OK! So quantum foam is the cause of its effects... what causes the quantum foam?
to exist or to be is not a univocal term.A thing can exist as something individual and by itself. Like you and me.A thing can exist only as "in another" like the color blue.A thing can exist as becoming into existence or going out of existence. We call this changecertain things can only exist in the mind, like numbers or negatives.With this understanding of what it means to exist (an analogous term) and the understanding of cause and effect, I think Spinosa missed alot and was oversimplifying.That division above btw comes from Aristotle initially but explained in detail by Thomas Aquinas. They call it the division of being.
but you believe that this omnipotent god was the very first cause, right ?Yes... well I know He is because I have reasoned to it. Not strictly speaking belief.
(1) would you say that OOC was reduced or diminished in some way after this exercise ?(2) or would you say that OOC was exactly the same as they were before the first creation event ?1. No I would not.2. He has to be unchanging, at least intrinsically to Himself. So He would be the same as before.
The answer is that He is infinite. No matter how much or what you take away there is no difference in relation to Him. That is what infinite means.
The only thing we know for certain issssss.The Real Gods brute.Like i mean the actual really real gods, do like a little a book book thing.Its just,Well , its commensense.Straight up .
are you suggesting that YHWH has no physical capability or component ?
(IFF) OOC is the first cause (THEN) every conceivable event is caused by OOC
all of creation is imbued with some amount of the omnipotent
AND "infinite" is not part of this equation
which means it cannot be contained by anything anywhere, not by a word, or a physical barrier or any conceivable or inconceivable conceptional barrier
anything that is truly "infinite" is NECESSARILY in all places at all times in every possible sense
it would penetrate and completely obliterate all distinctions ideas and things
So the idea of "elephant" is still in all those different functions.Once again showing function is not the same as whatness.
are you suggesting that YHWH has no physical capability or component ?I am not saying he does not have the capability.Of himself he is not physical. He cannot be. That would contradict Him being infinite and uncaused.
(IFF) OOC is the first cause (THEN) every conceivable event is caused by OOCThat is getting much closer, but not quite yet.I called Him the first cause. He is th cause of the existence of something, but not immediately the cause of a happening as there can be other causes involved. He is remotely a cause to all happenings.
all of creation is imbued with some amount of the omnipotentThis implies that sameness, or existence, is only one thing in one way. I have already said no to that and explained why I think that.
anything that is truly "infinite" is NECESSARILY in all places at all times in every possible senseWhy? You have to prove that. Until you do, I am disregarding it since all you have done is assert it. and by prove I mean you have to prove the "in every possible sense" part. Because right now it is a contradiction.
the idea-of-an-elephant is not the same as an actual elephant
if YHWH has physical capability then some part of YHWH is physicalthe capability to impregnate women is one example
if they are designed by YHWH and caused by YHWH then they are obviously reflections of (at minimum the minifest will of) YHWH if not obviously and necessarily wholly composed of the energy of YHWH
it's tautological
NOthing can "co-exist" with the "infinite"
This is implying that only Matter exists and nothing else. Once again showing a univocal idea of being.
if YHWH has physical capability then some part of YHWH is physicalthe capability to impregnate women is one exampleWhy?
NOthing can "co-exist" with the "infinite"Only if the "infinite" was only material. There is more than just matter in the universe. Any solid philosophy says that.Once again showing a univocal idea of being....
But only one makes a plausible argument for sentience.
in order to interact with the physicalit must have some physical capability or component
All you have done is repeat what you said before. For Example:in order to interact with the physicalit must have some physical capability or componentNo proofs, no explanation. This does not answer my question I asked. This conversation is going nowhere.Do have anything you want to say to me?
there must be a fundamental similarity
Is Physicality the only fundamental similiarity? If so how do you prove that?Because I think there are other fundamental similarities by which to interact that affect something physical.
