That's not love, love is a causal relation with another. True love is defined in this instance as selfless, not selfish. Creation, as Craig clarifies, is an act of will. Which again would render Allah an eternally unloving deity.
-
-
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr
There is nothing outside of God, thus there is no 'other' to love. But according to your definition there is no such thing as "loving yourself", no?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist
How are you defining 'God' in this sense? As a singular person or the greatest conceivable possibility whose beyond being/non-being and made up of ALL the gods, all ine each other?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr
I'm "defining" (although it can not be really defined, for to define is to limit, and God can not be limited) God as Being, i.e. the Principle of determination
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist
Why does the GCB have to be uni-personal or only ONE? That's my question. I'm a fan of Godel's ontological argument and such, but why do people assume this thing that has all the omni qualities is unequivocally SINGULAR? My reasoning & studying of hinduism is leading me to
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr
Alright, let us 'define' God as Being, which is not limited, for if it were limited, there would BE something outside it, which would be absurd. Now, if there were two 'Gods', that were not identical, they would be outside of eachother, and would limit eachother, which is absurd.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist
You're conflating 'God' in a predicative sense with a strictly identity sense. Consider the following: - My house is red - My car is red - My bike is red - Therefore, is my bike my car? (identity sense) - Therefore- my red is a bike? (conflating predicative identity)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @AnarchicEvolist
If there is a GCB, something that maximizes greatest potentialities available. Something defined into existence out of necessity, similar to an abstract object & mathematical formula. Then why does that GCB have to be ONE god? If 'God' in my sense is an eternal person?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @AnarchicEvolist
I think the issue is we're using 'God' in a different way. I'll try to explain it this way maybe. Would it make sense to say: "MY Jesus is the Trinity "The Trinity created the Father & Son?" It'd be nonsensical. The Trinity is a way to tell us of God's intra-relations- abstract
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @AnarchicEvolist
That's how I see the Platonic One & the Brahman. They're like my Trinity. They're the "GOD" as you're using it. The various Gods that make up the One are truly different Henads/Persons. The One is just the culmination of the causal relations between these Gods.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
What would you say has logical priority, the One or the Many? Otherwise said, is the One the principle of the Many or the Many the principle of the One?
-
-
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist
Think the answer is that that the One is the principle of the Many. It goes for me: Henads > The One > w/e else
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr
Ah but you say that the 'Henads' are multiple, would they then not be included in the Many?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.