony bin.
What is the form of space?
The question is answered.
You asked about the nature of the axiom, as to whether it observes phenomon which lends to the nature of whether an axiom is conscious. More specifically if any phenomenon is in itself conscious.
If a phenomena is conscious, it must have some degree of self referentiality.
If all phenomena are conscious, as all phenomena are axiomatic (self referential and existing through the observer), then all phenomena stem from a center point of consciousness considering consciousness is the ever present cause.
This center point of consciousness stems through all phenomena, necessitating all axioms exist through eachother. The axiom, in turn, as a point of origin reflects the nature of God where all being is a reflection.
The thread is about the God debate, the premises must be observed.
When is an axiom evident to others? And how does it relate to facts?
For example, 'women are inferior to men' has been a self-evident truth for many people for many years. Some still persist in that belief presently. However, we know it's not actually true.
Quoting eodnhoj7
If the objective cancels the subjective, how can an axiom be both? Perhaps you mean they're separate in our considerations...?
Quoting eodnhoj7
What do you mean by axioms are conscious and how do you come about it?
No it wasnt. It would be answered by saying yes, no, or explaining why it's not possible to answer yes or no, where you literally write, "It's not possible to answer yes or no because . . ." at the start.
Again, in my view, space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter, and it doesnt exist aside from that. So the form is the extensional descriptions in question.
It may be defined as an act of reflection, with reflection being the replication of limits either actively (applying limits such as a line to a board), passively (observing the relations between animals or particles physical).
From a defintion where observation exists as a form of reflection, then yes all axioms observe.
This replication of symmetry, as a reflective or mirroring process, is the foundation of all phenomenon, as well as consciousness (as necessitating a form self referentiality), therefore all axioms have som degree of awareeness. Consciousness exists through a replication of limits.
Thanks. I'll count that as an answer.
You're not talking about axioms as if they exist or can exist independently of people, are you?
By symmetry, do you mean rationale?
Quoting eodnhoj7
To me, 'This replication of symmetry, as a reflective or mirroring process', is a part of the perception of phenomena but not its foundation. There is a distinct difference between logic and axioms. Axioms are not necessarily logical because they are often tinged with the bias of personal interpretation but logic is distinctly the expression of the laws which govern phenomena thereby inherent in their foundation.
Also, I think axioms express a degree of consciousness or awareness because humans express consciousness in all their activities. An axiom would be nothing more beyond human expression or relation.
My apologies if I came off as rude or short earlier, and further apologies for a post which must become necessarily long. Keep in mind, you may want to read this post several times.
With that being said,
The question of an axiom existing independent of an observer, becomes problematic if we view all phenomenon as having a degree of consciousness as the nature of independent observer becomes void if all phenomena have some degree of awareness.
An axiom as self evident is dually subjective and objective. Subjectivity is formless void. Objectivivity is directed movement, or form and function, that exists as a limit conducive to structure.
A. Self referencing subjective nature which gives the phenomenon an objective nature.
All phenomena are composed of some symmetry, where some limit replicates, with this symmetry observing a common bond. An abstract example of this would be a geometric figure as replicated lines. This abstract nature further replicates within nature in the form of a tree or plant, composition of minerals, qualities of an animal (legs, eyes, hair, etc. as replicated qualities).
The replication of certain limits results into complex limits as qualities which replicate so on and so for until some structure occurs. This replication of limits observes structure as perpetual cause considering all cause is premised as order. An effect, is an approximation of a cause, is the replication of a cause through itself with any multiplicity being the mirroring of void causing a perceived variation. All effect contains an inherent element of randomeness to it.
However all effect, as cause through cause, in itself is a cause.
Replication gives foundation to a structure and acts as a self sustaining cause, hence cause is an inherent part of observation as the formation of limits. In these respects all phenomenon have some degree of self referential consciousness to it as an extension of the One Cause (God) which is ever present through creation.
All axioms are self referential due to this causal nature, as all being is connected through structure as cause.
B. A projective subjective nature that gives rise to an objective nature.
All phenomena are composed of and composes other phenomena, with the phenomena existing as a projected movement conducive to time. For example a cow is composed of atoms and composes other cows as a herd. The atoms in there projection through time form the cow, the cow as projecting through time composes a part of the herd. The herd in turn projects through time.
It is the nature of the axiom to project through time, as a time zone in itself, that the axiom must have somewhere to project. The axiom can only project if there is somewhere to project to, neceesstating a further axiom. All axioms exist as relative parts, with this relativity observing a form of multiplicity. Each axiom as an individual part acts as a point of inversion, void in itself, in the respect it can only exist through other axioms.
In these respects the axiom as an individual or, through its void nature, multiplies and divides simulteously. For example a cow individuates (multiplies/divides) itself into further cows through the act of reproduction. It also individuate itself into further particles at death.
The axiom, cow in this example, is a localization of change. As localized directed movement it is an actual locality. In these respects it is objective. However, as an actual locality it must project to another actual locality. Considering there is only existence and order, the projection of one actual locality to another necessitates one locality to take on the form of a potential locality. As potential it is formless in the respect it does not exist in its actualized state.
This may appear confusing, a localized phenomena not being a localized phenomena. It is potential in the respect it is not the embodied form which is about to take place. Take for example the cow again. It's potential state is one of particles (death and decomposition/eaten), it's actual state is the cow. The actual state of the cow must project to another actual state of of being sick then an actual state of being sick.
Each state of the cow is a localization of the cow in a state of time where, due to time, the cow exists as multiple entities or parts. Now the potential state of particles is formless in time, relative to the other localizations of the cow. This potential formless nature is the means through which the actual localized axioms exist, with the potential state being a localized state when observed from a macro localized state. It acts as the formless means through which the actual states invert to other states that exist relative to eachother. The cow actualizes its potential nature (giving the formless nature form) through further actual states. The boundary line between the transition of the actual state into the potential state being actualized when localized appears as a further continuum of actual/potential localites.
Now the localized state as objective, form and function, observes the potential state is subjective. This makes little sense to most. While the potential is relative formlessness, and the subject is formless, how can potentiality be subjective? What we understand of the subjective state is a state of being that is inherently without form through language, thought, whatever in regards to the individual state. The subjective state as potential localization is potential objectivity. One may have a subjective experience and give objective form to it through word, etc. So going back to the cow being potential particles, necessitates the cow as not being a cow is subjective in the respect it is a formless state of the cow. Death, or void, can be viewed as subjective considering objectively a transition of movements occurs.
Potentiality as that without form can be observe as a relative absence of consciousness, death, and the term "reaching ones potential" can be observe as actualizing all that can be actualized before death, as inversion of one degree of consciousness to another (higher or lower) occurs.
In these respects, where the axiom as a locality exists through inversion it is a causal for inversion from one state to another is fundamentally void of being as this inversion of states is an inversion between unity/multiplicity.
C. All axioms are synthetic as the joining of the subjective formless (acausal randomness/potentiality) and objective form and function (causal structure/locality).
All axioms exists as directed movement, woth this directed movement being progressive and self referential. As directed movement they exist as limits. Movement occurs only if it is directed and direction occurs only if there is movement.
This limit exists through no limit as possible limit. A limit may exist if and only if it is possible, all possibilities are that which do not exist, however what is possible occurs through the limits.
This point observes an inherent cycling where possibility and limit occuring through a continual joining that is circular. All phenomena as existing through cycles are maintained for what they are by a process of joining. The birth and death of the cow, are joined as the cow existing as a cycle. Synthesis acts as a means of maintainance. This nature of synthesis is consciousness as it is a form of measurement where A dualism is joined into a unified state observed as triadic in its totality.
I will end it here because the post is way to long.
Long story short, all axioms are conscious because of a synthesis of a causal and causal nature which reflects the nature of God as Universal consciousness.
I find your perspective unique and somewhat interesting, however, it seems deficient in several ways:
1. I think you're creating your own abstract meanings and explanations of certain terms e.g. axiom, subjective/subjectivity, objective/objectivity, time, cause, effect, form, etc without recourse to how they relate to the already accepted meanings. In short, everything you're explaining is self-evident to you alone.
2. I think you're not explaining any principles or laws which govern phenomena. You're just giving the same basic explanations that we know about phenomena using complex wording. We know things are composed of parts or that complex configurations are composed of simpler configurations; we know time is a factor in all relationships, circumstances or conditions; we know subjectivity is a perspective towards bias/limit while objectivity is towards comprehensiveness/integration (which, by the way, there's a lot of deviation and conflation of the meanings you give throughout your brief).
3. I think you've misconstrued what perspective means and have gotten entangled in a paradox of your own making. There cannot be a formless form. Such descriptions may be used in various instances but without the right relation it becomes a false explanation. For example, Schrodinger's cat which may be dead and/or alive - first, it is a thought experiment and, in reality, we can only observe either of the two states not both. Your explanations seem to have ignored the context given by perspective. It is not coherent because you mix mash between the observer, observed and observing. You need an appropriate sequence.
4. I think you're trying to delineate the progression from unity to multiplicity and back to unity while, simultaneously, highlighting the relations of duality and triplicity but it all seems cooked up. You have the beginning and the end but there's no logical progression in between them. There needs to be a how and why certain activities and conditions become or act as the what and where in the when.
If you're going to attempt to explain consciousness or activities related to it, then the why is just as fundamental as the how. Otherwise, it is just an alternate commentary on what we already know. And, if the point is to give an alternate commentary, then your mode should relate to ours or, at least, match the basic language of the field of knowledge it belongs to or, better yet, what is universally accepted. Think of it as a translation from your own understanding to ours.
Hope you can make it clearer to understand.
The concept of God comes to us from Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Leibnitz, and is also mentioned by our modern contemporary Roger Scruton who lives in England.
You have skipped all these august philosophers in jumping to your own conclusions.
Plus, what if God knocked on your front door and introduced himself to you? What then? Then all your assumptions about God would fly out the window.
You are affirming the consequent with your own assumptions by arguing from simple ignorance. Bad philosophy.
You do not know God. That much is readily apparent. It may be the end to YOUR OWN argument. But do not presume to speak for anyone else.
A good atheist would mention all the terrible things that have happened in history and blame God. This is what Bertrand Russell did.
A good deist would simply point out that after creating us, God has simply left us on our own. Scruton has said that God is too busy to bother with us. I tend to agree with Scruton. Not with you.
What conclusions?
But I was just asking you how you were thinking about it.
In simpler terms, time has multiple meanings that are not agreed upon and as such is subject to the fallacy of equivocation. As time is equivalent to a variety of definitions, these definitions are determined by the frameworks in which they exist. Time is the relation of parts, acting as a point of inversion in a structure between unity and multiplicity as a form of entropy.
2. An axiom as a self evident truth, which is the dictionary defintion, leads to the question of "what is self evident truth?" In giving answer to the question we are left with breaking it down, at minimum to a subjective state connected with self, and objective state connected with evidence. The axiom exists as both subjectivity and objectivity. Then looking at the nature of subjectivity and objectivity the question occurs as to what there nature is or is not.
Considering a subjective experience is effectively formless in the respect it cannot be viewed by others, or given clear description thrpugh the self, subjectivity is formlessness. The objective, that which is defined and observed by multiple people acts as a common median across subjective states considering many people can observe it. The objective acts a a form and function, or limit, in the respect it brings and maintains a form of unity inseparable from the act of it being structured.
Now the subjective, as formlessness or "no limit", and the objective as limit observes inversely that all phenomena composed of definitive limits and formless no limits (example the rock may have a jagged edge that defines it, but what composes this jagged edge is formless) have a subjective and objective nature.
3. A formless form is a unlimited limit, or a limit which exists through a continuum. A line or circle qualifies as such, as well as the number 1. Qualities such as colors are composed of infinite colors with an individual color merely being a boundary through which further colors exist.
4. One progressing to two is a logical observation of unity inverting to multiplicity. 2 existing as 1 number is a logical progression from multiplicity to unity. A cell individuating into another cell is a other example. 1 cell inverts to two cells as many cells with each cell being a unit in itself.
The inversion from a unified state into a multiple state observes a dualism through opposition (opposites) where inversion itself is void of any defintion because it is nothingness or has no structure.
This opposition, is solved through a form of synthesis, as joining. Where 1 moves to many and moves back to one again. 1 has a synthetic nature of continually moving.
4. Shrodingers cat as both living and dead can be solved by observing the cat as "dying" where both states are observed as one continuum. If the cat is alive, but cells are dying is the cat dead? If the cat is dead, but certain cells keep replicating (such as toenails) is it alive? Shrodingers cat can be solved by a continuum.
The example shows a problem in the principle of identity, and the framework of classical logic being contradictory.
5. A progression is a localization of other progressions and strictly observes the directive qualities of one phenomena to another. In these respects, a logical argument as proof is merely a structure where proof and structure are inseparable. Intuitionist logic observes this in part where proof is merely a creation. The nature of unity and multiplicity, unity and dualism observes a synthetic property thrpugh the triad as one in itself.
Take for example a man and woman, a dualism. They are unified through the function of sex and form of the child resulting. The man, woman and child are individual entities in there own right, while being connected through eachother as 1 family.
Synthesis is continuity with continuity allowing for unity, hence order.
6. The nature of axiom is acausal cause as sythesis where what we observe in all phenomena is:
1) constant structure
2) changing parts.
3. Sythesis as continuity
With these three axioms existing through all phenomena as a foundation for consciousness. These three foundations exist through eachother as eachother. They exist as foundations of measurement as well, with all consciousness being defined in accords to a process of measurement. All phenomena as conscious observes all phenomena as self measuring.
7. Universally accepted for what field exactly? Philosophy? Which school? Science? Which field? Math? Which field? Religion? Which One? Biology? Which field?
What is this "common language" everyone agrees to? English? Which dictionary? What year?
All these perspective invert to further perspective and there is no perspective which will be able to maintain itself without either branching to another one or some argument as to which perspective is best.
In a same respect these multiple perspectives must stem from one source of thinking, due to ther divergent natures necessiating a common bond at some point, so the question is one of where these commonalities occur.
Many schools dependent upon one source requires a form of synthesis.
The only question is one of universal principles with these universal principles being definitions of God.
To define cause is cause.
To define acausality is without cause.
To define synthesis is sythesis.
These principles must be able to maintains themselves as constants, progress in defintion and continually join these new definitions into one in order to maintain them and progress further.
If one axiom observes another what determines the relativistic degree of defintion where one forms the other? The degree of self referentiality.
The fact that you are aware of your experiences means that it can be expressed to others through familiar points of reference. This means that others can have an understanding of it however limited and that a description can also be given.
Quoting eodnhoj7
If the objective 'acts as a common median across subjective states', how can it be a limit when the subjective is 'no limit'? How does limit arise from 'no limit'?
Quoting eodnhoj7
What do you mean by this? This is what you said earlier, "The replication of certain limits results into complex limits as qualities which replicate so on and so for until some structure occurs." Where do you arrive at 'formless'?
Quoting eodnhoj7
You can define a limit within a continuum but cannot then equate the limit to the continuum itself. If the limit is to represent itself as a continuum with its own components, then it would necessarily have a different scale from the continuum to which it belongs as a limit. You cannot have it both ways.
Also, the number two cannot represent 'more than one' and still be unity. You're mistaking the identity of a number with its value. Numbers are part of a relation and do not exist without their values. The individuality of a number does not substitute its value, therefore, 2, 3, 4, 5,... cannot be unity because unity is a measure of value. (1 - unit, 2 - dual, 3 - triple, 4 - quadruple, 5 - quintuple, etc.)
Quoting eodnhoj7
Neither unity, duality nor multiplicity is contradicted by each other. The individual within a collective, whether of two or more, remains an individual. Unity does not become a duality or multiplicity. A circumstance can change from expressing unity to multiplicity but it can never be both. The circumstance (or limit) expressing unity is not identical to the one expressing multiplicity.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Logic is not contradictory. Dead does not mean cessation of processes or mechanisms. Dead means a cessation to the impulse of life expressed as consciousness. After death, the cells and tissues still maintain their mechanical and chemical organisations and proceed to enact their latent processes. You seem to have your own definition and, consequently, your own dilemma.
Quoting eodnhoj7
A definition of a 'thing' as being composed of many 'things' is false. For example, from the above quote, 'A progression is a... of other progressions, a logical argument as proof is merely a structure where proof and structure...,'. You know you've not said anything about the identity of what a progression, proof or structure really is.
Quoting eodnhoj7
What if the man and woman are having an affair and cheating on their spouses? Suppose they get a child out of their respective wedlocks? See where I'm going with this? You are misrepresenting the idea of unity, dualism and multiplicity because you have not worked them out comprehensively.
It is clear you've borrowed your arguments from esoteric spiritual teachings. But you clearly have not understood the principles they're based on.
The concept of God comes from many different sources. The ones you've mentioned are neither the earliest, most prominent nor most favoured. Religions seem to have cornered the market on that.
Quoting hks
First, I have made no assumptions against anything happening. I have merely expressed my perspective with regard to what I know. Like I said in the OP (if you cared to read), until God is perceived, it would be careless for me to assume what He/She/It/They is or would be. If I saw God, I would only tell what I experienced and nothing more. However, my experiences would not become the experiences of others no matter how much they proclaimed it. Such experiences would provide information but can never be identical to the actual experience I participated in. Savvy?
I'm not against information or experience. I'm just saying people should not conflate the two.
Quoting hks
I know the God(s) expressed in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism, Judaism, Spiritism, Spiritualism, etc, among other domains. I have acquired the information as primarily given by them and experienced whatever inspiration is possible to me. After all that, I have come to the conclusion that those who profess any one particular deity or restrict existence to any particular limits, in fact, do not understand God or existence.
All those who think science is against religion or religion is against science; all those afraid to admit the little they know and opt to build grand illusions to mask their ignorance; those who think faith works against reason; etc, know little of God.
The unfolding of reality has a harmony and intelligence unrivalled by human understanding. To presume the little distinction we can make out with our rudimentary perspectives accounts for anything more is to bite off more than we can chew. Is it a wonder there's so much conflict in our minds?
The first part to understanding is to accept reality for what it is. Information is just that. Experience, whether personal or collective, is just that. When we try to extend one domain beyond its prescribed borders and into another without the proper insight then we experience the backlash such an error generates.
Quoting hks
From my point of view, a good atheist would be indifferent to God. What you're describing, to me, is more of an a-theist, an anti-theist. While the term atheist encompasses both in definition, I think it is counter intuitive to negate something you do not believe exists. Therefore, those who are against theism, to me, are not strictly atheists.
Quoting hks
A good deist would also argue that God, having given us free will, allows us to make mistakes, suffer through them, learn from said suffering and make amends. I wonder which is more logical, especially with reference to our experiences... ?
Well, a "self-aware axiom" doesn't make any sense in my view. People are the "things" that are aware (well, or creatures with sufficiently complex brains--awarenss is a brain function), and axioms are ways of thinking that people do.
If you don't yet know the difference then a good book to read is Bertrand Russell's book "History Of Western Philosophy."
You have mentioned several religions. I have mentioned none.
I am talking about philosophy not religion.
Philosophy encompasses all fields of knowledge and information. Try not to get caught up in the details, instead, understand the message. The mention of religions is to give perspective to my understanding of God(s). The philosophy in that statement is that I do have information about God and I have chosen to interpret it as expressed which I believe is reasonable. Do you find it otherwise? If so, reveal.
1. Actually an experience that is not expressed or formulated through thought or memory and translated into word or action is effectively formless. I may experience "now", and now due to its rate of change and its direction to me (impression) is effectively without form and does not contain any objective form until memory replicates it. However This objective natire, occuring through memory as a degree of self reflection, is not fully objective until some act or word allows it to becomes a common median people can find commonality with. Objectivity, as group reflectivity where people can observe the same thing, acts as a unifier or common bond.
2. The objective, as structure, encapsulates the subjective where the subjective is further given form and function as an objective phenomena. So I may have a subjective experience, that subjective experience becomes objective through memory. This memory give form and function to the subjective experience allow it to exist through further objective states. The subjective, as formless and chaotic, is directed and given form and function to further thought, action or word. The memory, as giving boundary, in turn leads to further memory as the further a memory is penetrated, the less subjective it becomes and the more objective and orderly it exits.
An objective phenomena connects subjective states as it is a common limit which effectively defines them into objective existence. For example a common memory may connect subjective states by effectively unififying them by encapsulating them under a common reason. What may separate one subjective state from another is separate objective experiences, which contains subjective formless nature that become objective and defined when further formed.
3. A formless form, or unlimited limit, can be observed as a limit which is continual. The limit as finite in itself, because it must continue if it is to exist has a dual formless nature because of its continuous nature. For example, a memory must continue on and replicate itself in the mind if it is to continue existing. While the memory may exist as limit which exists because it's replication effectively gives it a structure due to the inherent symmetry that comes with replication, this replication as effectively unifying aspects of the memory must continue. So while the memory exists as a limit, the continuous nature of this limit gives a degree of formless, or "no limit", as this continuity is uncertain and undefined. However this limit exists through a continuity.
4. The limit exists through a continuum, but because the limit exists through a continuum it exists as synthesizing with the continuum (limit synthesizes with no lomit) to results in further limit and no limit. ***This point may have to be explained further.
5. Each number can be identified as one set of infinite relations where 2, 3, 4, etc. are composed of infinite see of relations, and that while each number exists relative to other number, this nature of a single unit existing relative to another single unit observes 1 and 1n (through 1) effectively "folding" through itself as a process of continual inversion where the nature of a number as nothing in itself, or void) observes the continual progression of the number (as a means of inversion to further number) as necessary. Each number, on its own, has a dual nature of being 0 units in the respect it exists because of progression.
So 1(n) observes the number (any further axiom) as a unit that inverts through itself to further units.
0(n) observe the number (any further axiom) as nothing in itself.
So (a) for axiom (which can equate to the number example above) is 1(a) as a localization of progressive axioms. 0(a) observes the axiom as nothing in itself but rather a means of inversion, where it exists as a potential localization. This potential acts as a means of inversion where one locality inverts to another.
Example:
0(3) = 1(3) <-> 0(3) -> 1(4)
and
0(a) = 1(a) <-> 0(a) -> 1(b)
***<-> if and only if.
*** -> is directed towards, progresses to
6. The individual in a collective is defined by the collective, hence the individual contains as an element the collective considering the individual exists through collective which simultaneously forms it. While the individual is still an individual, the individual is an embodiment of the collective.
7. The defintion of death is subject to the fallacy of equivocation as it has multiple meanings, with any meaning as group agreement being subject to the bandwagon fallacy with this in turn leading to the fallacy of authority further leading to the quasi fallacy of no true scotsman (absent of identity) and so on and so forth.
The defintion of death is given proof by the framework which contains it, death as change, is a point of inversion within life, but as a point of inversion can observe all degrees of existence as funda,mentally dying in some way shape or form further implying that all existence has some form of life property and consciousness within this given framework of interpretation.
7A) .I will delete an old thread, and replace it with a thread on the nature of fallacies both existing and being subject to there own fallacies as well as the three laws of logic being contradictory. Classical logic is contradictory. However point 7A will need a seperate thread to address this point, so do not bother responding to much, I will address this point further elsewhere.
8. A cow is composed of many parts. So are its legs. So are its atoms. A thing is composed of many things, much like a set.
9. I see what you are saying...do you? You're argument has no unity, as it has no structure...do you need what I am saying?
If a man and woman have a child through cheating, the individual are separating there current unions (and themselves as elements of the union to form a new biological union. The individuals involved respectively as divided by one ritual/biological union and a strict biological union.
If a child is born out wedlock, while the ritual and spiritual union may be left out (or maybe just ritual if the parents stay together) the union is still strictly biological.
10. My arguments are a sythesis of all the research, reading, discussions and practical experience over the years:
As to the reading, it is a sythesis of:
Thales, pythagoras, parmenides, anaximander, laepeducious (wrong spelling), heraclitus, Socrates, plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Marcus aurellius, seneca, ibn rushed, maimonedes, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Kant, Neitzche, Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Stein (Catholic), Wittgenstein, Popper, Hall (freemason), Jesus (Christianity), Buddha (Buddhism), Nagajeera (buddhism), Muhammad (islam), Crowley (satanist), Lavey (satanist), Liebniz, Newton, Solomon (proverbs), The Kybalion, hermeticism, etc...
And various miscellaneous philosophers and a whole host of asian philosophers stemming past lao tzu (taoism (but I cannot remembee thier names or how to pronounce or spell them)
Every experience has to be interpreted through the mental faculty for it to qualify as an experience. The mind is the faculty or tool that processes experiences into consciousness, how can its influence be absent?
Quoting eodnhoj7
Every experience is appreciated as form. (Try configuration, circumstance or conditions for better context, but ultimately it refers to a form or manner of expression.) Something formless cannot create an impression on consciousness, awareness, mind, etc. The only difference is the quality of form in comparison with others. Also, as long as an experience is held within the bounds of personal/individual bias, it remains subjective. Memory does not determine objectivity/subjectivity. The degree of interaction, with different selves or distinct external points of references, is what determines objectivity. It is a relation not an independent factor.
Quoting eodnhoj7
Like I said in my first post on this thread (after the OP), "the source of a percept is objective in its relation to different percipients while the source of a concept is always subjective no matter how closely a concept resembles that of another concipient." I will give another example: take two siblings and ask them to give the best qualities of their mother. While they may give a lot of similar qualities, there will be a few that are not matched. This is what shows the subjectivity of concepts. The same would work if you asked them to define their mother's face for a sketch artist to draw. The two renderings will not be identical even if they have plenty of matching features. However, the mother, the source of their perception, remains the same hence the objectivity assigned.
Your explanations show you are acquainted with certain information, unfortunately, they aren't coherent with the wisdom you are trying to match. There are a lot of holes in your arguments due to lack of strict adherence to logic. It is not enough to regurgitate what someone else has said. If you do not understand it yourself, it is impossible to pass on someone else's knowledge as yours.
"Own knowledge is better than that of another," I'm sure one of those philosophers taught something to the tune of this.
You should know the spiritual does not exclude the material. If we restrict 'dharma' to mean duty in the most comprehensive sense, then, because we have spiritual and material experiences among others, we have a responsibility to participate in both the spiritual and material but in accordance with a strict and appropriate code of conduct (call it ethics or morality).
Ultimately, there is only one experience, life, the rest whether spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc, is just perspective. I don't know what you're trying to explain by a biological relation devoid of the others (in "If a man and woman have a child through cheating, the individual are separating there current unions (and themselves as elements of the union to form a new biological union. The individuals involved respectively as divided by one ritual/biological union and a strict biological union. If a child is born out wedlock, while the ritual and spiritual union may be left out (or maybe just ritual if the parents stay together) the union is still strictly biological.") but it is wrong.
Whatever circumstances brings people into having relations with each other is a synthesis of all the above experiences (the spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc), it would be wrong to limit it to just one. This is also a key point of spiritual teachings on human relations.
What point is it supposed to relate?
Anyway, I would readily indulge you if you reciprocate by reading, "Your Mind and How to Use it" by William Walker Atkinson.
Back to the original matter though, Russell teaches everyone to put Philosophy, Science, and Religion into 3 different baskets and keep them separated at all times.
You seem to be more like Augustine mixing religion with philosophy. He had no choice. He was under the thumb of the Pope.
You at least have a choice. You may choose Theism, Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Nihilism or any other -ism.
Most philosophers are Deist or Agnostic.
There is no justification for Theism or Atheism. These two are belief systems not supported by Philosophy.
Unlike you I'm not predisposed nor inclined to follow his directive. And last I checked, Bertrand Russell is not the definitive authority on what philosophy is.
It's bad form to judge me negatively for acting against your expectations. The bar on good philosophy has been whether it is logical, reasonable, rational or, at the least, practical and beneficial. So what if I don't conform to Mr. Russell's or your parameters of philosophy?
Also, like all philosophers including Mr. Russell, their philosophies do not exclude science and religion. There's the part of science and religion which associate with philosophy. That is, facts, which in science are often derived from empiricism; analytical or critical processing of information; ethics or morality, a key component of religion; etc.
Bertrand Russell in History of Western Philosophy outlines in great detail the interaction between religion, politics, science and philosophy, which makes me wonder: the directive you're talking about, is it a case of do as I say not as I do, or what?
That's a very compelling argument.
1) The influence of the mental facet is absent when defining the mental faculty according to degrees where one mental facet is greater than or lesser than another mental facet. This necessitates a form of relativity.
Now the nature of the mental faculty as "processing" observes an inherent creative process considering this "process" is the inversion of one experience into another (consciousness in this case).
Hence the mental faculty has a nature of "inversion" so to speak, where it is fundamentally formless on its own accords but exists through the subjective experiences it exists through.
These experiences, that which the mental process inverts into consciousness, in turn form the mental process. This necessitates the nature of experiences, that which impresses upon the void of subjective nature, vary in degrees and this variation causes a variation in the mental processes.
So the degrees, that determine one mental process as less than or greater than another mental process (through relativism), is really the degree of one experience to another. A lower grade mental process, lets say that of a mineral, may be less in degree than that of a human mind. The rock exists under a certain framework of mind where the rock exists through only so through so many states as a rock. The human mind, follows in a similar form and function, however has a higher degree of relations.
A rock may invert into further minerals, which in turn composed organic elements which in turn result in rocks again over time.
A human mind may follow the same course and manner as the rock, however it is able to speed up or slow down this process of the rock changing (mining, industrialization)
In these manners one mental faculty differs from another by not just how they exist through time and effectively manipulate it. This observation of time, with all being existing through it, is what seperates one mental faculty from another as time (parts composed of and composing other parts) is strictly a measuring limit which forms phenomenon. This understanding of time, as a ratio fundamentally, is in itself constant and as constant transcends past itself into an absolute law that is infinite.
Time is a measuring quality, all being exists through, with the grades of various mental faculties being determined by there ability to create it through synthesizing relations.
****This may appear abstract so I may have to elaborate further on it.
2.Every experience is appreciated as form. (Try configuration, circumstance or conditions for better context, but ultimately it refers to a form or manner of expression.) Something formless cannot create an impression on consciousness, awareness, mind, etc. The only difference is the quality of form in comparison with others. Also, as long as an experience is held within the bounds of personal/individual bias, it remains subjective. Memory does not determine objectivity/subjectivity. The degree of interaction, with different selves or distinct external points of references, is what determines objectivity. It is a relation not an independent factor.
a. Formlessness, that which effectively is "void" is an inversion of one structure through another under the dualism of "one/many". I understand that his one/many concept may sound repititive, but it is very important concept to see from different angles considering its foundational nature to not just measurement and reason, but all being in general.
aa. One is seperated from many because of this formless nature of one being observed through many.
ab. Many is seperated from one because its formless nature necessitates we observe it through units which reflect 1 but are not one in themselves.
ac. This division between 1 as formless because of the many, and many as formless because of the one, observes the formless nature of void inverting itself into form through which it continues.
A quality of form in comparison to others, causing this differential, observes all quality as comparitive in nature and hence a common bond. Under this relativistic nature of quality, quality becomes a boundary of movement for further qualities.
b. Individual experience is not limited to a subjective nature when given reflection upon it. An experience maintains a nature of limit when given structure through memory. Now this memory may be subjective in the respect it may only belong to the observer, however it still has an objective property of structure (complex limits). This objective nature becomes "denser" when further objectified to a word or action which is share with others as it encapsulates and gives form to further subjective experience.
c. Memory, as an axiom, is simultaneosly objective/subjective in regards to point b.
d. External and internal are relative terms of perception. What is external is a shallow view, when the external is penetrated to the internal, the internal becomes shallow again. The internal becomes external. The act of self-reflection, as a form of penetration of the self through the self giving form to the self, observes all individual has objective qualities in themselves.
3. Relative to the mother example, the concept of mother as well as similiar qualities shows an objective element. All objectivity is structure, structure is unity. All structure exists through symmetry as unit where certain limits are replicated and maintain a continuum.
4.[b]Your explanations show you are acquainted with certain information, unfortunately, they aren't coherent with the wisdom you are trying to match. There are a lot of holes in your arguments due to lack of strict adherence to logic. It is not enough to regurgitate what someone else has said. If you do not understand it yourself, it is impossible to pass on someone else's knowledge as yours.
"Own knowledge is better than that of another," I'm sure one of those philosophers taught something to the tune of this.[/b]
Are you speaking from knowledge or belief?
Yes, one knowledge is better than another. All is better than any one philosophy, but where each philosophy fails is in its observation that it is strictly an angle of "the all" it does not wish to observe. Hence it contradicts itself on its own terms.
Aquinas gave some justice to his argument in this respect as on his deathbed he stated "it is all but straw". Neitzche lost his mind, in face of his philosophy, and ended up canceling out his own nature in the end by defending a whipped horse.
The biological relation, devoid of other unities, still shows that in the face of perplexity and deficiency there is some underlying unity that cannot be erased in the face of any percievable chaos. You claim I am wrong...good...but is it not contradictory to say such a thing without sufficient reason? To believe you would be a fallacy of authority, and a lie considering you admit no authority to any philosophical endeavor. Or do you?
Whatever circumstances brings people into having relations with each other is a synthesis of all the above experiences (the spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc), it would be wrong to limit it to just one. This is also a key point of spiritual teachings on human relations.
True, but a deficiency in a balance spirituality still does not negate the fact that the biological union has some form of balance and unity to it. The absence of spirituality may have led to a biological union, as all chaos (or deficiency) still moves towards unity. The spirituality, through the breaking of the relationship, may be not be a full unity...but the biological relationship resulting in the child still is.
You claim it is wrong to limit it to just one problem, as all are connected as one, but limiting it two one problem is a reflection of the one.
At this point, I raise my white flag and call an end to this unyielding argument. I will have my previous statements stand in their own merit as to whether they uphold logic. Still, I find a considerable amount of deficiencies in your arguments and I don't know whether it's in linguistics, logic or both but, if you make sense to yourself, then, I can live with it too. I withdraw. Perhaps I'm bound to realise that I'm the one with the deficiencies and inconsistencies. Anyway, have at it as you please.
Truth be told, the topics we covered could be dealt with in multiple threads.
When dealing with the nature of the infinite (God in this case) be wary of an infinite answer.
Most religions have a component of ethics in them. But that's the only similarity.
While math may exist inside the human mind (God as number) it may also exist outside as well.
Atheism has its virtues in the face of blurred truth. Unbelief can alternate to belief.
God is not a number. But I know of several mathematicians and math teachers who believe It is.
When I think of God I think of Aquinas' proofs. Not math.
Elaborate on Aquinas proofs and why you believe they are sufficient.
Didn't expect you to argue this. I mentioned it to you earlier about numbers being both. I thought there was something weird about your arguments and now I get it. You used paradoxes to imply logic - that was your fallacy. I was confounded by how you used form and formless, cause and acausal/causeless, turned unity into multiplicity and back, used a whole mess of wording without elaborating any distinct meaning, but it's good to see you talk straight afterwards. Taking the argument as a contest in gab was a good strategy but poor in philosophy especially when it clearly contradicted logic. Good to finally meet this other side.
Namaste. :pray:
No fallacy. Hegelian/Fichte synthesis and the Pythagorean nature of 3 observes all contradictions a reconciable and merely approximations of unity.
What rules of logic and I am breaking specifically? I can cover those rules if you wish.
No contest.
Observing unity, duality (mutiplicity), and triads (unity and multipliicty) observes all phenomena as having a numerical base which defines them.
Unity is structure as cause, where all structures as extensions of one are unified through one.
Duality is the opposition of structures through their multiplicity as absence of structure leading to contradiction. Paradox is a reconciable contradiction. All contradictions are reconciable due to there base in a dualism as opposing unities rooted in unity. Quantitatively 2 is composed of one. Duality is acausal as multiplicity is no unity as void. Dualism is the relations of unities as units.
Triad is the joining of causal unity and acausal multiplicity (dualism) as synthesis between being (unity) and non being (multiplicity) as both. Synthesis is the origin of unity and multiplicity and exists as both and is beyond both. Synthesis is existence in the face of nothingness as existence. Considering nothingness cannot exist on its own terms, it is observe through multiplicity.
I have this friend, who says, "if God is omnipotent why doesn't He end all suffering?"
I reply that, we humans are the instruments of our own pain and suffering. That, the order of intelligence and harmony observed in operation through all of God's creation (or Reality/Existence) would fail if there was no consistency. Therefore, it is impossible for God (Reality/Existence) to act different from their absolute nature by succumbing to human eccentricities. God (Reality/Existence) must allow the law of cause and effect (action and consequence) to operate appropriately and comprehensively thereby manifesting the extent of absolute justice. God's mercy is expressed in the wisdom manifest in a life that allows us to understand that we, ourselves, are the instruments of our own salvation and damnation.
Then the friend says, "If God is good, He should save us from suffering. It would be an act of love, how can it be against the laws of cause and effect?"
To that I reply that, first, our definition of good is explicitly a polar opposite of evil. They exist in the same continuum within human perspective and cannot be expressed as distinct factors. That is, good is 'not evil' and evil is 'not good' in the fundamental sense of their meanings. So, how can God be good or evil? God being absolute as well as the creator of everything must have existed before anything. That is, God existed before humans or their dichotomy of good and evil, and exists beyond them as well, else, that dichotomy (or human perspective) would also be absolute, but it isn't. It is wrong to conflate human conditions (the relative) with God (the absolute). Absolute love or unity is expressed through unbiased operation of universal laws.
What is the point of all this?
PERSPECTIVE.
One of the misconstrued aspects about perspective lies in the concept that, because everything we appreciate is relative, then, there's an endless dichotomy of conditions and interactions plaguing the field we refer to as knowledge. It is true that, limited capacities must possess limited knowledge. Philosophy, being a human endeavour, must just as much be expressed through limited perspectives.
Does this mean we cannot relate with the absolute? No. We most certainly can.
How? By creating a representative identity of the absolute and through strict laws of interaction map out conditions which surpass our limited appreciation. These laws are called logic. Logic must always define limits and it is from such that the concept of 'beyond those limits' emerges.
It would be careless for someone to confound the appreciation of limits with the concept of 'beyond those limits'.
Diligent philosophers are known to avoid succumbing to such traps. It is also possible that such diligence is a consequence of many trials and errors through a progression of varying degrees of success. This is because, from the many connotations of logic, anyone can find a way to skirt around its proper comprehensive identity or application and impose their own idiosyncratic imprint. However, it would always fall short of defining one key ingredient, that is, the principles underlying the operation of reality and existence. That is, it could not explain that which is beyond our relativity.
Also, if we restrict logic to the context of human reason, then, every human interpretation becomes valid because the comparative factor is of little significance when the mental processes inherently possessed participate fundamentally alike. Both smart and stupid people apply reason, the difference being the conditioning which determines their outcomes.
The choice to skirt around proper definitions and avoid adherence within the full complement of logic is insignificant child's play and un-philosophical (of no real value to philosophy). It is why philosophers worth any salt go to great pains to map out their perspectives. Personally, I think we have too many fields of philosophy to entertain a venture into the unnecessary. Therefore, instead of confounding human reason with logic, it is best to find that common path which philosophy finds utility in by serving the many instead of unwarranted self-aggrandizing displays of knowledge. Service to others is the reason why philosophers work hard to reach the understanding of those others.
We may not be able to comprehend or appreciate certain forms, causes or things, but they do not become formless, causeless or nothing based on that merit.
[The terms formless, causeless, nothing are used informally to denote certain relative conditions which are thinly related to the distinct meanings they are derived from. For example, formless does not explicitly imply a lack of form, rather, a lack of appreciation of form. The difference may be minor but catastrophic to the understanding if not clearly designated.]
Therefore, in the same way it would be mistaken to limit God, Reality and/or Existence within the dichotomy of good and evil, it is just as wrong to include formless, causeless and nothing within the points included in the continuum of reality and existence. It must be used within the bounds of human relativity and not be applied to a concept which transcends it.
Another example would be the perspective that, a line contains infinite points. We cannot, also, contend that a line contains no points. Either it contains (in this case, points) or it doesn't. If the latter, then we can no longer be implying a line. This is expressed by the Law of Non-contradiction.
Unity is the expression of wholeness, comprehensiveness and, primarily, indivision.
Multiplicity is the expression of variety or variation. It also gives rise to relativity.
As with everything else, they are perspectives.
So, can a unity become a multiplicity? No.
For example, a human being connotes the unity of all the processes, mechanisms and faculties possessed by such. However, in shifting perspective to the various processes, mechanisms and faculties do we imply the human has become these multiple aspects? Obviously not. The unity referred to as a human being is a distinct identity which is affirmed separately from its constituent parts or any other identities regardless of the numerous points of similarity or intersection they may have.
The same applies to duality. For example, light and dark are a duality because they are alternate perspectives not because they oppose each other. In fact, they have a very distinct and unified relation where each phenomenon participates in giving rise to the other. Vibration or activity is fundamental to all phenomena. However, the relation between higher and lower vibrations is what gives the perspective we call light and dark. Dark is never the absence of light, rather, it is the lack of appreciation of it. The lack may be due to deficient capacities, tools, mechanisms, etc. Hence, the terms opposite, alternate, contrary, etc., must bear the appropriate connotation. Otherwise, they mislead.
In conclusion, only perspective can be shifted from that of unity to that of multiplicity (duality, triplicity, etc).
Also, those teachings which express the three-fold relation (or any other quantifiable relation) are in no way implying the breakdown of any unity into triplicities (or whichever degree of multiplicity).
The three-in-one relation (of God, Reality and/or Existence) is always a perspective of the characters, activities or influences expressed by the absolute identity.
God, Reality and/or Existence, if a unity, remains as such even when they express duality or triplicity in character, activities and/or influences.
If I were your friend I'd ask you to explain that, because it reads as if you're getting kind of word-salady and diverting to something irrelevant to what the question had been.
If he asked, I would answer by saying, if the laws of nature were subject to whims instead of being based upon definite and unyielding directives then the chaos which humans exhibit would also be expressed by them. I think the rest of my statements express how I perceive paradoxes (the question was "what if God exists and doesn't exist?").
It's just the Euthyprho problem in that case, right?
And he would ask, "So God isn't actually omnipotent? There is something (natural law, logical law, etc.) that's more powerful than God?"
The usual approach to that is to say that natural law/logical law is as it is because it's God's nature for it to be that way, but that doesn't really solve the problem, because we'd just be asking on the one side why God's nature is such that He allows so much suffering, when God could presumably be otherwise, and on the other side, you'd have to say, "But He couldn't be otherwise, because that's the way He is" (which suggests that He isn't omnipotent--something overrides it somehow)
Depends on your conception of God.
It would just be resting on other persons' conceptions. If the God they presented is or is not supposed to be omnipotent, etc.
Exactly. That's why we worship our own deities.
Christian, Islam, Judaic deity/deities - are presumed omnipotent.
Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu - presumed omnipotent; other Hindu deities - not so much.
Norse, Roman and Greek deities - not omnipotent.
It all depends on the individual's conception of deity.
Isn't your friend talking about your conception of a deity?
I prefer the principle of absoluteness. To me, Reality/Existence is absolute. Everything else is relative. However, even my concept is just that, a concept. I wouldn't take it to be anything more.
The only logical part is, as Socrates would have it, "can we believe in creation and not in a creator?" The only difference between a religious person and I is how much ungrounded premises we're willing to accommodate. I prefer minimum to none.