@joshthefirst

1. Ok

2. Why is God using energy when he is transcedent and selfexistent?!n

Kay 17: @joshthefirst

1. Ok

2. Why is God using energy when he is transcedent and selfexistent?!n

How do you mean? God himself is the source of energy. Limitless. Boundless. Spaceless. Timeless. Immeasurable.



"energy" in this situation is actually an assumption based on observable phenomena. The assumption that all observable matter is come from energy. In truth, it might not have been energy. It might have been unseen whatever. I do not know.

^ ^

Where does the Universe get its physical nature from since God is transcendent?! Please explain.

Kay 17: ^ ^

Where does the Universe get its physical nature from since God is transcendent?! Please explain.

How do you mean? God being above material the material things renders him unable to create material things?

Kay 17: @joshthefirst

Why does God design? Why doesn't he just will it?! For God to design, it presumes that God had to adapt to a preexisting environment. For example, why can't God boil water with ice rather than heat?

this is revelational ! This mind deserves the nobel prize for this sublime thinking !!

Oduduwaboy:
this is revelational ! This mind deserves the nobel prize for this sublime thinking !!

You just made my day. I remember wiegraf asking a question like the one you're ecstatically supporting; why can't God create sinless freewill. Tehehehehehehehehehe.


Abeg ooo.

Joshthefirst:

How do you mean? God being above material the material things renders him unable to create material things?

I'm saying that since God isn't physical, and the universe is created from God, it takes the same nature/character God has not what's contrary to his nature.

Kay 17:

I'm saying that since God isn't physical, and the universe is created from God, it takes the same nature/character God has not what's contrary to his nature.

the universe is not conscious, was not designed to have Gods nature or character. Men were.

^^
"You cannot give what you don't have"

The Universe cannot have a physical character if God created it.

Kay 17: ^^
"You cannot give what you don't have"

The Universe cannot have a physical character if God created it.

That's wrong. Rules don't apply to God

Kay 17: ^^
"You cannot give what you don't have"

The Universe cannot have a physical character if God created it.

smh. What does God not have that he cannot give?

Joshthefirst: smh. What does God not have that he cannot give?

Physicality!

Joshthefirst:
You just made my day. I remember wiegraf asking a question like the one you're ecstatically supporting; why can't God create sinless freewill. Tehehehehehehehehehe.


Abeg ooo.

bros, the joke is on you.

Mr Troll: bros, the joke is on you.

lol. I can see you missed this part of the thread. You can start reading from here to get the picture and see the reply to wiegraf's ignorant question. enjoy yourself.

Kay 17:

Physicality!

madam, how does God not having a physical body limit his power of creation in any way? Nawa o.

^^^

Like I said, the joke is on you. I was on that thread. It seems you forgot why he asked the question...

Anyway, lets stick to this asswhooping here

Joshthefirst: lol. I can see you missed this part of the thread. You can start reading from here to get the picture and see the reply to wiegraf's ignorant question. enjoy yourself.

madam, how does God not having a physical body limit his power of creation in any way? Nawa o.

I did not intend a reply to this.

The transcendental world is non material, non physical, antithetical to the physical, hence the physical cannot be a natural product/effect of its antithesis.

Kay 17:

I did not intend a reply to this.

The transcendental world is non material, non physical, antithetical to the physical, hence the physical cannot be a natural product/effect of its antithesis.

is this world entirely physical? Are you entirely physical? Is God entirely spiritual? Is God not a mental being too?

Sorry, your argument is flawed.

And the final cause, who is self-existent must be above and not held bound by the physical universe.

Joshthefirst: is this world entirely physical? Are you entirely physical? Is God entirely spiritual? Is God not a mental being too?

Sorry, your argument is flawed.

And the final cause, who is self-existent must be above and not held bound by the physical universe.

It is not flawed and you didn't address the main issue.

Funny to find God is a mental being too!

Kay 17:

It is not flawed and you didn't address the main issue.

Funny to find God is a mental being too!

look ma'am, we're talking of the creator here. We're speaking generally. I don't know what image you have of God that may have been tarnished by your false notions of the christian god or any other god, but we're talking of the Cause, and his attributes that can be implied from logical reasoning and observing of our visible universe.

^^
I think you want to eat your cake and have it.

Address specifically what I have raised. I don't think opposites begat one another.

Kay 17: ^^
I think you want to eat your cake and have it.

Address specifically what I have raised. I don't think opposites begat one another.

ma'am, your arguments are borne of poor understanding of what "spiritual" means.

The spiritual is not an antithesis of the physical. Infact, the physical is another manifestation of the spiritual.

^^
Transcendence.

Kay 17: ^^
Transcendence.

Final cause. Spaceless, timeless, source. We can only conclude that he is not bound by physical laws

^^
Since the physical is an inherent manifestation of the transcedental, then the physical is as eternal as the transcedental.

Josh, I don't agree with you. The resulting implication is absurd and ridiculous and an attempt to reconcile stark conflicting substances (physical vs. Transcedence)

Besides what is timeless, spaceless, unbound is negatively defined and we know nothing about such a subject but what its not. Similar to describing a car by what not it is. We actually get nowhere.

The use of "transcendental" is not merely saying "not physical" but a substance antithetical to physical, totally different. So when you said the physical was a manifestation of the transcedental, I was hopelessly shocked.

Kay 17: ^^
Since the physical is an inherent manifestation of the transcedental, then the physical is as eternal as the transcedental.

Josh, I don't agree with you. The resulting implication is absurd and ridiculous and an attempt to reconcile stark conflicting substances (physical vs. Transcedence)

Besides what is timeless, spaceless, unbound is negatively defined and we know nothing about such a subject but what its not. Similar to describing a car by what not it is. We actually get nowhere.

The use of "transcendental" is not merely saying "not physical" but a substance antithetical to physical, totally different. So when you said the physical was a manifestation of the transcedental, I was hopelessly shocked.

I understand. Now please show me how the transcendence of the first cause would become antithetical to the physical aspect of our universe.

^^^
I have explained that numerous times, and even in my last post.

I cringe whenever I "hear" first cause.

The problems thereof, which you don't seem to see: first cause reveals a linear time, without with the idea of first cause falls apart. Which now begs the question when was time caused?

Kay 17: ^^^
I have explained that numerous times, and even in my last post.

no actually, the onus is on you who even denies the spiritual,( which I generalize in this case to be the timeless and spaceless realm) to prove that it is anti-physical.

Kay 17: I cringe whenever I "hear" first cause.

The problems thereof, which you don't seem to see: first cause reveals a linear time, without with the idea of first cause falls apart. Which now begs the question when was time caused?

no. First cause reveals that the concept of time was started and put into relay by the cause. By first cause, we mean the cause of our universe itself, with its time and space and every other.

^^
So before time, right?!

Kay 17: ^^
So before time, right?!

I understand the conundrum well.

But my position is that time itself was birthed.

What is yours?