Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:47 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:55 am Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Wrong question.

Is a real circle perfect?

Notice how not only the questions cycle through eachother but also the words cycle as well...a perfect circle can only be assumed as one cannot see it circumference as it would be the edge of reality itself.

This is no different than assuming one assumptions, which is a loop, but never seeing beyond it.

The perfect circle, is assumed both as a proposition and the propositions that propositions contain.

This doesn't make it any less real, rather more "real", as all knowledge is assumed... thus the perfect circle as assumed exists dynamically through assuming phenomenon and statically as an image in the respect the observer is an image or variation of this Divine Plan or Divine Reason.

What do you think "real" means?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:33 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:55 am Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Wrong question.

Is a real circle perfect?

"Is a real circle perfect?" is the other way round and not effective for my purpose.
My point for the OP is to support my OP, the ontology God is impossible to be real.

The critical attribute of the ontological God is absolutely-absolute and perfection, example from Descartes;

• Descartes argued that God's existence can be deduced from his nature, just as geometric ideas can be deduced from the nature of shapes—he used the deduction of the sizes of angles in a triangle as an example.
  He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections.
  He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection. Thus, if the notion of God did not include existence, it would not be supremely perfect, as it would be lacking a perfection. Consequently, the notion of a supremely perfect God who does not exist, Descartes argues, is unintelligible. Therefore, according to his nature, God must exist.

Descartes deduced from nature [the empirical].
In the above Descartes used the term 'ideas' which is specifically in the philosophical and platonic sense.
In the above Descartes deduced from the idea of a perfect triangle.
I am using one example, i.e. perfect circle.

Now if a perfect circle, perfect triangle or perfect-whatever-empirical-thing is impossible to be real empirically,
then, it is impossible for a perfect God to be empirically-philosophically* real.

* i.e. using various philosophical tools.

Circles preceded mathematical circles and "perfect circles".
Humans named the shape of the wheel before they had any concept of mathematical perfection.
Thus gross "real" round things hacked out of wood led humans to ask more questions about how to model such things.

But since it is obvious enough that no perfect circle can exist in anything but conceptualising, the "circles" of nature are the "real circles", but only suggest the mathematical form and are gross approximations of them.

As for GOD, it is nothing more than a gross conceit of human frailty.
The analogy to a circle or wheel does not hold since God is his/he/it various forms is not a perfected empirical object. It is not in ANY sense empirical.

I suppose you could take a sculpture of a god, which reflects a perfect god, and like a real circle, or wheel leads us to a conceptual one.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:44 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:57 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:35 am
What kind of nonsense is that?

I quoted from Kant;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

I suggested you read the whole chapter on 'Phenomena versus Noumena'.

The concept of a noumenon negates itself under it's own application through double negation.

The limit of a limit, necessitates a limit as not just circular but empty as well.

Example:

_________________________ Line A



Then observe that limit of this one line through line B

__________________________ Line B


And we get the limit as not just intrinsically empty but emptiness itself as line C:


__________________________ Line A
Line C
__________________________ Line B



Noumenon necessitates a paradox as through a double negation, where "the limit of a limit is no limit".

In a way there is a double negation but that do no serve your point at all.

To Kant, the thing-in-itself is LIMIT-B.
The noumenon is a limit-A which is within LIMIT-B.
The noumenon is a sub-limit of LIMIT-B

Ultimately Kant demonstrated both limit-A and LIMIT-B are fundamentally transcendental illusions when one attempts to reify these limits.
Thus there is no real LIMIT-C as the ultimate emptiness.

It is obvious at this point you do not understand Kant fully.

Actually it serves my point entirely as the double negation shows the transcendental illusion fails according to it's own terms and becomes it's own fallacy.

Dually this fallacy is a continual negation of phenomenon, as a fallacy.

Limit C is an actually Line as well (which cannot be graph directly), strictly because Limit C has no width nor is it really in a line in and of itself except through the other line. It is a line, because of the other lines, when 0 distance occurs between seperate lines, thus you end with it being real but effectively nothing. Two lines, with no space between them, observes a 0d line (which cannot be seen except as the inversion of 1 line into another line.

This is not an illusion, as the two lines exist, thus you have a phenomenon (0d line as the inversion of one line to another) as a phenomenon which cannot be seen but is not an illusion either. Void is not an illusion as void is void of illusion.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:47 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:55 am Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Wrong question.

Is a real circle perfect?

Notice how not only the questions cycle through eachother but also the words cycle as well...a perfect circle can only be assumed as one cannot see it circumference as it would be the edge of reality itself.

This is no different than assuming one assumptions, which is a loop, but never seeing beyond it.

The perfect circle, is assumed both as a proposition and the propositions that propositions contain.

This doesn't make it any less real, rather more "real", as all knowledge is assumed... thus the perfect circle as assumed exists dynamically through assuming phenomenon and statically as an image in the respect the observer is an image or variation of this Divine Plan or Divine Reason.

What do you think "real" means?

Polarity as localization. This may not make sense at first so I will have to explain it.

You have point 0, void, nothing, raw mass, etc.

It cannot be observed.

Now that point 0 splits into another point. How does it do this? But voiding itself into a form, volume, image. Its projection from one state into another begins with a simple line.

The point splits into point A and point B through the line. This line is not just the first progression of the point (going from left to right) but considering direction is relative it is also going from (right to left simultaneously). The line is going two directions at once, we only see one because of the angle we are observing it from.

This creation of the line results from the divergence of one point into two points....polarization

Considering the progression of the line goes both ways, the splitting of the points paradoxically shows both are connected through the same line and the points in diverging are actually convergence by a line considering the line is composed of points/lines...thus converging upon itself....polarization.

Polarization is thus the synthesis of points, through divergence and convergence, with all phenomenon as subject to both distance and size existing as points (car in distance, then parts car is composed of, then atoms parts are composed of, point particles, etc..."being" unfolding from nothing as the point is void).

It is the movement from a unified state, to a state of relative extremes.

This deals with the paradox of how space can expand, but considering all phenomenon are composed of space, it applies to all phenomenon.


Considering all phenomenon result from the synthesis of points, reality can be defined as polarization

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:20 am Circles preceded mathematical circles and "perfect circles".
Humans named the shape of the wheel before they had any concept of mathematical perfection.
Thus gross "real" round things hacked out of wood led humans to ask more questions about how to model such things.

But since it is obvious enough that no perfect circle can exist in anything but conceptualising, the "circles" of nature are the "real circles", but only suggest the mathematical form and are gross approximations of them.

As for GOD, it is nothing more than a gross conceit of human frailty.
The analogy to a circle or wheel does not hold since God is his/he/it various forms is not a perfected empirical object. It is not in ANY sense empirical.

I suppose you could take a sculpture of a god, which reflects a perfect god, and like a real circle, or wheel leads us to a conceptual one.

The perfect circle is abstracted from observed circular empirical things.

The theists' thesis is this;
1. Empirical things [as observed] are created which has a creator, e.g. a watch is designed and created by a creator.
2. The perfect God as the perfect Creator is abstracted [pseudo rationally] from observed empirical creators. -The WatchMaker Analogy.

As you can see the analogy of the perfect circle fit to the above ending with an abstraction of an ultimate ideal perfection.

Thus if the abstracted perfect circle is impossible to be real, so the abstracted perfect God is also impossible to be real.

Btw, theists claim God is an empirical entity/being who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claimed to have experienced and communicated with God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are many of such theists.
When subject to psychiatric and psychological tests, it is found they have some sort of mental illness.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:53 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:20 am Circles preceded mathematical circles and "perfect circles".
Humans named the shape of the wheel before they had any concept of mathematical perfection.
Thus gross "real" round things hacked out of wood led humans to ask more questions about how to model such things.

But since it is obvious enough that no perfect circle can exist in anything but conceptualising, the "circles" of nature are the "real circles", but only suggest the mathematical form and are gross approximations of them.

As for GOD, it is nothing more than a gross conceit of human frailty.
The analogy to a circle or wheel does not hold since God is his/he/it various forms is not a perfected empirical object. It is not in ANY sense empirical.

I suppose you could take a sculpture of a god, which reflects a perfect god, and like a real circle, or wheel leads us to a conceptual one.

The perfect circle is abstracted from observed circular empirical things.

The theists' thesis is this;
1. Empirical things [as observed] are created which has a creator, e.g. a watch is designed and created by a creator.
2. The perfect God as the perfect Creator is abstracted [pseudo rationally] from observed empirical creators. -The WatchMaker Analogy.

As you can see the analogy of the perfect circle fit to the above ending with an abstraction of an ultimate ideal perfection.

Thus if the abstracted perfect circle is impossible to be real, so the abstracted perfect God is also impossible to be real.

Btw, theists claim God is an empirical entity/being who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claimed to have experienced and communicated with God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are many of such theists.
When subject to psychiatric and psychological tests, it is found they have some sort of mental illness.

Actually that is not the "theist's thesis"....If I said God was Space and Space is Divine Mind...then what?

Is perfection real in light of changing definitions?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:13 pm Actually it serves my point entirely as the double negation shows the transcendental illusion fails according to it's own terms and becomes it's own fallacy.

Dually this fallacy is a continual negation of phenomenon, as a fallacy.

Limit C is an actually Line as well (which cannot be graph directly), strictly because Limit C has no width nor is it really in a line in and of itself except through the other line. It is a line, because of the other lines, when 0 distance occurs between seperate lines, thus you end with it being real but effectively nothing. Two lines, with no space between them, observes a 0d line (which cannot be seen except as the inversion of 1 line into another line.

This is not an illusion, as the two lines exist, thus you have a phenomenon (0d line as the inversion of one line to another) as a phenomenon which cannot be seen but is not an illusion either. Void is not an illusion as void is void of illusion.

Your above is the same as the inference of cause from effect, i.e. causality which is ultimately psychological and thus not real.

Your above is exactly what is presented by Kant;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

That you are concluding to something you know [line A and B] to something, i.e. line C without its own conceptual base*, but claimed it as an objective reality, i.e. real.
As Kant stated above, that is an illusion.
* it is a line because of other lines, thus have none of its own grounding.

It is the same with the Watchmaker Analogy argument for God.
Every watch [a thing] created must have a designer and creator.
Thus all things created must have a master creator.
The master creator is god.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:53 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:20 am Circles preceded mathematical circles and "perfect circles".
Humans named the shape of the wheel before they had any concept of mathematical perfection.
Thus gross "real" round things hacked out of wood led humans to ask more questions about how to model such things.

But since it is obvious enough that no perfect circle can exist in anything but conceptualising, the "circles" of nature are the "real circles", but only suggest the mathematical form and are gross approximations of them.

As for GOD, it is nothing more than a gross conceit of human frailty.
The analogy to a circle or wheel does not hold since God is his/he/it various forms is not a perfected empirical object. It is not in ANY sense empirical.

I suppose you could take a sculpture of a god, which reflects a perfect god, and like a real circle, or wheel leads us to a conceptual one.

The perfect circle is abstracted from observed circular empirical things.

The theists' thesis is this;
1. Empirical things [as observed] are created which has a creator, e.g. a watch is designed and created by a creator.
2. The perfect God as the perfect Creator is abstracted [pseudo rationally] from observed empirical creators. -The WatchMaker Analogy.

As you can see the analogy of the perfect circle fit to the above ending with an abstraction of an ultimate ideal perfection.

Thus if the abstracted perfect circle is impossible to be real, so the abstracted perfect God is also impossible to be real.

Btw, theists claim God is an empirical entity/being who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claimed to have experienced and communicated with God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are many of such theists.
When subject to psychiatric and psychological tests, it is found they have some sort of mental illness.

Is perfection real in light of changing definitions?

In this case 'perfection' refer to absolute perfection, i.e. unconditional thus not effected by any changes.
It is impossible for absolute perfection to be real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:13 pm Actually it serves my point entirely as the double negation shows the transcendental illusion fails according to it's own terms and becomes it's own fallacy.

Dually this fallacy is a continual negation of phenomenon, as a fallacy.

Limit C is an actually Line as well (which cannot be graph directly), strictly because Limit C has no width nor is it really in a line in and of itself except through the other line. It is a line, because of the other lines, when 0 distance occurs between seperate lines, thus you end with it being real but effectively nothing. Two lines, with no space between them, observes a 0d line (which cannot be seen except as the inversion of 1 line into another line.

This is not an illusion, as the two lines exist, thus you have a phenomenon (0d line as the inversion of one line to another) as a phenomenon which cannot be seen but is not an illusion either. Void is not an illusion as void is void of illusion.

Your above is the same as the inference of cause from effect, i.e. causality which is ultimately psychological and thus not real.

Your above is exactly what is presented by Kant;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

That you are concluding to something you know [line A and B] to something, i.e. line C without its own conceptual base*, but claimed it as an objective reality, i.e. real.
As Kant stated above, that is an illusion.
* it is a line because of other lines, thus have none of its own grounding.

It is the same with the Watchmaker Analogy argument for God.
Every watch [a thing] created must have a designer and creator.
Thus all things created must have a master creator.
The master creator is god.

Actually it is double negation.

God is void of definition.

This negation of void, through void, results in defintion where God as undefined is now defined as All...thus leaving an infinite chain of definitions that allows God to be both defined relatively and absolutely undefined. God is uncaused, and as uncaused is Void.

Void voiding itself results in being. Void in turn perpetually manifests "being", as void is above being itself. Void in turn voids being from one being to many beings as infinite beings, thus God is not only both defined and undefined, but necessitates God as uncaused cause.

The voiding of one being into many is both the creation and destruction of being, thus God is Creator and Destroyer of Being by transcendence of being alone.

Put that in your intellectual pipe and smoke it.....

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:53 am
The perfect circle is abstracted from observed circular empirical things.

The theists' thesis is this;
1. Empirical things [as observed] are created which has a creator, e.g. a watch is designed and created by a creator.
2. The perfect God as the perfect Creator is abstracted [pseudo rationally] from observed empirical creators. -The WatchMaker Analogy.

As you can see the analogy of the perfect circle fit to the above ending with an abstraction of an ultimate ideal perfection.

Thus if the abstracted perfect circle is impossible to be real, so the abstracted perfect God is also impossible to be real.

Btw, theists claim God is an empirical entity/being who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claimed to have experienced and communicated with God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are many of such theists.
When subject to psychiatric and psychological tests, it is found they have some sort of mental illness.

Is perfection real in light of changing definitions?

In this case 'perfection' refer to absolute perfection, i.e. unconditional thus not effected by any changes.
It is impossible for absolute perfection to be real.

So it is impossible to negate God by perfection or any perfect argument, by default even your argument is imperfect and holes are warranted.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:13 pm Actually it serves my point entirely as the double negation shows the transcendental illusion fails according to it's own terms and becomes it's own fallacy.

Dually this fallacy is a continual negation of phenomenon, as a fallacy.

Limit C is an actually Line as well (which cannot be graph directly), strictly because Limit C has no width nor is it really in a line in and of itself except through the other line. It is a line, because of the other lines, when 0 distance occurs between seperate lines, thus you end with it being real but effectively nothing. Two lines, with no space between them, observes a 0d line (which cannot be seen except as the inversion of 1 line into another line.

This is not an illusion, as the two lines exist, thus you have a phenomenon (0d line as the inversion of one line to another) as a phenomenon which cannot be seen but is not an illusion either. Void is not an illusion as void is void of illusion.

Your above is the same as the inference of cause from effect, i.e. causality which is ultimately psychological and thus not real.

Your above is exactly what is presented by Kant;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

That you are concluding to something you know [line A and B] to something, i.e. line C without its own conceptual base*, but claimed it as an objective reality, i.e. real.
As Kant stated above, that is an illusion.
* it is a line because of other lines, thus have none of its own grounding.

It is the same with the Watchmaker Analogy argument for God.
Every watch [a thing] created must have a designer and creator.
Thus all things created must have a master creator.
The master creator is god.

Actually it is double negation.

God is void of definition.

How come God is void of definitions when there are a wide range of definitions from various theists;
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

This negation of void, through void, results in defintion where God as undefined is now defined as All...thus leaving an infinite chain of definitions that allows God to be both defined relatively and absolutely undefined. God is uncaused, and as uncaused is Void.

Void voiding itself results in being. Void in turn perpetually manifests "being", as void is above being itself. Void in turn voids being from one being to many beings as infinite beings, thus God is not only both defined and undefined, but necessitates God as uncaused cause.

The voiding of one being into many is both the creation and destruction of being, thus God is Creator and Destroyer of Being by transcendence of being alone.

Put that in your intellectual pipe and smoke it.....

No matter how many times you void the void, as long as you end up with a being and that being if reified is due to an illusion as demonstrated by Kant, see B397 above.

It not a problem if you state that 'being' is merely a thought in your mind.
But if you reified that thought [God] then it is an illusion and cannot be real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:10 am
Your above is the same as the inference of cause from effect, i.e. causality which is ultimately psychological and thus not real.

Your above is exactly what is presented by Kant;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
  B397

That you are concluding to something you know [line A and B] to something, i.e. line C without its own conceptual base*, but claimed it as an objective reality, i.e. real.
As Kant stated above, that is an illusion.
* it is a line because of other lines, thus have none of its own grounding.

It is the same with the Watchmaker Analogy argument for God.
Every watch [a thing] created must have a designer and creator.
Thus all things created must have a master creator.
The master creator is god.

Actually it is double negation.

God is void of definition.

How come God is void of definitions when there are a wide range of definitions from various theists;
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Because those definitions are subject to a continuum fallacy where they are all intrinsically empty...I even said below why God as undefined (which you went off tangent about) leads to an explosion of definitions infinite in form and dynamic.

This negation of void, through void, results in defintion where God as undefined is now defined as All...thus leaving an infinite chain of definitions that allows God to be both defined relatively and absolutely undefined. God is uncaused, and as uncaused is Void.

Void voiding itself results in being. Void in turn perpetually manifests "being", as void is above being itself. Void in turn voids being from one being to many beings as infinite beings, thus God is not only both defined and undefined, but necessitates God as uncaused cause.

The voiding of one being into many is both the creation and destruction of being, thus God is Creator and Destroyer of Being by transcendence of being alone.

Put that in your intellectual pipe and smoke it.....

No matter how many times you void the void, as long as you end up with a being and that being if reified is due to an illusion as demonstrated by Kant, see B397 above.

Actually it isn't as void isn't even an illusion....of tangent again whenever you start losing.

It not a problem if you state that 'being' is merely a thought in your mind.
But if you reified that thought [God] then it is an illusion and cannot be real.

God is not limited to thought as thought is defined. Empty mind is intrinsic to thought but not subject to it. God is an empty term. Hindus observe God as a 0 dimension.
Abrahamic Faith's, specifically Islam, as "formless". Formless being a negation of form.

Are your zombie parasites a transcendental illusion?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:17 am

Actually it is double negation.

God is void of definition.

How come God is void of definitions when there are a wide range of definitions from various theists;
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Because those definitions are subject to a continuum fallacy where they are all intrinsically empty...I even said below why God as undefined (which you went off tangent about) leads to an explosion of definitions infinite in form and dynamic.

This negation of void, through void, results in defintion where God as undefined is now defined as All...thus leaving an infinite chain of definitions that allows God to be both defined relatively and absolutely undefined. God is uncaused, and as uncaused is Void.

Void voiding itself results in being. Void in turn perpetually manifests "being", as void is above being itself. Void in turn voids being from one being to many beings as infinite beings, thus God is not only both defined and undefined, but necessitates God as uncaused cause.

The voiding of one being into many is both the creation and destruction of being, thus God is Creator and Destroyer of Being by transcendence of being alone.

Put that in your intellectual pipe and smoke it.....

No matter how many times you void the void, as long as you end up with a being and that being if reified is due to an illusion as demonstrated by Kant, see B397 above.

Actually it isn't as void isn't even an illusion....of tangent again whenever you start losing.

It not a problem if you state that 'being' is merely a thought in your mind.
But if you reified that thought [God] then it is an illusion and cannot be real.

God is not limited to thought as thought is defined. Empty mind is intrinsic to thought but not subject to it. God is an empty term. Hindus observe God as a 0 dimension.
Abrahamic Faith's, specifically Islam, as "formless". Formless being a negation of form.

Are your zombie parasites a transcendental illusion?

A formless being is still a being, thus something.

• In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[1] God is usually conceived as being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
  -wiki -God

Energy is said to be formless, but scientifically it is still something.
It is the same for gravity, space, time, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:50 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:24 am
How come God is void of definitions when there are a wide range of definitions from various theists;
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Because those definitions are subject to a continuum fallacy where they are all intrinsically empty...I even said below why God as undefined (which you went off tangent about) leads to an explosion of definitions infinite in form and dynamic.



No matter how many times you void the void, as long as you end up with a being and that being if reified is due to an illusion as demonstrated by Kant, see B397 above.

Actually it isn't as void isn't even an illusion....of tangent again whenever you start losing.

It not a problem if you state that 'being' is merely a thought in your mind.
But if you reified that thought [God] then it is an illusion and cannot be real.

God is not limited to thought as thought is defined. Empty mind is intrinsic to thought but not subject to it. God is an empty term. Hindus observe God as a 0 dimension.
Abrahamic Faith's, specifically Islam, as "formless". Formless being a negation of form.

Are your zombie parasites a transcendental illusion?

A formless being is still a being, thus something.

• In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[1] God is usually conceived as being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
  -wiki -God

Energy is said to be formless, but scientifically it is still something.
It is the same for gravity, space, time, etc.

Actually you cannot define it as being without giving it form...you can say above being, or intrinsic to being....

All cannot be expressed without infinite definition thus definition itself is subject to equivocation and means nothing. Infinite being is a paradox.


Please dont tell me you plan to enlighten the world with wikipedia articles....I can just sense you are trying to hard now.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:50 am

Are your zombie parasites a transcendental illusion?

A formless being is still a being, thus something.

• In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[1] God is usually conceived as being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
  -wiki -God

Energy is said to be formless, but scientifically it is still something.
It is the same for gravity, space, time, etc.

Actually you cannot define it as being without giving it form...you can say above being, or intrinsic to being....

Then your claim that god is formless is wrong.

All cannot be expressed without infinite definition thus definition itself is subject to equivocation and means nothing. Infinite being is a paradox.


Please dont tell me you plan to enlighten the world with wikipedia articles....I can just sense you are trying to hard now.

Wiki is merely a convenience with the hope for consensus.
In this case, the definition of God from Wiki is reasonably credible.

If you do not agree with Wiki then show me your claim and I can decide whether we can agree or not.

We cannot proceed with the argument if cannot agree on the definition, else it is apples and oranges again.