None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

In Him We Live, Move And Have Our Being

If Anselm was truly correct, then we can not rationally conceive of a greater being than God. I would infer that God's understanding of our being includes the condition that to Him, bings are those thamay conceive of His being as necessary. Likewise we would only consider beings to be those individuals who are able in like manner to reciprocate with predicating ourselves with consciousness.

Consider the verses wherein Paul states his faith in God; (as "charity" or agape) i.e. his value of God's reciprocated love towards him as more than a belief in a childish fairy story; that it is most certainly not one sided and is still consistent with the good gifts of the gospel.

1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

So we immediately have if '~ is a relation that x~y infers x conceives of being y

Then ~ is an equivalence relation,
x~x (relexivity)
x~y <=> y~x (symmetry)
x~y and y~z =>x~z (transitivity)

We have transitivity through the statement that x~G (and G=>N(G) implies that x~N(G) is possible), and since God is perfect G~y for all y that may conceive N(G). Thus we may infer that if God concludes that a being y is such as can recognise Him to be necessarily existent, then since G would not conceive of a being who does not exist as a "being" (God is perfect), then we may transitively have x~y : albeit we are given that the existence of y is only contingently known by x (On the basis that it was conceived by God Himself that made the being of 'y' possible for x.)

A) if y~y => P(y~G) <=> N(G~y) Then given x~G => x~N(G) => N(G~y) for any and all existent beings y.

However we show this is consistent. We assume then if it is not possible for x to conceive of a being 'y', then for God also, 'y' can not be conceived either!

So, if ¬P(x~y) => ¬P(G~y) since G is perfect. (Where '¬' is logical NOT) Because every being imagined by God can be consistently conceived of being, y would belong to "some other class than x", yet there is only one class, that of G (G~x <=> x~G)

then N¬(G~y) => ¬P(y~G) if God must be thought to exist necessarily by y to qualify y as a being to God.
Thus ¬P(y~y) and 'y' is not a being (by statement (A) above, which is in accord to the definition of the equivalence relation). So y s a being is consistent with P(x~y).

Now however , how may we deduce that statement (A) holds? We merely state that any being that may consider itself to be contingently existent in their being, then entails they may conceive (with '~') of a necessary being that is eternal. This assumption can not harm our relation '~'.

However the modus tollens ¬P(y~G) => ¬P(y~y), i.e. that y would be unable to conceive of his contingency of existence or of his being. (This is what we wanted.)

So if x~y and y~z then given P(y~G) and N(G~y), we have P(x~z). Therefore x~x by definition of the relation.

We have essentially justified Anselm's statement - "God can not rationally be thought not to exist."

We may state that the creation of God resists the abstract application of the relation '~' so that if God has not created a being y, then it can be said of a being x, that N¬(x~y). We then reduce our class to the set of existent beings including God, and our system suffers no loss whatsoever: And there are simply those beings that consider the existence of God as opposed those that choose not to. It helps that faith belongs to the realist also!

How can this system be attacked? It may be said of any contingent being x that is logically deducing that necessary nature of God, that x instead conceives that "the children are the future", yet the child is not become God unless one would suppose that the serpent in the garden of eden is more trustworthy a source than logic. (It is ridiculous to assume that the children would consider their children the future and so on and so on, with no arrival of necessity that the future beings will learn the lessons of the past and N(G~x) has an analogue.) Socialism destroys the parental paradigm of authority over the children; How will they be raised to learn from their parents if the children are the ones in charge and the parents are irrelevant, being the relics of failure?


Now we may immediately extend from "beings" to refer to any portion of creation on the basis that G understands the state of everything in existence. We, by dealing with "beings" above only, have excluded the case of lifeless matter that is somehow also independent of God. We may infer a greater being which understands the state of everything in creation: The above merely states that everything "being" is visible to God, and we can not hide anything, even ourselves. For any x we could state G "knows" x and we may imagine His mind to contain everything in existence as surely as His being also entails the presence of ours to each other.

Then we could change from ~ to '^' where G^x is taken to mean "G can make contact with x as if x were solid to God" and then "x^G" x can make contact with God and be solid to Him". the statements that x^x, x^y <=> y^x, and x^y, y^z => x^z also are without objection when it comes to the definition of the relation. But the "opposite force for God making contact" is definition part and parcel concerning God and His creation. If it exists to God, it exists for all.

Then is it so unreasonable to define '*' for God when God is not making contact? We should have some combination of ~ and ^ so that "G*x if and only if G can conceive of making contact with x"

Then if G~y and y^x both hold then G*x. I.e. not as with with ordered composition, treating either portion first, but only in conjunction.

Also G*G if G exists,

and G*x, x*y => G~x, x~y => G~y but x^y => G^y Since G created "y" So G*y.

And x*G if and only if x can conceive of coming into contact with G. But x is a creation so x is solid to God: G^x. (plus of course N(G~x))

Then also G*x of course, so we have necessarily N(G*x).

In effect we could make * into a statement that God can conceive of everything possibly observable, that is "creation".

Then our equivalence relation * together with the condition that N(G*x) has the same proof for omniscience as does that for '~'. God's perfect being and N(G*x) would ensure omniscience over creation.

In ~ we live,
In ^ we move,
In * we have our being.

In describing that God may conceive perfectly of everything that may possibly be observed, we have subtly inferred a principle of quantum physics.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start