Gramsci wrote:Man, you're sub-standard Walter. Christ, Walter come back!!!

Russ, check his IP address and tell us who it is.

Andre, you are aware that Russ can look at your IP address and check against other accounts on EA and out you in a second.

Please keep posting, I'm keen to see who you are.

I LIVE WITH TEN OTHER PEOPLE! SOME OF WHOM ARE GIANTS BUT SOME ARE NOT. ALL POST ON ELECTRICAL ALREADY :(

WANNA HEAR A RAP?

simmo wrote:

matthew wrote:God is pure "to be" or "esse" or "einai", galanter. I hate to remind you of that which I'm pretty sure (judging by what you have written thusfar in these forums) you already know. In this statement of yours that I have quoted, you are essentially saying that God IS in fact limited in that He has not actualized an "ability" He qua God has, namely "making it so that we can know [H]im.". I say this much: God is pure "to be" or "that which is"...therefore He cannot have ANY abilities. If He had "abilities", or to use the old Aristotelian/Thomistic terminology "potentialities", then He would not be God.

Look..........God just IS- He's "Pure Act" and therefore any imaginations you might have about this very subtley anthropomorphic Deity which you have, again, imagined which lead to the conclusion "God's existence is unprovable" are erroneous. Any limitation we might try to paste upon God is merely a projection of our own sensory and intellectual limitations.....and sometimes pride. After all, God is "to be" and we merely "are".

God does indeed exist.

Matthew. Like many others here (I imagine), I have studied philosophy and theology. Though I consider myself in no way an expert on these vastly complex matters, I feel that I know enough to be able to fight my way through your grandiloquent jargon to recognize that what you are saying is pretty much incoherent. Don't be fooled by this man's usage of obscure terminology, people. It is nowt but intellectual sophistry.

Matthew, quit with the showings-off and concentrate on making your writing vaguely comprehensible. Take your cue from this Galanter fellow for example. He wrties intelligently and insightfully, without wanking over his dictionary of philosophical terms. He's running rings around you, old boy.

matthew wrote:I say this much: God is pure "to be" or "that which is"...therefore He cannot have ANY abilities. If He had "abilities", or to use the old Aristotelian/Thomistic terminology "potentialities", then He would not be God.

This is goddamned clown shoes philosophy, son. What does it even mean?

matthew wrote:

simmo wrote:

matthew wrote:God is pure "to be" or "esse" or "einai", galanter. I hate to remind you of that which I'm pretty sure (judging by what you have written thusfar in these forums) you already know. In this statement of yours that I have quoted, you are essentially saying that God IS in fact limited in that He has not actualized an "ability" He qua God has, namely "making it so that we can know [H]im.". I say this much: God is pure "to be" or "that which is"...therefore He cannot have ANY abilities. If He had "abilities", or to use the old Aristotelian/Thomistic terminology "potentialities", then He would not be God.

Look..........God just IS- He's "Pure Act" and therefore any imaginations you might have about this very subtley anthropomorphic Deity which you have, again, imagined which lead to the conclusion "God's existence is unprovable" are erroneous. Any limitation we might try to paste upon God is merely a projection of our own sensory and intellectual limitations.....and sometimes pride. After all, God is "to be" and we merely "are".

God does indeed exist.

Matthew. Like many others here (I imagine), I have studied philosophy and theology. Though I consider myself in no way an expert on these vastly complex matters, I feel that I know enough to be able to fight my way through your grandiloquent jargon to recognize that what you are saying is pretty much incoherent. Don't be fooled by this man's usage of obscure terminology, people. It is nowt but intellectual sophistry.

Matthew, quit with the showings-off and concentrate on making your writing vaguely comprehensible. Take your cue from this Galanter fellow for example. He wrties intelligently and insightfully, without wanking over his dictionary of philosophical terms. He's running rings around you, old boy.

matthew wrote:I say this much: God is pure "to be" or "that which is"...therefore He cannot have ANY abilities. If He had "abilities", or to use the old Aristotelian/Thomistic terminology "potentialities", then He would not be God.

This is goddamned clown shoes philosophy, son. What does it even mean?

Gramsci wrote:Simmo.

The problem with Matty is simple, he's living in a dream world.

Catholicism has this neat philosophical trick where they start with the premise that God does exist and then they proceed to perform vast tombs of philosophical gymnastics to prove their pre-decided conclusion.

Cutting through all of this bullshit is very simple, all you have to know is that the philosophy only gets okayed if the Vatican say so.

So you have a ludicrous situation where Catholic philosophers start with the answer, proceed to prove it with philosophical and semantic backflipping and then it is only given the ok if the church agrees with it.

Sweet Jesus!

matthew wrote:Well? Does God have any potentialities or as Galanter put it, "abilities"? Galanter seems to think that He does from what He has said, but this cannot be because God is Pure Act. So there's a contradiction in what He said and I was pointing it out. I hope that this is clear enough.

I was criticizing Mr. Galanter's "soft boiled" agnosticism. Let him respond.

matthew wrote: If anything were sophistry, this is, sir.

matthew wrote:(...)God IS in fact limited in that He has not actualized an "ability" He qua God has, namely "making it so that we can know [H]im.". I say this much:(...)

steve wrote:Most Tortured English Construction Ever! Totally PWN!-ing the language. ...He qua God...(!) Priceless!

samuel beckett wrote:Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattman of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast hell to heaven so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing . . .