God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Belindi wrote: March 27th, 2020, 5:18 am
creation wrote: March 26th, 2020, 10:49 pm

I have been saying and writing 'it', exactly how I have wanted to say 'it'.

You misinterpreting me so much and you showing that you are completely incapable of clarifying your own views is what I have wanted to point out.

By the way, human beings, through language, created the word 'God'.

And, the word 'God', in the physical sense, just refers to the physical Universe, Itself, which is just what creates every thing, including humans. Simple really.
God is the name of the deity who created and maintains the universe and all in it;
So, exactly what I was saying and pointing out.
Belindi wrote: March 27th, 2020, 5:18 am and God also transcends the universe and all in it.
How could any thing transcend the Universe, Itself?
Belindi wrote: March 27th, 2020, 5:18 am Actually, your claim is pantheist, not Christian.
What I have actually said is NOT "pantheist", and it certainly would NEVER ever be "christian".

What would even make you use the "Christian" word here?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Belindi »

Creation. I hardly know where to start answering you. You ask "How could any thing transcend the Universe, Itself?" . Nobody explains nor can explain what is the cause of itself.

God either transcends nature, or else God is nature itself.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by psyreporter »

@creation I did not write those messages.

I do not intend to believe in anything but instead intend to be involved in inquiry and the pursuit of accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good"

An example of my reasoning: one cannot stand above life as being life, one can only serve life.

I consider Atheism a religion and my position is that it is important to not factor out potentially immeasurable factors, i.e. that it would be wrong to blindly follow the result of the scientific method. The primary logic as ground for that position is that the physical cannot be the origin of itself.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by gad-fly »

Greta wrote: March 23rd, 2020, 11:52 pm
Alas, that is the product of the disastrous forum habit of breaking up chunks of text and addressing each one without complete context.

The habit not only produces logically invalid replies, but annoying to those being responded to, and thoroughly unreadable, actively harming the forum. I, and many others, will not bother wading through long context-free tit-for-tats. We want more cohesive prose and less nitpicking of stuff out of context.
You have pinpointed a crucial problem to be tackled in this forum. It is unfair to discuss the subject matter here, out of the focus of those not concerned about this thread, on what makes the replies in context, readable, concise, analytical, philosophical, impersonal, and non-opinionated. A new thread should be appropriate. Perhaps you can undertake the task.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Belindi wrote: March 27th, 2020, 6:37 am Creation. I hardly know where to start answering you.
I would suggest with the first question, then proceed in that order. But you are free to start with any question, and then proceed in whatever order you so choose.

As long as you are open and honest it really does not matter where you start.
Belindi wrote: March 27th, 2020, 6:37 am You ask "How could any thing transcend the Universe, Itself?" . Nobody explains nor can explain what is the cause of itself.
I asked that question because you claimed that "God also transcends the universe and all in it". If this claim is true or even could possibly be true, then how does God transcend the Universe, Itself, or how could God even possibly transcend the Universe, Itself.

Also, I have ALREADY explained how the Universe/God creates Itself.

Put simply if we refer to the word 'God', in the physical sense, as the physical Universe, Itself, then because of what the Universe actually IS and how It works, It is always creating Its Self, anyway. Always has and always will. Matter and space has to exist together forever. There is no other possible way. And, because of these always co-existing two things the Universe is always in Creation. The actual coming together of physical matter, which is freely allowed to move about because of space, then this is what is the never-ending perpetual source of what is always continually creating the Itself - Thee Universe.
Belindi wrote: March 27th, 2020, 6:37 am God either transcends nature, or else God is nature itself.
Well I see that 'God', in a sense, is Nature, Itself.

Remember that it was you who was the one who wrote that "God also transcends the universe and all in it". From what I have observed so far I do not see how this is at all possible. But, I await for someone to explain how it could be possible. I obviously may have overlooked something so far.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

arjand wrote: March 27th, 2020, 9:20 am @creation I did not write those messages.
At "arjand" you did not write 'what' messages?
arjand wrote: March 27th, 2020, 9:20 am I do not intend to believe in anything but instead intend to be involved in inquiry and the pursuit of accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good"
Okay, but if you intend to, one day, be involved in inquiry and the pursuit of accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good", I would suggest that instead of just pursuing the accuracy of what is "good" you also pursue the accuracy of what is actually 'true', 'right', and 'correct' as well.
arjand wrote: March 27th, 2020, 9:20 am An example of my reasoning: one cannot stand above life as being life, one can only serve life.
If this is what you believe, then this is perfectly okay with me.

But, I am not exactly sure why you are writing this, neither do I know what any of this actually means.
arjand wrote: March 27th, 2020, 9:20 am I consider Atheism a religion and my position is that it is important to not factor out potentially immeasurable factors, i.e. that it would be wrong to blindly follow the result of the scientific method. The primary logic as ground for that position is that the physical cannot be the origin of itself.
Any religion, including atheism, has nothing to do with what I have said.
Blindly following anything has nothing to do with what I have said.
There was and is no origin in what I said.
So, what you have said here has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have been saying.

If, by the way, you have some knowledge of how the physical can be the origin of itself, then will you share that with us here?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by Belindi »

Creation wrote:
Remember that it was you who was the one who wrote that "God also transcends the universe and all in it". From what I have observed so far I do not see how this is at all possible. But, I await for someone to explain how it could be possible. I obviously may have overlooked something so far.
If you will, think of causes and effects. There are causal chains going back into time and I presume on onto the future.There are also causes that effect events in what we may call "the present" so for instance we have the coronavirus pandemic causing all sorts of events all at one time.

There is nothing that is not caused, and which necessarily happens due to predisposing or present causes.

But what caused existence itself? Not the events of existence, but existence itself?
The answer is either 1, God is the cause of itself and God did it, or
2. nature is the cause of itself and nature did it, or
3. God and nature are the same , God-or-nature is cause of itself , and God-or-nature did it.
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

Belindi wrote: March 28th, 2020, 5:55 am Creation wrote:
Remember that it was you who was the one who wrote that "God also transcends the universe and all in it". From what I have observed so far I do not see how this is at all possible. But, I await for someone to explain how it could be possible. I obviously may have overlooked something so far.
If you will, think of causes and effects. There are causal chains going back into time and I presume on onto the future.There are also causes that effect events in what we may call "the present" so for instance we have the coronavirus pandemic causing all sorts of events all at one time.
Already thought of, and I have already said and used cause and effect to explain what I have been saying.
Belindi wrote: March 28th, 2020, 5:55 am There is nothing that is not caused, and which necessarily happens due to predisposing or present causes.
I have said this and explained this before.
Belindi wrote: March 28th, 2020, 5:55 am But what caused existence itself? Not the events of existence, but existence itself?
To repeated and answer your two questions; Nothing, and, Nothing.

Existence has always, 'existed'.

If there is matter, then matter has always existed. There is matter, and therefore existence also eternally-NOW. So, there has always been existence, and there will always be existence.

Existence, Itself, is not caused. Existence IS always.
Belindi wrote: March 28th, 2020, 5:55 am The answer is either 1, God is the cause of itself and God did it, or
2. nature is the cause of itself and nature did it, or
3. God and nature are the same , God-or-nature is cause of itself , and God-or-nature did it.
In a sense, it could be all three. Because absolutely everything is relative to the observer, it all depends on how words are being defined.

But, let us say, God is Nature. Nature is not "causing" Itself. Nature is what just naturally happens. That is absolutely every thing. This is just Creation Itself.

There is not one thing that is 'created', and then does not evolve. Therefore, every thing is just in the One continually-evolving creating process, sometimes called 'Creation', Itself. There is no one thing that can 'cause' itself.

But we could say God is 'creating', or 'causing', It Self, but again this is a never beginning eternal process. When a Truly Self-Aware Being comes into Being, and thus absolute Self-Consciousness, then understanding how the Universe/God is creating Its Self will be understood. When the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is answered properly and correctly, then how exactly God is creating Its Self can be and will be SEEN and understood.

All of this can be back up and supported further with more evidence and proof.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by psyreporter »

creation wrote: March 27th, 2020, 10:30 pm
arjand wrote: March 27th, 2020, 9:20 am creation I did not write those messages.
At "arjand" you did not write 'what' messages?
You quoted several messages that I did not write:
creation wrote: March 26th, 2020, 8:46 pm
arjand wrote: March 26th, 2020, 5:50 am However, I discovered that there is no God, and that Evolution is true.
arjand wrote: March 26th, 2020, 5:50 am God only exists in the minds of men - true statement.
arjand wrote: March 26th, 2020, 5:50 am Why do you say men dont have minds?
arjand wrote: March 26th, 2020, 5:50 am We dont have to wait for answers, it's all very clear.
arjand wrote: March 26th, 2020, 5:50 am I know the truth about God and the Universe.

creation wrote: March 27th, 2020, 10:30 pm
arjand wrote: March 27th, 2020, 9:20 am I do not intend to believe in anything but instead intend to be involved in inquiry and the pursuit of accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good"
Okay, but if you intend to, one day, be involved in inquiry and the pursuit of accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good", I would suggest that instead of just pursuing the accuracy of what is "good" you also pursue the accuracy of what is actually 'true', 'right', and 'correct' as well.
Does one not need to argue that true is "good", right is "good", and correct is "good" to assign distinctive value to the terms?

creation wrote: March 27th, 2020, 10:30 pmIf, by the way, you have some knowledge of how the physical can be the origin of itself, then will you share that with us here?
The concept finite originates from a "begin" that is introduced by an observer. The observer per se (i.e. observing in pure form) cannot be the origin of what is observed since that which is observed logically must have been there beforehand to be observable. It is simple logic.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

arjand wrote: March 28th, 2020, 8:35 am
creation wrote: March 27th, 2020, 10:30 pm

At "arjand" you did not write 'what' messages?
You quoted several messages that I did not write:
Sorry. I apologize. That is totally my fault. I am not sure how I made such a mistake, but I obviously did.


arjand wrote: March 28th, 2020, 8:35 am
creation wrote: March 27th, 2020, 10:30 pm

Okay, but if you intend to, one day, be involved in inquiry and the pursuit of accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good", I would suggest that instead of just pursuing the accuracy of what is "good" you also pursue the accuracy of what is actually 'true', 'right', and 'correct' as well.
Does one not need to argue that true is "good", right is "good", and correct is "good" to assign distinctive value to the terms?
I am not exactly sure what you are asking here. But, to me, true, right, and correct are neither good nor bad. True is true, right is right, correct is correct, and good is good.

arjand wrote: March 28th, 2020, 8:35 am
creation wrote: March 27th, 2020, 10:30 pmIf, by the way, you have some knowledge of how the physical can be the origin of itself, then will you share that with us here?
The concept finite originates from a "begin" that is introduced by an observer. The observer per se (i.e. observing in pure form) cannot be the origin of what is observed since that which is observed logically must have been there beforehand to be observable. It is simple logic.
The logic is so simple that 'introducing' the idea of 'a beginning actually being true' can be seen for the absolutely absurdity and illogical thing that it really IS.

Just because an observer has a concept of 'finite', solely because they, themselves, 'introduced' some notion of 'beginning' in regards to the Universe, obviously does not mean that the concept of the Universe being 'finite' is true, right, nor correct in any way, shape, nor form.

The idea that this would even follow logically is illogical in and of itself.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by psyreporter »

creation wrote: March 28th, 2020, 10:50 amSorry. I apologize. That is totally my fault. I am not sure how I made such a mistake, but I obviously did.
No problem. I simply intended to clarify that I am not religious but I am certainly not arguing that I know something for others, or that religion itself is not the correct way to perceive reality or to provide structure for human life. I am not interested in politics or to tell people how they should live or how the world should be. As mentioned, I am simply interested in accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good". I do not suggest that I know something that others don't. I believe that philosophy as a science may hold the key to unlock valid reasoning and guidance for human progress. I joined this forum to learn / acquire insights.

creation wrote: March 28th, 2020, 10:50 amI am not exactly sure what you are asking here. But, to me, true, right, and correct are neither good nor bad. True is true, right is right, correct is correct, and good is good.
The concepts truth, right and correct require valuing and originate from "good" per se.

It can be implied that for valuing to be possible it requires a distinguish ability. By the nature of value, valuing per se appropriates that distinguish ability from that what can be indicated as "good". Because something cannot be the cause of itself, "good" per se cannot be valued.

"good" per se is otherwise than truth, right and correct however one can also denote something as "good" which is a separate usage of the word which equally requires valuing on the basis of "good" per se.

Summarized
  • valuing requires a distinguish ability
    Valuing is making a distinction between good and bad. Bad isn't of substance. Bad is what lessens good. As such, one does not choose but 'value'.

    The first logical implication is that for valuing to be possible, it requires a distinguish ability and by the nature of value it derives that ability from what can be indicated as "good".
  • factual logic (logical truth): something cannot be the cause of itself
    The simple logic that something cannot be the cause of itself can be considered factual logic or logical truth.
  • indicated "good" cannot be other than "good" per se
    If the indicated "good" could be anything other than that what it is considered to be per se, it would need to have been valued and that is impossible by the factual logic at point 2.


creation wrote: March 28th, 2020, 10:50 amThe logic is so simple that 'introducing' the idea of 'a beginning actually being true' can be seen for the absolutely absurdity and illogical thing that it really IS.

Just because an observer has a concept of 'finite', solely because they, themselves, 'introduced' some notion of 'beginning' in regards to the Universe, obviously does not mean that the concept of the Universe being 'finite' is true, right, nor correct in any way, shape, nor form.

The idea that this would even follow logically is illogical in and of itself.
One cannot pose that something that has a begin is infinite because infinity does not know a begin. Therefor, "the Universe" as concept with a begin introduced by the observer is finite by definition. The term Universe merely refers to what the observer can possibly know about its environment, thus the finite limit is relative to the perspective of the observer only and it does not imply anything about the actual environment that one assumes to exist.

Perhaps the first lines in the book Tao-te Ching by Lao-tzu are applicable:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
"
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 am
creation wrote: March 28th, 2020, 10:50 amSorry. I apologize. That is totally my fault. I am not sure how I made such a mistake, but I obviously did.
No problem. I simply intended to clarify that I am not religious but I am certainly not arguing that I know something for others, or that religion itself is not the correct way to perceive reality or to provide structure for human life. I am not interested in politics or to tell people how they should live or how the world should be. As mentioned, I am simply interested in accuracy on behalf of what can be considered "good". I do not suggest that I know something that others don't. I believe that philosophy as a science may hold the key to unlock valid reasoning and guidance for human progress. I joined this forum to learn / acquire insights.

The concepts truth, right and correct require valuing and originate from "good" per se.
To me, the concepts truth, right, and correct require agreement, and originate from 'agreeing'.

It can be implied that for valuing to be possible it requires a distinguish ability. [/quote]

I would go beyond "implying" and say that for valuing to be possible that valuing does actually require ab ability to distinguish. The very act of 'valuing' is distinguishing between one thing from another.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 amBy the nature of value, valuing per se appropriates that distinguish ability from that what can be indicated as "good". Because something cannot be the cause of itself, "good" per se cannot be valued

"good" per se is otherwise than truth, right and correct however one can also denote something as "good" which is a separate usage of the word which equally requires valuing on the basis of "good" per se.

Summarized
  • valuing requires a distinguish ability
    Valuing is making a distinction between good and bad. Bad isn't of substance. Bad is what lessens good. As such, one does not choose but 'value'.

    The first logical implication is that for valuing to be possible, it requires a distinguish ability and by the nature of value it derives that ability from what can be indicated as "good".
  • factual logic (logical truth): something cannot be the cause of itself
    The simple logic that something cannot be the cause of itself can be considered factual logic or logical truth.
  • indicated "good" cannot be other than "good" per se
    If the indicated "good" could be anything other than that what it is considered to be per se, it would need to have been valued and that is impossible by the factual logic at point 2.
If you want to believe that true, right, and correct is 'good', then be my guest. But, what you are saying here, to me, is not logically supporting your belief.

If anything, to me, you are doing the opposite.

arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 am
creation wrote: March 28th, 2020, 10:50 amThe logic is so simple that 'introducing' the idea of 'a beginning actually being true' can be seen for the absolutely absurdity and illogical thing that it really IS.

Just because an observer has a concept of 'finite', solely because they, themselves, 'introduced' some notion of 'beginning' in regards to the Universe, obviously does not mean that the concept of the Universe being 'finite' is true, right, nor correct in any way, shape, nor form.

The idea that this would even follow logically is illogical in and of itself.
One cannot pose that something that has a begin is infinite because infinity does not know a begin.
But WHERE is the evidence AND proof that the Universe actually "began"?
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 amTherefor, "the Universe" as concept with a begin introduced by the observer is finite by definition.
Of course it is. That is what I said also.

I also noted how absurdly stupid it is to introduce some thing, which may actually be FALSE, WRONG, and/or INCORRECT, just so as to back up and support a previously held belief.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 am The term Universe merely refers to what the observer can possibly know about its environment, thus the finite limit is relative to the perspective of the observer only and it does not imply anything about the actual environment that one assumes to exist.
But WHY "create" a "finite limit" when one may not even exist?

Why create or introduce some thing that may not even be there, and then form a conclusion based on from what one, them self, has introduced?

This seems like a very illogical process to me.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 amPerhaps the first lines in the book Tao-te Ching by Lao-tzu are applicable:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
"
And do you believe this?

This was only expressed because the one who expressed this does not yet KNOW the words to use to explain the eternal.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by psyreporter »

creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 am The concepts truth, right and correct require valuing and originate from "good" per se.
To me, the concepts truth, right, and correct require agreement, and originate from 'agreeing'.
Before one can agree on anything one will need to value. Valuing "appropriates" the distinguish ability that it requires from "good" per se which implies that that valuing has a subjective element.

"good" per se is evidently real. One can for example argue "by the realness of pain, "good" is real".

Thus, one can argue that the concepts truth, right and correct originate from something that is real.

Because "good" per se cannot be valued by the provided logic, one cannot define "good". To unlock utilitarian value one can argue that the concepts truth, right and correct require an agreement to make them usable. 'agreeing' is not the origin of the concepts.


creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm I would go beyond "implying" and say that for valuing to be possible that valuing does actually require ab ability to distinguish. The very act of 'valuing' is distinguishing between one thing from another.
Essentially, there is just one thing involved, not two. "bad" is what lessens "good" and isn't anything by itself.

Without "good", no "bad". Without "bad", only "good". "bad" isn't of substance.

When one values, one does not choose between "good" and "bad". One "appropriates" distinguish ability from a single origin: "good" per se.


creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm But WHY "create" a "finite limit" when one may not even exist?

Why create or introduce some thing that may not even be there, and then form a conclusion based on from what one, them self, has introduced?

This seems like a very illogical process to me.
Because a "begin" was introduced from the moment that one started to observe. The resulting perspective implies a "total" and thus finitude.


creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 9:35 amPerhaps the first lines in the book Tao-te Ching by Lao-tzu are applicable:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
"
And do you believe this?

This was only expressed because the one who expressed this does not yet KNOW the words to use to explain the eternal.
Yes, I consider it correct. I do not agree that the sentence means that one does not YET know what the word explains. The sentence means that, even when the complete book has been written, one can not have named that which the book was written about, thus essentially confessing beforehand that one did not know what the book was written about.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
creation
Posts: 1172
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by creation »

arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pm
creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm

To me, the concepts truth, right, and correct require agreement, and originate from 'agreeing'.
Before one can agree on anything one will need to value. Valuing "appropriates" the distinguish ability that it requires from "good" per se which implies that that valuing has a subjective element.

"good" per se is evidently real. One can for example argue "by the realness of pain, "good" is real".

Thus, one can argue that the concepts truth, right and correct originate from something that is real.
It is "good" to see that you have finally changed from using the 'good' word and replaced it with the 'real' word. What you are saying now appears, to me anyway, to be more logical and sensible. Even though I am still not sure what this has to do with this thread title.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pmBecause "good" per se cannot be valued by the provided logic, one cannot define "good".
This has already been done.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pm To unlock utilitarian value one can argue that the concepts truth, right and correct require an agreement to make them usable.
Okay.

arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pm'agreeing' is not the origin of the concepts.
Okay.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pm
creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm I would go beyond "implying" and say that for valuing to be possible that valuing does actually require ab ability to distinguish. The very act of 'valuing' is distinguishing between one thing from another.
Essentially, there is just one thing involved, not two. "bad" is what lessens "good" and isn't anything by itself.
Okay.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pmWithout "good", no "bad". Without "bad", only "good". "bad" isn't of substance.
Okay.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pmWhen one values, one does not choose between "good" and "bad". One "appropriates" distinguish ability from a single origin: "good" per se.
Okay.
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pm
creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm But WHY "create" a "finite limit" when one may not even exist?

Why create or introduce some thing that may not even be there, and then form a conclusion based on from what one, them self, has introduced?

This seems like a very illogical process to me.
Because a "begin" was introduced from the moment that one started to observe.
Are you saying that this is what you did or what everyone did, does, and will do?

Just out if curiosity, how do you know this?
arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pmThe resulting perspective implies a "total" and thus finitude.
Are you able to provide any examples?


arjand wrote: March 29th, 2020, 3:58 pm
creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 1:32 pm


And do you believe this?

This was only expressed because the one who expressed this does not yet KNOW the words to use to explain the eternal.
Yes, I consider it correct.
'Considering' and 'believing' are two very different things. My question involved the 'believe' word.

I do not agree that the sentence means that one does not YET know what the word explains. The sentence means that, even when the complete book has been written, one can not have named that which the book was written about, thus essentially confessing beforehand that one did not know what the book was written about.
[/quote]

So, how exactly when 'one is essentially confessing beforehand that they did not know what the book was written about' differ from what I said about 'one does not yet know what the word (or book) explains (or is about)?
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: God and Human: Who has created Whom?

Post by psyreporter »

creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 5:12 pmEven though I am still not sure what this has to do with this thread title.
In a way it could be considered relevant. When one acknowledges the fact that the concept finite (i.e. causality) cannot be of substance by itself because it is dependent on a "begin" that is introduced by an observer, then one can understand that there cannot be a cause for what lays before observation (i.e. what one assumes to be reality or "the Universe").

Infinity does not have a "begin".

The question "who created whom" then becomes obsolete. There is no first cause. There is just the cause.
creation wrote: March 29th, 2020, 5:12 pmSo, how exactly when 'one is essentially confessing beforehand that they did not know what the book was written about' differ from what I said about 'one does not yet know what the word (or book) explains (or is about)?
The word 'yet' implies that one can potentially know it. As it appears, the sentence was not intended to communicate that.

Tao-te Ching translates to "Tao and it's characteristics". It could be translated to "God and it's characteristics".
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021