AletheiaRivers Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 (edited) I bumped it and am going to respond to jerry's comments over there instead. Edited November 17, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I liked it here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I didn't mean migrate the whole topic, just the aspect of it where I started taking it over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I didn't mean migrate the whole topic, just the aspect of it where I started taking it over. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No problem, just a different voice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMeekShall Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 There is at least one way all three can be true. If the soul is indestructable, then we are only making temporary changes to it. Those temporary changes will lead to the good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Omnipotence and absoluteness have nothing to do with "going poof" and making things happen. Omnipotence means that God is the ground and source of all power in the universe -- there is no power that comes from somewhere other than God. Absoluteness means that God is, by definition, contingent on nothing other than himself -- as opposed to everything else, which is, by definition, contingent on God. Anyway, that's my $.02, take it for what it's worth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm getting really confused! Contingent means dependent on something not yet certain, conditional. Liable to happen or not; uncertain; possible. Happening by chance ... possibly conditional on something uncertain. Help! What am I missing? minsocal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 (edited) con·tin·gent 1. Liable to occur but not with certainty; possible. 2. Dependent on conditions or occurrences not yet established; conditional. See synonyms at dependent. 3. Happening by chance or accident; fortuitous. See synonyms at accidental. 4. Logic. True only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true: a contingent proposition. de·pen·dent 1. Contingent on another. 2. Subordinate. 3. Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support: dependent children. Edited February 2, 2006 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Today's world seems to force us all to live more and more on a "dependent and contingent" basis. especially in urban areas. Mostly this is because of our interconnectedness with each other, but not necessarily with nature in real ways. Ambiguity rules in most situations, no matter how much humans attempt to control or manipulate them, but their outcomes still remain mostly unforseen. We are all cursed and condemned to live in very interesting times ! But I am not worrying because I believe that G-d is in control. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 con·tin·gent 1. Liable to occur but not with certainty; possible. 2. Dependent on conditions or occurrences not yet established; conditional. See synonyms at dependent. 3. Happening by chance or accident; fortuitous. See synonyms at accidental. 4. Logic. True only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true: a contingent proposition. de·pen·dent 1. Contingent on another. 2. Subordinate. 3. Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support: dependent children. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahhhh ... I took my definition from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy "contingent, neither impossible nor necessary; i.e., both possible and non-necessary ... Muddles about the relationship between this and other modal properties have abounded ever since Aristotle ...." Along with this definition, there is a extended modal square of opposition showing that in all cases 'contingent' does not mean 'dependent'. The only usage of the concept of 'contingent' that I am familiar with is this one. It's use in this manner maintains a clear distinction between 'necessity' and 'contingency'... "something that is contingent cannot be neccessary." minsocal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) "something that is contingent cannot be neccessary." Right. God is NOT contingent. God is necessary. However we ARE contingent. We are not necessary. Saying that God is contingent on himself, while a brain twister, is technically true. Otherwise you get the "who created God?" scenario that rationally has no answer. Edited February 4, 2006 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) PS - I'm getting really confused! Contingent means dependent on something not yet certain, conditional. Liable to happen or not; uncertain; possible. Happening by chance ... possibly conditional on something uncertain. Put another way - Saying that we are contingent (dependent) on "something not yet certain" isn't saying that GOD isn't certain, but that the circumstances (say - creation on God's part) isn't a necessity. Edited February 4, 2006 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 "something that is contingent cannot be neccessary." Right. God is NOT contingent. God is necessary. However we ARE contingent. We are not necessary. Saying that God is contingent on himself, while a brain twister, is technically true. Otherwise you get the "who created God?" scenario that rationally has no answer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Aletheia. I agree on all three points... it was the "brain twister" that got me. minsocal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Hmmm...interesting parsing of the terms. But we are twisted by these thoughts and concepts because we are imbedded in a flow of historical time and its events that are dependent upon our abilities to create them individually and collectively; and, upon our abilities to recognize and record their effects upon society. The events themselves are contingencies that operate to move the processes of human life forward and not backward, that is if one is progressive in their thought patterns. As I've said here on the board several times before, historical reality, at least for several hundred years now, has usually ended up being the version recorded by whatever white guy wins the arguments. However, my belief is that these days we are descending into a blur of unresolvable events simply because of our technological abilities to dessect and parse the most complex events into wholly ambiguous piles of facts and data that point in no particular directions to argue about. It may be that this is due to our 150 years of efforts to detach our day-to-day lives in western culture from our very ground of being, nature...hmmmmm? Yes, G-d is very necessary these days, and increasingly so it seems. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.