Argue with THIS if you can.

[JGL53]

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

 

[variant]

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

p1. God is being beyond essence and existence.

Well premise 1 is a contradiction, beings by definition exist.

be·ing.
–verb (used without object) 1.to exist or live: Shakespeare's “To be or not to be” is the ultimate question.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being

 

[DailyBlessings]

Well premise 1 is a contradiction, beings by definition exist.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being

Tillich disagrees. Do you have a reason beyond a dictionary definition to suggest that he is wrong? Dictionaries are hardly worth considering in any discussion except for etymology or majority perception of a given word- they do not describe concepts in any objective sense.

 

[NavyGuy7]

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

That's fairly silly. I've had better arguments with some of the other people on this forum. (I'm looking at YOU WiccanChild... )
Besides, that middle sentence doesn't make sense to me. It might be the grammar structure. Could you rephrase that part so people like me can better understand it? After all, you can't refute something if it makes as much sense as banana peel shoes.

 

[Solidlyhere]

The Bible claims that God created the Universe.
Assuming that this statement is True:
1) Whatever God is, part of Him is this Universe;
2) God's "essence and existence" includes the Universe (and all of the people on Earth).

 

[JoeV]

The Bible claims that God created the Universe.
Assuming that this statement is True:
1) Whatever God is, part of Him is this Universe;
2) God's "essence and existence" includes the Universe (and all of the people on Earth).

Pantheism?

 

[JGL53]

Pantheism?

That's as far as I personally can go, in speculating about "ultimate" concerns. I am just a monist though. That seems logical to me, and much more clean, neat and, uh, scientific.

BTW - I posted this statement of Tillich's to show that many liberal religionists are just using word salad to say the same thing, in a roundabout way that, say, a Richard Dawkins or a Christopher Hitchens does.

IOW, "the god of the philosophers" is hardly of any consequence or concern. It's that pesky interfering god of western monotheistic belief that causes all the trouble.

 

[plmarquette]

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

I believe that was St. Anselem's definition of God...

 

[variant]

Tillich disagrees. Do you have a reason beyond a dictionary definition to suggest that he is wrong? Dictionaries are hardly worth considering in any discussion except for etymology or majority perception of a given word- they do not describe concepts in any objective sense.

If the definition is wrong we CAN'T talk about it. The definition of being is one of the fundamental assumptions of using language.

The argument presented was contradictory because existence and being mean the same thing.

What is presented is an ARGUMENT, so it must confine itself to the base assumptions of the language that it is parsed in or invent a new one, but this argument is entirely contradictory.

 

[variant]

I believe that was St. Anselem's definition of God...

Defining something as indefinite is not really defining it at all.

 

[daniel777]

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

God does not exist in the sense that he exists in the fullest and brightest form of existance whose limits are completely unknowable by us. God is existance. we only live in the shadow of existance.

are you saying that existance doesn't exist?

do you think you exist to your fullest potential of existance? that seems to be the definition you are employing.

 

[JGL53]

God does not exist in the sense that he exists in the fullest and brightest form of existance whose limits are completely unknowable by us. God is existance. we only live in the shadow of existance.

are you saying that existance doesn't exist?

do you think you exist to your fullest potential of existance? that seems to be the definition you are employing.

Or you asking ME - or arguing with Tillich? He's dead, BTW.

 

[Ganymede]

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

The first sentence contradicts the second:

1 - God does not exist.
2 - He is....

The whole thing is nonsensical

 

[quatona]

are you saying that existance doesn't exist?

And, an even more nagging question: Does the existence of existence exist?



Is redness red?

 

[quatona]

" He is being itself beyond essence and existence. "

I´d like to know where he pulled this definition.
Next I´d like to know what it is supposed to mean.

 

[daniel777]

And, an even more nagging question: Does the existence of existence exist?

yes. without existence there wouldn't be the question of existence.

in other words: i think therefore i am. if i exist, existence also exists.

ps this isn't small talk, so i'll try not to be "trollish" . why don't you have a faith icon? it's hard to tell where your coming from? do you purposely not have one? do you consider youself a sort of wanderer? or do you have a specific preference and just not want anyone to know?

 

[daniel777]

Or you asking ME - or arguing with Tillich? He's dead, BTW.

i agree with Tillich. i just explained it in a different way. i'm asking you. but i might have been a bit hasty. so, first i would like to ask your definition of what this is saying, and if you believe it or not.

 

[quatona]

yes. without existence there wouldn't be the question of existence.

That´s what we get when confusing concepts and objects.

in other words: i think therefore i am. if i exist, existence also exists.

And the existence of existence exists. And the existence of existence of existence also exists.
Whilst if nothing existed, non-existence would exist. Since it would exist, existence would exist also. And the existence of existence.

ps this isn't small talk, so i'll try not to be "trollish" .

Thanks.
However, beyond a certain degree of word-diarrhoe, mindfarts and semantics trickery I have problems taking philosophy seriously.
So this time it might be me who doesn´t approach the topic with the dedicated seriousness and admiration that some might feel is due.

why don't you have a faith icon?

Because I have no religious faith.
Because these icons do not communicate anything useful.
Because labels tend to be filters to the perception.
Because I didn´t know which to pick. I couldn´t seem to identify with any of those that were available.

it's hard to tell where your coming from?

Why would that be important?
You read my statements, and you best consider them for what they are without subjecting them to any preconceptions.
If I, for example, say something like "Violence is never an acceptable option for problem solving", how would the information "Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/agnostic/atheist/... "possibly make any difference for the discussion?

do you purposely not have one?

Yes.

do you consider youself a sort of wanderer?

Yes, sort of. There are areas I wouldn´t wander, though.

or do you have a specific preference and just not want anyone to know?

Smoking. I do not really make much of a secret of it, though. But please keep that strictly confidential. I´d hate to find it, like, mentioned somewhere in the internet.

Apart from that, I think my sig-line gives about 1000% more information than a faith icon could.

 

[elcapitan]

BTW - I posted this statement of Tillich's to show that many liberal religionists are just using word salad to say the same thing, in a roundabout way that, say, a Richard Dawkins or a Christopher Hitchens does.

IOW, "the god of the philosophers" is hardly of any consequence or concern. It's that pesky interfering god of western monotheistic belief that causes all the trouble.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Even nothing is something

Before any of you tell me that this is a contradiction, recall the number 0, 0 is the absence of value, yet it is there.