God either knows only himself,or he is a dependant being and not The absolute

yandex99

yandex99

Master
Joined
Sep 6, 2023
Posts
1,610
Reputation
1,394
the pythagoreans were right,if X knows A,he is dependant on A to have a certain type of knowledge or a knowing,and thus is dependant on A in a sense,and thus his essence is not perfect and self-inherent.

thus any 'God'that interacts with anything outside of himself cannot be a 'God'.

now the monad is different.
 
shutup you don’t know anything you small brained individual

how could a peasant brain like yourself expect to comprehend God
 
  • +1
Reactions: LooksThinker
be glad your thread was even given an audience with me,

now good day
 
  • +1
Reactions: LooksThinker
  • JFL
Reactions: lemonnz
so what I have a confirmed iq of 72?

mogs midwits like yourself to the stratosphere
Yawn,who tf are you?I'm not gonna waste my time on a irrelevant retard
 
muh christ

muh allah
 
the pythagoreans were right,if X knows A,he is dependant on A to have a certain type of knowledge or a knowing,and thus is dependant on A in a sense,and thus his essence is not perfect and self-inherent.

thus any 'God'that interacts with anything outside of himself cannot be a 'God'.

now the monad is different.
Knowledge based on a object being contingent on the object doesnt mean whatever possesses that knowledge necessitates the object they have knowledge on. Just cause u lose one chocolate chip from a chocolate chip cookie doesnt mean you dont have a chocolate chip what the hell are u talking about
 
this is the most vague shit ever it reminds me of when i read obsolete philosophy like phenomenal conservatism which was like if S has no positive grounds to doubt p then believe p or something
 
Knowledge based on a object being contingent on the object doesnt mean whatever possesses that knowledge necessitates the object they have knowledge on. Just cause u lose one chocolate chip from a chocolate chip cookie doesnt mean you dont have a chocolate chip what the hell are u talking about
it's the opposite.
 
this is the most vague shit ever it reminds me of when i read obsolete philosophy like phenomenal conservatism which was like if S has no positive grounds to doubt p then believe p or something
a 9 year old can understand it.it takes alot of dimwittedness to believe in allah or yhwh
 
the pythagoreans were right,if X knows A,he is dependant on A to have a certain type of knowledge or a knowing,and thus is dependant on A in a sense,and thus his essence is not perfect and self-inherent.

thus any 'God'that interacts with anything outside of himself cannot be a 'God'.

now the monad is different.
so youre not muslim anymore
 
still you are brown and you are not white so rope
why?I mog all white guys on this earth as does any handsome northern american indian.we have better coloring too.
 
God is everything and anything, why? because I said so.
 
Not sure how you drew that conclusion.
anything made up of parts is dependant on those parts.if there are mutliple gods,then they are composed of peculiarity and shared nature.
 
anything made up of parts is dependant on those parts.if there are mutliple gods,then they are composed of peculiarity and shared nature.
I didn't state that the universe constructs God, rather that the universe is derived from God if he was to exist. Now you may argue that this goes ways but in my opinion the issue of composition is built on semantics.
 
why?I mog all white guys on this earth as does any handsome northern american indian.we have better coloring too.
statistics say otherwise
 

Similar threads

yandex99
Replies
78
Views
1K
mogstars
mogstars
yandex99
Replies
44
Views
790
yandex99
yandex99
PrinceLuenLeoncur
Replies
15
Views
189
PrinceLuenLeoncur
PrinceLuenLeoncur
NT Master
Replies
3
Views
286
dehydrated
dehydrated

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top