Feelings are something that people exclude from God or Allah. They are "holy" or too "sublime" for feelings, for the mushy. All that is holy is only one, that's what holy means. Feelings are what is alive in anything

is also the Hebrew אֱמוּנָה (emunah) which is a dynamic and fluid concept that's also multi-directional. A popular Jewish prayer said in the morning is Modeh Ani which ends with "raba emunatech" - "great is your faithfuless" - that is, great is God's faithfulness towards us. Through — BitconnectCarlos

It's interesting how music arises different "Gods" in the mind in the way art does.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cW4pNx4FjXo&pp=ygUQMzAwMCB5ZWFyIG1lbG9keQ%3D%3D

This sounds like a God that longs. Not Aquinas's God

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2OBB5-bP6qs&pp=ygUYZ3JlZ29yaWFuIGNsYXJ2b3VlIGNoYW50

That expresses God the Father

These different ways of understanding God brings to mind many religious ideas for me

1) is faith an emotion or a thought? What if it is neither

I think it is neither. It is a bodily feeling. Thoughts and emotions are constructions which quickly flood the mind and displace the feeling with narrative fictions, for e.g. from ecstatic Sufis or Pentecostals to Anselm and Buber.


2) are the purpose of koans to bring out faith? — Gregory

I think that is a possible end result. But they're designed to smash the reservoir of constructions so that, finally freed from the chatter of thought and emotions, one might attune to the body feeling.

attune to the body feeling.
1h — ENOAH

Will and Ideas are ideas. That is, ideas about Idea. We are all on a planet whirling around the "sol invictus", late Roman title for the sun within their planet worshipping world. (They borrowed much from Greece) The only way to speak in discursive method about things mystical/spiritual is to call the "simple" at the start. You can still imagine them and actually see ithem without the eyes. Here and now, living the now as all reality, we are biolog8cal creatures, with many organs ect. Feelings in rhe body are in predetermined sinc with the "simple" world

The "simple" has no space hence it is nowhere. Matter is everywhere there is a where and matter is love.

The "simple' is the One of Plato and the noumena of Kant. We create our realities. Many scientists believe the world is not actual until consciousness collapses the wave function. I doubt they can prove their interpretation, but it is a modern verson of Kant without Newton's Euclidean approach (which Kant was so obsessed with)

consciousness collapses the wave function — Gregory

Afaik, it's impossible for a classical being (with classical sensorium) to be conscious of non-classic (planck-scale) phenomena. Thus, without consciousness of the wave function, "consciousness collapses the wave function" does not make sense (pace N. Bohr et al).

NB: I'm more or less an Everettian layman.

As far as my reading has taken me, "consciousness collapses the wave function" is definitely something some experts believe, but the vast majority do not.

In the history of Christianity, for example, the orthodoxy emphasized using reason to prove God's existence while the mystics spoke of intuition and being one with God. See the article on intuition in the Catholic encyclopedia (new advent website) for more information. I am not against reason, but there are higher levels i believe. Nous is higher than logos, dialectic above understanding — Gregory

Not sure if God's existence could be proved using reason. In Kant, space and time is intuition, and God's existence is beyond reason. God belongs to the world of faith.

In classical theism, God does not suffer. — Gregory

So classical theism is false. If God could be happy then He could be unhappy too.

theism is false — MoK

:100:

I've recently discovered myself as a radical finitist. Nothing is infinite above, in, or below heaven. I think the concept itself is a self-contradictory idea that is badly attached to theological theorems

Infinity is not distinct enough an idea to have an essence.

You have to deal with infinities if you accept that motion is continuous.

Why must motion be infinitily divided? How can you fit infinity in the bounds of anything finite?

Why must motion be infinitily divided? — Gregory

If it is not then there is a situation in which the motion becomes discrete. This is against the continuum hypothesis. Therefore, any continuous motion no matter how small is infinitely divisible.

How can you fit infinity in the bounds of anything finite? — Gregory

I am not proposing that I fit an infinity in something finite but saying that any finite distance no matter how small can be divided infinitely. That is what digits are about.

Each digit represents a slice of space hence infinite space. Of all the arguments i've amassed over the years, the one that says "something can't be discrete because that implies space which implies parts/slices, and so the descent" has to go. There has to be a basic unit.

Sometimes and it gets points for reforming sinners. — Gregory

How would you describe that reforming process? Or any kind of redemption?

Each digit represents a slice of space hence infinite space. — Gregory

I am talking about the decimal part of a number. Consider a very small number with many 0 digits and a 1 at the end, like, 0.0...01, where the number of 0 digits is M. If you divide this number by 2 you get, 0.0...05 where the number of 0 digits is M+1. You can do this forever.

Of all the arguments i've amassed over the years, the one that says "something can't be discrete because that implies space which implies parts/slices, and so the descent" has to go. — Gregory

Space itself is continuous. I don't understand what you are talking about here.

There has to be a basic unit. — Gregory

There are basic units for length for example.

How would you describe that reforming process? Or any kind of redemption — frank

Any true love should take away any guilt-karma an individual might have. I remember reading that the Duns Scotus school of thought teach that all sin is finite internally although it offends an "infinite" God externally from. This idea of infinity itself is starting to bother me

am talking about the decimal part of a number. Consider a very small number with many 0 digits and a 1 at the end, like, 0.0...01, where the number of 0 digits is M. If you divide this number by 2 you get, 0.0...05 where the number of 0 digits is M+1. You can do this forever — MoK

There is no problem when you do it with numbers. The trouble is when infinite digits are linked to spatial slices

There is no problem when you do it with numbers. The trouble is when infinite digits are linked to spatial slices — Gregory

Well, it depends if space is continuous or discrete. Which one do you pick?

Feelings are something that people exclude from God or Allah — Gregory

Genesis 6:6 among many others.

The "simple' is the One of Plato and the noumena of Kant. We create our realities. Many scientists believe the world is not actual until consciousness collapses the wave function. I doubt they can prove their interpretation, but it is a modern verson of Kant without Newton's Euclidean approach (which Kant was so obsessed with) — Gregory

The One would be the ultimate source of reality, describing a unity, where I'd say the noumena is just what is beyond human knowledge. As with all forms, you can't know them by perception, but that doesn't mean they can't be known at all, whether that be by philosophical contemplation or remembering them from our former acquaintance of them while in heaven (this from Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms). In any event, that seems distinct from the noumena, which is per se unknowable, really describing a limit of knowledge (epistimological) as opposed to the underlying form of forms (ontologoical).

Well, it depends if space is continuous or discrete. Which one do you pick — MoK

Discrete doesn't get lost in itself but takes the step further

The question of duality and non-duality arises. What takes precedence, the One or each consciousness living in history?

Having faith is wanting to believe something without evidence, and thus similar to hope, but a stronger sense of personal certainty, usually with less empirical evidence.

Thus faith pretty much = (hope - empirical evidence) + conviction.

That's incredibly insightful

Genesis 6:6 among many others — Hanover

Aquinas reinterprets that because his philosophy demanded that to suffer was a change and God was pure unchanging actuality

Thus faith pretty much = (hope - empirical evidence) + conviction. — schopenhauer1

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for" Hebrews 11:1

So faith and hope run parallel. Maybe faith is more of mind and hope is more of heart

Faith is a style of guiding principle, a phenomenological structure that paves a path forward, a bridge over an abyss... — DifferentiatingEgg

Basically I like it, especially recognizing the abyss, but I’d chop down a bit.

Faith is a self-structured principle, that paves a path forward in the abyss.

“Bridge” implies you might see the other side just needing a bridge you don’t see to get there. I see the abyss all around with no other side to bridge towards in sight. So the faith we build is solely in the face of the unknown, of emptiness, of nothing else but our choice.

Because I happen to have faith, I see its structure as a gift, not so much because of me. When I said “self-structured” I’m recognizing that I have to gather all of the inputs to build the output here called faith. But because of the particular faith I have, I don’t take as much credit for my own gathering - I give more credit to structure than my structuring. But it’s all by my choice, so it all collapses back to me in the abyss. The faith, the path, is a gift (for me) or it is a “style” or “phenomenological structure” in terms of someone else’s faith.