The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:53 pm

Meno_ wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:God seeded oud minds with Himself, so that He is both intrinsic and extrinsic.There is appearent parts of God therefore He is both caused and uncaused.

God is only uncaused. God’s power to create physical reality is uncaused. There is no part of an uncaused power that need be caused.




I disagree. The source of God's manifestation is mostly through a biblical manifestation which was man's doing
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:16 pm

John:

The ripple effect of The Revelation or the revelation can not be avoided, only through Man's singular perception through God. This is why faith has to be constantly fortified.

Although miracles Do happen, even today, ( and the did happen to me), most can not witness the burning bush.

Thos is a double edged sword even God must. attend to, if He is to create existence from his Being. He must divide himself ergo self cause Himself -through Him , in Him by the power of the Holy Spirit.

He is the Self caused causer. An iota of doubt shatters absolute faith.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:18 pm

Meno,

Hope is more important than faith. Hope is an idea, a system ... faith is: I don’t know shit but I’m sure it works no matter what.

Faith causes suicide. Hope keeps people alive.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11975
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:20 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Meno,

Hope is more important than faith. Hope is an idea, a system ... faith is: I don’t know shit but I’m sure it works no matter what.

Faith causes suicide. Hope keeps people alive.




Yes, but faith and hope can be intertwined as in hoping one day that the day will come when faith in man will dictate his actions
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:25 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Meno,

Hope is more important than faith. Hope is an idea, a system ... faith is: I don’t know shit but I’m sure it works no matter what.

Faith causes suicide. Hope keeps people alive.




Yes, but faith and hope can be intertwined as in hoping one day that the day will come when faith in man will dictate his actions


Meno,

Existence itself is sin (consent violation). That’s a fact. What is faith going to do to that fact? Nothing.

What would a new plan for existence do? Something. That’s called hope.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11975
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:01 pm

Ok Ecmando.

That brings in the effected ripple of the idea of what existence may of may not mean. Since the ripple effect by some strange move upwards the downward flow of the river, where the consent between man and god consists of an agreement ( 1st and 2cond) ; and where the origin is a supposed original testament to that ( the 1st), while the 2nd, in the New Testament has increasing faith in the hope for a redemption ; while the redemption simulates various levels of transgression, ...... .

....the violation to the consent to perceive the sin of existence may have been opted out, for the original reason nose replaced by those who were firegiven for their lack of knowledge by believing without the afire mentioned miracles.

The simple rubric of rational, or karmic accumulation has suddenly been enlightened as nothing else but this hope of Being in everlasting Essence.

The correlation between man and God has opened a channel of direct communication forming a reasonable hypothesis into an unforseen event into a fait accompli.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby JohnJBannan » Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:57 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:John,

Platonic forms are uncaused. They are not sentient. Even your hypothetical god needs platonic forms to exist. New here’s the deal dude. ALL of us were never born and ALL of us never die.

That’s boring as fuck. So is knowing everything by the way. Boring as fuck.

So, we as spirits got together to make our best plan AT THE TIME! To keep us entertained forever. Lots of things went into this plan. Birth, death, reincarnation, enlightenment and god.

I’m the being with existence 2.0 in my spirit. The old plan doesn’t work. It has chasmic flaws.

I know as I’m typing this that you have very little clue what I’m talking about or that a person like me is even possible.


Platonic forms exist in God’s uncaused mind. We are creations - not gods.


Platonic forms exist in every mind. Minds require them.

We are eternal beings John. God didn’t make us. We made god. You really don’t get it man. Sure, there’s kind of a god, it was part of our plan (collective plan).

God cannot override the collective plan. That’s part of the plan as well. We all have to get together and change it together.

By the way, you responded to almost nothing from my post before this. Anyone who saw you quote it can see this.


Physical minds do not require platonic forms. I do not subscribe to the substance dualism view. Physical reality creates our minds. Indeed, the design of the physical mind must originate in the initial correlations established at the Big Bang, because conscious minds did not exist until later in our superdeterministic universe’s evolution.
Last edited by JohnJBannan on Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby JohnJBannan » Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:01 pm

Meno_ wrote:John:

The ripple effect of The Revelation or the revelation can not be avoided, only through Man's singular perception through God. This is why faith has to be constantly fortified.

Although miracles Do happen, even today, ( and the did happen to me), most can not witness the burning bush.

Thos is a double edged sword even God must. attend to, if He is to create existence from his Being. He must divide himself ergo self cause Himself -through Him , in Him by the power of the Holy Spirit.

He is the Self caused causer. An iota of doubt shatters absolute faith.


God is uncaused. God is not self-caused. Didn’t I already explain this? Something’s got to be uncaused. And this uncaused thing cannot be made of parts else it would be caused by those parts. Thus, God is uncaused and not made of parts which one could divide or apportion.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:01 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:John:

The ripple effect of The Revelation or the revelation can not be avoided, only through Man's singular perception through God. This is why faith has to be constantly fortified.

Although miracles Do happen, even today, ( and the did happen to me), most can not witness the burning bush.

Thos is a double edged sword even God must. attend to, if He is to create existence from his Being. He must divide himself ergo self cause Himself -through Him , in Him by the power of the Holy Spirit.

He is the Self caused causer. An iota of doubt shatters absolute faith.


God is uncaused. God is not self-caused. Didn’t I already explain this? Something’s got to be uncaused. And this uncaused thing cannot be made of parts else it would be caused by those parts. Thus, God is uncaused and not made of parts which one could divide or apportion.




Yes, You did explain that. However why must God be NOT Self caused? On a different level, or plane of existence he is bound to self causation.


Why? Because if He did not, divide himself , then existence would not , could not come about.
This is why the Scholastic divided the gnosis into the trinity: essentially unifying that which has been divided.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby JohnJBannan » Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:27 pm

Meno_ wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:John:

The ripple effect of The Revelation or the revelation can not be avoided, only through Man's singular perception through God. This is why faith has to be constantly fortified.

Although miracles Do happen, even today, ( and the did happen to me), most can not witness the burning bush.

Thos is a double edged sword even God must. attend to, if He is to create existence from his Being. He must divide himself ergo self cause Himself -through Him , in Him by the power of the Holy Spirit.

He is the Self caused causer. An iota of doubt shatters absolute faith.


God is uncaused. God is not self-caused. Didn’t I already explain this? Something’s got to be uncaused. And this uncaused thing cannot be made of parts else it would be caused by those parts. Thus, God is uncaused and not made of parts which one could divide or apportion.




Yes, You did explain that. However why must God be NOT Self caused? On a different level, or plane of existence he is bound to self causation.


Why? Because if He did not, divide himself , then existence would not , could not come about.
This is why the Scholastic divided the gnosis into the trinity: essentially unifying that which has been divided.


Are you suggesting causa sui? That’s logically impossible.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:40 pm

John,

Let me explain this to you very simply.

Triangleness is a platonic form. Without it, we cannot abstract the category “triangle”. No two triangles are alike, and there is no such thing as a perfect triangle. It’s just the category.

Triangleness is NOT a sentient being.

There is an extreme and very definite dualism in existence. Platonic forms and non self recursive machine code...

And the rest. Self recursive beings.

It is definitely dualistic man, to that regard.

We operate with both. So does your hypothetical god.

God is not the sentience of, nor ever created platonic forms.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11975
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby JohnJBannan » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:32 pm

Ecmandu wrote:John,

Let me explain this to you very simply.

Triangleness is a platonic form. Without it, we cannot abstract the category “triangle”. No two triangles are alike, and there is no such thing as a perfect triangle. It’s just the category.

Triangleness is NOT a sentient being.

There is an extreme and very definite dualism in existence. Platonic forms and non self recursive machine code...

And the rest. Self recursive beings.

It is definitely dualistic man, to that regard.

We operate with both. So does your hypothetical god.

God is not the sentience of, nor ever created platonic forms.


There is no such thing as a platonic form, except within the uncaused mind of God. Triangleness is merely an idea caused to exist by our brain. A superdeterministic universe must be created by God. Everything in our universe is created and contained within the initial correlations established by the Big Bang. All ideas and information in our universe, including the idea of triangleness, must be known by the creator of the universe. There is nothing about a platonic form, like triangleness, that gives it the power to create a universe.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:53 pm

With God for God Anything & Everything is possible , John

Even those that appear logically impossible! Even casa sui.


I hope that I did not up end this forum.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:01 am

Meno_ wrote:With God for God Anything & Everything is possible , John

Even those that appear logically impossible! Even casa sui.


I hope that I did not up end this forum.


Of course, God can’t do the logically impossible, like create a square circle. Do you think there is a plantonic form of a square circle?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:02 am

JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:With God for God Anything & Everything is possible , John

Even those that appear logically impossible! Even casa sui.


I hope that I did not up end this forum.


Of course, God can’t do the logically impossible, like create a square circle. Do you think there is a plantonic form of a square circle?



No, but He could eliminita them. At least the meaning of them. He could place a circle within a square and or a square into a circle and reduce their area toward the imperceptibly ideal difference.

just by firming a multitude of squares as a reduced giant square toward infinity and thereby reduce the tangency of their straight lines to coincide with a near absolute straightness of their cut off arc, by integrating the reduction toward an infinitely fed back number.

Who would know this prior to the middle ages?

Therefore a pure logic cannot incorporate such an ideal, but a superdeterministic design could.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:53 am

Meno_ wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:With God for God Anything & Everything is possible , John

Even those that appear logically impossible! Even casa sui.


I hope that I did not up end this forum.


Of course, God can’t do the logically impossible, like create a square circle. Do you think there is a plantonic form of a square circle?



No, but He could eliminita them. At least the meaning of them. He could place a circle within a square and or a square into a circle and reduce their area toward the imperceptibly ideal difference.

just by firming a multitude of squares as a reduced giant square toward infinity and thereby reduce the tangency of their straight lines to coincide with a near absolute straightness of their cut off arc, by integrating the reduction toward an infinitely fed back number.

Who would know this prior to the middle ages?

Therefore a pure logic cannot incorporate such an ideal, but a superdeterministic design could.

A square circle is a logical impossibility. Could God make Himself not exist? Of course, not! An uncaused being cannot change and be caused not to exist. I fail to see how superdetermism changes any of that. The plan of a superdeterministic universe comes from the mind of God.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:11 pm

John:

It may be a case of math-a-magic, I suggest, even a form of a lincage between metamagic and metamagic. There are no coincidences in life, God dies mot play dice with it.

For instance here is a short narrative that may be coincidental but maybe more determinental more than detrimental in assessing THAT POWER.


"Re: Superimposition
Online Meno_
breathless
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:39 am
Posts: 8660
Location: Mysterium Tremendum
Profile Send private message
Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:39 pm Post
Meno_ wrote
Superimposition is the opposite of cutting. Cutting is mutual. Cutting up, down.
A lifetime of cutting can be imposed. It can be imposing.
Imposition may be the wrong position.
It may be degenerative, it may be intentional or superlative.
It may be determinentally obvious, it may cause apoplexy it may cause nothing.
The degeneration may travel through time and space to another loneliestley world, another place and time here on this world, and hermetic generation pressed and cut hermetically sealed for reasons of fecundity, of abrasion.
The hermit looks at the sky the same way as before, knows that Mr. Darwin caused an embarrassment in polite society, that really now, lets not talk about it for reminds them in fact that they are animals only animals.
Must we be reminded we , borne along, alone and die , so as well, and our godhead is only within aspirations to reposition that's always intended?
And that existence, even of that aspiration is always to repose that, which has always been deposed?
Every child's face has acquired that necessity to a chance to remind him of what he once was, and what has been cut from him, that he knows once will be disfigured and superimposed for his benefit, that is their hidden cut, that's in terms within his soul , that all animals cut away , knowing the meaning of.

All things can be put together, the most minute with the most significant and through the flow of time and after the completed tapestry unscripted, then creates the vision of eternity, given the short run of what primal instinct has always assured."



Imposition , signification and identity
Top Report this post Reply with quote
Post new topic Post a reply
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:23 pm

I can not fail to notice that position is the aetherial building block that aspires to fig the bubble inside it and what brings that bubble out is surely not a Pandora box imposed upon to superdetermine his outcome, nor a car's meuw from some box of metalogical tricks brought on by anxious concern with birth., life and death, .

Does one choose to live between this uncertainty or safety? Is it hos choice really? Or is life really a series of justified gambles?

Maybe this or that, die to occasionalusm.i know or not matters little, but heck feeling and intuitive forces cover all of the forces ingenious in The Knowledge. Especially as in the

Secret Doctrine. .
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:32 pm

I think what your argument comes down to is that things need to value themselves in order to exist. Thus, only the best of all "possible" universes is in existence - no part is uncared for.

Not because of God in the Sky, but because of the inherent necessity of a being to self-value, meaning, to be dependent on having standards.

Standards - that is the true God.

This does not defeat the idea of Superdeterminism - As you observe superposition and entanglement have obliterated the idea of a deterministic universe, and it is clear that Mind plays a fundamental part.

I can not follow you in attributing all this to an omnipotent God - the argument doesn't truly lead up to there. What it leads up to is the destruction of pingpong causality and mindless blurping forth of being from an unexplainable hypothesis.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:41 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:I think what your argument comes down to is that things need to value themselves in order to exist. Thus, only the best of all "possible" universes is in existence - no part is uncared for.

Not because of God in the Sky, but because of the inherent necessity of a being to self-value, meaning, to be dependent on having standards.

Standards - that is the true God.

This does not defeat the idea of Superdeterminism - As you observe superposition and entanglement have obliterated the idea of a deterministic universe, and it is clear that Mind plays a fundamental part.

I can not follow you in attributing all this to an omnipotent God - the argument doesn't truly lead up to there. What it leads up to is the destruction of pingpong causality and mindless blurping forth of being from an unexplainable hypothesis.




U close Bro. Kohn doesen't get difference between intrinsic design and extrinsic powers. (Not that there is no vaining or increasingly noticeable differences up and down the scale which mute and unmuted the significance of the self or it's description, but it's inscription at times is at times objectively planned and sometimes deliberately left out or appears so but may be it's a case of mere feeding into the annals of rusted insignificance.

I am sure if it , as i am if the necessary permenance of such multi leveled box of logical tricks, but they are needed as proof, especially niwedays when every body and their cousin are going nowhere fast.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:00 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I think what your argument comes down to is that things need to value themselves in order to exist. Thus, only the best of all "possible" universes is in existence - no part is uncared for.

Not because of God in the Sky, but because of the inherent necessity of a being to self-value, meaning, to be dependent on having standards.

Standards - that is the true God.

This does not defeat the idea of Superdeterminism - As you observe superposition and entanglement have obliterated the idea of a deterministic universe, and it is clear that Mind plays a fundamental part.

I can not follow you in attributing all this to an omnipotent God - the argument doesn't truly lead up to there. What it leads up to is the destruction of pingpong causality and mindless blurping forth of being from an unexplainable hypothesis.




U close Bro. Kohn doesen't get difference between intrinsic design and extrinsic powers.

Or, between a priori given (as attribute of the monad), and inevitable (as attribute of a situation of many monads).

Existence itself posits certain demands on itself. Existence cant be if not for setting standards. Simply because otherwise it is completely dissolute and cant be said to exist. Cant affect anything, cant be known.

"Standards" is what in physics is "resistance" - in order to be perceived, a piece of existence has to 'affect' as JSS puts it - yet it can only do this if it has an internal consistency which refuses to be broken up at the slightest touch. This is "holding to standards" when we translate this same mechanism into human terms.

There is your continuum.
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Nietzsche's Heritage; The Philosophy of the Future - Some Music - The Magical Tree of Life
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11588
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:13 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:I think what your argument comes down to is that things need to value themselves in order to exist. Thus, only the best of all "possible" universes is in existence - no part is uncared for.

Not because of God in the Sky, but because of the inherent necessity of a being to self-value, meaning, to be dependent on having standards.

Standards - that is the true God.

This does not defeat the idea of Superdeterminism - As you observe superposition and entanglement have obliterated the idea of a deterministic universe, and it is clear that Mind plays a fundamental part.

I can not follow you in attributing all this to an omnipotent God - the argument doesn't truly lead up to there. What it leads up to is the destruction of pingpong causality and mindless blurping forth of being from an unexplainable hypothesis.

Value is a synthesis of a subjective interaction with an objective. A triangle is an independent objective because it remains a triangle without the subjective interaction, a value like good or bad or desirable or healthy disappears without a subjective interaction. Things exist without a need of value, value exists with a need to value, and a need to value exists with conscious agents with free will and intellect and free will synthesis(as in the case of humans).
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:52 pm

polishyouthgotipbanned wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I think what your argument comes down to is that things need to value themselves in order to exist. Thus, only the best of all "possible" universes is in existence - no part is uncared for.

Not because of God in the Sky, but because of the inherent necessity of a being to self-value, meaning, to be dependent on having standards.

Standards - that is the true God.

This does not defeat the idea of Superdeterminism - As you observe superposition and entanglement have obliterated the idea of a deterministic universe, and it is clear that Mind plays a fundamental part.

I can not follow you in attributing all this to an omnipotent God - the argument doesn't truly lead up to there. What it leads up to is the destruction of pingpong causality and mindless blurping forth of being from an unexplainable hypothesis.

Value is a synthesis of a subjective interaction with an objective. A triangle is an independent objective because it remains a triangle without the subjective interaction, a value like good or bad or desirable or healthy disappears without a subjective interaction. Things exist without a need of value, value exists with a need to value, and a need to value exists with conscious agents with free will and intellect and free will synthesis(as in the case of humans).



Polish Youngster:


How about the issue with what has now become the central problem of self creation of god becoming an impossible logical contradiction, or rather or analogously the impossibility of the square/ circle example?

Do You think there is merit here, and the correlate contraversy between them, ether as a significant example or weather it's significance is mired in a tenuous pattern that has been overcome through the mesh of Christian/Gnostic fields of unresolved reference?

I realize the optically dispersive 'effect'(with James view in mind) but I believe pre-scholastic approaches currently have been eclipsed by modern, structural modes of interpreting them.( signification & identification) through resembling-analogous modes of understanding them.


The dialectical synthetic example You raise, is fitting, in the mode of the modern interpretation of the 'logical impossibility' of the one brought up by John. But then, the more recent example is dialectically raised-Can an apple be both red and green all oved' not preempt that? In other words does similarity , both conceptual and optical have to balance identifiable structural differences ( level) through a weigh in of both, in order to self value? If so, then it changes the metric of forming the above analogous structural affinity. ( Both the square/circle and God's Self Creation)
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:06 pm

How about the issue with what has now become the central problem of self creation of god becoming an impossible logical contradiction, or rather or analogously the impossibility of the square/ circle example?
Do You think there is merit here, and the correlate contraversy between them, ether as a significant example or weather it's significance is mired in a tenuous pattern that has been overcome through the mesh of Christian/Gnostic fields of unresolved reference?


You don't derive logical conclusions from paradoxes but you treat them with skepticism and reasonable speculation. God might or might not exist and only a God could prove he is a God and he could only do it to himself, nobody else. The human mind is a mammalian, limited reasoning agent and just because our own cognitive capacity runs into problems it can't handle, does not mean they have no explanations or that their explanation must be something we, again, with our limited mammalian capacity, can imagine would solve them. Maybe there are ''circle-squares'', maybe there are not; we don't and most likely can't know because our cognitive ability is limited to circles and squares.


I realize the optically dispersive 'effect'(with James view in mind) but I believe pre-scholastic approaches currently have been eclipsed by modern, structural modes of interpreting them.( signification & identification) through resembling-analogous modes of understanding them.

I dont understand this sentence at all.
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: The Superdeterministic Design (SD) Argument for God

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:10 pm

polishyouthgotipbanned wrote:
How about the issue with what has now become the central problem of self creation of god becoming an impossible logical contradiction, or rather or analogously the impossibility of the square/ circle example?
Do You think there is merit here, and the correlate contraversy between them, ether as a significant example or weather it's significance is mired in a tenuous pattern that has been overcome through the mesh of Christian/Gnostic fields of unresolved reference?


You don't derive logical conclusions from paradoxes but you treat them with skepticism and reasonable speculation. God might or might not exist and only a God could prove he is a God and he could only do it to himself, nobody else. The human mind is a mammalian, limited reasoning agent and just because our own cognitive capacity runs into problems it can't handle, does not mean they have no explanations or that their explanation must be something we, again, with our limited mammalian capacity, can imagine would solve them. Maybe there are ''circle-squares'', maybe there are not; we don't and most likely can't know because our cognitive ability is limited to circles and squares.


I realize the optically dispersive 'effect'(with James view in mind) but I believe pre-scholastic approaches currently have been eclipsed by modern, structural modes of interpreting them.( signification & identification) through resembling-analogous modes of understanding them.

I dont understand this sentence at all.



The previous continua would need scrutiny in order to signify identifiable meaning here. That is the crux issue so far.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users