DeepSight:


I am at a loss as to how this comment is of any relevance to my comments above given that a person (or personhood) can only be conceived of within existence or as something existent.

Indeed, there is nothing that can be conceived of without existence or as not being existent.

For this reason, your comment - and AIO's revert above - is meaningless.

Period.

Hey mr Man, the fact that someone imagines something to exist does not mean that it exists. Can you grasp that or do we have to break it down further for you.

I can conceive of a pink unicorn, but that doesn't mean that they exist.

PastorAIO:


Bingo!! I was shocked that the guy seemed to not know the meaning of the word. But apparently he doesn't.

You are talking pure and unrefined nonsense sir.

One definition of Person would be a set of observable characteristics that mark an entity as distinct.

And this goes far enough to add outright dishonesty to what you are attempting to say. I frankly find it pathetic, that having been found out - you resort to this sadly shameless attempt to change the issue at play:

For you now say - "one definition of person" - whereas you know very well that that is not the definition of person as concerns this thread! Indeed you know - and it is most apparent to all - that the very definition of "person" which arose from your initial comment has nothing whatever to do with this comical attempt to reduce it to characters on a stage as per fictional drama.

Your own original question - as to persons existing or not existing - which sparked my concern - shows this very clearly. Even more so: to put it beyond cavil and beyond your absurd denials: the OP to which you were responding to and the context of your response shows this to be very true: that the term "person" being discussed was used in an existential sense about the existence of a being.

Haba, how low can you sink?

A Fictional person does NOT exist.

Please don't waste your spittle lecturing me on this: it would be better spent on your boy-fan Jack-Bizzle and his nonsensical analogy of Ghost workers as being existent persons.

Christianity goes so far as to attribute to one being, namely God, 3 distinct persons.

This is irrelevant and at all events, not all of Christianity does this.

The word Person comes from the latin word Persona which is the original term for a Mask. When an actor puts on a Persona (mask) he then plays the part of that person in the play. The very same actor can then put on a different Persona (mask) for a different scene and then play the part of the other Person.

You have run out of ideas. As I said above, your attempt to reduce the discussion on existent beings (persons) to fictional drama characters is comical, hypocritical, disgraceful, dishonest, pathetic and absolutely unworthy.

The person is nothing other than the set of characteristics that define a being (within a certain context).

Stop twisting. This is not the "person" that is being discussed here. The "person" being discussed here is an existent being and not the vague nonsense you have attempted here.

Someone who believes in reincarnation can see the soul as transmigrating from one person to another person.

No - from one body to another body.

It is shocking that you can speak of a soul migrating from person to person - and liken that to reincarnation. This shows how desperately confused you are these days. A soul migrating from person to person is more akin to the idea of "possession" than anything remotely resembling reincarnation.

DeepSight:
[size=0pt]

You are talking pure and unrefined nonsense sir.



And this goes far enough to add outright dishonesty to what you are attempting to say. I frankly find it pathetic, that having been found out - you resort to this sadly shameless attempt to change the issue at play:

For you now say - "one definition of person" - whereas you know very well that that is not the definition of person as concerns this thread! Indeed you know - and it is most apparent to all - that the very definition of "person" which arose from your initial comment has nothing whatever to do with this comical attempt to reduce it to characters on a stage as per fictional drama.

Your own original question - as to persons existing or not existing - which sparked my concern - shows this very clearly. Even more so: to put it beyond cavil and beyond your absurd denials: the OP to which you were responding to and the context of your response shows this to be very true: that the term "person" being discussed was used in an existential sense about the existence of a being.

Haba, how low can you sink?



Please don't waste your spittle lecturing me on this: it would be better spent on your boy-fan Jack-Bizzle and his nonsensical analogy of Ghost workers as being existent persons.



This is irrelevant and at all events, not all of Christianity does this.



You have run out of ideas. As I said above, your attempt to reduce the discussion on existent beings (persons) to fictional drama characters is comical, hypocritical, disgraceful, dishonest, pathetic and absolutely unworthy.



Stop twisting. This is not the "person" that is being discussed here. The "person" being discussed here is an existent being and not the vague nonsense you have attempted here.



No - from one body to another body.

It is shocking that you can speak of a soul migrating from person to person - and liken that to reincarnation. This shows how desperately confused you are these days. A soul migrating from person to person is more akin to the idea of "possession" than anything remotely resembling reincarnation.
[/size]

Abeg Craze man, I made a mistake to respond to you in the first place. Please carry your idiotic nonsense and find someone who is deranged enough to want to discuss with you. cheerio!

PastorAIO:


Abeg Craze man, I made a mistake to respond to you in the first place. Please carry your idiotic nonsense and find someone who is deranged enough to want to discuss with you. cheerio!

You are a cheap waste of space - Ad hominems added upon your pathetic attempt to deny that which was being discussed just reeks of both low intellect and dishonesty.

I am certain you know I am not moved by your meaningless words. I much prefer my insanity to your dishonesty, flatness and lack of intelligence.

Many cheers too.

DeepSight:


This is rather odd.

Is it really possible for a person to "not exist"?

When one says that "a person can either exist or not exist" - this suggests that you may have persons that exist and persons that do not exist.

Is this not a very self evidently false thought construction?

For is there any such thing as a "person" that does "not exist"?

It is a flat out contradiction in terms therefore to say that "a person can either exist or not exist" - thus suggesting two alternate possible types of persons: those that exist and those that do not exist!

Evidently therefore, the correct thing to say would be - "Persons exist" - or - "a person exists" - period.

@ OP: Does this build a thread of reasoning somewhere in what you are trying to say regarding the self existent nature of God?

PS - You rightly should not worry too much about the futilist AIO who starts nowhere and goes nowhere: as a matter of fact, he has propounded quite exactly what your OP says in the past, in simply different words.

I beg to differ. One question: Does a man with three heads and unicorn horns on his back exist?

AnonyNymous:

I beg to differ. One question: Does a man with three heads and unicorn horns on his back exist?

Answering this question is meaningless: I could equally ask you if lions with lizard heads and rat feet exist.

What are you driving at? Spell it out.

State what you differ on.

DeepSight:


Answering this question is meaningless: I could equally ask you if lions with lizard heads and rat feet exist.

What are you driving at? Spell it out.

State what you differ on.

You've just compared it to asking if the above existed. Do you agree with me that all nouns can exist, or not exist? The word 'exist' is merely a verb that tells the state of action of a noun. If someone puts scraps of metal together and creates a lie detector, the lie detector exists. If a madman arrives and destroys the lie detector, the lie detector no longer exists, all that's left are scraps of metal.

ex·ist·ence
iɡˈzistəns/
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

ex·ist
iɡˈzist/
verb
have objective reality or being.

That is the definition of existence. So, does a man with three heads and unicorn horns exist? Refer to the above definition. Does the person I describe have objective reality? No. So my answer would be, 'Such a person does not exist, to my knowledge'.

His argument centred on 'calling a noun, a verb'. You cannot say something like "I do not smile, I am a smile". It makes no logical sense. If you wish to refute his argument, explain how it makes any sense to call a noun a verb.

AnonyNymous:

ex·ist·ence
iɡˈzistəns/
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

ex·ist
iɡˈzist/
verb
have objective reality or being.

That is the definition of existence. So, does a man with three heads and unicorn horns exist? Refer to the above definition. Does the person I describe have objective reality? No. So my answer would be, 'Such a person does not exist, to my knowledge'.

I agree with this definition of existence and I would give the exact same answer you have given above to that question.

His argument centred on 'calling a noun, a verb'. You cannot say something like "I do not smile, I am a smile". It makes no logical sense. If you wish to refute his argument, explain how it makes any sense to call a noun a verb.

You may note that thus far, I have not disputed that at all. My concern was strictly limited to to the question of existent and non existent persons. To the fact that it is illogical to refer to any person as not existent. A person necessarily exists. And in this, I refer to a person as a being - this is what was being discussed - and not a person as a character - which AIO shamefully attempted to twist the discussion into, having seen the inanity of that which he set forth.

Building on that, my more subtle point drives at the self existence of God.

Perhaps I may already be leading you on too far when I say that, had proper answers been given to my poser, I would have wished to draw the discussion towards the very all-encompassing nature of that which we define as "God" and that all-encompassing nature certainly lends itself to a credible view that it is all existence.

Such a view is neither strange nor unheard of. It is encompassed in pantheism and panentheism -

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God" ) is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[1] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

As per your point on Noun and Verb as raised by AIO - as I said before, I have not so far disputed that. However in taking the discussion further I will say that that cannot be true of the all encompassing element that we call God. It can only be true with respect to limited finite beings within this finite reality.

And once we recognize the all-encompassing nature of the element under discussion we can take the discussion further to understanding that that element cannot be constricted to noun or verb: for it is as much a thing as it is a happening: a continuous unceasing eternal happening.

[size=15pt]I can't go back to yesterday - Because I was a different person then.[/size]

Lewis Carroll, Alice In Wonderland

^^^ The evolution of character is trite. That is not in dispute at all. It takes nothing away from the existential nature of being - which is what the term "person" refers to as being discussed in this thread and as raised by you. It is a waste of time for you to keep trying to shift the goal post and change the discussion.

@ Anonymous -

Deep Sight: I agree with this definition of existence and I would give the exact same answer you have given above to that question.

In fact, in re-thinking this and to avoid confusing you or other respondents (especially as regards the use of the word "person" ), I will simply answer that question by saying that I don't know and I have never seen such a thing before.

DeepSight:


I agree with this definition of existence and I would give the exact same answer you have given above to that question.

Glad we agree on nouns having the ability to exist or not exist.

You may note that thus far, I have not disputed that at all. My concern was strictly limited to to the question of existent and non existent persons. To the fact that it is illogical to refer to any person as not existent. A person necessarily exists. And in this, I refer to a person as a being - this is what was being discussed - and not a person as a character - which AIO shamefully attempted to twist the discussion into, having seen the inanity of that which he set forth.

I disagree with you here as well: a being can exist, and not exist. That was also the meaning I ascribed to PastorAIO 's initial post. The existence or non existence of a being is the very reason we have the theist/atheist debate. Does the flying spaghetti monster exist? Christians say it does not exist. However members of the Church of Flying Spaghetti (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) say it exists! Existence is simply a property of all nouns. A being is a noun. Therefore a being can exist, or not exist.
'Existing' is simply a verb.

Building on that, my more subtle point drives at the self existence of God.

Perhaps I may already be leading you on too far when I say that, had proper answers been given to my poser, I would have wished to draw the discussion towards the very all-encompassing nature of that which we define as "God" and that all-encompassing nature certainly lends itself to a credible view that it is all existence.

Such a view is neither strange nor unheard of. It is encompassed in pantheism and panentheism -

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God" ) is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[1] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

As per your point on Noun and Verb as raised by AIO - as I said before, I have not so far disputed that. However in taking the discussion further I will say that that cannot be true of the all encompassing element that we call God. It can only be true with respect to limited finite beings within this finite reality.

And once we recognize the all-encompassing nature of the element under discussion we can take the discussion further to understanding that that element cannot be constricted to noun or verb: for it is as much a thing as it is a happening: a continuous unceasing eternal happening.

To this, I will say that I agree with you that a noun can take the property of another intangible noun. 'Existence' is a noun derived from the verb 'exist' and I agree with your use of the term 'pantheism', its a term I'm familiar with. This was possible because the definition of god in pantheism is not restricted being a 'thing', it is a process, it is all encompassing.
However, it will be intellectually dishonest of you to send the argument in that direction, as the 'god' in question was the Christian god which has been defined for us many times. A remote, infinite being i.e a noun, which has characteristics akin to humans, which however, supposedly supercede human abilities. Its not wrong to call such a 'being' humanoid and I believe this is what PastorAIO centred his argument on, I stand to be corrected. Therefore such a being, a remote entity, cannot said to be 'existence' itself as that is a logical fallacy.

AnonyNymous:

Glad we agree on nouns having the ability to exist or not exist.

That is not quite what I said, also please see the addendum I added above.

I disagree with you here as well: a being can exist, and not exist.

This is illogical and impossible - have you averted your mind to the very definition of the word "being"?

"Being" simply means "to be" - that is to exist or a state of existing. It can be both a noun or verb in that a person is a being, and you can also have a state of being. (E.g: "The situation being difficult, he had to make a firm decision" )

That was also the meaning I ascribed to PastorAIO 's initial post. The existence or non existence of a being is the very reason we have the theist/atheist debate.

There is such an inherent contradiction here that I honestly think we are using words differently. How can you say something does not exist and yet describe it as a being?

Does the flying spaghetti monster exist? Christians say it does not exist. However members of the Church of Flying Spaghetti (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) say it exists!

The movement is simply a humorous mockery of religion and theism, nothing more.

However, it will be intellectually dishonest of you to send the argument in that direction, as the 'god' in question was the Christian god which has been defined for us many times.

You are right here and I must cede this point: however I did not intend to be dishonest at all - I simply took the discussion from my point of view of God - which is well known on this forum so I did not see any reason to think anyone would mistake me for arguing for the Biblical God. Haven said that, I must still say that the generality of the essential or core attributes of God as described by Christianity and most religions still coincide with my view. Core attributes such as being transcendental. eternal, and the creator.

Its not wrong to call such a 'being' humanoid

It is.

Therefore such a being, a remote entity, cannot said to be 'existence' itself as that is a logical fallacy.

See Pantheism/ Panentheism again.

AnonyNymous:


was also the meaning I ascribed to PastorAIO 's initial post.

I believe this is what PastorAIO centred his argument on, I stand to be corrected. Therefore such a being, a remote entity, cannot said to be 'existence' itself as that is a logical fallacy.

Please my friend, I am about to unfollow this thread. I would kindly appreciate it if you ceased to mention me on this thread especially when discussing with deepsight.

I'm not prepared to read through what this thread is about to become which is pages upon pages of nonsensically long posts full of flowery sounding phrases that are in fact rubbish.

I don't appreciate people telling me what I actually meant to say rather than listening to what I said.
I said God is a person, which was wrong. I later corrected myself to say that God is 3 persons. The OP is xtian so we are talking about a christian God here.
Only someone who was not raised a christian, or a complete idiot, would misunderstand what I mean by Person. No need for further explanations.

Thank you for your attention. and thanks in advance for not mentioning me on this thread again.

Thank you.

PastorAIO:


Please my friend, I am about to unfollow this thread. I would kindly appreciate it if you ceased to mention me on this thread especially when discussing with deepsight.

I'm not prepared to read through what this thread is about to become which is pages upon pages of nonsensically long posts full of flowery sounding phrases that are in fact rubbish.

I don't appreciate people telling me what I actually meant to say rather than listening to what I said.
I said God is a person, which was wrong. I later corrected myself to say that God is 3 persons. The OP is xtian so we are talking about a christian God here.
Only someone who was not raised a christian, or a complete idiot, would misunderstand what I mean by Person. No need for further explanations.

Thank you for your attention. and thanks in advance for not mentioning me on this thread again.

Thank you.

What? Why are you running away from the salad? The salad is the word!

DeepSight:

This is illogical and impossible - have you averted your mind to the very definition of the word "being"?

"Being" simply means "to be" - that is to exist or a state of existing. It can be both a noun or verb in that a person is a being, and you can also have a state of being. (E.g: "The situation being difficult, he had to make a firm decision" )

There is such an inherent contradiction here that I honestly think we are using words differently. How can you say something does not exist and yet describe it as a being?

noun
3.
substance or nature:
of such a being as to arouse fear.
4.
something that exists:
inanimate beings.
5.
a living thing:
strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6.
a human being; person:
the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7.
(initial capital letter) God.

By Merriam Webster. I believe that is the definition of 'being' PastorAIO was referring to and not the verb 'to be' or its form as a noun.

You are right here and I must cede this point: however I did not intend to be dishonest at all - I simply took the discussion from my point of view of God - which is well known on this forum so I did not see any reason to think anyone would mistake me for arguing for the Biblical God.

Please make yourself clear, next time. I do not know what your views on god are.

Having said that, I must still say that the generality of the essential or core attributes of God as described by Christianity and most religions still coincide with my view. Core attributes such as being transcendental. eternal, and the creator. See Pantheism/ Panentheism again.

I, as a deist believe in a noninterventionist, remote god whose nature is yet to be known. I also believe that the god makes up the universe as well (awareness of quantum particles) so what I believe in isn't far from panantheism.
The Christian god, however is much different. It is a remote entity. Therefore, panantheism makes no sense in this regard, as 'god' has already been defined. God has been defined as not being part of our material universe, (something he/it intends to destroy when its son comes back for the rapture) what we call, existence. It makes no sense to define something one way, then add another definition that clearly contradicts the initial one. I cannot tell you I am a boy and come back a few minutes later to tell you I am a girl.



**
Scrolling through the thread, I saw that you made this statement.

Indeed, there is nothing that can be conceived of without existence or as not being existent.
For this reason, AIO's revert above - is meaningless.

Period.

Which is completely different from what you are arguing with me now. You are arguing 'being' with the definition 'to be' here, when PastorAIO 's initial post was referring to the definition 'god', and in this post, you used the definition 'substance'. Why shift the goalposts?

A substance can be conceived of even if it doesn't exist. Scientists all over the world would love a substance that could generate electricity enough to power a continent by mixing a few sprinkles with orange juice. However, to our knowledge, such a substance does not exist

PastorAIO:


Please my friend, I am about to unfollow this thread. I would kindly appreciate it if you ceased to mention me on this thread especially when discussing with deepsight.

I'm not prepared to read through what this thread is about to become which is pages upon pages of nonsensically long posts full of flowery sounding phrases that are in fact rubbish.

I don't appreciate people telling me what I actually meant to say rather than listening to what I said.
I said God is a person, which was wrong. I later corrected myself to say that God is 3 persons. The OP is xtian so we are talking about a christian God here.
Only someone who was not raised a christian, or a complete idiot, would misunderstand what I mean by Person. No need for further explanations.

Thank you for your attention. and thanks in advance for not mentioning me on this thread again.

Thank you.

Escapist shallow nonsense, do buzz off, you will not be missed. I do not enjoy discussions where my respondent sounds like a little girl.

JackBizzle:



What? Why are you running away from the salad? The salad is the word!

For the salad is indeed the word, and it is very meet and very right: and most excellent for your health.

~ The Holy Salad, Chapter 1 vs 1.

In fact you have inspired me. I am going to start writing the Holy Salad. It will be the sum of all HOLY TRUTH.

Be sure to read it when issued.

DeepSight:


For the salad is indeed the word, and it is very meet and very right: and most excellent for your health.

~ The Holy Salad, Chapter 1 vs 1.

In fact you have inspired me. I am going to start writing the Holy Salad. It will be the sum of all HOLY TRUTH.

Be sure to read it when issued.

I'll be waiting...

PastorAIO:


In mathematics, topology (from the Greek τόπος, place, and λόγος, study) is concerned with the properties of space that are preserved under continuous deformations, such as stretching and bending, but not tearing or gluing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-eJW0gEm5w

How does this state a point contains the universe? Are you mad? Even your definition has nothing to do with supporting your earlier nonsense speculation.

When faced with sound logical thinking you come up with idiot.ic falsehood and musings to counter concur and buffer your own embracing of randomized directionlessness thinking. Well-done.

Joshthefirst:


When faced with sound logical thinking you come up with idiot.ic falsehood and musings to counter concur and buffer your own embracing of randomized directionlessness thinking. Well-done.

Bingo.
The chap is a laugh. A girly one for that matter.

PastorAIO:


Oh, so we do care about logic in this matter after all. I thought it was irrelevant to Faith-based cultists.

Of course. I've been logical in this matter from the start. Carefully explaining my communication with no solid reply from you apart from puerile attacks like this and looking for a play on words and loopholes in my conversation and mockery.

If you are an embittered and troubled man I can't do much to help you on the net. Nairaland isn't a good place for troubled people.

Joshthefirst:
Of course. I've been logical in this matter from the start. Carefully explaining my communication with no solid reply from you apart from puerile attacks like this and looking for a play on words and loopholes in my conversation and mockery.

If you are a embittered and troubled man I can't do much to help you on the net. Nairaland isn't a good place for troubled people.

A most embittered and deeply troubled old girl she is indeed!

PastorAIO:


Abeg Craze man, I made a mistake to respond to you in the first place. Please carry your idiotic nonsense and find someone who is deranged enough to want to discuss with you. cheerio!

DeepSight:

You are a cheap waste of space - Ad hominems added upon your pathetic attempt to deny that which was being discussed just reeks of both low intellect and dishonesty.
I am certain you know I am not moved by your meaningless words. I much prefer my insanity to your dishonestly, flatness and lack of intelligence.
Many cheers too.

You guys are still hilarious after all these years.

AnonyNymous:


noun
3.
substance or nature:
of such a being as to arouse fear.
4.
something that exists:
inanimate beings.
5.
a living thing:
strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6.
a human being; person:
the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7.
(initial capital letter) God.

By Merriam Webster. I believe that is the definition of 'being' PastorAIO was referring to and not the verb 'to be' or its form as a noun.

I cannot see how this takes anything away from what I am saying.

Please make yourself clear, next time. I do not know what your views on god are.

I used to say - "empirical and intuitive deist" which is somewhat contradictory but should tell - however these days I find all labels rather tiresome. I believe in God but I am entirely irreligious.

I, as a deist believe in a noninterventionist, remote god whose nature is yet to be known. I also believe that the god makes up the universe as well (awareness of quantum particles) so what I believe in isn't far from panantheism.

We are largely on the same page then.

The Christian god, however is much different. It is a remote entity. Therefore, panantheism makes no sense in this regard, as 'god' has already been defined. God has been defined as not being part of our material universe, (something he/it intends to destroy when its son comes back for the rapture) what we call, existence. It makes no sense to define something one way, then add another definition that clearly contradicts the initial one. I cannot tell you I am a boy and come back a few minutes later to tell you I am a girl.

The Christian rendition of God is correct in my view in terms of essentials such as being the Origin, being Eternal, being uncreated, being the creator, being transcendent . . . . however the Christian rendition of God runs into problems when it dabbles into oddities such as the Trinity, the concept of Salvation by the sacrifice on the cross, the concept of original sin, altogether with the very pagan nature of the Yahweh of the Old Testament.

**
Scrolling through the thread, I saw that you made this statement.

Which is completely different from what you are arguing with me now. You are arguing 'being' with the definition 'to be' here, when PastorAIO 's initial post was referring to the definition 'god', and in this post, you used the definition 'substance'. Why shift the goalposts?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Yes, being refers to "to be" - and it is the very question about the being of God which is at play here. I can't see what straw you are picking here.

Joshthefirst:







You guys are still hilarious after all these years.

What a nasty woman. . . .

Joshthefirst:
Of course. I've been logical in this matter from the start. Carefully explaining my communication with no solid reply from you apart from puerile attacks like this and looking for a play on words and loopholes in my conversation and mockery.

If you are an embittered and troubled man I can't do much to help you on the net. Nairaland isn't a good place for troubled people.

If you want to talk, come here: https://www.nairaland.com/3441336/logic-language-topology-joshthefirst

^^^ Chisos! He really is a girl!

I didn't get any of the mentions, I wonder why. . . out of curiosity I opened this thread again. Sorry for not replying to either of you, and for mentioning Pastor. There's no need to resort to name calling. . .we can disagree on things and still keep it civil.
DeepSight, I'd be interested in your opinion about god

AnonyNymous:
I didn't get any of the mentions, I wonder why. . . out of curiosity I opened this thread again. Sorry for not replying to either of you, and for mentioning Pastor. There's no need to resort to name calling. . .we can disagree on things and still keep it civil.
DeepSight, I'd be interested in your opinion about god

I see that you want the salad.

PastorAIO:
Could you please further explain what those statements mean?

How can a person be Existence? Existence is a state, or a value that you give to a thing. A person can exist or not exist.

A person can be tall or short, but it is nonsensical to say that a person is height.

You might get away with saying God is Life depending on what you mean by life.

But the most nonsensical of all is to say that Eternity lives in Him.

What does Eternity mean to you? How can eternity be in a person?

Help me ask dem oo

DeepSight:


I am at a loss as to how this comment is of any relevance to my comments above given that a person (or personhood) can only be conceived of within existence or as something existent.

Indeed, there is nothing that can be conceived of without existence or as not being existent.

For this reason, your comment - and AIO's revert above - is meaningless.

Period.

Including fictional characters developed by writers and poets? What they create are persons within even the legal meaning of personhood. The array of false Gods have elements of personhood and even divinity. The fact a person is conceived doesn't conclude the fact of his existence