The universe is as it is now, because you are in it now. To attempt to account for the Universe without yourself in its description is to present an untrue understanding of the universe.
I will respect that…
And is why I earlier threw Spinoza into the mix.
Considered an Atheist, most of his work deals with God, and acknowledging the existence thereof, as I read his works.
Good luck though with the whole, you being the center of everything…
There is no “centre of everything”. There are points of view.
I really think you’d find Spinoza more than interesting.
Not an Ontologicalist as you are, but quite himself, and is considered not, much as am I.
I do respect anothers beliefs, and I do yours.
Ontologicalist doesn’t seem to be a word. What do you mean when you use it?
Link above functions:
An ontological argument is a philosophical argument, made from an ontological basis, that is advanced in support of the existence of God . Such arguments tend to refer to the state of being or existing. … Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.
Ontologicalist appears nowhere in that linked page. Nor in your explanation. What is it? Define ontologicalist. An ontologicalist is…
[quote=“Paul_Thomson, post:733, topic:239502, full:true”]
I thought we were having a respectful “Philosophical” exchange.
If you really struggle to place the word “Ontologicalist” in framework of that said exchange, then, I say to you, keep up.
Where do you think words come from?
Words come from a specific need to express a common thought.
In a Marvel context I now allow you to refer to me as the “Beyonder”, exclusively.
You can WIKI that on your own.
Use the wrist more…
You really need to give this kind of bait a good jerk… to make it seem plausable.
Showed the water I have.
Drink you cannot.
To degenerate our discourse thus is sad on your part.
You called me an ontologicalist. Why? No one can define what it means, not even you. So why use the word?
If you only want to express thoughts, and don’t care to make your invented words understood, what does that make you?
An ontological argument is a philosophical argument , made from an ontological basis, that is advanced in support of the existence of God. Such arguments tend to refer to the state of being or existing. … Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.
Those who engage in debate about existence etc… as you have here, directed at me, should know.
I say to reffer to me as “Beyonder”: do such moving forward.
In this; waste of my time, exchange with you, Ontologicalist clearly means above entry, in rough shape.
But you know that…
Your writing is boring.
You bore me.
I think I understand you.
You are very, very, very impressed with me hunh’?
I mean really, really… REALLY diggin’ me hunh’
I get that a lot; I am quite impressive ain’t I?
I’m flattered, but as stated prior… more wrist, more jerk, on the bait…
Your just being a silly dilly’.
Not clearly, no. “Above entry” to what? Reality has order. A word salad cannot describe something that has order.
An orderly salad?
Salads is it?
Don’t be so rough.
“So bang the drum slowly, and play the fife lowly.”
Again, jerk the bait, with a bit more wrist please, if you want a bite.
Almost got me there…