God is simple, not complex

[Curious George]

What? You seem to be implying some sort of mysticism. How many of a person's moments define him? How many circumstances does a person contain?

Um, I am not. I am implying emotions are a part of us. But we are still left wondering about the I in "I am ..." We can look at this with tropes or as a state of affairs and either will leave us with defining ourselves in part by the emotions we have (at least in those moments we have them). The only way I can see that we can undo this is to imagine the "I" as a universal itself, such that when we feel something we can remove the defining part of ourselves from the feeling and say that the feeling is a circumstance and not part of us.

 

[Curious George]

Try reading the excerpt, which says, in part: "The main reason scientism has the following it does is probably that people are, quite rightly, impressed with the technological and predictive successes of modern science. The trouble is that this simply gives us no reason whatsoever to believe scientism -- that is to say, it gives us no reason to believe that science alone gives us knowledge." And, mind you, that is a much reduced from what is said in his books.

Atheists here like to muddy the waters by drawing the discussion away from what theists are saying by inferring things that are not, in fact, being said at all. I don't know whether they do this simply because they like being argumentative, are incapable of understanding what's being said, or because they believe that in order to discuss God and religion at all, it must be on their terms and according to their definitions.

Yet I have not muddied the water and am happy to use your definitions as long as they connected with some system of logic. On a sidenote, arguing for a concept under one ontology framework, not explicitly setting forth this framework, and then accusing others of ignorance and the like is at least suspect of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Willamena]

You are not equal to your anger because your anger is only a part of your identity. To be equal to your anger you would need to have no other parts.

If we process this with the abstract concept of anger, then anger is still a property that you at least approximate in that instance so it is still descriptive of your identity. Just as circular is descriptive of a circle. You could say that the circle is not it's circular-ness but without that quality it would no longer be itself.

Why are you comparing anger to me? Apples and oranges.

I wasn't talking about the concept of anger. Just anger.

 

[Willamena]

You seem here to be deriving an abstract concept of you-ness for which you then judge instances of you. Is there anything permanent in you to support such a notion?

No. I am not an abstract concept, and neither am I permanent. I'm just me.

 

[prometheus11]

Um, I am not. I am implying emotions are a part of us. But we are still left wondering about the I in "I am ..." We can look at this with tropes or as a state of affairs and either will leave us with defining ourselves in part by the emotions we have (at least in those moments we have them). The only way I can see that we can undo this is to imagine the "I" as a universal itself, such that when we feel something we can remove the defining part of ourselves from the feeling and say that the feeling is a circumstance and not part of us.

My, but that escalated quickly! [emoji53]

 

[Curious George]

No. I am not an abstract concept, and neither am I permanent. I'm just me.

What does it mean to be just you.

 

[Curious George]

My, but that escalated quickly! [emoji53]

I can't see emoji 53, I hope that it isn't eye roll emoji...I do not like that one Sam I am.

But, my question about deriving an abstract concept of self is what I wondered about. I was not implying that such a notion is true or not true.

 

[Willamena]

What does it mean to be just you.

Nothing less than what is referred to by the word in casual use.

 

[prometheus11]

I can't see emoji 53, I hope that it isn't eye roll emoji...I do not like that one Sam I am.

But, my question about deriving an abstract concept of self is what I wondered about. I was not implying that such a notion is true or not true.

It was a "smiley" with a straight, horizontal kind for a "smile."

Thanks for getting clarification.
I would not mock another member here.

 

[Curious George]

Why are you comparing anger to me? Apples and oranges.

I wasn't talking about the concept of anger. Just anger.

I wasn't comparing you to anger I am saying you, in part, are defined by your anger in an instance when you are "angry."

 

[Curious George]

Nothing less than what is referred to by the word in casual use.

And what is referred to by the word in the casual sense?

 

[Willamena]

Um, I am not. I am implying emotions are a part of us. But we are still left wondering about the I in "I am ..." We can look at this with tropes or as a state of affairs and either will leave us with defining ourselves in part by the emotions we have (at least in those moments we have them). The only way I can see that we can undo this is to imagine the "I" as a universal itself, such that when we feel something we can remove the defining part of ourselves from the feeling and say that the feeling is a circumstance and not part of us.

Tropes, yes.

 

[Curious George]

It was a "smiley" with a straight, horizontal kind for a "smile."

Thanks for getting clarification.
I would not mock another member here.

Nw, I don't much mind being mocked, even if you were so inclined. As long as we can come to some sort of understanding I am happy. But I think we need to grapple with a default, a place where we agree, first.

 

[Willamena]

I wasn't comparing you to anger I am saying you, in part, are defined by your anger in an instance when you are "angry."

You compared me and anger to conclude equality. But whatever.

 

[Willamena]

And what is referred to by the word in the casual sense?

Usually, the object of self-reference.

 

[Curious George]

You compared me and anger to conclude equality. But whatever.

I specifically stated you are NOT equal to anger.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

God seems unconcerned that people distort supposed text written or inspired by God. Which is pretty common if one looks at history.

If fear is not the intended meaning, then why did God let that word be used? What is Hell for if not as a source of fear?

You're pretty cavalier with your attribution of what you claim to be God's attitude towards It's divinely revealed word. Whatever it takes to keep the faithful in line I guess.

 

[Willamena]

I specifically stated you are NOT equal to anger.

Just so. A comparison of equality. But why? What is the point?

 

[Curious George]

Usually, the object of self-reference.

And what is self?

 

[Curious George]

Just so. A comparison of equality. But why? What is the point?

To define.