[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 192 KB, 427x1200, 1528724334879.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11348247 No.11348247 [Reply] [Original]

Is God a positively charged void?

>> No.11348252

>>11348247
Define: 'God', 'positively charged', and 'void'.
Then I can tell you.

>> No.11348273

>>11348252
God: hypothetical principle or power of Being.

positively charged: generative, unconstrained

void: the pre-ontological, nonduality, negativity, what is prior to difference

>> No.11349206

>>11348273
>God: hypothetical
Definitional paradox
God either IS in order for your question to work, or you have no question

You mean to present "God IS a positively charged voide" but you know that becomes as meaningless as claiming that God IS anything specific at all.

>> No.11349207

>>11349206
No, the question is "is, at the end of the day, all this talk of God ultimately referring to the pre-ontological void?"

>> No.11349211

God is a cute anime girl

>> No.11349219

>>11349207
If the talk is referring to the pre-ontological void, it's not God being talked about
If the talk isn't referring to the pre-ontological void, we're 0 steps closer to answering the question of what God is

>> No.11349220

>>11348273
>>11349207
>No, the question is "is, at the end of the day, all this talk of <(a) hypothetical principle or power of Being> ultimately referring to the pre-ontological void?"

>> No.11349221

pray tell of what manner of autistic millet-eating ethnic group do you belong, so that I may draw some conclusion between it and as to why you'd make this faggoty thread?

>> No.11349222

>>11349220
yes, because this power can simply be the infinite potentiality of the void

>> No.11349236

>>11349222
What do you mean by pre-ontological?
Do you mean it in the same way as Heidegger did, the precursors to ontological thought?

>> No.11349244

>>11349236
no, what must be logically prior to existence if existence is to be existence

>No single item or element in the universe could come from anything but a direct, sufficient, and strictly relevant Cause. In the infinite “Nothingness” which preceded the manifest universe, there must have existed in potentiality *some causal entity or form that is by nature unknowable, and perhaps not readily distinguishable from Eternity. All that is, or ever was, or will be. It did not exist materially, therefore, it must have existed in Spiritual Being. That Spirit “Being” in whom lay the potentiality of All things was, by ancient Hebrew philosophy denominated “Ain Soph”: the as yet unmanifested and, therefore, the “UNKNOWN GOD.”

>> No.11349267

>>11349244
Thanks for the clarification.
Just because there is a possibility an entity could exist in the unknowable eternity does not mean it does.
"A hypothetical principle or power of Being."
Is not the standard way to define god, could you please clarify this definition?
Traditionally god can be defined by many things.
For example god can be the creator of the universe or a being that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
A being coming from the void would not necessarily have any of those qualities.

>> No.11349280

>>11349267
Anon stop playing retarded relativist semantics power hour with OP, he's just shitposting. He made a thread with the same image earlier with a similar weak bait, bad faith "inquiry" concerning Ship of Theseus.

>> No.11349286

>>11349267
this potentiality is not for the existence of God but for existence itself. if there is existence there must have been a potentiality for existence present in some unknowable way "prior" to Being (since temporality ceases to have any meaning outside time)

that which actuates this possibility is God, or God is the dual nature of potentiality - active power, as Eckhart distinguishes between the God-in-Nature and an apophatic Godhead: that is, God as immanent creative force and God as a transcendent nihil which Being "inhabits"

>Is not the standard way to define god, could you please clarify this definition?

Existence points to a Ground, or a groundlessness, that makes it possible.

>> No.11349289

>>11349280
Words have different contexts, especially in esoteric thought. Idk if OP is posting in bad faith, can you show that he is?

>> No.11349297

>>11349289
no one gets on 4chan to troll others about the primordial void, doesn't make any sense. im serious as a heart-attack. god is a hypostasization of the void. look up christian atheism (I'm serious)

>> No.11349317

>>11349286
I'm pretty tired right now and can't really dissect this post, what material is this based on/inspired by?

>> No.11349321

>>11349317
Hegel, Eckhart, Kabbalah, some CTMU in there.

>> No.11349400

Turns out God was just the friends we made along the way.

>> No.11349445
File: 16 KB, 349x391, 1525897343670.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11349445

>>11349400

>> No.11349461

>>11348247
No. It'd take a long time to explain though.

>> No.11349600

>>11349219
rekt
>>11349211
based

>> No.11349616

>>11348273
>energetic vacuity

>> No.11349620

>>11348273
>the pre-ontological, nonduality, negativity, what is prior to difference
you mean
>primordial-singularity

>> No.11349627

>>11348247
Yo, religious and scientific minds I have the answers:

f we have free agency then we are our own creators. Because we make the world we live in. Therefore the creator is not all powerful. Also the criteria for this has to be that the creator did not give us free agency because if such a creator both created us and the world we are in, he will have created one thing only with one destination. If a conciousness (entity aware of itself) is placed in a created determined world where everything was placed in a specific way at a specific time ( all matter, energy, etc.)The state of the conciousness will be predetermined indefinatly as it is a reactive entity by definition. Therefore the conciousness does not have free agency. Only the illusion of freedom as it is only traveling on one path, with no possibility. So I have established that a creator or "god" cannot claim for humans to have both free will and to be the creator of the universe. If a creator created all the universe, our will is simply a reaction to his creation. Therefore our will is wholly his design.

The only possible universe in which we have free will is if the universe that has TRULY random elements in it that are not controlled or influenced by any higher power. But the existence of a true randomness in our universe still appears to me up for debate. Quantum physics is math, it is not an explanation of the observable universe. So the randomness there does not count, we only use the random indeterminateness of quanta as a predictor of reality because we don't actually understand the true mechanism.

If we are to truly have agency we must be separate beings, and we must know ourselves. To know oneself one must stand beside what one is not. One must discern between everything that is external and internal. And in order to draw this line you must know every single thing in the universe within the relms of external and internal. If you know everything, then you are all powerful- a God. However, I have already shown that in order to have true agency the universe must contain an element of randomness, because otherwise everything is determined and your actions are not your own intention, but the intention of the universe through you. Therefor, G-d could only either have one of the two things: a free will, or complete knowledge. Not both. If any one being could potentially achieve complete knowledge it AND NO OTHER BEING IT HAD KNOWLEDGE OF(SO NOTHING ELSE) could have free will or complete agency.

>> No.11349638

>>11349627
Part II

So thus I have irrefutably with perfect logical reasoning proved that the world we live in is one of two possibilities (with regards to linear universe theory, the one that believes matter can be both created and destroyed; all the abrahamic religious belief systems found there theology on this theory). The first possibility as I have described: free will does not exist, there are zero truly random unknowable quanta in the universe and there is the potential for an all knowing being or Laplace's daemon, or G-d. Or, the second possibility: We do have free will, there are random unknowable elements in the universe and the potential for complete knowledge does not exist.

Both are not ideal situations for the human psyche. In the first scenario, we have absolutely no power, but we also have no responsibility! In the secound scenario, we have absolute power, in fact we are the most powerful beings in the universe, however we also have equally limitless responsibility, and we have to decide what to do and our decisions are grave and dire. Additionally it is physically impossible to calculate the perfect thing to do due to the random element existing that gives us free agency and makes all-knowing entities impossible. In the first we are safe, but powerless. It the second we are powerful, but lost.

Now I want to find out which one is true. Both of these scenarios assume a universe where matter, space, and energy have a linear sequence and are not cyclical. And this disproves any possible abrahamic G-d.

>> No.11349662

Void is a vacuum so it can't consist of either positive or negative charge and god is dog backwards and no canine, anus first or not, can survive in the void.

Check my mate, atheists.

>> No.11349813

>>11348273
>positively charged
You mean fecund.

>> No.11349824
File: 29 KB, 568x686, 1529394533907.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11349824

>>11349211
This is my faith.

>> No.11350394

Like, god its just our own positive thinking personalized in our minds?

The void for me is the physical plane, the concepts and ideas are the meanings are interpretations of our senses that "impregnate" this ṕhysical stuff with duality, God must be the personification of a concept that lives in the mental plane, he is positively charged with our expectations of order and ideas of what is probably our ideal selves like our concepts of a good father.

>> No.11350420

>>11348247
>>11349221

answer his question

>> No.11350432
File: 373 KB, 534x629, wojakx.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11350432

>>11350420
not OP but I'm pretty sure it's the guy from last week or whenever, the guy who wouldn't let his thread die. posted lots of trippy third-eye having cartoon cats and shit. theologically illiterate dumb /x/poster.

>> No.11350453
File: 232 KB, 699x761, 1493541345927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11350453

>>11349627
>we have free agency then we are our own creators
>Therefore the creator is not all powerful
>the criteria for this has to be that the creator did not give us free agency

>> No.11350458

>>11350432
Doesn't he come here every other week to do it?

>> No.11350464

>>11348273
That’s not what positively charged means lmao

>> No.11350544

>>11348273
I meant rigourously. You can warp those definitions to fit anything, so yes, God is a positively charged void -- and isn't. That's why proper elaboration on what exactly your dong and asking is important, most of the time you realise you don't understand your own ideas/questions because they have no foundation or development. The void definition isn't so bad (though it's not rigourous and very broad as to fit anything you desire), but the other two don't mean anything in any legitimate sense.

>> No.11351498

>>11350544
Don't mistake lack of familiarity on your part with lack of incomprehension on mine.

>>11350432
See above.

>> No.11351501

>>11350464
It does in this context. People who can't think beyond their rigid language games are insufferable and impossible to talk to.

>> No.11351513

>>11350432
We had plenty of good discussion in that thread. Better than most threads in here. I bet you're one of those fiction-reading boors whose got hundreds of books on his shelves but nothing to actually show for it intellectually. People who use /x/ as an insult are spiritual tadpoles

>> No.11351517

>>11348247
Is void a negatively charged god?

>> No.11351524

>>11350544
No, the question is plain as day for whoever isn't a fucking robot reading a ticker tape: is God a personalization of this apophatic, yet inexplicably generative No-Thing?

>> No.11351538

>>11349616
>what is quantum foam

>>11349620
No, primordial-singularity would be Kether in this scheme, even the Kabbalistsistinguish between God-in-manifestation and the unknowable Ain.

>> No.11351540

>>11348273
Now define every word in those definitions as well as what you mean by the colons. I'm smart I swear.

>> No.11351544

>>11351517
You're memeing but yes, the void as pure negation necessitates the emergence of being

>> No.11351548

>>11351540
Nah.

>> No.11351720
File: 48 KB, 591x605, 1529147535469.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11351720

>these many big words

>> No.11351779

>>11349244
>In the infinite “Nothingness” which preceded the manifest universe, there must have existed in potentiality *some causal entity or form that is by nature unknowable, and perhaps not readily distinguishable from Eternity.
Would you mind backing up this claim?

>> No.11351797

>>11351779
Existence implies a potentiality for existence. Nothing within being can account for being as such. No object can account for the existence of all objects, hence this principle must be beyond anything we can predicate of objects

>> No.11351806
File: 247 KB, 567x652, blackpill.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11351806

>>11351513
you've found me out anon, I'm a moron. keep going with this thread though. you'll figure it out eventually. :^)

>> No.11351825

>>11348247
"ALONE STANDS GOD, SOVEREIGN AND BEYOND THE TOTALITY OF EXISTENCE"

the best we can say is that god is nothingness, meaning god is beyond existence, meaning god does not exist, even though existence is a consequence of God.

TRULY God is great! For creating it all without even existing!

>> No.11351838

>>11351825
God loved you even you were nothing

>> No.11351841

>>11349221
Kek

>> No.11351847

>the thread's still here
what the fuck I thought jannies were doing their jobs

>> No.11351848

>>11351838
We dwell in the aura of his majesty.

>> No.11351864

>>11351825
this guy gets it