interesting you assert in the affirmativeX10 that Totality exists.. BUT you only "believe" in God. God occupies an inferior rank in your universal view, obviously. ADMIT IT! your faith in God is inferior to your reason in Totality! you are inconsistent. error! error! you will be assimilated lol - the borg
Correct. I assert that Totality exists, and I believe in God. Part of the problem for people like you is that your concept of God is mostly based in a Judeo Christian concept of God. So the "Big Daddy in the sky" or "Santa Claus" comparisons. It is silly, but it gets the Christians and/or Jews riled up...and that is likely your goal...as you seem to lack the capacity for any genuine depth of arguments or abstract thinking. "Help me stu, help me stu..." Indeed you are a Tudor Turtle... <img src=http://www.suprmchaos.com/tudor-turtle_mr-wizard1_moz_chipshot_mam.jpg>
Is God Totality? Yes and No... It all depends on what your understanding of God is, what your point of view in relation to God would be... Larger than the largest and also smaller than the smallest is not something that a fixed time and space spot existence point of view is going to grasp... Totality exists, and I believe in God... You among others continue to try and squeeze the shallowest concepts of God into the narrowest constraints of monolithic logic...with predictable results.
I'm asking you what YOU think God is. And YOU keep giving non-answers thinking you are being clever and lofty of mind. But it's clear each time. You believe God = totality. And instead of answering with some ridiculous "I didn't say that" nonsense, stop playing games and simply answer with either a yes, no, or sometimes "I believe God is totality." I've seen pro se attorneys in court on a number of occasions try this game thinking they are being clever. But guess what? They lost the case each time because no one, not the opposing lawyer, not the judge, nor the jury was fooled. And they paid a stiffer penalty for wasting everyone's time.
I think God is beyond words... Especially to someone who is so demanding that an understanding of God fit into their tiny little materialistic paradigms...
Then if you can't define it, you believe in nothing. Nothing (AKA, bullshit) is your God. (Which ironically makes perfect sense where you are concerned.) Honest theists are at least able to describe their god(s). Take your pick of theists through the ages.
No, I can define it, you are not able to understand it... If I say God is capable of creating a stone so heavy He can't lift it, and simultaneously He can lift it...you are going to say that is illogical. And from your point of view of material logic, it is impossible. Just as impossible practically speaking to say that a solid object is not actually solid at a deeper level. So it is solid at one reality, and not solid at another reality...or better yet, it is a broader reality that the object is both solid and not solid at the same time and space. All depends on the point of view a person takes...narrow or broad. Your understanding of the word God is quite narrow from what I have read from you...
No, I can define it, you are not able to understand it... If I say God is capable of creating a stone so heavy He can't lift it, and simultaneously He can lift it...you are going to say that is illogical. And from your point of view of material logic, it is impossible. Just as impossible practically speaking to say that a solid object is not actually solid at a deeper level. So it is solid at one reality, and not solid at another reality...or better yet, it is a broader reality that the object is both solid and not solid at the same time and space. All depends on the point of view a person takes...narrow or broad. Your understanding of the word God is quite narrow from what I have read from you... Try reading Maimonides... At the heart of the Guide of the Perplexed is Maimonides' conception of God. When we say that "God is one" every day [in the Sh'ma prayer], what do we mean by that statement? For many Jewish philosophers, Maimonides chief among them, this is the central question of Jewish philosophy. He argues that God is a perfect unity, not admitting of any plurality. God does not have parts, either literally or figuratively--no arms or legs, no back or front, no end or beginning. (One of the alternate names for God in Jewish dis_course is Ein Sof [Without End].) That also means that, in Aristotelian terms, one cannot actually say "God is . . ." and proceed to enumerate God's attributes. To describe the Eternal One in such a sentence is to admit of a division between subject and predicate, in other words, a plurality. (Maimonides writes in Chapter 50 of the Guide, "Those who believe that God is One and that He has many attributes declare the Unity with their lips and assume the plurality in their thoughts.") Therefore, he concludes, one cannot discuss God in terms of positive attributes. On the other hand, one can describe what God is not. God is not corporeal, does not occupy space, experiences neither generation nor corruption (in the Aristotelian sense of birth, decay, and death). For obvious reasons, Mai_monides' conception of the Supreme Being is usually characterized as "negative theology," that is, defining by the accumulation of negatives. Maimonides writes, "All we understand is the fact that [God] exists, that [God] is a being to whom none of Adonai's creatures is similar, who has nothing in common with them, who does not include plurality, who is never too feeble to produce other beings and whose relation to the universe is that of a steersman to a boat; and even this is not a real relation, a real simile, but serves only to convey to us the idea that God rules the universe, that it is [God] that gives it duration and preserves its necessary arrangement." But what of all the anthropomorphic terms that we encounter in Jewish sacred texts? What of "Adonai's rod and staff . . ." or the Creator who "reaches out a hand . . ."? There are thousands of passages like this in the Torah, in the Talmud, in Midrash, and in our liturgy. Maimonides' response is that these are allegorical passages, designed to ease the transition of the Jewish people from idolatry to monotheism. Even the famous description of man's creation b'tselem Elohim (in the image of God) is meant metaphorically. God created out of free will and we are granted the ability to reason and a free will of our own, but there is no "family resemblance." The way that we come to know God and the world is through a com_bination of revelation and reason. Prophecy, for example, is not merely a gift from God processed through the human imagination. According to Maimonides, prophecy also requires perfection of wisdom and morality as well as a developed imagination. And that gift from God is passed through the mediation of the Active Intellect (a "rational emana_tion" of the presence of the Almighty in the world), so reason must always play a part. Indeed, reason must play a role in the love of God, Maimonides holds. It is in large part through the intellect that we attain religious and spiritual goals. By the same token, he says, the sacred writings of Judaism are truthful and do not require us to accept anything that can_not be proven by reason. Where they appear otherwise, we are to read them as allegory. For this reason, study of Torah is one way of achieving greater knowledge of God, engaging the intellect in the search. Faith and reason are not enemies but, in Maimonides' thought, essential to each other if we are to understand God. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/God/The_Middle_Ages/Maimonides_on_God.shtml
Great. Now disavow and desist all talk of "totality" when speaking of God or where God is the subject and you will be in compliance with Maimonides' thoughts on God. And then just state, "I believe in God but I can't on any conceivable level define it. Not one attribute whatsoever. I can't even say that it is a conscious entity since doing so entails definition. so, yes, in essence, pragmatically speaking, I believe in nothing at all. I just have this... sense, this feeling that there is something out there I would like to call God and I believe in whatever it is, if indeed it is something. Even though my faith has no object whatsoever."