Oh, sorry, here by ‘subjective ontological view’ I mean belief system… of the nature of things.
On Jul 30, 3:03 pm, Pandeism Fish <[email protected]> wrote: > I am unsure what you mean by a "subjective ontological view" -- > pandeism is wholly objective, it relies on fundamental logic that is > true no matter the position of the applier.... for example, that a > truly "infinite in all aspects" entity is impossible can be proven by > logic, and this proof is supported by observation, that being that no > such entity has been (or could be) demonstrably observed, nor has > either an argument or a tradition been made that requires such an > entity.... > > On Jul 29, 3:29 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > “…does that make sense?” – PF > > > Only as an attempt at producing a subjective ontological view… > > > So, I am finished with my questions. Thank you again for responding. > > orn > > > On Jul 28, 5:02 pm, Pandeism Fish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 28, 12:31 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > PF – I appreciate your patience and time spent doing your best to > > > > explain your belief(s). > > > > > On this last one, you seem to imply that only at the end of the > > > > universe will “all of that information will be incorporated into the > > > > knowledge of the Deus”. So, you don’t embrace an omnipresent, eternal > > > > Deus having “all of that information …incorporated into [its] > > > > knowledge…” now? And, you appear to not embrace our current knowledge, > > > > while we are alive as being a part of this Deus either. Please correct > > > > me again, OK? > > > > > Thanks. > > > > om > > > > > On Jul 27, 2:01 pm, Pandeism Fish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One of the logical foundations of pandeism is the understanding that > > > it is necessarily a lack of knowledge which motivates a Creator to > > > create, and that this is particularly supported by the idea of the > > > Universe in which we live, a Universe that generates knowledge of > > > limitation, something of which a being possessed of <>relative<> > > > omnipotence could not know in any way other than to exist in the form > > > of a Universe filled with limited beings.... > > > > Stepping back from that point for a moment, the concept of an > > > "omnipresent, eternal" being is both logically impossible and > > > scientifically invalid; so far as we understand the Universe, time and > > > space are interwoven phenomena; in the time before space, there was no > > > time.... so a being could be relatively eternal in that it has existed > > > since before there was time, and for as long as time has existed, and > > > will exist until time ends.... but consider, a truly temporally > > > infinite Creator would have had to have existed infinitely into the > > > past, and so it necessarily waited an infinite period of time before > > > engaging in Creation, a turn of thought for which there is no rational > > > support.... > > > > The phrase I used above, relative omnipotence, that relates to the > > > Deus.... all things are relative -- for example at any given time > > > there is one "world's tallest man," a person who towers over virtually > > > all others, and if we stretch back to history and through future > > > history, there may have been or taller person in the past or there may > > > be some taller person in the future, but that relative quality does > > > render the "tallest man who has ever lived or will ever live" to the > > > point of being "infinitely" tall.... now, with the Deus we say that it > > > is relatively omnipotent but not absolutely omnipotent, as it has > > > absolute power over teh energy that is of itself at a time when it is > > > the only thing that exists. And it has relative omniscience and > > > omnipresence in the same sense, absolute knowledge of and presence of > > > self at the time that it is all that exists -- and now the Deus IS > > > omnipresent in the sense that it underlies everything, every subquark > > > of the Universe and every bit of energy, but it can not be omnipresent > > > in the form of the Universe and at the same time being omniscient > > > because it is not an unlimited being.... it can have one or the other, > > > be the Universe or know the Universe; so now it is the Universe that > > > is and in the future it will return to the state of knowing the > > > Universe that was.... does that make sense?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
