There is no evidence of a particular god’s existence

Author: PressF4Respect

Posts

Total: 215
#151
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
What you call mind, we call nous. I am pretty sure that is what you mean. The word sometimes gets translated into "mind".

This particular Nous(not to be confused with our own mind, more of a cosmic "mind") is also very related to what we call the divine logos. In fact, it has been identified with God's law or even God outright by some Church Fathers.


The Uncreated, that is divine,  is fundamentally dissimilar from creation. However, we say that the uncreated and created are united in one fundamental reality or hypostasis.

I don't really think this is different than what you are saying, sans your conclusion of "epistemological monism", which I can't say is true or false as I am not sure what you mean by this.








#152
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
What you call mind, we call nous. I am pretty sure that is what you mean. The word sometimes gets translated into "mind".This particular Nous(not to be confused with our own mind, more of a cosmic "mind") is also very related to what we call the divine logos. In fact, it has been identified with God's law or even God outright by some Church Fathers.
Ok,

The Uncreated, that is divine,  is fundamentally dissimilar from creation.
And therefore, the uncreated divine cannot detect creation and creation cannot detect the uncreated divine.

However, we say that the uncreated and created are united in one fundamental reality or hypostasis.
And yet, the one cannot detect or in any way affect or interact with the other.

I don't really think this is different than what you are saying, sans your conclusion of "epistemological monism", which I can't say is true or false as I am not sure what you mean by this.
Everything within our epistemological limits is fundamentally similar to us in some way (part of the same fundamental monistic "substance". [LINK]
#153
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
We would say that the divine essence cannot be seen, and is outside our ability to know. God is witnessed through the things that are created. We see God through a veil, only by the divine energy that is everywhere present and fills all things. We of course would say that God knows all things, even better than a human could, because God is always present. The omniscience of God is something completely other and beyond what human knowledge can comprehend. It is beyond knowing. Divinity and creation are united in hypostasis, and this hypostasis is God enfleshed with creation, clothed in majesty.

In this hypostasis, the divine and the created are united together, without confusion or separation. Divinity and creation both have distinct physis or natures, so they are not the same. The hypostasis is not half divine half creation, and the natures are not confused. The hypostasis itself is fully God, and all of creation is united to it in divinity.

To say that God does not interact with creation could not be the case. It is God that both gives everything in creation its existence, and is there giving everything its action. When we do something, it is in and by God that we move.



Everything that is known is creation. So yes, there is a common nature of known things.


God if we were to compare  God's existence with the existence of any created thing, we could even say that God is beyond existence. Even the term, "Ultimate Reality" does not capture how distinct the nature is of this existence when compared to other examples of existence. We are talking about the source of all existence, the sustainer of all existence, and that which even the things that have passed and have yet to be find their existence.
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
To say that God does not interact with creation could not be the case.
Well, then, how do you square that with your previous statement?

The Uncreated, that is divine,  is fundamentally dissimilar from creation.
Creation is (EITHER) made of god-stuff (OR) undetectable to god.
#155
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Something that began to exist and will at some point no longer exist is by nature different than something that exists eternally.

Contingent existence is by nature different than non-contingent existence.


For you to say they are the same nature is some type of monophysitism. This is not the same as saying these two different natures are united without confusion, without mixture, and without division within one fundamental reality. It is 2 physis united in 1 hypostasis, not 1 compound physis. 

God is in the whole thing.

This is the correct and therefore orthodox formulation.









#156
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Something that began to exist and will at some point no longer exist is by nature different than something that exists eternally.
I thought energy could not be created or destroyed.

Contingent existence is by nature different than non-contingent existence.
In order for two hypothetical substances to interact, they must share some fundamental similarity.

For you to say they are the same nature is some type of monophysitism.
After the Council of Chalcedon, the monophysite controversy (together with institutional, political, and growing nationalistic factors) led to a lasting schism between the Oriental Orthodox churches, on the one hand, and the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches on the other. The Christological conflict among monophysitism, dyophysitism, and their subtle combinations and derivatives lasted from the third through the eighth centuries and left its mark on all but the first two Ecumenical councils. [WIKI]

In Christian theology, dyophysitism (Greek: δυοφυσιτισμός, from δυο (dyo), meaning "two" and φύσις (physis), meaning "nature") is the Christological position that two natures, divine and human, exist in the person of Jesus Christ. It contrasts with monophysitism and miaphysitism.[1] [WIKI]

The discussion seems to be more specifically about whether or not The Christ was "monophysical" (100% god) or "dyophysical" (50/50).

This is not the same as saying these two different natures are united without confusion, without mixture, and without division within one fundamental reality. It is 2 physis united in 1 hypostasis, not 1 compound physis. 
One fundamental reality.  Ontologically divisible into 2 physis, but not fundamentally divisible.

God is in the whole thing.
I'm guessing as "one fundamental reality".

This is the correct and therefore orthodox formulation.
Orthodox = Monism
#157
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The fundamental reality or hypostasis we are talking about is Christ. It is understood by the church that the incarnation effectively deifies creation, uniting it to God.
Or as the scriptures say,

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

Why the cross though? As the pascal hymn explains, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."

Or as it is written in scripture, 

"death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."







#158
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The discussion seems to be more specifically about whether or not The Christ was "monophysical" (100% god) or "dyophysical" (50/50).
#159
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Not at all.


100% God
100% Man

Not 50/50.

And Christ is among us and ever shall be, there is no "was" about it.




#160
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
And Christ is (50/50) among us and ever shall be, there is no "was" about it.
#161
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
That is simply not what we believe, and I doubt you do either.

#162
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Jesus Christ is theanthropos not hemitheos.
#163
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Jesus Christ is theanthropos not hemitheos.
Just give me a god %.
#164
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
100%

Fully God

Fully man

100% Godman



#165
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Can all Christians become 100% Godman?
#166
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
We believe in theosis, that is, being united to God through cooperation with the divine energy. 

We do not believe in apotheosis, or the becoming God in essence. We do not become God in essence, but we are deified through the Godman(Christ) that works in us and through us. 

#167
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
...through cooperation with the divine energy. 
So god puppets?  Just do like god do and cooperate with the divine energy you puppet!
#168
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I would rather abide in The Truth than iniquity, even if that means becoming less so that He becomes more.

In The Truth there is life. Iniquity looks or feels good, but in the end it is death. 


A puppet doesn't choose to cooperate. 
#169
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
A puppet doesn't choose to cooperate. 
Oh, ok, so, more like a voluntary god SLAVE.
#170
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
If you aren't a slave to God, you are a slave to what you prefer over God anyway. You are a slave to error.

#171
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
If you aren't a slave to God, you are a slave to what you prefer over God anyway. You are a slave to error.
Ok, so, if there are no free-individuals, and (in your estimation) all humans are slaves to either god or error, is it MORAL to send the poor-misguided-error-slaves to suffer eternal damnation?
#172
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The same light of God thst is paradise to those who chose to love Him is the very same fire that torments those who have chosen delusion.

God knows those who are His. God's judgement is always righteous.



#173
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
God knows those who are His.
So, now your god has man parts?

Of course your hypothetical god knows "who are theirs" because your hypothetical god hypothetically MADE THEM THAT WAY.

God's judgement is always righteous.
Based on what moral theory exactly?

Because if I made a bunch of things that were indistinguishable from humans, maybe with organic biology or something and a majority of them turned out to be poor-misguided-error-slaves, wreaking havoc on the innocent, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider it fair for me to torture them eternally.
#174
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
God's judgement is always righteous because  God is The Truth. The Truth is righteousness. 

The Truth is what sets you free. Those who forsake The Truth have chosen torment for themselves. It is no strange thing.


#175
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
God's judgement is always righteous because  God is The Truth. The Truth is righteousness. 
Great, another ontological argument.

The Truth is what sets you free.
Free to be a god-slave or an error-slave.  I think I'm missing the "freedom" part.  If you're an error-slave, aren't you doomed to make errors?

Those who forsake The Truth have chosen torment for themselves.
No, according to you, they are error-slaves, they haven't "chosen" to do anything.

It is no strange thing.
If you say so.
#176
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
In a great way, people become slaves by choice.

It might be hard, but you can always put the bottle down, you know.


#177
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
In a great way, people become slaves by choice.
If I'm an error-slave, then all of my "choices" are errors and it's only by sheer coincidence if I randomly "choose" to be a god-slave.

And statistically that might explain why there are so few "true" Christians...

It might be hard, but you can always put the bottle down, you know.
Error-slave can only make errors!!

#178
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Blaming God for your faults is not helpful to growing spiritully. God must be approached with humility.
#179
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,885
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Blaming God for your faults is not helpful to growing spiritully. God must be approached with humility.
Error-slave can only make errors!!  Please contact manufacturer.
#180
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
If it was necessary for us to be truly perfect, no one could be saved. There is a lot of room for grace. What matters is that we are trying.


Blaming God does not profit you.