Talk:Emanationism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:37, 2 June 2006

Well, I guess anything with an "-ism" on it is an "ism." But this "ism" doesn't stand up all by itself... Wetman 04:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only unresolved issue with the assumptions above is that an eternal has neither a beginning nor an end. I established this easily describing the irrational number as being and not being concurrently, the two valid premises of a paradox which becomes a contradiction in applying either one.

Thus, "Creationism" in common lore as an event and moment of origin is a misconception. Things always were and will be - that is the meta concept of "God" - separation of an entity from a "creation" is extrinsic nonsense.

The will is also distracting as it implies a sentient being but does not imply consciousness or motivation beyond the primal expression of life and survival as is the non-alternative character of an eternal being. GeMiJa 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Well, I guess anything with an "-ism" on it is an "ism." But this "ism" doesn't stand up all by itself... [[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 04:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
+The only unresolved issue with the assumptions above is that an eternal has neither a beginning nor an end. I established this easily describing the irrational number as being and not being concurrently, the two valid premises of a paradox which becomes a contradiction in applying either one.
+Thus, "Creationism" in common lore as an event and moment of origin is a misconception. Things always were and will be - that is the meta concept of "God" - separation of an entity from a "creation" is extrinsic nonsense.
+The will is also distracting as it implies a sentient being but does not imply consciousness or motivation beyond the primal expression of life and survival as is the non-alternative character of an eternal being. [[User:GeMiJa|GeMiJa]] 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)