Who?What Is God?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You do not understand what is being presented yet claim something remains unaddressed?

Review the Abstract and the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Agree.

As expressed:

I understand everything being presented here. You obviously do not, can not; will not. God has, needs, no extent or duration. They only apply to the contingent.

That aligns with existence simply is, a core tenet of the ontology: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Additionally the essay clearly states existence is not limited by duration:

existence; that which is not limited by duration.

…meaning existence transcends time.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to convey the idea of transcending time without invoking the concept of time. That’s largely the issue here.

Again, existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. Your acknowledgement of God here, which you seem to know much about, indicates some level of perception. You are perceiving God on some level to make those statements. That is existence, regardless of the other claims.

I defer to Aquinas' logic. Heidegger's & Tillich's. On the posit of God. What does your link to yourself say? In a sentence. It is not consilient with them. Therefore it is a dialectical failure. You have not even merely equalled them, let alone... transcended them. You keep making meaningless claims. Which deny them on no basis whatsoever. You need to do the intellectual work of actually proving them wrong or transcending them. Which is it going to be?

Contingent existence is timed. Ultimate duration is infinite, eternal, not transcendent, that is superfluous, unnecessary, meaningless. And it is timed, being contingent. All lesser, finite events are. God would transcend time, and space. Beyond eternity, beyond infinity. Where Buzz Lightyear heads. I'm perceiving the idea of God. Not God. Even if He were to be the ground of being, I could not possibly perceive Him. Only if He caused me to by some epiphany.

Your issue is not my problem. You're trapped in limbo by pride with no way out. That's tough. It's a sunk cost. You have nothing to lose with us by letting it go. That would actually be noble. For your enormous ego loss.

[Age]

You do not understand what is being presented yet claim something remains unaddressed?

Review the Abstract and the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269





Agree.

As expressed:

I understand everything being presented here. You obviously do not, can not; will not. God has, needs, no extent or duration. They only apply to the contingent.

That aligns with existence simply is, a core tenet of the ontology: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Additionally the essay clearly states existence is not limited by duration:

existence; that which is not limited by duration.

…meaning existence transcends time.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to convey the idea of transcending time without invoking the concept of time. That’s largely the issue here.

Again, existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. Your acknowledgement of God here, which you seem to know much about, indicates some level of perception. You are perceiving God on some level to make those statements. That is existence, regardless of the other claims.

1. 'Time' is not some thing that could be transcended anyway.

2. Why do you talk about 'your writings' from the perspective of 'the ontology' and 'the essay' as either of them makes what you are saying, here, more true somehow. 'They' are just 'your words' and not 'the ontology' nor 'the essay' at all. you may like to re-phrase 'them' to align with what is more true and more correct, which is, 'they' are 'your ontology' and 'your essay', only.

3. In 'your essay' you clearly state that existence is not limited by duration, which you now say and claim means that existence transcends time, which would just take more elaboration and clarification, on 'your part'. But, considering the fact that even the "scientists" in, 'the days' when this is being written, can not even agreed upon an accepted definition of and for the 'time' word, do you think that you, "yourself", have the ability to elaborate on and clarify, here, what the word, 'time', means and/or is referring to, exactly?

4. Just like you claim, 'Existence is infinite', why did you not just already claim, 'Existence is eternal', as well, and only, instead, like I already have?

[Age]

I understand everything being presented here. You obviously do not, can not; will not. God has, needs, no extent or duration. They only apply to the contingent.

That aligns with existence simply is, a core tenet of the ontology: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Additionally the essay clearly states existence is not limited by duration:

existence; that which is not limited by duration.

…meaning existence transcends time.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to convey the idea of transcending time without invoking the concept of time. That’s largely the issue here.

Again, existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. Your acknowledgement of God here, which you seem to know much about, indicates some level of perception. You are perceiving God on some level to make those statements. That is existence, regardless of the other claims.

I defer to Aquinas' logic. Heidegger's & Tillich's. On the posit of God. What does your link to yourself say? In a sentence. It is not consilient with them. Therefore it is a dialectical failure. You have not even merely equalled them, let alone... transcended them. You keep making meaningless claims. Which deny them on no basis whatsoever. You need to do the intellectual work of actually proving them wrong or transcending them. Which is it going to be?

Contingent existence is timed. Ultimate duration is infinite, eternal, not transcendent, that is superfluous, unnecessary, meaningless. And it is timed, being contingent. All lesser, finite events are. God would transcend time, and space. Beyond eternity, beyond infinity.

What makes you believe such a thing as 'this' as being absolutely true?

Where Buzz Lightyear heads. I'm perceiving the idea of God. Not God. Even if He were to be the ground of being, I could not possibly perceive Him. Only if He caused me to by some epiphany. [/quote]

One reason you, still, can not perceive 'It' is because you, still, believe 'It' is male gendered. Remove 'the belief and/or assumption' you then remove 'the blindfold'.

Your issue is not my problem. You're trapped in limbo by pride with no way out. That's tough. It's a sunk cost. You have nothing to lose with us by letting it go. That would actually be noble. For your enormous ego loss.
[/quote]

Would it also be 'noble' of 'you' to let go of your own assumptions and beliefs, which are what is stopping and preventing you finding and knowing 'the Truth', as well?

[daniel j lavender]

I defer to Aquinas' logic. Heidegger's & Tillich's. On the posit of God.

The individuals referenced, Aquinas, Heidegger and Tillich, did not always agree. While they shared certain ideas they had differing views.

That’s one significant feature of the ontology, it’s able to accommodate various views as articulated in the Theological Versatility section of the essay.

What does your link to yourself say? In a sentence.

Attempting to reduce an entire ontology to one sentence is rather unreasonable. Is that really a fair request? Would you, or could you, do the same for those referenced?

Review the entire essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

It’s concise compared to other works yet comparably deep.

It is not consilient with them. Therefore it is a dialectical failure.

You claim the ontology isn’t consilient yet demonstrate no understanding of it.

You have not even merely equalled them, let alone... transcended them. You keep making meaningless claims. Which deny them on no basis whatsoever. You need to do the intellectual work of actually proving them wrong or transcending them. Which is it going to be?

Where did I claim to have transcended them or their ideas? I do not claim to deny them. I do claim to present a standalone foundational ontology which is more versatile, more expansive and more inclusive than most. I also contend the ontology transcends rigid dogmas often present in philosophical systems.

Other philosophies seem more robust because they address ethical and moral concerns. The ontology presented intentionally does not.

The ontology integrates any and all other concepts of other systems as parts, things and aspects of existence or as existence itself.

The goal was not necessarily to prove others wrong. The goal was to develop a standalone foundational ontology. That goal was accomplished.

Contingent existence is timed. Ultimate duration is infinite, eternal, not transcendent

Existence concerns all.

I'm perceiving the idea of God. Not God. Even if He were to be the ground of being, I could not possibly perceive Him. Only if He caused me to by some epiphany.

To perceive the idea of some thing is to indirectly perceive the thing. The idea relates to God which you acknowledge exists.

God, in any form, any conception, is existence. If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

What is God? God is existence.

By definition, and as you have demonstrated here in discussion, God is existence. God is perceived or interacted with, at least in part.

Whether being, a being, the ground, a ground, or all, God qualifies as existence because God is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

[Age]

I defer to Aquinas' logic. Heidegger's & Tillich's. On the posit of God.

The individuals referenced, Aquinas, Heidegger and Tillich, did not always agree. While they shared certain ideas they had differing views.

That’s one significant feature of the ontology, it’s able to accommodate various views as articulated in the Theological Versatility section of the essay.

What does your link to yourself say? In a sentence.

Attempting to reduce an entire ontology to one sentence is rather unreasonable. Is that really a fair request? Would you, or could you, do the same for those referenced?

Review the entire essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

It’s concise compared to other works yet comparably deep.

It is not consilient with them. Therefore it is a dialectical failure.

You claim the ontology isn’t consilient yet demonstrate no understanding of it.

You have not even merely equalled them, let alone... transcended them. You keep making meaningless claims. Which deny them on no basis whatsoever. You need to do the intellectual work of actually proving them wrong or transcending them. Which is it going to be?

Where did I claim to have transcended them or their ideas? I do not claim to deny them. I do claim to present a standalone foundational ontology which is more versatile, more expansive and more inclusive than most. I also contend the ontology transcends rigid dogmas often present in philosophical systems.

Other philosophies seem more robust because they address ethical and moral concerns. The ontology presented intentionally does not.

The ontology integrates any and all other concepts of other systems as parts, things and aspects of existence or as existence itself.

The goal was not necessarily to prove others wrong. The goal was to develop a standalone foundational ontology. That goal was accomplished.

Contingent existence is timed. Ultimate duration is infinite, eternal, not transcendent

Existence concerns all.

I'm perceiving the idea of God. Not God. Even if He were to be the ground of being, I could not possibly perceive Him. Only if He caused me to by some epiphany.

To perceive the idea of some thing is to indirectly perceive the thing. The idea relates to God which you acknowledge exists.

God, in any form, any conception, is existence. If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

What is God? God is existence.

By definition, and as you have demonstrated here in discussion, God is existence. God is perceived or interacted with, at least in part.

Whether being, a being, the ground, a ground, or all, God qualifies as existence because God is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

If God/Existence simply is, then how does this simply is God/Existence create, and know, exactly?

[daniel j lavender]

If God/Existence simply is, then how does this simply is God/Existence create, and know, exactly?

That could work various ways depending on the conception of deity.

The commonality would be deity simply is, meaning an uncaused creator or existence without causal reason.

Deity is not because of, deity simply is.

[Age]

If God/Existence simply is, then how does this simply is God/Existence create, and know, exactly?

That could work various ways depending on the conception of deity.

The commonality would be deity simply is, meaning an uncaused creator or existence without causal reason.

Deity is not because of, deity simply is.

Why even attempt to deflect, and thus also 'try to' deceive, here?

Why not just answer the actual question that 'I' posed, and asked 'you', here, instead?

Look, did you come into this thread and claim that, 'God is Existence', or not?

Obviously your claim that, 'Existence simply is', in no way at all explains who and what God, the purported omniscient, omnipotent Creator, is, exactly, and how that One supposedly created every thing.

Once more, if absolutely any one comes, here, wanting to claim absolutely any thing, then I will again suggest that you have, already, the actual proof that could and would back up and support your claim factually before you present 'your claim', publicly.

Again, 'I' can back up and support 'my claims', here, with irrefutable proof. So, I am ready and waiting to be questioned, and challenged, over every claim 'I' make.

[daniel j lavender]

Look, did you come into this thread and claim that, 'God is Existence', or not?

Yes.

Obviously your claim that, 'Existence simply is', in no way at all explains who and what God, the purported omniscient, omnipotent Creator, is, exactly, and how that One supposedly created every thing.

As expressed it could work various ways depending on the conception of deity.

The ontology does not prescribe any specific view or belief. Likewise I remain vague to allow flexibility.

Existence or deity, which simply is, could create or know in a variety of ways.

For example, in pantheistic views, the universe itself is deity and creation is identical with divine being. Deity knows all because all events and processes are deity’s own expression.

For another example, in neoplatonist views, reality emanates from the One. Creation is not separate but an outflow of ultimate being. The One knows by being the source of all forms.

For another example, in theistic views, deity creates the universe or creation. Deity knows by being the cause or the creator.

In each of those examples every item and detail concerns existence. Each of those things are perceived or interacted with, at least in part, indicating existence. It is all existence. Each is accommodated by the ontology.

Review the Theological Versatility section of the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

To summarize, the ontology integrates any and all other concepts of other systems as parts, things or aspects of existence or as existence itself.

[Age]

Look, did you come into this thread and claim that, 'God is Existence', or not?

Yes.

Once again, 'you', "Daniel j lavender", have completely and utterly ignored my two other questions posed, for clarification, and thus have, once more, attempted to deflect, and deceive the readers, here.

The two other questions that you have ignored from my previous post are,

Why even attempt to deflect, and thus also 'try to' deceive, here?

Why not just answer the actual question that 'I' posed, and asked 'you', here, instead?

So, this one's attempts at deceiving you readers, here, continues.

Obviously your claim that, 'Existence simply is', in no way at all explains who and what God, the purported omniscient, omnipotent Creator, is, exactly, and how that One supposedly created every thing.

As expressed it could work various ways depending on the conception of deity.

What, exactly, could, supposedly, work 'in various ways'?

What is the 'it' word in your claim referring to, exactly?

The ontology does not prescribe any specific view or belief. Likewise I remain vague to allow flexibility.

you remain 'vague' because 'you' 'now' have been completely blindsided and thus are completely confused and dumbfounded how 'you' will be able to 'get around and/or out of' where 'you' are 'now'.

Look, "daniel j lavender" your own made up conclusion, which you call 'the ontology', here, is literally your very own specific view and belief. Which you were previously believing was absolutely true, and right. But, now that I have questioned and challenged you, in a very specific way, and you are absolutely bamboozled as to how you can get out of 'this', exactly.

Now, if you really are so-called 'flexible', then you will just have to admit and accept that your claim that, 'Existence/God, simply is', will never ever explain how God, who is the purported Creator and Knower of all things, created and knows all things.

Existence or deity, which simply is, could create or know in a variety of ways.

LOL Will you provide examples of some of your claimed', 'in a variety of ways', so then 'we' at least have some thing to 'look at' and 'discuss', here.

And, if you will not, then why not, exactly?

For example, in pantheistic views, the universe itself is deity and creation is identical with divine being. Deity knows all because all events and processes are deity’s own expression.

So what?

How, exactly, could 'Existence', Itself, know and/or create things.

Obviously entailed within the definition of the word 'Existence', Itself, is absolutely nothing that could be inferred as being able to create and/or conceive.

For another example, in neoplatonist views, reality emanates from the One. Creation is not separate but an outflow of ultimate being. The One knows by being the source of all forms.

For another example, in theistic views, deity creates the universe or creation. Deity knows by being the cause or the creator.

In each of those examples every item and detail concerns existence.

you could not come across any more fixed, rigid, and closed, here, "daniel j lavender".

Each of those things are perceived or interacted with, at least in part, indicating existence. It is all existence.

Of course all that exists is within 'Existence', Itself, but just as obvious is that 'Existence', Itself, means and/or refers to some thing, which in and of itself, is not capable of creating nor of knowing.

Each is accommodated by the ontology.

What 'you', here, call, 'the ontology', is just your own very specific and very limited views and beliefs.

And, noted in the examples that you provided, here, they are in relation to 'other's beliefs' and have nothing at all to do with your very fixed and rigid dogmatic belief that, 'Existence', Itself, is God, and your so far complete inability to explain how 'Existence', Itself, which comes with, or at the best 'at', things existing, could create existing things and/nor know things.

In fact you have not even come close at all at even just beginning to explain how 'Existence' could create the very things that 'have to' already be existing for 'Existence', to then exist.

Review the Theological Versatility section of the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Why?

If you can not back up and support 'your belief', here, after 'I' question and challenge 'you', here, then there is nothing in what you link to that could help you, here.

To summarize, the ontology integrates any and all other concepts of other systems as parts, things or aspects of existence or as existence itself.

So to can 'the ontology', which presents the word, Life, instead. As all things, including 'Existence', Itself, are just 'a part of'. It could be said and argued that 'Life', Itself, encompasses 'existence', itself. And, not the other way around as you hold and believe is the absolute truth, here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I defer to Aquinas' logic. Heidegger's & Tillich's. On the posit of God.

The individuals referenced, Aquinas, Heidegger and Tillich, did not always agree. While they shared certain ideas they had differing views.

That’s one significant feature of the ontology, it’s able to accommodate various views as articulated in the Theological Versatility section of the essay.

What does your link to yourself say? In a sentence.

Attempting to reduce an entire ontology to one sentence is rather unreasonable. Is that really a fair request? Would you, or could you, do the same for those referenced?

Review the entire essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

It’s concise compared to other works yet comparably deep.

It is not consilient with them. Therefore it is a dialectical failure.

You claim the ontology isn’t consilient yet demonstrate no understanding of it.

You have not even merely equalled them, let alone... transcended them. You keep making meaningless claims. Which deny them on no basis whatsoever. You need to do the intellectual work of actually proving them wrong or transcending them. Which is it going to be?

Where did I claim to have transcended them or their ideas? I do not claim to deny them. I do claim to present a standalone foundational ontology which is more versatile, more expansive and more inclusive than most. I also contend the ontology transcends rigid dogmas often present in philosophical systems.

Other philosophies seem more robust because they address ethical and moral concerns. The ontology presented intentionally does not.

The ontology integrates any and all other concepts of other systems as parts, things and aspects of existence or as existence itself.

The goal was not necessarily to prove others wrong. The goal was to develop a standalone foundational ontology. That goal was accomplished.

Contingent existence is timed. Ultimate duration is infinite, eternal, not transcendent

Existence concerns all.

I'm perceiving the idea of God. Not God. Even if He were to be the ground of being, I could not possibly perceive Him. Only if He caused me to by some epiphany.

To perceive the idea of some thing is to indirectly perceive the thing. The idea relates to God which you acknowledge exists.

God, in any form, any conception, is existence. If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

What is God? God is existence.

By definition, and as you have demonstrated here in discussion, God is existence. God is perceived or interacted with, at least in part.

Whether being, a being, the ground, a ground, or all, God qualifies as existence because God is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

You will not understand. Your grandiose link to yourself can only further demonstrate that. The end. You cannot be understood except psychologically.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I just received this from Lavender, demonstrating my last point about him only being understandable psychologically, which is a euphemism for clinically,

You’re a loser and haven’t even developed a system.

He grandiosely, incoherently believes he has.

[daniel j lavender]

I just received this from Lavender, demonstrating my last point about him only being understandable psychologically, which is a euphemism for clinically,

You’re a loser and haven’t even developed a system.

He grandiosely, incoherently believes he has.

You have contributed more than 1,500 comments to one forum in less than six months. With little to say. That qualifies as a loser.

I’ve developed a foundational ontology. You’ve not even developed a system.

[Fairy]

AI

The statement "god is a disembodied mind that can hallucinate anything out of nothing" describes a specific theological concept, but the term "hallucinate" is a human psychological phenomenon and doesn't accurately reflect the religious doctrine of a divine mind. The idea that God is a disembodied mind aligns with some theological perspectives, while the ability to create from nothing is known as creatio ex nihilo, a core tenet of many faiths, particularly Christianity.
Deconstructing the Statement
"Disembodied mind":
Many theological viewpoints describe God as a spiritual being, not a physical one, meaning God is a mind or consciousness without a physical body.
"Hallucinate":
This term implies a delusion or a false perception, which is not how God's creative power is typically understood in religious contexts. Instead, a more accurate concept is divine will or action.
"Anything out of nothing":
This phrase refers to creatio ex nihilo, the doctrine that God created the universe and everything within it from nothing, rather than from pre-existing matter.
Theological Interpretations
Divine Creation:
The ability to "hallucinate" from nothing can be understood as the divine power of creation, where God's thought or will brings reality into existence.
Metaphorical Language:
The phrase "hallucinate anything out of nothing" might be a metaphorical way to express the idea of God's boundless creative power and His ability to manifest whatever He wills.
In essence, the idea of God as a disembodied mind is a common theological concept, but the use of "hallucinate" is not the standard term for God's creative power, which is better described as divine will or creation ex nihilo.

[daniel j lavender]

"Anything out of nothing":
This phrase refers to creatio ex nihilo, the doctrine that God created the universe and everything within it from nothing, rather than from pre-existing matter.

The Bible does not explicitly declare creation from nothing. That is theological interpretation.

Additionally God is (often conveyed as) eternal. God, being Creator, would obviously be during creation. God is not nothing.

If there is a thing there is not nothing.

Nothing is not and cannot be.

[Belinda]

"Anything out of nothing":
This phrase refers to creatio ex nihilo, the doctrine that God created the universe and everything within it from nothing, rather than from pre-existing matter.

The Bible does not explicitly declare creation from nothing. That is theological interpretation.

Additionally God is (often conveyed as) eternal. God, being Creator, would obviously be during creation. God is not nothing.

If there is a thing there is not nothing.


Nothing is not and cannot be.

According to Genesis the spirit of God moved over the formless waters and gave them form. This is what we now call panentheism.

And with help in researching references from ChatGPT :-


“Beauty is truth, truth beauty” (Keats). Imagination reveals truth and beauty (Coleridge), reflecting how theology sees God in the world — fully present (pantheism), beyond yet within (panentheism), or apprehended through human insight (humanism).