DIALOGUE ABOUT ULTIMATE REALITY AND GOD. (ISSUE IN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION)
DIALOGUE ABOUT ULTIMATE REALITY AND GOD. (ISSUE IN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION)
Mario Francis: Don't we think that 'Ultimate Reality' (the One) of the speculative philosophy is somehow different from 'Christian God'? 08 September, 2011.
Obi K Stanley: You look philosophical in your approach so far; let me start with your recent post. Ultimate reality is a reality above every others and that is in relation to Supreme Being. You can argue against my view. But remember that talks about God are matters of speculation. Do you believe? 08 September, 2011.
Mario Francis: ... could it be said that a thing which is in relation to a thing is identical with that which it is in relation with?? Doesn't your sense of relation suggest a sense of uniqueness and identity? For you said "Ultimate reality is in relation to supreme being"..... Remember, by the very fact that i am related to a thing means that i am different from that thing..... All the same, you made a nice attempt, but you still have the opportunity to clear yourself. 08 September, 2011.
Obi K Stanley: Is that not contradictory to say that what is in relation is different. 'Relation' as one of the categories of Aristotle is an attribute of a being. Ultimate reality is thus a concomitant attribute of a supreme being. Therefore, ultimate reality is with God. Think about that and accept the matter with me. 09 September, 2011.
Mario Francis: hey..., it has not reach the point of accept boy!!! What is contradictory in saying that relation suggests difference (when we say difference we mean that which is in identity with itself). By the mere fact that you are related to any person, says your mother, is a pure indication that you are not that person but a being in yourself.... Furthermore you said that the ultimate reality is with God... don't you think that which is with God is not God, for a thing which is with a thing cannot at the same time be that which it is with... i can't really say who is contradicting issues here.... the preposition which you used here even affirms the difference am referring to..... Now.. it may interest you to move further, because a step further may help us resolve a lot... "Is the ultimate reality God or is the ultimate reality with God?" 09 September, 2011.
Obi K Stanley: good comment Francis, can God be noticed or felt with the sense organ. We talk about the attribute of God as something flowing from God itself. If we end in saying that ultimate reality is not God then what is God. Could God be limited or fading reality? Something that flows from something shows forth that thing. For instance we talk about white chalk; the whiteness is a substantial quality. Without the whiteness that chalk cannot be recognize. You know without the ultimate reality, there is no God. Therefore, ultimate reality is God. This is because it amounts the substantial quality of God. Think about the substantial quality of man and thus without it, is man a man? That is same with God, such that relatedness of something to a being cannot show difference but it shows a close unity between such realities. Therefore ultimate reality is with God and it is God. 14 September, 2011.
Mario Francis: 1st....Everything that exist could be said that it has a being (Hegel)... But the distinctions found in things are from God (Aquinas) 2nd...in line with Hegel, one could say that color is a being as being, as such and in itself. 3rd...Nevertheless, it, in the metaphysical division of being, is not a substance as u said but an accident existing in its existential modality (mode)... 4th.... In line with the above, it then follows that every attribute that exists must be considered first as a being in itself before it could be considered in its division. 5th..... Therefore, God is and the ultimate reality is as well as beings in themselves for everything, as one of the transcendental property of being, is in UNITY with itself. 6th...... Consequently, it could be too absurd to conceive that without the ultimate reality, there is no God, for the fact a being last a property or part of it does not make it not be what it is. for a property does not determine the BEINGNESS of a being to which it is attached, rather things (beings) which are superior to others CONTAINS IMMINENTLY and TRANSCENDS EMINENTLY to beings inferior to them in the existential-metaphysical plain (either vertical or horizontal). 7th, the philosopher, if everything exists first in unity in itself, it then follows that the ultimate reality as a property has its own proper existence, as so is God. 8th..... just as we cannot have a soulless man or a bodiless man, so also one would say that the soul and the body are beings in themselves and exists in themselves before the union called man. 9th..... just as this substances cannot be called man, in that same vein, the ultimate reality cannot be God for it is only a property as you said. 10th.... But having disagreed with you that it is God, what can i say to your proposition that it is with God? From the above, i will conclude by saying that that which is a property of a thing is not that thing, but yet i could not be said, at the same time that it is not with that, for somel properties though exists in themselves and is in unity with themselves, but at the same time exist in and with that to which it is attached to. 11th....The ultimate reality is with God as a property, participates on God as a creature of God, but is not God. 16 September, 2011.
Obi k Stanley: good! good! good! I would rather start off with your statement about man as a composite of matter and form(soul and body). Man is and should involve form and matter, for without them man cannot be defined. In same circle, God cannot be defined as God without the ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is not a mere property. It is an eternal truth or principal that governs the universe. What could be eternal truth, governing the universe? Is it not God?
Could unity results to absurdity? Some things always unite to form a single being. Am not in doubt if ultimate reality is a being as being when talked about irrespective of God. Just as you talk about 'form'(soul) as a being irrespective of the composite Man. Could the form (soul) be ordinary property of man?
God in itself is absolutely a simple being because there could be no separation in the attributes in God. Unlike man who will separate the form from the matter in death, God in itself has no separate identity outside His attributes. Therefore ultimate reality cannot be figured out as different from God.
The usage of that word ' with' signify that God cannot be referred as God without such united, transcendental, wherewithal attributes. It is and will still be with God. Thanks as i look forward for a further criticism.19 September, 2011.
Mario Francis: Don't we think that 'Ultimate Reality' (the One) of the speculative philosophy is somehow different from 'Christian God'? 08 September, 2011.
Obi K Stanley: You look philosophical in your approach so far; let me start with your recent post. Ultimate reality is a reality above every others and that is in relation to Supreme Being. You can argue against my view. But remember that talks about God are matters of speculation. Do you believe? 08 September, 2011.
Mario Francis: ... could it be said that a thing which is in relation to a thing is identical with that which it is in relation with?? Doesn't your sense of relation suggest a sense of uniqueness and identity? For you said "Ultimate reality is in relation to supreme being"..... Remember, by the very fact that i am related to a thing means that i am different from that thing..... All the same, you made a nice attempt, but you still have the opportunity to clear yourself. 08 September, 2011.
Obi K Stanley: Is that not contradictory to say that what is in relation is different. 'Relation' as one of the categories of Aristotle is an attribute of a being. Ultimate reality is thus a concomitant attribute of a supreme being. Therefore, ultimate reality is with God. Think about that and accept the matter with me. 09 September, 2011.
Mario Francis: hey..., it has not reach the point of accept boy!!! What is contradictory in saying that relation suggests difference (when we say difference we mean that which is in identity with itself). By the mere fact that you are related to any person, says your mother, is a pure indication that you are not that person but a being in yourself.... Furthermore you said that the ultimate reality is with God... don't you think that which is with God is not God, for a thing which is with a thing cannot at the same time be that which it is with... i can't really say who is contradicting issues here.... the preposition which you used here even affirms the difference am referring to..... Now.. it may interest you to move further, because a step further may help us resolve a lot... "Is the ultimate reality God or is the ultimate reality with God?" 09 September, 2011.
Obi K Stanley: good comment Francis, can God be noticed or felt with the sense organ. We talk about the attribute of God as something flowing from God itself. If we end in saying that ultimate reality is not God then what is God. Could God be limited or fading reality? Something that flows from something shows forth that thing. For instance we talk about white chalk; the whiteness is a substantial quality. Without the whiteness that chalk cannot be recognize. You know without the ultimate reality, there is no God. Therefore, ultimate reality is God. This is because it amounts the substantial quality of God. Think about the substantial quality of man and thus without it, is man a man? That is same with God, such that relatedness of something to a being cannot show difference but it shows a close unity between such realities. Therefore ultimate reality is with God and it is God. 14 September, 2011.
Mario Francis: 1st....Everything that exist could be said that it has a being (Hegel)... But the distinctions found in things are from God (Aquinas) 2nd...in line with Hegel, one could say that color is a being as being, as such and in itself. 3rd...Nevertheless, it, in the metaphysical division of being, is not a substance as u said but an accident existing in its existential modality (mode)... 4th.... In line with the above, it then follows that every attribute that exists must be considered first as a being in itself before it could be considered in its division. 5th..... Therefore, God is and the ultimate reality is as well as beings in themselves for everything, as one of the transcendental property of being, is in UNITY with itself. 6th...... Consequently, it could be too absurd to conceive that without the ultimate reality, there is no God, for the fact a being last a property or part of it does not make it not be what it is. for a property does not determine the BEINGNESS of a being to which it is attached, rather things (beings) which are superior to others CONTAINS IMMINENTLY and TRANSCENDS EMINENTLY to beings inferior to them in the existential-metaphysical plain (either vertical or horizontal). 7th, the philosopher, if everything exists first in unity in itself, it then follows that the ultimate reality as a property has its own proper existence, as so is God. 8th..... just as we cannot have a soulless man or a bodiless man, so also one would say that the soul and the body are beings in themselves and exists in themselves before the union called man. 9th..... just as this substances cannot be called man, in that same vein, the ultimate reality cannot be God for it is only a property as you said. 10th.... But having disagreed with you that it is God, what can i say to your proposition that it is with God? From the above, i will conclude by saying that that which is a property of a thing is not that thing, but yet i could not be said, at the same time that it is not with that, for somel properties though exists in themselves and is in unity with themselves, but at the same time exist in and with that to which it is attached to. 11th....The ultimate reality is with God as a property, participates on God as a creature of God, but is not God. 16 September, 2011.
Obi k Stanley: good! good! good! I would rather start off with your statement about man as a composite of matter and form(soul and body). Man is and should involve form and matter, for without them man cannot be defined. In same circle, God cannot be defined as God without the ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is not a mere property. It is an eternal truth or principal that governs the universe. What could be eternal truth, governing the universe? Is it not God?
Could unity results to absurdity? Some things always unite to form a single being. Am not in doubt if ultimate reality is a being as being when talked about irrespective of God. Just as you talk about 'form'(soul) as a being irrespective of the composite Man. Could the form (soul) be ordinary property of man?
God in itself is absolutely a simple being because there could be no separation in the attributes in God. Unlike man who will separate the form from the matter in death, God in itself has no separate identity outside His attributes. Therefore ultimate reality cannot be figured out as different from God.
The usage of that word ' with' signify that God cannot be referred as God without such united, transcendental, wherewithal attributes. It is and will still be with God. Thanks as i look forward for a further criticism.19 September, 2011.
Comments
Post a Comment
you are free to view your mind on this post.