--rj sundseth wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > Mark wrote:
> > > Mark wrote:
> > > > Mark wrote:
> > > > > Mark wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > -M: I did say 'immanent and transcendent components' meaning
the two charateristics don't overlap, therefore its not a
> > > >R.J.: If they don't overlap, then they don't both apply to
your definition of god. How are you going to have a god that is both
immanent and transcendent, yet not both at the same time, unless your
god is a big ridiculous contradiction?
> -M: Is there cold water in a hot-water heater?
> There is at the cold water inlet.
> Is this a contradiction?
> No, because the cold-water and hot water don't overlap.
>R.J.: And they are also two different waters. Is your god two
different gods, yet it is also one god? That would be a different
contradiction, but contradictory nonetheless.
-M: No, they are the SAME water(same flow) but one part of the flow
has been heated while the other hasen't.
Likewise God flows between His immanent and transcendent aspects.
> -M: Yes, I will leave ontology to others.
>R.J.: Well, I am sorry you can't think for yourself.
-M: I can think for myself an I have decided that some people are
authoritative about ontology while others are not.