The Greater The Essence Of The Mind, The Greater The Knowledge Of...

» Home » Education

The Greater The Essence Of The Mind, The Greater The Knowledge Of God.

I think God is good, and a thought like this is useful. Evil impedes the possession of a good thought. Anyone who seeks after the enlightenment brought about by good thoughts will desire others to think so, and it is this desire which will increase our knowledge of God! This is in accordance with reason, which is always operational in an intelligent mind, and it is the essence of an intelligent mind to increase the knowledge that it contains, which must involve the knowledge of God. The greater the essence of the mind, the greater the knowledge of God!

joe9

23 Nov 2008 12:48

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Firstly, in this debate the concept of God must be the comprehension of God as a omnipotent infinite being. For just as the future is without end, and infinite, so is the past. One must therefore first: 'lift the veil of Isis', and enter this debate with an open mind. The perception is that God as a being, is made up of infinite attributes, each expressing eternal and infinite essence. If you can't grasp this simple motion, and were to argue against this, then try and conceive, if it is possible in your own mind, that God doesn't exist. Then you will only conclude that God's essence does not involve existence, which is absolutely absurd. Therefore, for the absolute purpose of enlightenment, God necessarily exists. The only reasonable conclusion would be this:

That the conception that God exists is a road to pure perfect enlightenment, for contained within the sum matter of this conception is the necessity that God must exist; that God is one perfect entity of enlightening perfection. And that all creation was formed from the necessity of God's perfect nature. God is the free cause of all things, and all things depend upon God. And, that all things, and all events have throughout eternity been predestined by God!

joe9

23 Nov 2008 13:37

2 Comments

God has multi-personalities, sometimes he goes a bit psychotic, and sends a flood down to earth, to kill the animals. :) God is so wise.

Balance_92

23 Nov 2008 13:42

Comment

Wisdom is not Godliness.

Feremeir1

25 Nov 2008 18:46

Add a Comment

God makes you go crazy sometimes.

imright20

24 Nov 2008 21:09

1 Comment

In your response imright20 are you stating that the thought of God makes you go crazy or that you have had an actual experience with God which made you crazy?

joe9

24 Nov 2008 21:21

Comment

Once again, there is no God, there is no evidence.

Nando

24 Nov 2008 20:10

3 Comments

Total Plonker! Who obviously can't read and hasn't got a clem about this debate motion!...;-)

joe9

24 Nov 2008 20:38

Comment

I reckon that if you added "not existing." on the end of the title it would make more sense.

Evileye

24 Nov 2008 14:00

3 Comments

A warm greetings and salutations Evil Eye, why on earth should I add ''not existing?'' That would completely defeat the oject of this debate, and make the debate futile...;-)

joe9

24 Nov 2008 16:09

Comment

If you take out the sentences that refer to god I would agree with this. "Anyone who seeks after the enlightenment brought about by good thoughts will desire others to think so". Fair enough. "This is in accordance with reason, which is always operational in an intelligent mind, and it is the essence of an intelligent mind to increase the knowledge that it contains" Also a fair statement. Unfortunately you then make an unconnected leap by stating that it must "must involve the knowledge of God". Why? There is no connection here whatsoever, except in your mind. The first 2 statements can be exist without even touching on the issue of God.

StBalders

24 Nov 2008 11:05

8 Comments

Are you suggesting that a knowledge of God has not been a relevant essence, and a basis of learning to Great thinkers over the centuries St. Balders? For, it is the history of this knowledge that has been passed throughout universities all over the world. Surely the Greatest of Atheists and Creationists over the centuries have had a vast wealth of knowledge of this history and the essence of God indoctrinated into their minds. And, it is this knowledge which has greatly expanded their intellect. All i'm suggesting, therefore, is, by the concept of this indoctrination of this knowledge, one can greatly enhance the intellect of a searching and thirsty mind. I would state that it is good to have knowledge of an infinite, absolutely powerful God, and further state Good is that which is useful to us, and society as a whole. Evil always impedes the possesion of good. As Lynn pointed out in a previous debate motion, there are no absolutes, except for the fact that there are no absolutes. However, this fact does not stop the mind from searching for, and trying to create absolute perfection. Therefore, it is quite reasonable for me to suggest that the conception of an all powerful absolute perfect God, is good...;-)

joe9

24 Nov 2008 11:28

Comment

The more someone thinks like you the smarter they are? Nice try, but I think I'll bet on a different pony and leave you to kissing your own behind. By the way isn't there something somewhere in the christian ethic about hubris?

finsch

23 Nov 2008 17:36

9 Comments

There you go finsch you have just established the first principle of this debate, because of your mind's enlightenment about Christian ethics concerning pride and arrogance you have proved my point. Thanks for your contribution...;-)

joe9

23 Nov 2008 18:47

Comment

Shouldn't that be you're or better still you are going to have to try a lot harder than that?...;-) What do you exactly mean 'religious toxins?'  Do you mean knowledge of God? And, therefore, by developing a resistance to what you call its poisinous fumes, you have enlightened your mind, thus substantiating my motion?...;-) The basic actions your mind has just taken in replying to my comment, arise not only from some adequate ideas alone, learnt by your knowledge of God, but have been clouded by the passion, which you have just expressed in your hatred of religion as a whole concept. Therefore, your enlightened thoughts are vague, and your new line of thought depends on those ideas alone which are inadequate to form an adequate conclusion. Causing you to have an a priori fallacy about this whole debate? Therefore, you have just proved that your mind is composed of adequate and inadequate idealisms, substantiated by your little knowledge of God's essence. yet you deny enlightenment by the knowledge of this essence!

Comment

You love your little solipsism’s don’t you? Your reason runs round and round your mind like a broken clockwork toy. My passion is neither against god nor his religion, simply his most dogmatic and presumptuous followers. I live in a land of many religions and most people are willing to afford to others the same respect for their beliefs that they would expect for their own. But we have our share of poisonous pills who feel that since god is on their side they must live on a higher plain, from which lofty heights they may sit in judgment. I have suffered such fools as long as I intend to in this life and have learned to recognize their stench even across oceans of internet. I have found the wise among the many walks of life; the faithful and the godless, the byzantine and the simple, the fierce and the gentle. I have yet to hear much wisdom from pompous pale poets who presume to judge their literary betters. You accuse me of a priori fallacy yet your arrogance is so clearly that of the over educated and under experienced. You won’t find what you need in a classroom, it is in life’s rich and burning breath that you’ll find your way, or such is my hope. The last thing we need is another blithe bombast in this world of white noise.

Comment

Very Poetical finsch...;-) My mind is ticking over like a Swiss watch, thanks for your concern...;-) However, again you are offering up an a priori fallacy. Solipsism or Absolute Egoism; that the only metaphysical theory that the knowledge possible is that of oneself, is as far removed from my motion as is the North Pole from the South Pole, in fact you could possibly say they are poles apart by the latter suggestion...;-) This is an Altruistic Motion, and if you had bothered to read the whole of this debate you would clearly see this fact. All I am basically doing is passing on a concept of learning which must follow from a knowledge one gains from the essence of knowing about an eternal and infinite God. This concept suggests that thought itself is the attribute of God, and that individual thoughts are simply modes of expressing the very nature of God in a certain and determinate manner. The order and connexion of ideas coincides with the order and conexion of things. Therefore, the concept is that God's power of thinking is equal to God's power of acting. To suggest that my reasoning goes around, and around like a broken clockwork toy is ludicrous, simply because the conception that the circle existing in nature and the idea of an existing circle which is also in God are one and the same thing, exhibited through different attributes. The concept is that your own thought therefore is also an attribute of your knowledge of God.Thus proving that the greater the essence of the mind the greater your knowledge of God. In fact this concept suggests that in the mind there is no absolutely free will. The mind therefore is determined to this or that violation by a cause, which is determined by another cause, and so on ad infinitum. The will and your intellect are one in the same. Which simply suggests that we are simply partakers of a divine nature in proportion as we more and more understand nature, our universe, and God's infinite knowledge, and confirm our actions to God's will. Our highest happiness consists in this conformity, by which the soul finds repose. Therefore your comment greatly errs from the true estimation the greater essence of the mind the greater the knowledge of God, suggests within this debate. This applies both to the Atheist and the Creationist, both must have knowledge, the Greater the essence of their Mind, then obviously the Greater the Knowledge of God, maybe one has more knowledge than the other. However, that suggestion is not synonymous with this particular debate.

Comment

I have the vague sense that your debate is that intelligence and reasoning are enhanced by a greater knowledge of God. It also sounds like you're saying you have more knowledge of God than most, but the difficulty in following your reasoning or your rhetoric seems to be the strongest argument against your own point.

Lynn

23 Nov 2008 14:07

1 Comment

You are quite correct, and your vague sense is spot on! Forified eloquence of rhetorical expression about the comprehension on the existence of knowledge pertaining to God can seem a little daunting to those exoteric of the proposed enlightenment conceived within the knowledge of God's essence. However, it is only by grasping and searching for the very existence of that knowledge, will one become esoteric with the conception that God dwells beyond the boundaries of our understanding of absolute perfection...;-)

For example, our inquisitve, and investigative WILL cannot be called a free cause, but can only be termed necessary for peace of our mind. However, our Will is only a certain mode of thought, like the intellect. It requires a cause to determine it to action, and true reasoning and discernment to satisfy its journey into the unknown, therefore, it cannot be called FREE WILL, but only a necessary cause. Hence, one can only conclude that it doesn't follow that a better understanding and knowledge of God, does not act upon the FREDOM of WILL! One can only conclude from this particular knowledge, the conception that things are produced or created by God in absolute perfection, because they have necessarily followed from his absolutely perfect nature. Since in eternity there is no when, or before, or after, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to decree the conception that God cannot decree, or could God decreed anything other than God decreed in the perfection of God's own perfect nature...;-) ABSOLUTELY!

joe9

23 Nov 2008 14:41

Comment

For example, our inquisitve, and investigative WILL cannot be called a free cause, but can only be termed necessary for peace of our mind. However, our Will is only a certain mode of thought, like the intellect. It requires a cause to determine it to action, and true reasoning and discernment to satisfy its journey into the unknown, therefore, it cannot be called FREE WILL, but only a necessary cause. Hence, one can only conclude that it doesn't follow that a better understanding and knowledge of God, does not act upon the FREDOM of WILL! One can only conclude from this particular knowledge, the conception that things are produced or created by God in absolute perfection, because they have necessarily followed from his absolutely perfect nature. Since in eternity there is no when, or before, or after, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to decree the conception that God cannot decree, or could God decreed anything other than God decreed in the perfection of God's own perfect nature...;-) ABSOLUTELY!

Comment

Why should 'Good Thoughts' be useful? And since when was the good that God is claimed to be (morally good) the same as the good that thoughts are perceived to be (intellectually good, intelligent and so on).

This motion is just word play and very nearly a rehashing of the ontological argument.

Quincel

23 Nov 2008 12:59

6 Comments

The ontological argument is the traditional priori argument for the existence of God on the grounds that the concept itself necessitates existence. Maybe you could propose that this motion could possibly purport that the cosmological argument is probably more relative rather than the telelogical theory, simply because Einstein's theory is not absolute.

joe9

23 Nov 2008 13:10

Comment