Is Our Existence a Reflection of Divine Consciousness?

[Evo]

If they have an outside they're false.

That's nonsense.

 

[Eric England]

Define sense in all its "senses", then we can talk about the "non" version of sense.

 

[Evo]

Define sense in all its "senses", then we can talk about the "non" version of sense.

No, you explain how you can make a statement like

how do you know which gods are false?

If they have an outside they're false.

and expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[rkkane]

If they have an outside they're false.

Define sense in all its "senses", then we can talk about the "non" version of sense.

this sounds like what a wacky fortune teller would say.

you don't actually know anything about any god you can only make assumptions, but if your going to assume don't say it like its a hard fact.

 

[loseyourname]

Eric is echoing a sentiment that runs all the way back to Xenophanes:

1. God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind. [Zeller, Vorsokrastische Philosophie, p. 530, n. 3.]

2. The whole [of god] sees, the whole perceives, the whole hears. [Zeller, 526, n. 1. No author is given in the context; Karsten follows Fabricius in accrediting it to Xenophanes.]

3. But without effort he sets in motion all things by mind and thought.

4. It [i.e. being] always abides in the same place, not moved at all, nor is it fitting that it should move from one place to another.

5. But mortals suppose that the gods are born (as they themselves are), and that they wear man's clothing and have human voice and body. [Zeller, 524, n. 2. Cf Arist. Rhet. ii. 23; 1399 b 6.]

6. But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle. [Zeller, 525, n. 2. Diog Laer. iii. 16; Cic. de nat. Deor. i. 27.]

link

Unfortunately, as far ahead of his time as Xenophanes was (he was certainly a rebel and arguably the first monotheist in western civilization), his thinking does amount to "this makes sense, therefore it must be true" and even he puts up more of an argument than we are seeing here. Bald assertions about absolute nature that are not substantiated, but simply claimed with increasing conviction, are not appropriate for this forum, regardless of whether or not they are correct.

That and the fact that this thread has strayed beyond its intended purpose and is devolving into a fight results in closure.