Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
absolute "Nothing" is also an abstract concept, we name it because we know it is there, and so therefore "exists"0 is an abstract representation of a lack of something, it isn't "nothing". "0 apples", is not a quantity of apples in your shopping basket, it is a quality of your shopping baskets possible yet unfulfilled ability to hold apples.
"Nothing" in the absolute does not exist, or it exists only as a concept of the lack of something (the lack of something not being something in and of itself).
Not quite. As a programmer I can tell you that the differences between "0" and "null" are rather important. One is a value of no size. The other is a representation of non-existence. Null does not actually "exist."absolute "Nothing" is also an abstract concept, we name it because we know it is there, and so therefore "exists"
Honestly, I think Tillich was a better thinker and speaker than he was a writer. It's a bit like reading Julian of Norwich or al-Ghazzali- Tillich frequently starts halfway through his thought process rather than at the beginning, thus utterly confusing beginners with very different intellectual starting points.(my last comment regarding this dead horse):
Tillich was a highly intelligent and quite well educated "liberal" thinker. I can see how his "theological" writings would seem to be confusing, disingenuous, and/or nonsensical to both fundamentalist monotheists and fundamentalist atheists.
I think that may have been his tactic - if you can't persuade others with reason then just baffle them with..... well, you know the rest.
Good point, I'll keep that in mind since I'm in intro to computer programming right now XDNot quite. As a programmer I can tell you that the differences between "0" and "null" are rather important. One is a value of no size. The other is a representation of non-existence. Null does not actually "exist."
absolute "Nothing" is also an abstract concept, we name it because we know it is there, and so therefore "exists"
"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
at this moment i can't remember where the quote came from. i copy and pasted it from another discussion i'm in about Tillich because he's one of my favorite philosophers/theologians. when i find out what book it is, i'll make sure i come back and let you know. i can't find my current copy of "Courage to Be" by Paul Tillich and wanted to be sure if the poster that posted the quote in the other discussion was quoting it from that book before i state what book it came from Paul Tillich. here's the link:"Since God is the ground of being, he is the ground of the structure of being. He is not subject to this structure; the structure is grounded in him. He is this structure;and it is impossible to speak about him except in terms of the structure. God must be approached cognitively through the structural elements of being-itself. These elements make him a living God, a God who can be man's concrete concern. They enable us to use symbols which we are certain point to the ground of reality." P. 238
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_TillichThis Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.
Perhaps I am misconstruing or remaking the definition of "existing", but we understand where I'm coming from yes?
Ok, thanks for notifying me. I hadn´t noticed.Just for the record, in case you are possibly confused quatona, I edited my post several times before your post was shown.
Yes, I see where we were at an impasse, I'll just patch up my definition of existing (if only I had a word for what I was talking about earlier D: ).... Though it has hit me just now as a very interesting fact that humanity cannot even observe absolute nothing (which includes absence of space) because we cannot exist in it and it cannot exist within something, else it would be something and not nothing anymore.
This is turning out to be a very fruitful conversation, this is a very interesting line of thought I have not quite embarked on yet...
It´s not like I´m telling you to stop it, AT. It would be a pointless appeal, anyways:Aye, I've had plenty of people tell me to stop discussing such antics, but it's not something I seem to be willing to drop.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?