I mean, if God contracted for creation to exist, then evil must also exist.
The creation from nothing idea just becomes too non-phenomenological when you have to invent a logos or a demiurge or a nous or whatever fantastic old word
I've been been pretty good at doing nothing about thinking until I entered college where I took my first and only philosophy course which was Philosophy of Religion. In one of those ontological arguments for the existence of God which requires the belief in God's omnipotence, omniscience, and transcendence; the professor challenged us with the following proposition: God is not omnipotent because he is unable to create an immovable rock alongside an irresistible force in the same universe. Being a philosophical simpleton at that time (still am, but to a lesser degree), I was blown away by this unreasonable counter argument and it made my head hurt. I thought of doing something easier and simple like studying electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. - the most fundamental reality of the material world. I'm now reading Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation. I must have a bad English translation because I can understand what I'm reading.
Admirable concision here. Very well argued on both main themes. Bravo!
Abyss, Torah, and Gospel work well, and the definition of pharisaism hits hard in this context.
Your argument re: “honorifics” will ever get pushback, of course, but metaphysical extremes can’t correspond to a Person. And can’t be insisted on without arriving at more than one logical impasse. Here, in terms of Being and Nothing, the problem appears again, and “vectors” is a good way to wrestle it.
Like I argued elsewhere: We’re not in a theorem, but a narrative. Make it a theorem, and either God is conceived mechanistically (not a Person), or we are automata. Or both.
Yeah, at is says “we know in part” 1 Corinthians 13, appreciated your discussion at the end of philosophical and theological certainties not being available, and yes, we know in part but the Living God is nonetheless quite knowable and we may be certain of that!
I am more of a concrete person, not philosophical though I can follow the more abstract, indirect, philosophical approach. I am a “the following night the Lord stood by him and said . . .” Acts 23:11 “received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba, Father” the Spirit beats witness with our spirit that we are children of God” Romans 8:15-16 type of guy.
“Always good to trust our own eyes” You know our eyes point out and we will have them forever. Jesus still has his! Let’s look to the Father like Jesus did and does and not inward to some nirvanic abyss.
I mean, if God contracted for creation to exist, then evil must also exist.
The creation from nothing idea just becomes too non-phenomenological when you have to invent a logos or a demiurge or a nous or whatever fantastic old word
I've been been pretty good at doing nothing about thinking until I entered college where I took my first and only philosophy course which was Philosophy of Religion. In one of those ontological arguments for the existence of God which requires the belief in God's omnipotence, omniscience, and transcendence; the professor challenged us with the following proposition: God is not omnipotent because he is unable to create an immovable rock alongside an irresistible force in the same universe. Being a philosophical simpleton at that time (still am, but to a lesser degree), I was blown away by this unreasonable counter argument and it made my head hurt. I thought of doing something easier and simple like studying electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. - the most fundamental reality of the material world. I'm now reading Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation. I must have a bad English translation because I can understand what I'm reading.
Read Julius Evola instead
Admirable concision here. Very well argued on both main themes. Bravo!
Abyss, Torah, and Gospel work well, and the definition of pharisaism hits hard in this context.
Your argument re: “honorifics” will ever get pushback, of course, but metaphysical extremes can’t correspond to a Person. And can’t be insisted on without arriving at more than one logical impasse. Here, in terms of Being and Nothing, the problem appears again, and “vectors” is a good way to wrestle it.
Like I argued elsewhere: We’re not in a theorem, but a narrative. Make it a theorem, and either God is conceived mechanistically (not a Person), or we are automata. Or both.
Hebrews over Greeks, is my Book.
will u b my pastor
Yeah, at is says “we know in part” 1 Corinthians 13, appreciated your discussion at the end of philosophical and theological certainties not being available, and yes, we know in part but the Living God is nonetheless quite knowable and we may be certain of that!
I am more of a concrete person, not philosophical though I can follow the more abstract, indirect, philosophical approach. I am a “the following night the Lord stood by him and said . . .” Acts 23:11 “received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba, Father” the Spirit beats witness with our spirit that we are children of God” Romans 8:15-16 type of guy.
“Always good to trust our own eyes” You know our eyes point out and we will have them forever. Jesus still has his! Let’s look to the Father like Jesus did and does and not inward to some nirvanic abyss.