Quite interesting, oh ye of similar name but different spelling. I think I got about half of it, and now my brain feels mushy @_@
Jared | Homepage | 11.28.03 - 6:16 pm | #

You might get a kick out of this:



Why God is arbitrary



Several Theories that are need to understand each other:

A compilation by: J L Seaton

08/06/03



God is Everything: An irrefutable definition?



The First theory I will present ties all the theories to class but in a roundabout way. Take the statement god is everything. In this way God is not the Judeo-Christian God, but a compilation of everything, that includes; good, evil, right, wrong, gas, liquid, life, death, after-life, thought, dreams, sensation, and anything else that is conceivable and all that isn’t as well. Unfortunately this definition of god isn’t very useful. Thus, God is the cause of all problems and the resolution. But this does allow god to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and everything else that happens when you are everything. This does not make God a wholly good being, because everything is not wholly good, unless you hold that perspective. At the same time it doesn’t create heaven or hell, gives no justification for being moral, gives no morals and makes pretty much everything (including God) arbitrary. Thus, little more thought should be given on the subject of god.



But, there are some paradoxes when you are composed of everything. Yet, these paradoxes are no different than saying “nothing” in speech. What you mean and what you create when you say nothing are two different things.



Property Giving: The problem with Name Giving.



Names are derived as a way of identifying particular objects for easier reference. Properties are then associated to that name based on that name creating an ideal of that object. Thus a desk is a desk because it holds certain properties that make it a desk. Yet, properties tend to be generic or variable; what was once a table can become a desk because new properties are associated with it and old properties are removed. Now try defining a desk or a table. You will find they share many similar properties, but as you digress through possibilities that are also desks and similarly through what you are willing to call a table you will find they are no longer similar, I.E. they share few properties. Thus we create properties based on need. “I need a table,” is not an adequate statement, not all tables will work if you want to seat multiple people for dinner, nor would a dinner table work well as an end table. In this way table means different things at different times yet it always contains enough properties of a collection we have created called “table” that we can still call these objects tables even if they also fit in the definition of something else, like a desk.



The Problem with Nothing: How can nothing have properties or how can it not?



The problem with nothing is that it is definable. Giving nothing a name implies it has properties, thus nothing is something but that can’t be. The pr
Jarrod L Seaton | 11.27.03 - 1:20 pm | #