Jon, List,
I was asking, how can God´s creation (I said property too) be called "non-immanent", if God doesn´t have a limited body, and also pervades His creation / property. The same question works, instead of with "non-immanent", also with "distinct from God´s necessary being", or "not an organically connected part of God".
I see, that having not a limited body, and pervading everything, is not only a capability, but a non-capability as well, as this way God is not able to step away, and leave His creation alone, not even for a moment. That contradicts almightiness, the same way, like the paradoxon, that God cannot create a stone so heavy, that he cannot lift it. I guess, this paradoxon has been solved by the introduction of Jesus, who is God too, but isn´t almighty, even died on a cross.
So i guess, that sin and sinners, actions and actors, that "have fallen from God", are not non-immanent or apart from God, but rather like a sickness of God´s. But He has a good immune system: The good.
Best regards, Helmut
Helmut, List:
I am not sure exactly what you are asking. Theism does not so much maintain that the universe is God's property as that it is God's creation (from nothing). As such, it is contingent being and thus distinct from God's necessary being, as affirmed by Peirce; not an organically connected part of God that is somehow within God's being, as maintained by panentheism.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:52 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Correction: Quite at the end of my post I corrected "immanence" with "non-immanence".Gary, Jon, List,I agree with both cosmic christic theology, and panentheism, so I hope, they are compatible. Jon, you showed, that Peirce did not agree, using the concept of immanence. Just an example: The things in my flat are my property, but not immanent in me, because I don´t pervade my flat, so I don´t for instance have record of lost little things under some furniture. God´s creation is His property, but He pervades it, as He sees and knows everything. So, some possibly existing naiive or anthropomorph concept about God having a limited body could not be maintained. Now I wonder, how and why may the concept of non-immanence be applied to God and His property? E.g. by Peirce? I don´t see it.Best regards, Helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
