For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Woops forgot! But remember he can only be seen correctly in the southern hemisphere..chaz wyman wrote:You forgot the man in the moonattofishpi wrote: Oh G thanks chaz.
[/quote]attofishpi wrote:Woops forgot! But remember he can only be seen correctly in the southern hemisphere..chaz wyman wrote:You forgot the man in the moonattofishpi wrote: Oh G thanks chaz.
http://www.androcies.com
You can't expect me to plagiarise!chaz wyman wrote:And the face on Mars.
I thought you were pretending that these were divine symbols?attofishpi wrote:You can't expect me to plagiarise!chaz wyman wrote:And the face on Mars.
...was i?chaz wyman wrote:I thought you were pretending that these were divine symbols?attofishpi wrote:You can't expect me to plagiarise!chaz wyman wrote:And the face on Mars.
Yes, that they were proof of god (or similar) and not simply proof of you!attofishpi wrote:...was i?chaz wyman wrote:I thought you were pretending that these were divine symbols?attofishpi wrote: You can't expect me to plagiarise!
All knowing except in relation to the future is not restricting this entity from knowing the near future....i just dont beleive the entity would know ALL of the future.chaz wyman wrote:Yes. That is no kind of omniscience at all. What's the use of knowing everything is you don't how how to use that information?attofishpi wrote:Lets define God as:-
1. All knowing (apart from the future).
2. Having the ability to judge and reincarnate 'souls'.
Why have you placed such an artificial restriction on god?
You have reduced God to a dumb recording machine, knowing the past but not the future.
But think about it. If I do not know the future, I can't do anything. Even for me to act in the most basic way involves me in knowing something about the future, such as the next word I type. If I'm supposed to know everything now, then I cannot help but know the future. Your restriction is absurd. Why have you made it?
You mean in a hypothetical world where there was a Chaz that was not Chaz, would he think pantheism plausible.?attofishpi wrote:Chaz, in a hypothetical world where there is a Chaz that is theist, would he consider panentheism (not pantheism) as plausible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
Fair comment, apart from the dismissal of your cognition and what you already know.chaz wyman wrote:You mean in a hypothetical world where there was a Chaz that was not Chaz, would he think pantheism plausible.?attofishpi wrote:Chaz, in a hypothetical world where there is a Chaz that is theist, would he consider panentheism (not pantheism) as plausible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
I don't know, I am not that Chaz, why not ask him?
For me to be that Chaz I would have to suspend some parts of my cognition and knowledge, and suspend my disbelief, making it plausible, in which case the answer would be yes, obviously. But as that would completely re-arrange and dismiss most of my knowledge and wisdom, I could not possibly answer that question.
If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.attofishpi wrote:Fair comment, apart from the dismissal of your cognition and what you already know.chaz wyman wrote:You mean in a hypothetical world where there was a Chaz that was not Chaz, would he think pantheism plausible.?attofishpi wrote:Chaz, in a hypothetical world where there is a Chaz that is theist, would he consider panentheism (not pantheism) as plausible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
I don't know, I am not that Chaz, why not ask him?
For me to be that Chaz I would have to suspend some parts of my cognition and knowledge, and suspend my disbelief, making it plausible, in which case the answer would be yes, obviously. But as that would completely re-arrange and dismiss most of my knowledge and wisdom, I could not possibly answer that question.
Why do you consider panentheism implausible?
Yes, the definition(s) that accompany such a complex 'theist philosophy' can appear to have contradictions. I still could not define with absolute certainty 'God', with my limited experience, but the various attributes of panentheism still permit it to remain (for me) the closest match.chaz wyman wrote:If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.
So you define it and you have the implausibility of it is the same words.
It's an idea that serves no purpose and answers no question; a solution without a problem.
The evidence seem to point to a world which changes and evolves by a material cause and effect. I can't see what this concept offers.
You are matching nothing with near nothing. What are you actually doing?attofishpi wrote:Yes, the definition(s) that accompany such a complex 'theist philosophy' can appear to have contradictions. I still could not define with absolute certainty 'God', with my limited experience, but the various attributes of panentheism still permit it to remain (for me) the closest match.chaz wyman wrote:If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.
So you define it and you have the implausibility of it is the same words.
It's an idea that serves no purpose and answers no question; a solution without a problem.
The evidence seem to point to a world which changes and evolves by a material cause and effect. I can't see what this concept offers.
We will never be on the same page.chaz wyman wrote:You are matching nothing with near nothing. What are you actually doing?attofishpi wrote:Yes, the definition(s) that accompany such a complex 'theist philosophy' can appear to have contradictions. I still could not define with absolute certainty 'God', with my limited experience, but the various attributes of panentheism still permit it to remain (for me) the closest match.chaz wyman wrote:If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.
So you define it and you have the implausibility of it is the same words.
It's an idea that serves no purpose and answers no question; a solution without a problem.
The evidence seem to point to a world which changes and evolves by a material cause and effect. I can't see what this concept offers.