Albert Cipriani

Dear Echo,
You wrote that a definition of omnipresence is


Well, there's no canyon you can go to where you can’t be heard, so to speak. So I'd say that qualifies you, Echo, as at least a demigod. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Now stand back... Hear comes a definition of omnipresence.

As Being itself (something unimaginable and unknowable even to the blessed in heaven who participate in the Divine essence called the Beatific Vision) God necessarily is the means whereby all things exist. Therefore, all that exists is necessarily physically associated with God. So where anything is, so too, is where God is.

Saying that God is everywhere is a misnomer. It implies that space is an entity God fills, when actually it's the other way around. God's being creates existent things that create the space that is filled with existent things that is where God is.

Catholic theologians that speculate about the nature of God's omnipresence fall into three camps: presence via power, knowledge, or essence (per potentiam, per praesentiam sive scientiam, per essentiam). Of course, these are not mutually exclusive methodologies. I believe, as I've argued above, that it is through God's essence that His omnipresence is most cogent. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

ELECTROGOD

According to just about all of the religious texts ever written "god" has made itself physically detectable to humans through sight, touch (skin to skin, heat, etc.), leftover physical evidence and even an actual human body.
So, number 3 might just mean that you are not one of his chosen ones or have enough faith or are ignoring his attempts to be physically detectable.
Number 4 then might be better as: I am not with god or god is not with me as much as I think.

WJ

Yo clef!

I don't know man, there are so many analogies with regard to subjectivism, empiricism, phenomenology, pragmatism and so on, that to me, if you want to look at from a pure philosophical reason standpoint, Pascal's Wager odds are pretty convincing. It is obvious that inductive reasoning will put you closer to acknowledging that there is indeed a metaphysical presence in the universe. Just ask most physicists.

I think, if you haven't already, ought to consider SK's view of epistemology. If one is correct that truth about the external physical world is dependent on time and the perceptions of the subject herself, what follows?

A warm shower in wind! Utimately, SK makes a strong case that truth is subjectivity. There is nothing wrong with that. But, whether you have a human physicist [subject] who subjectively concludes that the objective *mystery* is thus and so, it still doesn't prove the origin of the species and the universe. There exists a gap of subjective faith; a suspension of the objective truth. So you [the scientist] takes a position one way or another.


Hey, don't get me wrong, I enjoy talking about it, but how bout reviewing it from a phenomenological standpoint rather than a dispassionate analytical one.

You see, the concept of God relates more to the 'whys' of existence, not the 'hows'.
Besides there is no 'object' to debate. So what's the point?

If science or you or me can provide a material-objective proof to consciousness... problem solved!!!

Get it?

What's amusing is that the atheist seeks answers through time, yet uses timeless concepts to make their case. At least the theist recognizes the power of faith. So they have one over on you guys

Walrus

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

devnet,

Nice use of C in your argument.

DarkBronzePlant

Going along with that, if god is truly undetectable, even just to one given person, then what relevance does he/she./it have to that person?

The theist, of course, might answer that god does have relevance to that person... after the person has died his/her earthly life. That answer, though, would just be another thing to give an atheist like me pause; i.e another assertion that can be neither proven nor disproven until we're dead.

WJ

All!

Lets have some fun and play test the moderator!

1/ Most humans, being emotional beings as well as rational beings, know of love.

2/ The Devil is love

3/ Therefore, most humans know of the Devil.


Explain whether the conclusion is true or false? If you feel it is false, then reconstruct the argument to make it true.

I think last time I posted that they locked the thread. Let's see how logical the Atheist is

Walrus

Draygomb

1/ Most humans, being emotional beings as well as rational beings, know of love.

2/ Therefore, most humans know of Love.

WJ

1/ Most humans are Christian's and not atheist's.

2/ Therefore, it is wrong to be an atheist.

Sounds logical to me to

I await your reply!

Walrus

Draygomb

WJ

Except, Most Humans Aren't Christian.
Heck, Most Theists Aren't Christian.

WJ

Dray,

Ok let me try to make logical sense out of some of these statements.

1.Most Humans Aren't Christian.
2.Most Christian's aren't theists.
3.Most human's aren't atheists.
3.Most human's know of the concept God.
4.Therefore, all humans know God.

Since atheism rests soley on (objective) apriori analytical statements of logic for its belief system, you tell us what is wrong with that conclusion? (For instance, which statements are true, which are false?)

You may construct it anyway you wish in your favor.

I await your reply.

Walrus