Samm,
On one site you identify God as the source of all being, on another one you deny his existence. I am willing to continue to discuss with you, but only on a site where you feel free to speak sincerely.

Please note that there is difference between evangelizing and discussing the essence of God. Sounds like you would automatically kick out of this forum people like Hegel or Kierkegaard.

Please consider this. Going to "other" sites should be of no appeal, it is where god does not exist, we must go with zeal, to bring others into the fold. That's where the challenge is, so I am told.

William

Shlomo, after contemplating this a little more yesterday, it seems the new developments in my belief on what that parent category, which you named Eternity, really is link to your response to Samm's argument. You make an interesting point that just because something lacks a few or most traits, that doesn't mean that something doesn't have at least in part some essence of what it would be if the missing traits were in place. On that note, God, which would be the creator of all being as I'm sure most would agree, if He/She/It were to exist, would exist outside of existence and non-existence as well. If God is eternal as we believe Him/Her/It to be, then it would make sense to think this way. The creator of all being is the source of being and non-existence, and therefore resides at the threshold of both realms. If Eternity is said to be the parent category, then God should reside here, sandwiched between those realms. Samm, did argue that if an entity lacked being, it could not create being. However, I would disagree as Shlomo did, because if you look at things in such a black and white manner, you fail to realize that gray has both the properties of black (non-existence) and white (existence) and therefore both may be born from its (God's) essence.

Saibo, may I call you Saibo?

The problem you are having has more to do with the "ground" you are standing on than the "defining of being". You're attempting to define a "thing" called "being." Man has been trying to do that since way before Heraclitus. You, who you are is not a definable object" called being. Who you are is be-ing while you are trying to define "being." Defining "being" is fruitless and a waste of your time.

A much better question would be "How do I uncover be-ing." Phenomenon is defined as "that which reveals itself, in itself." Nothing gets revealed in a definition. As a matter of fact, who you are gets covered up in a definition.

I invite you to read my blog at Philosophy Forum - Dasein. There are 2 postings which will lead you in the right direction. One is called "Don't Pick Up The Turd" / "The Subject is the Predicate" and the other is called "Reading Heidegger." Read "Don't Pick Up The Turd" first.

Dasein

I would say awareness is image of a being

Shlomo,

Sorry about that. I don't know what threads are doing what. Do you wanna discuss God on one of the religion threads? Name one that you frequent and I'll come visit so we can start a cut-throat, no holds barred, friendly discussion about God. :-)

Oh, no. I'm a big fan of Hegel and Kierkegaard, more familiar with Hegel though. I love talking about deity, and I'm just trying like heck to follow the recommendations of the site, and not mix my philosophy and religion together.

Give me a lead to the religion boards. Thanks.

Samm

Samm,

My strong conviction is that freedom of conscience is possible only in secular democracy. I am really not interested in pushing my faith down the throat of others, I am interested in free discussion while remaining who I am and respecting others' right to be who they are. If I failed to stand to that standard in my previous posts, please accept my apology. If you are curious about my faith, you can read about it in my site (just click on my signature to get there).

Shlomo

My goodness, Emmy, you say that God "would exist outside of existence..."! I don't think something can be said to exist outside of existence. If it exists, there is existence. If it is outside of existence, it does not exist. You can't have it both ways.

I think God IS existence and that non-existence is nothing more than a concept of the human mind with no possibility in reality.

You and I are talking about different ideas of existence. In my idea of existence, black--as a color that may be mixed with white to form gray--DOES exist. I know that black is the absence of all color and white is the presence of all color, and when we say we are mixing black and white, we are actually only reducing the amount of all colors toward zero. But black still exists as an idea and as a real condition in which color is not present. Black is not non-existent as you assert. If black did not exist, we could not make gray. If black did not exist, we could not extend the electro-magnetic spectrum beyond the range of visible light. (...and visible to whom?) Oh, yes. Black definitely exists.

And God exists. And if God did not exist, he could not create, nor could we think about him or imagine him or even name him. Properties and attributes may only belong to things that exist.

I hope this helps explain my idea of existence to you, and I'd like to understand your idea of existence better. I am confused about it right now. Thanks!

Samm

---------- Post added 11-01-2009 at 10:56 AM ----------


Hello, Shlomo. No, I never thought you were being forward or aggressive in asserting your faith. I'm still kinda new here at this site, and I have what is perhaps a misunderstanding that we were to discuss philosophy in the philosophy threads and religion in the religion threads and not intermix the two--I think for the sake of avoiding religious disputes complicating or detracting from philosophical disputes. I'm just trying to abide by these rules I think exist. Please clarify for me if you know me to be wrong, and even if you're not certain, I don't mind talking God with you here until and unless someone complains or a moderator tells us to take it elsewhere. If it is an infraction, I'm sure it's a minor one.

Samm