...for one willing to die for it! — Wayfarer
The Buddhist philosophy of 'two truths', conventional and mundane, echoes the same understanding you find in Eriugena. — Wayfarer
Here is one of the oddities of our liturgical and theological discourse: we do not know what the word “God” means. We have a well enough grasp of the grammatical rules for intelligible use of the term (even militant atheists know how to use it in a sentence), but Christians standing within the Catholic tradition readily admit their ignorance of its referent.
Take the word "chair" for instance. There is no doubt in my mind, that you and I would each produce a different definition of what that word means, therefore we don't really know what the word means. However, we can both competently use the word, and know what each other is saying, because we would be using it to refer to a particular chair, and this would be obvious. — Metaphysician Undiscovered
So the eternal is becoming in the moment, but by the time it has become, it has passed into the past? — Punshhh
Yes I do consider something approximating aerviternal, with beings performing acts equivalent to angels. For me this is manifest as an army of such beings attending to your every move*. But in a removed(veiled) sense, as if one is on an operating table with a team of light beings working on the mechanics of your being. This can also be seen as a multidimensional now, in which there is an eternal moment** and an eternity of such beings as a firmanent, inside the very being of each of us. Something which is difficult to convey. — Punshhh
My point is a somewhat Wittgensteinian one - we are lulled into thinking we understand something by the habitual way in which we talk about it. — Wayfarer
That is why when the word 'God' is bandied about, it lulls us into thinking we really know what we're talking about, when what we really are talking about is a mysterium tremendum et fascinans which, according to the book from which that term is taken, ought to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. — Wayfarer
With tables and chairs and the furniture of common discourse, whereas philosophers might wish to make these appear more mysterious than they are, we both know what is meant by them. — Wayfarer
Astrophysicist Sandra Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.
“The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said 1.
The 1st premises are the same. This latter argument is clearly nonsense, violates identity (the 1st law). Causation is one more cause than causation...? — jorndoe
Craig does not delineate the "whatever" (wild-card) in the 1st premise thus, but it seems you do. — jorndoe
Craig implicitly extends causation beyond the universe, and thus have to justify this before applying the 1st premise to the universe. — jorndoe
Can you specify accurately how you delineate the "whatever" then? (The universe yes, spatiality ?, time ?, causation no, "whatever" else ?) — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.