Donnadogsoth

He's come back from bankruptcy that many times, too, and is still worth billions.

Fascism has multiple definitions: 1. Government modelled on a conception of a revival of imperial Rome, as ruled by a "beast man" leader who thrills and causes fear in the hearts of the masses. 2. Hypertropic capitalism. 3. Opponents of the Left. 4. Anything fitting this bill.

Asked and answered.

You've ignored my post. Where does the substance of cognition come from? Don't talk to me about "information processing". If information processing were the substance of cognition there would be no consciousness at all, man would be a computer-controlled organism, mindless, a zombie. Where did the actual substance, the reality, the subjective actuality of cognition come from? In case we're pretending to be zombies, ignoring the fact of our own minds, cognition is proven to be a species-level higher, that is to say, an infinitude higher in terms of power over the Universe, than all non-cognitive forms of power, namely the biotic and abiotic realms, by the willful activity of man upon the Universe. Where did that come from? Not the growing of the apple, not the biological principles involved in growing it, but the redness of the apple?

Human cognition is not present in the lower forms of life, nor in the abiotic things. This is not a difference in degree, but in kind. Animals do not understand metaphor, they cannot frame scientific hypotheses, they cannot discover universal physical principles by which they increase the carrying capacity of their territory. Only humans can do these things, which makes cognition a unique property to human beings. Where did that come from? "Evolution" is not an answer, since the commodity of cognition is not an aggregate of atoms or tissues, but a superimposed essence. To avoid reductionism, this essence had to come from somewhere. The only option is it came from a Creator God of superhuman intelligence and will. A "God" who merely is the Universe but not outside of it cannot be the source of the transcendent cognition; such a "God" is identical to an atheistic universe.

You misunderstand me further. Whether the material Universe arises from special creation or from evolution, is not at issue. What my question was, was, where did consciousness as an experience come from if not from a Creator. Where did the colour red come from if not from an Origin that contained the colour red in its understanding? You're saying "evolution" as if that explains and settles the matter; it does not. You have placed yourself with those who argue consciousness is an "epiphenomenon" that inexplicably arises when certain chemicals are combined. Why? Why should brains produce minds? Why aren't we all zombies lacking all minds? The existence of being, life, and cognition make no sense unless we can posit an Original source for them, rather than an evolutionary nothing from which consciousness "came from" somehow.

Rejecting grace is a ticket to Hell, yes, as you well know. To call us "predetermined" for thus rejecting grace is a strange way to speak of it.

I disagree that an æternal God is dead. Such is temporal thinking; æternity is not a succession of moments but a single all-encompassing moment. But, that's not to the point: I think you misunderstand my question. Where did consciousness come from if not from a great Archetype of consciousness? Where does experience come from if not from a capital Experience which understands what experience is and can create it? Your proposition appears to suggest that existence started as nothingness and then "evolved" into higher and higher stages of complexity and higher qualities of existence. I dispute this. Existence does not come from non-existence; life does not come from non-life; and cognition does not come from non-cognition. These things require a God to create them, to construct the Universe the way a master architect constructs a great house. In a manner of speaking, being, living, and thinking are all created top-down by the Creator. That the universe he constructed is evolutionary is a matter of that universe being able to develop, but it does not mean that God develops. God is already perfect, what should he develop into?

God knows who will choose salvation and who will choose damnation, yes.

If there is no creator God, no "a" God, where did the substance of personal consciousness come from?

That's a matter of degree, not of kind. God knows the character of everything he creates, to the point of knowing every free choice every being will make. He can do this as a function of his atemporal omniscience. He knows you perfectly.

Legerdemain. My childhood "love" for my teddy bear is jejune and irrelevant compared to my love for my family and friends. Affection might be a better term, attachment, etc. for "love" for the inanimate. Love between people is the only thing meriting the term "love" in the long term. The pantheist God is "loving" an empty room.

That sounds like prediction to me.

It's the same as having a standard of good versus evil. Atheists sometimes doubt the existence of God because evil exists, but without God there is no good or evil, just personal preference. So with perfection, without God, there is no perfection, just arbitrary preferences.

What of it? If I'm your old friend and I know you so well I can predict your responses, does that mean you have no free will?

No, if you predefine God as perfect, you can deduce that he is good. And how can the Creator of the Universe not be perfect? What would it mean to have an imperfect Creator? Where would we get our concept of perfection from if perfection is nowhere to be found in the Universe, not even as an imperfect reflection of the Creator? We'd be in a right pickle then! But moreover, we would have no concept of perfection, it would never enter into our minds.

What part of "free response to his grace" misleads you?

If God is defined as perfect, then he could not be evil, as evil is a falling away from good, a privation, or a lack. The will to do evil comes from a character flaw. Someone who is a whole personality has no will to do evil, to break, to hurt, to insult for the sake of the pleasure derived from so doing. A perfect God will therefore be good.

Can you please find that teaching in the Cathechism for me?

Love cannot exist apart from two distinct beings loving each other. If all is God then there is no love.

If God is all there is then there is no love. The love you describe as "the highest truth" is nothing more than divine masturbation.

Your point?

It's not my doctrine, it's your doctrine, of predestination. If you're interested in knowing what Christian doctrine is, there is a large building over there called the Catholic Church which you can explore.

So? The only word of God that matters was uttered before I was born, either damning me or saving me. Anything else he says is irrelevant.

If there is no Self, then there is no reincarnation of Self, which means there is no wheel of rebirth, for, who, exactly, is being reborn? And if there is no Self in me, there is no Self in you, nor in anyone else, which means my love for you and for others is vain. I might therefore simply find my painkiller of choice. Do as thou wilt.