Why does this trigger anti-materialists?

If anything exists at all, it is physics of a kind. Metaphysics is still physics.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    *blocks your path*

    ?si=W7lbr2TjDlGFedos

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mathematics is just applied Geometry

    At the end and the beginning of everything is the fractal dream
    >Holographic universe
    >Simulation theory
    >Sacred Geometry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Geometry is just applied music

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      More like mathematics is really logic, and geometry was the first math.

      Geometry is just applied music

      Ridiculous notion

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >He doesn't know about the divine song. Lmao.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shit exists, just because something is esoteric doesn't mean it's real or true. You are gay.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Literally anything humans do is applied psychology moron. Humans think.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Physics is what we call the impersonal, apathetic control of God.
    The spiritual realm is not controlled by rules, but by the whim and love of God.
    There are no rules, no laws, no prediction that compels God's actions and desires. Any consistency is due to God's whim that it be so.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The spiritual realm is not controlled by rules, but by the whim and love of God.
      “The rule is: There are no rules, only Me.”

      That sure sounds like a rule. Sorry, there is order even to chaos, allowing said chaotic order to even occur.

      Even God would have his own internal logic to Him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >“The rule is: There are no rules, only Me.”
        But that ISNT the rule.
        God often puts Himself under the control and dictates of His associates in the spiritual realm.
        > there is order even to chaos
        We're not talking about CHAOS. Whim is not chaos, nor is it law. Your false dichotomy both rely on an underlying assumption of lack of sentience.
        Sentience is at the top, it is not under order or chaos.
        >Even God would have his own internal logic to Him.
        Yes, but you are misunderstanding that phrase. You mean there is some system God uses that can be externally described, and that is not true.
        God's "logic" is what God wants at that moment.
        There is no predicting it, there is no compelling it, there is no contradicting or breaking it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >derp

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If there wasn’t something allowing God to do whatever he wanted, then he wouldn’t be able to do anything at all. Logic makes logic.

          It would trigger materialists if they ever understood math, and they never will.

          Even a nothing is a one. Cope.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even a nothing is a one
            Now this is schizo gibberish, coming from a materialist I presume is a laugh.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Math/geometry is the shape existence takes. You can’t separate it from existence at all. Tough shit, bucks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong they are approximate human descriptions, there was no math before humans.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >quantity/quantification was invented by humans
            lol
            lmao even
            If something exists, it can be quantified

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            by who

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You know you’re dealing with a fedora right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            *hypothetically quantified 😉

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The shape that existence takes
            Your claims sound schizophrenic. Existence has a shape? Does a feeling have a shape? Your choice of words makes you sound like one of those trendy Marxists who still tries to cling to Hegel.
            >shape of existence Hegel
            >nothing is a one/something Bakunin
            >materialism Marx
            What is existence apart from experience?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Your claims sound schizophrenic. Existence has a shape?

            If something exists, anything at all, there will be hypothetical quantification to it. I don’t care if it’s an absolute nothing, since that’s still a one. Even a zero is a one.

            This isn’t schizophrenia, it’s just common sense.

            >feelings
            What goes on in the brain is surely a sort of chemical “shape”.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You didn’t respond to the question, and invoked common sense to explain something that isn’t common sense.
            What you said is a non sequitur. There could still be something that isn’t material even if it has a quantification. What would that have to do with refuting non-materialist positions anyway?
            >what you said about feelings
            That is not what people mean when the question do feelings have shapes? This is the same word play that materialists use to elide the meaning of language too.

            I get the feeling you don’t really want to talk to people here and only prove how true materialism is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >something that isn’t common sense
            lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Explain how a zero is a one is common sense?
            You lol but you’re not really a person who is easy to amuse, and I wager you’re forcing yourself to laugh because you’re too damn jaded from your attempts to prove moral superiority to /x/ to laugh naturally.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A nothing is nonetheless still a something.

            I pity your brain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have very concretized thinking. You seem to think abstractions have quantities. That’s a symptom of schizophrenia.
            I pity your impetulant schizophrenic brain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I get the feeling you don’t really want to talk to people here and only prove how true materialism is.
            You say materialism, I say there-ism. Something has to be first be there, to be there. Something has to exist, to exist.

            Even space is a non-“fabric” that we are “embedded” in. Things can definitely exist from a lack—such as cold, or dark, or holes, which are just absences of heat, light and mass, respectively.

            Yeah, God definitely has something to Him. If there isn’t, you’re just claiming He’s the very tip of everything-physics, which is still physics. Metaphysics is still physics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If there wasn’t something allowing God
            If there is something "allowing Godc", then that being isnt God - whatever is "allowing" is God. And nothing is above whatever gives that allowance - which works entirely on their whim.

            >But that ISNT the rule.
            Assuming God as a personal entity, there can be no action made by God that contradicts his own rules because they are defined after him.
            If God can be deceived he's useless

            >there can be no action made by God that contradicts his own rules
            Of course there can. God is not bound by His own rules when God does not want to be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are incapable of thinking ahead.
            You lose.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are welcome to come back when you thought of a response.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He’s saying you can’t think ahead by way of you not acknowledging that there is always a background to the foreground.

            Even God will have a Godly background to Him. God as he functions would -have- to be vastly higher dimensional.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He’s saying you can’t think ahead by way of you not acknowledging that there is always a background to the foreground.
            If that is the argument then it is stupid on its face.
            The very concept of God is the endpoint. The cause without cause. There is no background to god.
            That is why God is God.
            Everything ELSE has God as background.
            >Even God will have a Godly background to Him.
            then allow me to be the one to break you of this misconception.
            There is no rule to the whims of God. No background.
            God is the highest dimension, there is no higher principle God follows. There is no more subtle dictate to God's activity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re basically just arguing for a cap on physics, with God as that cap.

            Why are you so limited in thinking?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >arguing for a cap on physics
            We have a demonstrable cap on physics: the material universe.
            Mysticism goes MUCH further than physics.
            And spirituality has infinite heights.
            And those infinite heights are pioneered by god's whim.
            It is the ones demanding that God's actions and abilities are controlled and compelled by some force more powerful than God that are applying limitation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have very concretized thinking. You seem to think abstractions have quantities. That’s a symptom of schizophrenia.
            I pity your impetulant schizophrenic brain.

            lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ??
            Do you think those were by the same person?
            I have no involvement in your abstraction and quantity talk.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Every time you type those words in your browser based Nigerian forum, a slight amount of dopamine is released and appealing to all the dopamine in the world by itself will never be able to prove to you that you’re not the schizophrenic one for not taking experience seriously.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mysticism goes MUCH further than physics
            Mysticism is literally just information inaccessible to the scientific method. It is quite personal. Reflective, even. That said, even mystics assume that something is *there*, and what is mystical and profound may not be so mystical and profound to an alien. God isn't godly or mystical to Himself.

            Isaac Newton was a mystic. He equated God to nature itself, and understanding nature would bring him closer to Him. Newton just did without the spirits and the theurgical rituals. He did not believe in any of that. He -did- believe in the divine sacredness of geometry, like Solomon's temple, or the existence of the philosopher's stone.

            — "In many ways, the mathematical quest to understand infinity parallels mystical attempts to understand God. Both religion and mathematics attempt to express relationships between humans, the universe, and infinity. Both have arcane symbols and rituals, and impenetrable language."

            God to the Christian is simply He, God, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. A Name.

            God to the physicist is simply a sufficiently advanced, "godlike", higher dimensional being.

            To the Christian physicist? It is both. Physicists legitimately believe they can prove the existence of God using mathematics. See persons like Chris Langan.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mysticism is literally just information inaccessible to the scientific method.
            Disagree. Mysticism is the subtle workings of the material realm. They seem personal because they are more impacted by will and ego.
            >God isn't godly or mystical to Himself.
            Not what I said, but certainly God CAN be, if God wants to.
            >He equated God to nature itself
            No, he equated the study of the laws of nature to the study of the works of God and through that believed one could gain understanding. Newton was not pantheist.
            >This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.
            >Principia, Book III

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Disagree
            Mysticism is:
            — ‘The spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, which may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.’

            Drugs, self-delusion and (attempting to) uniting with higher consciousnesses is a part of that. Mystery is even in the name. Shamanism, is mysticism. Theurgy, or high ceremonial magic(k), is mysticism.

            What you said: “subtle workings of the material realm” also applies. Mystery is subtle.

            >No
            Yes.
            — “Space is the sensorium of God”

            He defines space as the absolute and infinite divine extension. That is how he considers it an attribute of God. So space itself is something spiritual, but material bodies are located within this spiritual extension. This is also what Newton means by "the sensorium of God". It is God’s vision—literally. “Made in His image”

            Isaac Newton was a downright mystic in-approach. His appetite for learning far transcended what we would nowadays call science. He devoted a larger amount of time to studies in alchemy and theology, dealing with arcane questions which ranged from the transmutation of elements to biblical chronology and the nature of the Christian Trinity, which he (heretically) rejected. He was -the- contrarian of his day, and even as Hermetically-obsessed as he was, he held contempt for other Hermeticists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >existence is god’s thoughts
            >we’re all in his mind
            Literally Azathoth what the hell

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He’s calling God the Infinite, so this would mean God is also the Universe, and More. This is a basic belief of Christians as well. “God is everywhere”. “He always existed” can be taken to mean He is Existence. Existence is Him / within Him. He is All-Encompassing. All-Absorbing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is what i mean when i tell christians that atheists are just dropping theology but they're still exploring the same shit just with a different set of semantics through a different paradigm. There is absolutely no way of getting it through their heads.

            >If that were true, it would be subject to rigid and repeatable scientific vigor.
            Nonsense. It is easily accessible to the intellect. It is NOT as rigid as the more gross sciences oif physics. It deals with mind, with ego and awareness, and as such it cannot be so coldly objective.
            Perhaps if you applied some intellect you could understand this.
            >To Newton, nature is God’s senses.
            >This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all - Newton
            I'll take his word on what he thinks over yours.
            [...]
            You do so because you have a very vague meaning for the word when you say mystical.
            I dont.
            Mystical is a category of knowledge, just as physics is.
            The physicist should say "what a wonderful new aspect of physics I have come upon", and the mystic can say the same on the mystical discoveries they make.
            [...]
            >For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation. - Newton
            A universe that requires constant intervention is not "God is also this universe." Newton very much saw a categorical distinction between Creator and Creation.
            >Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion. - Leibniz, criticizing Newton's arguments

            >A universe that requires constant intervention is not "God is also this universe."
            There is no constant intervention from a personified "God", unless you consider cause and effect to be God. Everything functions through interconnectedness and God is just a coping mechanism for what we don't understand, there's a reason it's ineffable. People basically worship the dynamics and since there's no way for them to understand them completely they need to project themselves behind them, controlling them "in mysterious ways" for it to even remotely make sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >even mystics assume that something is *there*
            a mistake many but not all make. the more subtle and paradoxical levels are harder to access

            >Mysticism is literally just information inaccessible to the scientific method.
            Disagree. Mysticism is the subtle workings of the material realm. They seem personal because they are more impacted by will and ego.
            >God isn't godly or mystical to Himself.
            Not what I said, but certainly God CAN be, if God wants to.
            >He equated God to nature itself
            No, he equated the study of the laws of nature to the study of the works of God and through that believed one could gain understanding. Newton was not pantheist.
            >This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.
            >Principia, Book III

            ideally mysticism is science uncorrupted by the scientific method

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Disagree. Science and mysticism are the same, just dealing with more or less subtle aspects of reality.

            >Disagree
            Mysticism is:
            — ‘The spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, which may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.’

            Drugs, self-delusion and (attempting to) uniting with higher consciousnesses is a part of that. Mystery is even in the name. Shamanism, is mysticism. Theurgy, or high ceremonial magic(k), is mysticism.

            What you said: “subtle workings of the material realm” also applies. Mystery is subtle.

            >No
            Yes.
            — “Space is the sensorium of God”

            He defines space as the absolute and infinite divine extension. That is how he considers it an attribute of God. So space itself is something spiritual, but material bodies are located within this spiritual extension. This is also what Newton means by "the sensorium of God". It is God’s vision—literally. “Made in His image”

            Isaac Newton was a downright mystic in-approach. His appetite for learning far transcended what we would nowadays call science. He devoted a larger amount of time to studies in alchemy and theology, dealing with arcane questions which ranged from the transmutation of elements to biblical chronology and the nature of the Christian Trinity, which he (heretically) rejected. He was -the- contrarian of his day, and even as Hermetically-obsessed as he was, he held contempt for other Hermeticists.

            >The spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect
            Bullshit. Mysticism is easily accessible to intellect. That is HOW you learn mysticism, through study and experience.
            That it deals with subtle aspects of reality doesnt mean it isnt intellectually accessible.
            What a stupid definition.
            >Isaac Newton was a downright mystic in-approach
            I quoted where he very explicitly does not accept God as soul of nature, as you claimed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mysticism is easily accessible to intellect
            If that were true, it would be subject to rigid and repeatable scientific vigor. Mysticism is not easy. It is personal. Spiritual. Philosophical. Not every mind will find what they seek. If that were the case, we’d all be enlightened.

            >I quoted where he very explicitly does not accept God as soul of nature, as you claimed.
            To Newton, nature is God’s senses. Cope more, I guess. You don’t have to agree with him, but you definitely should acknowledge that he (Newton) treated nature (and geometry) as divine intrusions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If that were true, it would be subject to rigid and repeatable scientific vigor.
            Nonsense. It is easily accessible to the intellect. It is NOT as rigid as the more gross sciences oif physics. It deals with mind, with ego and awareness, and as such it cannot be so coldly objective.
            Perhaps if you applied some intellect you could understand this.
            >To Newton, nature is God’s senses.
            >This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all - Newton
            I'll take his word on what he thinks over yours.

            https://i.imgur.com/YdcacVO.jpg

            >Science and mysticism are the same
            I would argue science and magic/mysticism are two sides of the same coin—the same way space and time are, or heat and cold, dark and light, holes and mass, etc.

            There’s information you have, and information you don’t have. But it’s all still information. What is magical/mystical is a matter of nuance.

            What does the physicist say when they confront something new and/or bewildering?
            — “Hmm. That’s weird. I wonder how that works…”
            Sound familiar? Existence is a magician. Existence is mystical. There will always be a frontier beyond.

            An alien has full blown wizard/mystic rights, by way of transcendent understanding. Even if they don’t consider themselves a wizard/mystic, it cannot be helped.

            It’s all an angle.

            You do so because you have a very vague meaning for the word when you say mystical.
            I dont.
            Mystical is a category of knowledge, just as physics is.
            The physicist should say "what a wonderful new aspect of physics I have come upon", and the mystic can say the same on the mystical discoveries they make.

            He’s calling God the Infinite, so this would mean God is also the Universe, and More. This is a basic belief of Christians as well. “God is everywhere”. “He always existed” can be taken to mean He is Existence. Existence is Him / within Him. He is All-Encompassing. All-Absorbing.

            >For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation. - Newton
            A universe that requires constant intervention is not "God is also this universe." Newton very much saw a categorical distinction between Creator and Creation.
            >Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion. - Leibniz, criticizing Newton's arguments

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Universe is smaller than God’s “soul”. It’s a figment of God. Made -by- God. Newton is saying God is bigger than the Universe, it being a part of Him. The “Sensorium”. The universe exists by way of God looking at it. Doubtless other universes are the same sort of emanations of Him. That’s it. This isn’t hard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are advocating panentheism. Newton did not accept panentheism, and saw a distinct separation between Creator and Creation - as the quotes I provided show.

            > It is easily accessible to the intellect
            I think you’re conflating intellect=mind with intellect=capacity. Higher understanding is not easy to come across.

            Most of the world isn’t enlightened. Mysticism is taken to be hogwash, you realize. What does this say about ease?

            In that sense, it is hard. It is not easy.

            >Most of the world isn’t enlightened. Mysticism is taken to be hogwash,
            Mysticism is still very much a material science and has nothing to do with enlightenment or the soul.
            I have confused nothing. That mysticism is not a objective as physics does not mean it is not accessible to the intellect - no matter which of those definitions you backpedal to.

            This is what i mean when i tell christians that atheists are just dropping theology but they're still exploring the same shit just with a different set of semantics through a different paradigm. There is absolutely no way of getting it through their heads.

            [...]
            >A universe that requires constant intervention is not "God is also this universe."
            There is no constant intervention from a personified "God", unless you consider cause and effect to be God. Everything functions through interconnectedness and God is just a coping mechanism for what we don't understand, there's a reason it's ineffable. People basically worship the dynamics and since there's no way for them to understand them completely they need to project themselves behind them, controlling them "in mysterious ways" for it to even remotely make sense.

            >There is no constant intervention from a personified "God"
            There was according to Newton.

            [...]

            >There was nothing unusual in assuming that God, acting as the First Cause, operated in nature by means of secondary causes
            This shows the distinct separation Newton believed to be there between Creator and Creation.
            You prove my point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There was according to Newton.
            Because there’s constant function to the universe, dipshit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because
            Glad you agree that Newton saw a universe with constant intervention from a Personal God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You prove my point.
            Are you having a case of cognitive dissonance? God is still the Universe indirectly, by way of secondary causes being caused by Him—the First Cause. What the frick is your problem? God is playing hyper-sophisticated chess-physics according to Newton. If God acted directly, it may even “break” things, as the Bible alludes to. Meeting God is tantamount to death itself. It cannot be done in three dimensions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God is still the Universe indirectly, by way of secondary causes being caused by Him
            No, the universe is God's creation, and God's will is not seen directly, but only through secondary causes like gravity.
            > God is playing hyper-sophisticated chess-physics according to Newton.
            Sure. And in this metaphor, you are claiming God IS the chess set, and that is stupid.

            >Mysticism is still very much a material science
            lol
            About as close to a science as psychology is; conversing with invisible intelligences, etc.

            sort of, psychology is a bad attempt at those who only think the less subtle physics are valid, and so try to explain the more subtle using physics.

            >and saw a distinct separation between Creator and Creation
            Is God’s Eye not God? I guess not. But you’re still moronic.

            Are you your car? Either way - you are arguing with Newton.

            “When I was told that Newton says something extraordinary about God in the Latin edition of his Opticks, which until then I had not seen, I examined it and laughed at the idea that space is the sensorium of God, as if God, from whom everything comes, should have need of a sensorium.”
            - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to Jakob Bernoulli, 29 March 1715.

            Newton BTFO

            Basically "Why the FRICK would God need a universe to experience itself?"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Either way - you are arguing with Newton.
            Newton argues everything is an emanation of God, and gravity is God’s intervention/emanation, what does that tell you? Either Newton is contradicting himself, or existence is fundamentally reliant on God.
            >"Why the FRICK would God need a universe to experience itself?"
            This is like saying he never should have made anything at all, if he already knows how it will all turn out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newton argues everything is an emanation of God, and gravity is God’s intervention/emanation, what does that tell you? Either Newton is contradicting himself, or existence is fundamentally reliant on God.
            Newton is not contradicting himself. Existence is fundamentally reliant on God. Everything is a creation of god. God is separate from God's creation.
            >This is like saying he never should have made anything at all, if he already knows how it will all turn out.
            No it isnt, because you once again are making the error of assuming these people think God and God's creation are inseparable.
            That is not their framework.
            God creating this universe and having some plan for it has nothing to do with God not needing the universe for sensation or self-understanding.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >because you once again are making the error of assuming these people think God and God's creation are inseparable.
            >That is not their framework.
            It was already an argument, in the day, whether God could be separate from something, anything at all.

            The above letter/writing (Leibniz) is making fun of Newton for assuming there’s more nuance to it than simply “He is everywhere”, which is fair on either end. Omnipotence/omnipresence is self-defeating. So is omniscience.

            You then have Newton calling gravity, something demonstrably in-universe, God’s presence. Where do you draw the God-line, exactly? Is God in or out of the universe? Is the universe an inward or outward projection? Is such a notion even possible/plausible in higher dimensions?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newton for assuming there’s more nuance to it than simply “He is everywhere”
            Not a single quote of Newton's shows this thinking.
            Again:
            >This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all
            This is not a description of an immanent God, but a transcendent one.
            Leibniz is not making fun of what isnt there. He is making fun of Newton's suggestion that God is incomplete without God's creation.
            >You then have Newton calling gravity, something demonstrably in-universe, God’s presence
            No you dont. Let's quote it again, since you are so dishonest in your repetition.
            >The discussion of God's sensorium indicated that gravity must be caused by God's will. Newton did not leave it there, however, but went on to show how God's will created active principles as secondary causes of gravity.
            Gravity caused by God's will is not in any way the same as saying gravity is the presence of God. Newton is describing a transcendent, Prime Mover. Not a pantheist conception of oneness with Creation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not a single quote of Newton's shows this thinking.
            You’re insane. Newton was a constant contrarian. You’re also, y’know, arguing in favour of said nuance, right now, by saying it’s more complex than simply “God is space”.
            >This is not a description of an immanent God, but a transcendent one.
            And from that transcendent space, God can intervene, or poke through, in the form of gravity, according to Newton’s writings, which appear to be him failing to account for it, as brought up here:

            [...]

            >Leibniz is not making fun of what isnt there. He is making fun of Newton's suggestion that God is incomplete without God's creation.
            You have horrible reading comprehension.
            >since you are so dishonest in your repetition.
            Are you projecting? Since this is precisely what you are doing. Right now.
            >Gravity caused by God's will is not in any way the same as saying gravity is the presence of God.
            God’s will is God’s presence.
            >Newton is describing a transcendent, Prime Mover
            A prime mover that causes other things to move. Correct, you dolt. Stuck in three-dimensions, there could be prime movers all around us and we’d never be able to tell, not for sure. We could be inside God’s testicles, using math logic. “Is the universe a living organism??”. Not sure what to tell you here, buddy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newton was a constant contrarian.
            Cool. Nothing presented shows anything other than an belief in a transcendent God.
            >God can intervene, or poke through
            Which is only a consideration if you consider God separate from His Creation. you again prove my point.
            >God’s will is God’s presence.
            And gravity is NOT God's will, but stems from it as secondary.
            Again - proving my point.

            Thank you for proving my point? The universe could be God’s fricking body, not the actual God. What IS the actual God? Is the sensorium God’s eyes or glasses? Answer me. I don’t care what Newton said. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind, but whether that mind is a literal brain/thought, or an intellectual property, is irrelevant to me. I don’t think Newton would like the word “artificial” being used to describe the universe either, although it certainly would be going by God’s own logic.

            >Do you think the molecules in your brain DONT get replaced
            The schematic of the self is always there, however damaged, not going into “how can I tell you are a conscious person like me?”, which is a completely topic bubble.

            Eventually you will be a completely different human (but it’s pointless since you’ve already technically drank the piss out of Genghis Khan, cool science fact).

            >The universe could be God’s fricking body, not the actual God.
            The only one saying the universe is actual God is the moron that doesnt understand Newton.
            Call it God's Creation, God's body, whatever.
            Newton is still claiming separation between it and God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothing presented shows anything other than a belief in a transcendent God.
            Cool. Never denied that. You keep repeating statements in a manner facing mine own disapproval. Stop.
            >Which is only a consideration if you consider God separate from His Creation
            Okay, but how intimate is his creation to himself? The human body creates its own biologic. There are worlds within the human body. I am mostly resonating with

            Thank you for proving my point? The universe could be God’s fricking body, not the actual God. What IS the actual God? Is the sensorium God’s eyes or glasses? Answer me. I don’t care what Newton said. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind, but whether that mind is a literal brain/thought, or an intellectual property, is irrelevant to me. I don’t think Newton would like the word “artificial” being used to describe the universe either, although it certainly would be going by God’s own logic.

            >Do you think the molecules in your brain DONT get replaced
            The schematic of the self is always there, however damaged, not going into “how can I tell you are a conscious person like me?”, which is a completely topic bubble.

            Eventually you will be a completely different human (but it’s pointless since you’ve already technically drank the piss out of Genghis Khan, cool science fact).

            >And gravity is NOT God's will, but stems from it as secondary.
            This sounds like splitting hairs. It was God’s will that gravity happens/happened at all. I don’t like this constrained way of thinking. It’s like saying my father didn’t impregnate mother, leading to my birth, his balls did. Totally not my father. Totally. It obviously was his genetic, biological information that lead up to me. The universe could similarly be made up of God, even just his information.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Never denied that.
            then you have been too stupid to realize you agree with me, as that has been my entire point. this was the post I first disagreed with:

            https://i.imgur.com/tFx00Tj.jpg

            >Mysticism goes MUCH further than physics
            Mysticism is literally just information inaccessible to the scientific method. It is quite personal. Reflective, even. That said, even mystics assume that something is *there*, and what is mystical and profound may not be so mystical and profound to an alien. God isn't godly or mystical to Himself.

            Isaac Newton was a mystic. He equated God to nature itself, and understanding nature would bring him closer to Him. Newton just did without the spirits and the theurgical rituals. He did not believe in any of that. He -did- believe in the divine sacredness of geometry, like Solomon's temple, or the existence of the philosopher's stone.

            — "In many ways, the mathematical quest to understand infinity parallels mystical attempts to understand God. Both religion and mathematics attempt to express relationships between humans, the universe, and infinity. Both have arcane symbols and rituals, and impenetrable language."

            God to the Christian is simply He, God, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. A Name.

            God to the physicist is simply a sufficiently advanced, "godlike", higher dimensional being.

            To the Christian physicist? It is both. Physicists legitimately believe they can prove the existence of God using mathematics. See persons like Chris Langan.

            >He equated God to nature itself
            And that is not true, as you just agreed with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He equated God to nature itself
            God created and upholds nature. Newton found nature too beautiful to just happen, and attributed it / everything to God.

            Is nature God’s body or is nature God’s will? Either is good enough for me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Is nature God’s body or is nature God’s will? Either is good enough for me.
            Not to Newton. He was quite explicit in putting forward a claim of a transcendent God.

            >And gravity is NOT God's will, but stems from it as secondary.
            how the frick can you say that? it's just gravity god didn't will it

            >how the frick can you say that? it's just gravity god didn't will it
            I did not say that. I am relaying to you what Newton thought and said.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not to Newton.
            To Newton, it was explicitly God’s will, or design, that lead us into Creation. God made it so. This is a core tenant of all Christian thought. To Newton, existence was too beautiful, too magnificent, for it not to have been made by a God.

            >He was quite explicit in putting forward a claim of a transcendent God.
            He absolutely did apply a transcendent intelligence to the nature of the universe. If that is what you mean, sure.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He absolutely did apply a transcendent intelligence to the nature of the universe.
            Which is why I said "Not to Newton" when anon claimed it didnt matter whether we're talking about a transcendent or immanent God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The point is God is ineffable so it can't be personified, the normative "sky daddy" interpretation is unsustainable and that's what a personified God is. Like i said people are just projecting their own nature onto the dynamics of cause and effect, is there intelligent design behind it? Most likely. Is that enough reason to pointlessly and detrimentally personify the ineffable? No.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He absolutely did apply a transcendent intelligence to the nature of the universe.
            Which is why I said "Not to Newton" when anon claimed it didnt matter whether we're talking about a transcendent or immanent God.

            It would be transcendent either way. Three dimensional spheres are infinite layers of flat, two-dimensional circles. God is too large to fit into lower dimensions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It would be transcendent if God was not transcendent?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is that not transcendent? Higher dimensions are by definition transcendent.

            As another put it: "Meeting God is tantamount to death itself. It cannot be done in three dimensions."

            God's existence transcends the human one.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How is that not transcendent?
            Those that assert God is the soul of the universe are explicitly denying transcendence, and instead asserting immanence, that God resides within nature.
            >God's existence transcends the human one.
            Newton agrees with you, and denies the idea that God is the soul of nature, rather God is a transcendent Lord who dictates and imposes will upon His Creation.

            The point is God is ineffable so it can't be personified, the normative "sky daddy" interpretation is unsustainable and that's what a personified God is. Like i said people are just projecting their own nature onto the dynamics of cause and effect, is there intelligent design behind it? Most likely. Is that enough reason to pointlessly and detrimentally personify the ineffable? No.

            >The point is God is ineffable so it can't be personified
            Newton heavily disagrees and numerous times refers to a Personal God.

            Whenever God "pokes" into the universe, it is likely an intrusion of some higher, "transcendent" reality, to account for where it is coming from. The logical conclusion would be higher dimensional spaces. A square is vastly more enormous than a straight line, and a cube is more enormous than a square.

            See the first comment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Those that assert God is the soul of the universe are explicitly denying transcendence, and instead asserting immanence, that God resides within nature.
            >that God resides within nature.
            You're not following. A sphere does not exist within a circle. A circle exists within a sphere.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your analogy is unneeded. You seem to not understand I said exactly the same thing.
            Do you know what transcendent and immanent mean?
            Do you understand that what you quoted is not MY argument, but simply what is claimed by SOMEONE ELSE that asserts an immanent God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you know what transcendent
            The sphere transcends the circle dimensionally. A sphere cannot exist in two dimensions, as it only appears as a circle / a sliver-of-a-sliver of a sphere.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Those that assert God is the soul of the universe are explicitly denying transcendence

            They aren't, because that would be denying the existence of hypothetical larger existences, which no one in this thread has done. It is entirely possible, even scientifically, that there are larger existences responsible for smaller ones.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They aren't
            They are, because a transcendent God is not within nature.
            > that would be denying the existence of hypothetical larger existences
            Yes. That is the argument from people who assert an immanent God. There is nothing higher than nature, nothing transcendent to it.
            >which no one in this thread has done.

            https://i.imgur.com/tFx00Tj.jpg

            >Mysticism goes MUCH further than physics
            Mysticism is literally just information inaccessible to the scientific method. It is quite personal. Reflective, even. That said, even mystics assume that something is *there*, and what is mystical and profound may not be so mystical and profound to an alien. God isn't godly or mystical to Himself.

            Isaac Newton was a mystic. He equated God to nature itself, and understanding nature would bring him closer to Him. Newton just did without the spirits and the theurgical rituals. He did not believe in any of that. He -did- believe in the divine sacredness of geometry, like Solomon's temple, or the existence of the philosopher's stone.

            — "In many ways, the mathematical quest to understand infinity parallels mystical attempts to understand God. Both religion and mathematics attempt to express relationships between humans, the universe, and infinity. Both have arcane symbols and rituals, and impenetrable language."

            God to the Christian is simply He, God, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. A Name.

            God to the physicist is simply a sufficiently advanced, "godlike", higher dimensional being.

            To the Christian physicist? It is both. Physicists legitimately believe they can prove the existence of God using mathematics. See persons like Chris Langan.

            >Isaac Newton was a mystic. He equated God to nature itself
            Right here. This is wrong both in what it asserts and its claim that Newton agrees with it.
            As I showed here:

            >Mysticism is literally just information inaccessible to the scientific method.
            Disagree. Mysticism is the subtle workings of the material realm. They seem personal because they are more impacted by will and ego.
            >God isn't godly or mystical to Himself.
            Not what I said, but certainly God CAN be, if God wants to.
            >He equated God to nature itself
            No, he equated the study of the laws of nature to the study of the works of God and through that believed one could gain understanding. Newton was not pantheist.
            >This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.
            >Principia, Book III

            >>This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

            >Do you know what transcendent
            The sphere transcends the circle dimensionally. A sphere cannot exist in two dimensions, as it only appears as a circle / a sliver-of-a-sliver of a sphere.

            You agree with me again.

            >Newton heavily disagrees and numerous times refers to a Personal God.
            Ok but why is Newton's religious exoteric neurosis so important to you? I mean i share partial views with some famous authors but i don't use them as a front to represent my paradigm.

            Even if you were to take the normative, exoteric view of the "sky daddy" it immediately falls apart as even the Bible deems God ineffable.

            >why is Newton's religious exoteric neurosis so important to you?
            It isnt. Anon I quoted brought it up. I pointed out they were wrong in what they claim was Newton's belief.
            And now here we are.
            Are we ready to go back to the actual topic?
            Or do I need to keep educating anons on the difference between transcendent and immanent, and which of these views Newton preferred?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They are, because a transcendent God is not within nature.
            That's declaring God incapable of going into his own creation somehow. The Bible shows this to be untrue time and time again. God has his own logic, and works with his own made logic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There is nothing higher than nature, nothing transcendent to it.
            You do realize that from the natural philosopher's perspective, if anything exists at all, it is n-a-t-u-r-a-l, right? You can't technically supersede the natural. The closest thing to the unnatural would be the artificial, but is an anthill or a bird's nest unnatural? There is much to argue that human infrastructure is completely natural, however sickening to the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I pointed out they were wrong in what they claim was Newton's belief.
            What belief is that? That Newton equated nature to God? He apparently does, if

            Isaac Newton seemed to believe that the universe couldn’t run on its own without a supreme cosmic intelligence, or “God”, to guide it. Much like a mentally disabled child that must have their hand held by an adult at all times when crossing the road.

            He absolutely could not conceive of an existence that just…runs…

            is anything to go by. Too dumb to run without le God brain. L m f a o

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That Newton equated nature to God? He apparently does
            His words very explicitly say the opposite.
            >This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So by default he is declaring God to be the mind of existence, because existence would be moronic without it. Like a human with an empty skull. L m f a o

            Thanks for agreeing with me, you stupid frick.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he is declaring God to be the mind of existence
            No, he is very clearly denying this conception - whether you want to say mind or soul - and asserting the opposite: the God is transcendent to nature, its Lord whom governs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, he is very clearly denying this conception

            Absolutely not.

            "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being."

            He very literally states that the course of all things are too good to be true. Again, literally. it could only be the result of some superior being.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all
            Is reading so heard to you that you give up halfway through?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would he be the soul? He doesn't have to be. The universe doesn't need one. It just needs an intelligence to guide it, because it can't run any other way. L m f a o

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            israelite semantics
            Newton explicitly denied a conception of an immanent God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >israelite semantics
            I accept your concession / antisemitism
            >Newton explicitly denied a conception of an immanent God.
            An "immanent" God wouldn't work, period

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's no concession. Switching "soul" to "mind" or "intelligence" does nothing.
            Newton explicitly denied an immanent God.
            >An "immanent" God wouldn't work, period
            Newton thought so, too, which is why anon that posted he did was an idiot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Switching "soul" to "mind" or "intelligence" does nothing.
            It actually does, if you consider the mind/consciousness to be the soul/spirit. But whatever, you do you.
            >which is why anon that posted he did was an idiot.
            No one in this thread implied that. If you're referring to

            https://i.imgur.com/tFx00Tj.jpg

            >Mysticism goes MUCH further than physics
            Mysticism is literally just information inaccessible to the scientific method. It is quite personal. Reflective, even. That said, even mystics assume that something is *there*, and what is mystical and profound may not be so mystical and profound to an alien. God isn't godly or mystical to Himself.

            Isaac Newton was a mystic. He equated God to nature itself, and understanding nature would bring him closer to Him. Newton just did without the spirits and the theurgical rituals. He did not believe in any of that. He -did- believe in the divine sacredness of geometry, like Solomon's temple, or the existence of the philosopher's stone.

            — "In many ways, the mathematical quest to understand infinity parallels mystical attempts to understand God. Both religion and mathematics attempt to express relationships between humans, the universe, and infinity. Both have arcane symbols and rituals, and impenetrable language."

            God to the Christian is simply He, God, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. A Name.

            God to the physicist is simply a sufficiently advanced, "godlike", higher dimensional being.

            To the Christian physicist? It is both. Physicists legitimately believe they can prove the existence of God using mathematics. See persons like Chris Langan.

            then I'm still not seeing it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if you consider the mind/consciousness to be the soul/spirit
            If you consider these the same, then the words aree interchangeable and it doesnt matter if you say "soul of the world" or "mind of the world".
            Which is my point.

            >I'm still not seeing it.
            At least you can admit your ignorance. It is right here:
            >He equated God to nature itself
            This is not true. I have quoted Newton directly saying this is not true.
            Newton did not accept an immanent God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Which is my point.
            If that was your point, this entire time, then you wouldn't be so anal about

            >That Newton equated nature to God? He apparently does
            His words very explicitly say the opposite.
            >This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

            He says God isn't the soul of the world, but its guiding intelligence, which can be taken as synonymous, interchangeable meanings, but whether God guides like the brain guides the body, or a man inside their machine, I don't fricking care.

            >He equated God to nature itself
            In the sense that God supposedly made nature? It's a pretty big fricking claim, to say nature could not exist *otherwise* without God's big fricking brain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >which can be taken as synonymous, interchangeable meanings
            They could, if he wasnt denying one and asserting the other in that passage. And he claims "guiding intelligence" as a lord, as a governor, not as an embedded thought process.
            >I don't fricking care.
            Newton did, and he made which he saw as more accurate clear.
            >In the sense that God supposedly made nature?
            No, I dont think anon meant that. They have had ample time to clarify in that way, and they havent.
            Anon meant that Newton believed God=Nature, and that is wrong.

            >At least you can admit your ignorance.
            You're a pedantic little frick.
            >It is right here:
            Still not seeing it. Nature is made in God's image.

            That is not what the passage says.
            None so blind as those willfully so.
            God made nature is not the same as God is nature.
            Newton did not accept that God is nature.
            Newton asserted that God made nature.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God made nature is not the same as God is nature.
            If you claim existence can't exist without God, it may as well be God.

            Sorry, it's just so fricking absurd. Christians will Christian.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you claim existence can't exist without God, it may as well be God.
            Nonsense. This post would not exist without me making it.
            I am not this post. I am separate from this creation of mine, and transcendent to it.
            > it's just so fricking absurd
            Maybe, but it's what Newton thought.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This post would not exist without me making it.
            You wouldn't be here had the Holocaust never happened. Hitler is your indirect father.

            Bad things are required for good things to happen. Causality is a b***h. Oh well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newton did
            He would probably have an issue with you calling the universe an artificial machine, personally. Although maybe not.

            Either end treated nature like a machine, however, while also not realizing it. Newton never took the religious view that the universe was like a clock set in motion by a distant clockmaker (God), which is also quite like a machine.

            The clockwork angle is much less alive than Newton's angle, which consists of God intelligently intervening. His contemporaries just assumed was planned from beginning to end, just like in the Bible.

            Do you not see the irony here? Newton's view is practically a living thing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He would probably have an issue with you calling the universe an artificial machine
            I dont think I did that, quote please?
            In either case, as to what Newton would think - he had a complicated relationship with what he called Mechanical Philosophy. He would agree that the universe is a machine, but warned against seeing it as "mere" machine, one that runs without the continual force of God. This essay gets into it well:
            https://philarchive.org/archive/KOCTMP

            >Newton did not accept that God is nature.
            Not literally so, no. He would however agree that God -is- nature's author. That's more transcendent than simply -being- nature, although God can certainly play by his own set laws, as in the case of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or any of his direct influences, like raining frogs or rivers of blood or pillars of flame, etc.

            I'm not sure why you're so anal about this.

            >Not literally so, no.
            Glad you agree.
            >I'm not sure why you're so anal about this.
            Considering you just agreed with everything I've been saying, I dont know why you've been so insistently contrarian.

            >Newton did not accept that God is nature.
            But he did argue that nature is too convenient for it to not be an intelligence of some kind.

            >nature is too convenient for it to not be an intelligence of some kind
            No, he said it was too elegant for it not to have been created by an intelligence.
            Again, transcendence, not immanence.
            As the other anon finally figured out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newton did not accept that God is nature.
            Not literally so, no. He would however agree that God -is- nature's author. That's more transcendent than simply -being- nature, although God can certainly play by his own set laws, as in the case of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or any of his direct influences, like raining frogs or rivers of blood or pillars of flame, etc.

            I'm not sure why you're so anal about this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's mad that one of the great scientists of the past was a legit God thumper who thought everything was divine.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newton did not accept that God is nature.
            But he did argue that nature is too convenient for it to not be an intelligence of some kind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >At least you can admit your ignorance.
            You're a pedantic little frick.
            >It is right here:
            Still not seeing it. Nature is made in God's image.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newton heavily disagrees and numerous times refers to a Personal God.
            Ok but why is Newton's religious exoteric neurosis so important to you? I mean i share partial views with some famous authors but i don't use them as a front to represent my paradigm.

            Even if you were to take the normative, exoteric view of the "sky daddy" it immediately falls apart as even the Bible deems God ineffable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even if God WERE the universe, literally so, he would still have to be vastly more transcendent than said universe, otherwise you're arguing the universe is the end all and be all to God, which is just fricking stupid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even if God WERE the universe, literally so, he would still have to be vastly more transcendent than said universe
            However high you assert God to be, the universe would be the same height since you have equated them, thus NOT a transcendent God.
            > otherwise you're arguing the universe is the end all and be all to God, which is just fricking stupid.
            Yes.
            Or did you miss it ONCE AGAIN.
            I swear I feel like the lawyer on Always Sunny.
            >I'm reading the words of OTHER PEOPLE. Okay?
            This is the argument of an immanent God.
            You disagree with that view. cool.
            So does Newton.

            >They are, because a transcendent God is not within nature.
            That's declaring God incapable of going into his own creation somehow. The Bible shows this to be untrue time and time again. God has his own logic, and works with his own made logic.

            >That's declaring God incapable of going into his own creation somehow.
            No it isnt, it's declaring that God is separate from God's creation. Nothing about a transcendent God means God is somehow banished from acting on that creation.

            >There is nothing higher than nature, nothing transcendent to it.
            You do realize that from the natural philosopher's perspective, if anything exists at all, it is n-a-t-u-r-a-l, right? You can't technically supersede the natural. The closest thing to the unnatural would be the artificial, but is an anthill or a bird's nest unnatural? There is much to argue that human infrastructure is completely natural, however sickening to the world.

            >You can't technically supersede the natural.
            Which is exactly what the but you quoted says.
            and that is what Newton disagrees with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks transcendence doesn't retain its bits and pieces

            Anon, spacetime transcends both space and time, but it's still space-and-time.

            If 0.000000000000000001% of God is the Universe As We Know It, the rest of God is STILL more transcendent to it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes very good, you have posted the definition of transcendent three times now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No it isnt, it's declaring that God is separate from God's creation
            I guess Jesus should just disappeared then, eh homosexual
            What about God as a burning bush? You think he didn't use fire for that??
            Fricking idiot

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not my car.
            I am seaparate from my car.
            I can get into my car, and push the pedals, and utilize the car.
            I govern the activity of the car.
            God governs the activity of His creation. He can do whatever He likes what that Creation.
            He is not Hid Creation, He is separate and transcendent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're just filling in the blanks of your own mistaken thinking at this point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am explaining to you how the conception of a transcendent God works.
            I never said ti was my conception.
            I never said you had to agree with it.
            It only shows a lack of intellectual ability on your part that you cant understand it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Whenever God "pokes" into the universe, it is likely an intrusion of some higher, "transcendent" reality, to account for where it is coming from. The logical conclusion would be higher dimensional spaces. A square is vastly more enormous than a straight line, and a cube is more enormous than a square.

          • 1 month ago
            no, buddy

            If that were true there would be an infinitely small hole on two sides of a sphere, but then that wouldn't be a sphere now would it? In order to be a closed shape a sphere must be made of more than circles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Figure of speech since there are no true two dimensional anythings. Even the thinnest, flattest thing will have depth...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there are no true two dimensional anythings.
            Shadows?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Shadows aren't anything. They're an absence of something.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Shadows exist so therefore they are a thing with shadow particles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >shadow particles
            Don't exist.

          • 1 month ago
            no, buddy

            If we find out that's what dark matter is I hope you remember this conversation.

          • 1 month ago
            no, buddy

            >Figure of speech since there are no true two dimensional anythings.
            If you're talking about actual two dimensional circles, a depth of 0 and not infinitely small, then adding them up will never produce any depth, let alone a sphere. As an example, stacking an infinite number of shadows on top of each other will never create depth.

            Shadows aren't anything. They're an absence of something.

            Exactly. A sphere as you describe it wouldn't be anything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >an ackchyually autist incapable of detecting expressions of speech enters the chat
            Yes I am aware of all of this. The point remains for the sake of the argument, that slicing a sphere gives you a bunch of circles, the amount dependent on how thin you slice.

            The same way Carl Sagan uses an apple passing through paper in this classic demonstration:
            > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

          • 1 month ago
            no, buddy

            I understood you and your intentions just fine, but in the realm of maths it's important to be explicit and accurate. For instance, are you aware that depending on whether you ascribe to ZF or ZFC a sphere may or may not be able to be split into an infinite number of circles? There is a lot of debate over this, and I have a feeling you've seen the paradox that started it (the Banach–Tarski paradox). So, even in the realm of pure theory, what you're talking about is just a guess. Applying it to physical reality doesn't make much sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but in the realm of maths it's important to be explicit and accurate
            To the average bloke on the side of the road, sex and gender both mean the same thing.

            And no, this isn't on-topic.

          • 1 month ago
            no, buddy

            I'm sorry debating the fundamental nature of reality isn't close enough to the topic at hand for you.

            That said, we define our reality with words, and words can be seen as sets of evolving relationships. The average bloke may not know this, but it still influences them every day in a lot more ways than political agenda.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Transmen aren't men just because they have men in the word.

          • 1 month ago
            no, buddy

            Of course, just as biological men aren't men just because they have men in the word. Notice how these two categories are being qualified with another category (trans, biological)? It's because words are defined in a high dimensional space, not a two dimensional one. Each qualifier is pointing to a different dimension through which we understand the concept of "men."

            In fact, because the sets of relationships are always evolving, there are an infinite number of dimensions through which we can understand and define the term (or any term). We simply choose to use the relationships that mean the most in our lives and in communication, which is why the meaning of a word changes from person to person, culture to culture, and time to time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This post caused approximately 8 trannies to hang themselves. Words kill, anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And gravity is NOT God's will, but stems from it as secondary.
            how the frick can you say that? it's just gravity god didn't will it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God to Christians is just another word for “the cause of all”, really.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Sensorium of Thought.

            > Not a pantheist conception of oneness with Creation.
            He wasn’t -that- sort of pantheist.

            — “Although Newton believed that the cosmos is contingent on God as a necessary being, and emphasized both God's immanence as well as his transcendence, he rejected the pantheistic world soul on the one hand and a hard occasionalism in which God is the source of all causation on the other.” - H. Kochiras (who really put it best)

            He was certainly the contradictory sort of contrarian.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >emphasized both God's immanence
            Never seen it, what does that person quote to show this? Nothing in this thread points that way at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you are claiming God IS the chess set, and that is stupid.
            A better analogy would be saying the human heart IS the human. Or just the brain. Your flesh isn’t truly you. That horrifically hideous wrinkly gray mass is. The human skeleton completely regenerates, or replaces, itself about every 10 years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A better analogy would be saying the human heart IS the human.
            Sure - and once again we see the human is separate from the heart because we can perform heart transplants with no significant pattern of personality removal or alteration.
            >That horrifically hideous wrinkly gray mass is.
            Do you think the molecules in your brain DONT get replaced?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you for proving my point? The universe could be God’s fricking body, not the actual God. What IS the actual God? Is the sensorium God’s eyes or glasses? Answer me. I don’t care what Newton said. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind, but whether that mind is a literal brain/thought, or an intellectual property, is irrelevant to me. I don’t think Newton would like the word “artificial” being used to describe the universe either, although it certainly would be going by God’s own logic.

            >Do you think the molecules in your brain DONT get replaced
            The schematic of the self is always there, however damaged, not going into “how can I tell you are a conscious person like me?”, which is a completely topic bubble.

            Eventually you will be a completely different human (but it’s pointless since you’ve already technically drank the piss out of Genghis Khan, cool science fact).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mysticism is still very much a material science
            lol
            About as close to a science as psychology is; conversing with invisible intelligences, etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and saw a distinct separation between Creator and Creation
            Is God’s Eye not God? I guess not. But you’re still moronic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God senses through space. Space is God’s eye.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And gravity is the hand of God, yes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > It is easily accessible to the intellect
            I think you’re conflating intellect=mind with intellect=capacity. Higher understanding is not easy to come across.

            Most of the world isn’t enlightened. Mysticism is taken to be hogwash, you realize. What does this say about ease?

            In that sense, it is hard. It is not easy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Science and mysticism are the same
            I would argue science and magic/mysticism are two sides of the same coin—the same way space and time are, or heat and cold, dark and light, holes and mass, etc.

            There’s information you have, and information you don’t have. But it’s all still information. What is magical/mystical is a matter of nuance.

            What does the physicist say when they confront something new and/or bewildering?
            — “Hmm. That’s weird. I wonder how that works…”
            Sound familiar? Existence is a magician. Existence is mystical. There will always be a frontier beyond.

            An alien has full blown wizard/mystic rights, by way of transcendent understanding. Even if they don’t consider themselves a wizard/mystic, it cannot be helped.

            It’s all an angle.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What were Angels and Demons called yesterday?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Disagree. Science and mysticism are the same
            that's what i said silly. the scientific method is made out of unstudied assumptions hence it's not scientific
            >Mysticism is easily accessible to intellect.
            intellect is a charged term, it assumes that certain taboos are respected

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >But that ISNT the rule.
          Assuming God as a personal entity, there can be no action made by God that contradicts his own rules because they are defined after him.
          If God can be deceived he's useless

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          God isn't real

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            2edgy4me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >"no-one will hurt you"
      >"no-one but me"
      >tears jet from his face and he aggressively sharts as he sends legion at you

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It would trigger materialists if they ever understood math, and they never will.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If these people in picture turned otherway a look towards the Pure/God, instead of Impure.

    They might realize the truth.

    Intelligence can help you to realize truth. But only faith will save you.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mathematics is a language, so therefore linguistics is more pure than mathematics.
    The message of language is narrative: stories of change over time, and the medium of symbolic reference.
    The "language of languages" is a metaphysics, which is a narrative of what the world is and one's place within it. Everyone does metaphysics, there are no non-metaphysical accounts just as there aren't any ways of speaking that don't have an accent.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Mathematics is a language, so therefore linguistics is more pure than mathematics
      There is no language purer than math.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no language purer than math.
        Source: your unsubstantiated disconnected proposition.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Any intelligent enough life in the universe will be able to communicate through shit like prime numbers you stupid homosexual

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is absurd. Mathematics is contingent on Semiotics, but Semiotics is not contingent on Mathematics, therefore Semiotics is "more pure" than Mathematics (not a tall order, regardless).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is my precise comment:

      https://i.imgur.com/boqKCAu.jpg

      Mathematics is a language, so therefore linguistics is more pure than mathematics.
      The message of language is narrative: stories of change over time, and the medium of symbolic reference.
      The "language of languages" is a metaphysics, which is a narrative of what the world is and one's place within it. Everyone does metaphysics, there are no non-metaphysical accounts just as there aren't any ways of speaking that don't have an accent.

      But what is the sign? It is a part of a living organism, a fact that takes us into the realm of biosemiotics, so therefore biology is "more pure" than semiotics.
      Doesn't biology being the most fundamental science makes sense, since all sciences are done by living organisms?
      But an organism cannot be considered in itself, as organisms emerge from and depend on their environmental relationships. So we've found the ultimate metaphysical ground: dynamic relationships or "betweeness." This makes sense from the perspective of physics, as motion is incomprehensible except as a relationship of relative movement between at least two entities.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Metamath is just applied Finno-Korean Hyper Interior Design

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophers, in their naive desperation for actualization, swim ever deeper into the infinite fractal that is conversing about God. Increasing the resolution of the dialogue in any one area will always lead to deeper and deeper geometries of delusion, never yielding satisfying conclusion. Just as you cannot math God into existence, you cannot talk God into existence.

    This is the crux of philosophy, of sociologists, of psychologists, and, unfortunately, of 'highest end' math, too. They try to capture a picture of something that both is and is not the picture itself, entirely missing the core of existence.

    The truth is you types waste your mortal moments on pedantry while your flesh shell withers away into dust.

    Biologists, chemists, physicists and practical mathematicians are the true engineering kings of reality, of mortal experience. These are the disciplines that will eventually result in freedom from disease, from hunger, from time.

    Sure. Someday, some 10000 IQ math wizard may discover the secret to FTL travel, or even turning back the clock, but that would 'trigger' both the materialists and anti-materialists just the same.

    Stop wasting your time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Alright. I’m asking it now. What is the deal with all of these wall of text long posts, that sometimes go on for multiple posts, that have no meaningful substances to add to the thread at all? Is it superintelligent AI shitposting?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Philosophers, in their naive desperation for actualization, swim ever deeper into the infinite fractal that is conversing about God.
      Indeed - the highest calling one can ever have is the desire to glorify God.
      >The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i could not be less bothered

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because its made by a child. psychology has nothing to do with being applied biology. it used to play a role IN psychology, but now its frowned upon. sociology isnt applied psychology either. this is all child like, entry level college midwit logic and its cringe. thats why others dont like it. where is philosophy? is that applied sociology? this is reddit shit. imagine the childhood on the guy that drew this 15 years ago. he 100% had a shitty non existant dad.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most physicists believe a singular unexplainable bang brought everything into existence, then everything that came after followed immutable laws. Its an act of faith to believe that no miracles are possible except that primordial miracle which is the cause of everything

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Physics presupposes eternal rules
    >There are no eternal rules
    Nope, you lose.
    Also the actual pic that triggers EerieWeb.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >linguistics
      words, what do they mean?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this board is so fricking dumb
    you all need to drink bleach

  17. 1 month ago
    Seanonymous

    Archetypes are like the nouns of metaphysics. Language is maybe a type of physic.

  18. 1 month ago
    Seanonymous

    honestly the site Idioms and Tropes is the closest thing I found to a sacred script until they changed the website around and it seemed to die. I guess people only use a few websites nowadays.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Read Psyche and Matter, your line in the image is a circle

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The mathematician and the sociologist are the most ignorant, the others atleast can see both sides of the picture, the other two are hopelessly blind forever

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      define the mirror

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The main thing with metaphysics is they've been partially developed or influenced by models that were there before physics were a man-established, consensual model, thus metaphysics have their own identities prior to physics as we know them today in the scientific secular model.

    I also don't think "anti-materialism" the way you're insinuating it is a concept that can be applied to any westerner, it's even rare in the east.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The image was almost perfect. Maths is a tool that aids in understanding other fields. Maths by itself has no value or importance.
    Also scientists are fricking morons, engineers are the MVPs. Nobody cares about bing bang wahoo science phenomena if we can't use it for our benefit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Maths by itself has no value or importance.
      have a nice day uncultured burger

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >have a nice day uncultured burger
        Anon the first wheel, car, aeroplane or train where never "designed", there were no blueprints and no math was involved. People just bent metal and did whatever the frick they felt like until things worked

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's all math! Behold God's 1s and 0s! Magic!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Math goes along with anything at all. Inseparable. As above, so below.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Space is closer to God’s monocle.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    “When I was told that Newton says something extraordinary about God in the Latin edition of his Opticks, which until then I had not seen, I examined it and laughed at the idea that space is the sensorium of God, as if God, from whom everything comes, should have need of a sensorium.”
    - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to Jakob Bernoulli, 29 March 1715.

    Newton BTFO

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >god creates the whole universe
    >universe can’t run without god
    >god is a slave to the universe

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because nothing, and I mean nothing, the materialists can say or do can truly replicate or explain the unique conscious experience of being YOU

    That is something not even our current understanding of scene can truly explain

    That being said though math is indeed the language of the universe.

    Math is amazing, because it shows that everything is connected like cosmic Lego bricks in reality

    However to follow math and adhere solely to hard-core materialsim is a bit foolish to me, math is proof that we have a very intelligent and powerful creator

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not everything. The plank moment physics and math stop to work

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Isaac Newton seemed to believe that the universe couldn’t run on its own without a supreme cosmic intelligence, or “God”, to guide it. Much like a mentally disabled child that must have their hand held by an adult at all times when crossing the road.

    He absolutely could not conceive of an existence that just…runs…

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't that terrifying, the idea that the universe was created and is ran by an entity either not powerful enough to make it run without the entity's active effort, or just unwilling to let it run without its consent?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The omnipotent, omnipresent angle of God is a self defeating one, and I think Newton was on to that. I think he settled for soft omniscience.

  30. 1 month ago
    no, buddy

    The idea of your thoughts exists, is it part of physics?

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    " Isaac Newton's life was one long search for God. "

    " Newton's appetite for learning far transcended what we would nowadays call science. He devoted a larger amount of time to studies in alchemy and theology than physics. Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God, and science was a portal into God's mind. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/isaac-newton-search-god/

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    " I'm not saying it's God, but it's God "

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *