For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlink above it. You could also consider addressing any comments in situ, rather than here. – Thanks.
Tercon – “If you want to know, then it’s in believing the truth, that we are informed of the truth.”
Who wants to know? Who believes? Who gets informed?
Too many cooks in the kitchen.
Pudding could be better.
Tercon – “Is there something more to the truth that exists, maybe a thing is what it is and what it does all at once and in the same sense. “
First thought best thought. Knower and Known – Not two.
No residue. No shadow. No need for belief.
Pudding is just devine.
HRG – “Right! And ceci n’est pas une pipe”
I suppose though, that a pipe may actually exist, in and of itself.
I suppose that I can prove it.
But from whence came the pipe?
Because the pipe seems to exist, I deduce its maker.
But from whence came the pipe’s maker?
And the maker of the pipe’s maker?
Confused…I then suspect that the proof must not be in the pipe, but in the pudding.
Nouveau – “Do you have limitations on defining the scope of God?”
Being the Entirety, scope does not apply.
HRG – “Definitions can be useful or useless, common or uncommon, simple or complex, even clever or silly etc. But they cannot be true or false.”
Your point is well taken.
I was hoping for a more useful, less divisive conceptualization than one commonly runs into. Perhaps a term like fidelity could replace ‘true’. As for ‘honest’, I’ll stick by that for now.
Of course…The finger pointing at the Moon is not the Moon.
Better would be and honest and true definition of God…
The Entirety. The Emergent Property of Infinite Probability.
Neither existing or non-existing. Both existence and Non-existence. The essential paradox.