For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No. I reject the label because someone that is theist has merely a belief. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that 'God' exists...courtesy of 20years of direct interaction with 'it' and a sage.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:24 pmDo you reject the label because you think that it only applies to organised religionattpfishpi wrote: ps. I am not a theist.
A theist is any one who believes in God regardless of how they actually define God
So, considering all of the people who "know" and experience differently than you do, would it be accurate to say that all realities exist and each person's experience and knowing is personal and true for them?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:48 pm I reject the label because someone that is theist has merely a belief. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that 'God' exists...courtesy of 20years of direct interaction with 'it' and a sage.
A. I am not calling theists deluded.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:05 pmCalling theists deluded at the outset is not going to help your cause.
Also, is English a 2nd language for you?
ps. I am not a theist.
Taking your ball and going home, then?
Because really, you haven't solved the issue. I do not, as a matter of fact. I have not given it YET, but I have one, and will be happy to give it in due time, should it prove relevant to where we go. I was waiting for you to sort out your own thinking first. After all, you were the one who was claiming that the "message" had "failed" to be received sufficiently by "Christians." I wanted to see if you had any idea whom you were even talking about.What's missing is YOUR definition of Christians, but it's not necessary to be given to see my argument, only to see your side, and since you refuse to give your definition of a Christian,
1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:33 am 1. Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.
2. Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.
3. If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.
-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:45 pm1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:33 am 1. Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.
2. Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.
3. If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.
If one is both a philosopher and religious, then one is to believe in god, not define god.
If one is both a philosopher and a scientist, then it could go either way.
If one is both religious and a scientist, then the faith goes by description, not by discovery.
We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.
Ergo, lack of definition does not make arguments invalid which state that god does not exist.
Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]
2. Considering that God is not defined through everything, makes your argument fail.
3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.
God is all in any of his.
The book of the 24 philosophers:
The 24 definitions
1. Deus est monas monadem gignens, in se unum reflectens ardorem.
God is a monad generating a monad, which in the heat (of love) reflects to himself alone.
2. Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam.
God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere (and) circumference is nowhere.
3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.
God is all in any of his.
4. Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseuerans.
God is mind generating a word (with) enduring continuity.
5. Deus est quo nihil melius excogitari potest.
God is that where nothing better can be devised.
6. Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil.
God is that, in which comparison substance (or essence) is an attribute (or feature), and attribute (or feature) being nothing.
7. Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine.
God is beginning without beginning, process without variation, end without end.
8. Deus est amor qui plus habitus magis latet.
God is love, which the more is hidden the more we (believe to) have it.
9. Deus est cui soli praesens est quidquid cuius temporis est.
God is that, to whom all is present related to (all what belongs to) time.
10. Deus est cuius posse non numeratur, cuius esse non clauditur, cuius bonitas non terminatur.
God is that, whose ability (or competence) is not numbered, whose being is not limited, whose goodness is not terminated.
11. Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter.
God is above (or beyond) being, (is) necessary and by oneself being sufficient unto himself in abundance.
12. Deus est cuius voluntas deificae et potentiae et sapientiae adaequatur.
God is that, whose will equals (or is according) his divine power and wisdom.
13. Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, semper divisione et habitu.
God is working eternity by himself without division and (without having or gaining) an attribute (or feature).
14. Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.
God is the opposition of nothing by means of being.
15. Deus est vita cuius via in formam est, in unitatem bonitas.
God is life, whose way into form is truth, (and whose way) into unity is goodness.
16. Deus est quod solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.
God (is the) only one because of his excellence, who is not signed by words, and mind (creatures) do not recognise (him) caused by (their) dissimilarity.
17. Deus est intellectus sui solum, praedicationem non recipiens.
God is the concept (or notion) (derived) from himself alone not suffering (or tolerating) a(ny) predicate.
18. Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae quod puncta.
God is the sphere having as much circumferences as points.
19. Deus est semper movens immobilis.
God is the immobile (but always) moved (one).
20. Deus est qui solus suo intellectu vivit.
God is (the only one) alone living from his self knowledge (or self - awareness).
21. Deus est tenebra in anima post omnem lucem relicta.
God is the darkness in the soul being left after all light.
22. Deus est ex quo est quicquid est non partitione, per quem est non variatione, in quo est quod est non commixtione.
God is (that), from which all is (or exists) that is (or exists) without (him) being divided (or splited); through him (all) is without (him) getting (or being) changed; in him (all) is without him getting (or being) mixed with it.
23. Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur.
God is that, which the mind only knows in ignorance (or in the state of not knowing).
24. Deus est lux quae fractione non clarescit, transit, sed sola deiformitas in re.
God is light, appearing as shine without refraction, permeating, but only (being) a divine formation in the things.
3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.
Thanks for the compliment.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:56 pm-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:45 pm1. God is defined by philosophers. He/She/It is described by the religious. HSI is to be discovered by scientists.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:33 am 1. Considering God is not defined, it would be to equivalent to negate negativity, if one where to argue that God does not exist.
2. Considering God is defined through everything it would be equivalent to argues that nothing exists if one where to argue God does not exists.
3. If one where to Argue that God is both everything and nothing, or the Alpha and Omega, and then claim God does not exist it would be equivalent to argue that "beginning" and "end" do not exist.
If one is both a philosopher and religious, then one is to believe in god, not define god.
If one is both a philosopher and a scientist, then it could go either way.
If one is both religious and a scientist, then the faith goes by description, not by discovery.
We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.
Ergo, lack of definition does not make arguments invalid which state that god does not exist.
Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]
2. Considering that God is not defined through everything, makes your argument fail.
3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.
God is all in any of his.
The book of the 24 philosophers:
The 24 definitions
1. Deus est monas monadem gignens, in se unum reflectens ardorem.
God is a monad generating a monad, which in the heat (of love) reflects to himself alone.
2. Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam.
God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere (and) circumference is nowhere.
3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.
God is all in any of his.
4. Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseuerans.
God is mind generating a word (with) enduring continuity.
5. Deus est quo nihil melius excogitari potest.
God is that where nothing better can be devised.
6. Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil.
God is that, in which comparison substance (or essence) is an attribute (or feature), and attribute (or feature) being nothing.
7. Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine.
God is beginning without beginning, process without variation, end without end.
8. Deus est amor qui plus habitus magis latet.
God is love, which the more is hidden the more we (believe to) have it.
9. Deus est cui soli praesens est quidquid cuius temporis est.
God is that, to whom all is present related to (all what belongs to) time.
10. Deus est cuius posse non numeratur, cuius esse non clauditur, cuius bonitas non terminatur.
God is that, whose ability (or competence) is not numbered, whose being is not limited, whose goodness is not terminated.
11. Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter.
God is above (or beyond) being, (is) necessary and by oneself being sufficient unto himself in abundance.
12. Deus est cuius voluntas deificae et potentiae et sapientiae adaequatur.
God is that, whose will equals (or is according) his divine power and wisdom.
13. Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, semper divisione et habitu.
God is working eternity by himself without division and (without having or gaining) an attribute (or feature).
14. Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.
God is the opposition of nothing by means of being.
15. Deus est vita cuius via in formam est, in unitatem bonitas.
God is life, whose way into form is truth, (and whose way) into unity is goodness.
16. Deus est quod solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.
God (is the) only one because of his excellence, who is not signed by words, and mind (creatures) do not recognise (him) caused by (their) dissimilarity.
17. Deus est intellectus sui solum, praedicationem non recipiens.
God is the concept (or notion) (derived) from himself alone not suffering (or tolerating) a(ny) predicate.
18. Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae quod puncta.
God is the sphere having as much circumferences as points.
19. Deus est semper movens immobilis.
God is the immobile (but always) moved (one).
20. Deus est qui solus suo intellectu vivit.
God is (the only one) alone living from his self knowledge (or self - awareness).
21. Deus est tenebra in anima post omnem lucem relicta.
God is the darkness in the soul being left after all light.
22. Deus est ex quo est quicquid est non partitione, per quem est non variatione, in quo est quod est non commixtione.
God is (that), from which all is (or exists) that is (or exists) without (him) being divided (or splited); through him (all) is without (him) getting (or being) changed; in him (all) is without him getting (or being) mixed with it.
23. Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur.
God is that, which the mind only knows in ignorance (or in the state of not knowing).
24. Deus est lux quae fractione non clarescit, transit, sed sola deiformitas in re.
God is light, appearing as shine without refraction, permeating, but only (being) a divine formation in the things.
3You argue a bit like Socrates in this sense.
Thanks for the compliment.
It was not a compliment. It was an insult. Socrates often and without remorse argued against good reason, and he never shied away from using fallacies. He was a dirty fighter, he hit below the belt.
-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:23 pm
We are all philsophers, scientists, and religious as we all think, observe, and believe to some degree or another. To seperate them into categories (other than in the professional sense) is to divide not not only the human being but the human condition.
It is strange that you are unable to separate humans into categories. It is strange that you can't differentiate between a scientist and a philosopher. It is strange that you consider all and every person religious.
A career only makes weak men. Real men are not categorized by a career.
You can't differentiate between Aristotle's writings, a priest's sermon, and a scientific paper; only as professional opinions. Therefore you can't possibly imagine that QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCES make up QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES. I wish you were able to internalize the wrongness of your opinion on this.
What is number (quantity), but a quality of spatial dimensions?
Argument is the synthesis of definition and any failure in definition is fai[ure in argument./color]
The above is true. With this, therefore, you are rendering your own post (your first on this page or the preceding page) completely meaningless, as you started it with "Considering God is not defined,". This means that unless you define god, you are not talking about anything.
Infinity is numberless number. (structu
https://www.bing.com/search?q=infinity+ ... 32FA4DF79A
Why can't God be definitionless definition?
The book of the 24 philosophers:
The 24 definitions
You must have never read the book of the 256 philosophers. I did not, either, but your book of 24 philosophers is full of pious sermons, which here sub as definitions. I reject the validity of any of those definitions, on the basis of their being arbitrary, and as arbitrariness goes, I have an equally valid different arbitrary opinion.
The influence of this work on medieval scholarship and literature has revealed traces of its ideas among the works of Jean de Meung, Dante, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Robert Fludd, Pascal, Leibniz.[1]
*****Leibniz was one of the men who was involved in developing some of the calculus we "quantify" the world with today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_t ... ilosophers
A sub definition is still a definition.
You reject it because it is arbitrary, yet "have an equally valid different arbitrary opinion". You are not rejecting my argument, you are rejecting your own.
Stop it...you are making me blush.-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:27 pmIt was not a compliment. It was an insult. Socrates often and without remorse argued against good reason, and he never shied away from using fallacies. He was a dirty fighter, he hit below the belt.
I am not debating Socrates' genius here. Or yours. But I am likening you to him on the fact that you both like to cherry-pick definitions, and use faulty logic in order to win an argument.
Not a statement. Ergo, not an argument.
True Scotsman fallacy.
Ad hominem fallacy.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:53 pm
The influence of this work on medieval scholarship and literature has revealed traces of its ideas among the works of Jean de Meung, Dante, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Robert Fludd, Pascal, Leibniz.[1]
*****Leibniz was one of the men who was involved in developing some of the calculus we "quantify" the world with today.