Beyond God?

But that's exactly what I'm saying, whatever God is there cannot be anything beyond god, because if there were anything beyond that God whatever is beyond would now be God. God is the greatest possible being, the boss of all bosses, the big cheese, etc.
The great truths are often paradoxical
 
But that's exactly what I'm saying, whatever God is there cannot be anything beyond god, because if there were anything beyond that God whatever is beyond would now be God. God is the greatest possible being, the boss of all bosses, the big cheese, etc.
Maybe the simplest explanation is there is no greatest possible being but a never ending hierarchy of beings
 
The great truths are often paradoxical

I think it comes down to semantics. "God" is a word that has a different meaning to different people. My definition/ conception of God happens to be the greatest possible being, there is no explanation beyond.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Ok the layers before getting to "GOD" since we are playing with definitions
 
Has anyone ever reported encountering anything they described as being beyond God
NDEr Nanci Danison said during her NDE she understood that "God"/Source (which we a part of) is "only one of a race of such beings". (I don't put any stock in this factoid, just sharing it.)
 
Last edited:
I've explained, it doesn't look like you're going to get it. We just have different defintions.

Yeah, I think it won't be possible to go further in the conversation at this point. It seems to me Andrew is still working with a "theistic personalism" definition of God, in which God is but one exemplar of a greater ontological class of these things called "beings," only God is the "Supreme Being." Even where Andrew claims to accept the classical theist definition of God for the sake of argument, he still wants to suggest as possible what is ruled out by definition to be impossible. This can only be the case if either a) Andrew actually subjects God to contingency and the causal chain of things, or b) Andrew simply rejects logic altogether (only calling that rejection "paradox"). As I read him, he allows the semantically iterable to be equated with the ontologically possible. If that is so, then we can just as well say that square circles exist. And since logic is no longer a trustworthy guide to reality, I feel justified in declaring that I have, in fact, never once participated in this thread.
 
Yeah, I think it won't be possible to go further in the conversation at this point. It seems to me Andrew is still working with a "theistic personalism" definition of God, in which God is but one exemplar of a greater ontological class of these things called "beings," only God is the "Supreme Being." Even where Andrew claims to accept the classical theist definition of God for the sake of argument, he still wants to suggest as possible what is ruled out by definition to be impossible. This can only be the case if either a) Andrew actually subjects God to contingency and the causal chain of things, or b) Andrew simply rejects logic altogether (only calling that rejection "paradox"). As I read him, he allows the semantically iterable to be equated with the ontologically possible. If that is so, then we can just as well say that square circles exist. And since logic is no longer a trustworthy guide to reality, I feel justified in declaring that I have, in fact, never once participated in this thread.
Chotki, you're awesome! ;;/?
 
Yeah, I think it won't be possible to go further in the conversation at this point. It seems to me Andrew is still working with a "theistic personalism" definition of God, in which God is but one exemplar of a greater ontological class of these things called "beings," only God is the "Supreme Being." Even where Andrew claims to accept the classical theist definition of God for the sake of argument, he still wants to suggest as possible what is ruled out by definition to be impossible. This can only be the case if either a) Andrew actually subjects God to contingency and the causal chain of things, or b) Andrew simply rejects logic altogether (only calling that rejection "paradox"). As I read him, he allows the semantically iterable to be equated with the ontologically possible. If that is so, then we can just as well say that square circles exist. And since logic is no longer a trustworthy guide to reality, I feel justified in declaring that I have, in fact, never once participated in this thread.
I don't reject logic per say I just think there are things that both defy it and go beyond it
 
Andrew,

As Dopplegänger has said, why not spell out your position in more detail, rather than arguing in single sentences! For example, I am unclear whether you are trying to challenge the whole idea of NDE's, or if you are interested in discovering more about them. Also why is all this so urgent for you?

David
 
Andrew,

As Dopplegänger has said, why not spell out your position in more detail, rather than arguing in single sentences! For example, I am unclear whether you are trying to challenge the whole idea of NDE's, or if you are interested in discovering more about them. Also why is all this so urgent for you?

David
Ndes
 
Back
Top