Coming from (something) and getting to existence creates a separation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Extremes of Atheism vs Theism
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Of course it is; God is transcendent prior to the creation event, which God must be causally responsible for- but being transcendent and a causal agent is incoherent.
Immanence is not *itself* "true transcendence" (whatever "true" means here)- but it is a function of "true transcendence". Thus, transcendence remains the sine qua non of god, and the conflict remains.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, I used contextual clues and considerable experience with common language usage to assume that "extremely critical of theism" meant what people usually mean by that phrase. I apologize if you actually meant something different. However, if what you're saying that you meant is that atheists use their judgment to determine that theism isn't true, then I'm not sure what your point is beyond basically offering a tautology.
Not it my view. Maybe in Panentheism.
Why are you denying immanence and transcendence as synonymous? It is not. Transcendence means to be completely beyond the universe, in the creation sense, completely beyond it's creation. Immanence simply does not fit the bill of being completely beyond it's creation because it is within not outside.
Well, that is as arbitrary a belief as they come, isn't it?
No not really. What is an alternative to existence being eternal or self starting? It is an either or I think, am I putting forth a false dichotomy?
Just simply in language. "Becoming" implies imminent change.
Self starting? If existence didn't already exist what would do the starting?
Sure but change doesn't imply being separate.
It might just be. It may be accidental, illusory, recurrent, or who know what else.
When it's a change into existence, it does.
Million dollar question. I don't know how I just figure it has to be one or the other. Even with something always existing there still would need to be something to initiate some sort of change.Self starting? If existence didn't already exist what would do the starting?
If it becomes existence how is it then separate?When it's a change into existence, it does.
Because what it changed from is something else. Something other.
Sorry, but there is only one option. Existence can't start itself of course and whatever could have "started" existence must itself have existed so this isn't even an option.
No, existence might simply be in constant flux and constantly changing.
The image of "becoming" as metaphor is, to me, on a par with the ouroboros and other pantheistic images of imminent reality. It is captured quite well in Escher's painting of the artist painting himself painting himself.
M.C. Escher – Drawing Hands
M.C. Escher – Drawing Hands
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Lol Escher must have been on all the drugs
What changes is the property not the essence.
As long as the state of god is "other" than the state of existence, there is separation.
For god. What does that imply for existence?