What Is Baralgin Good For

God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, uniqueness

the classical theological tradition supports the following propositions simultaneously :

(1)

God is omnipotent and

(2)

God is omniscient and

(3)

God is good, where "Good" with a capital letter stands for "infinitely good". These three assumptions it can add one:

(0)

There is only one God

are numerous confirmations in the text sacred

When Abram was ninety-nine years, the Lord appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty

: walk before me and be blameless. (Genesis

17:1)

Do you know how the clouds hover in the air, the wonders of one who knows everything? (Job 37:16

)

good and right and the Lord, our God is merciful . (Psalms 115:5

)

For the Lord your God is a merciful God

; not abandon you and do not destroy thee, nor forget the covenant which he swore to your fathers. (
Deuteronomy 4:31)















But

one who knows everything, knows it and has scrutinized by intelligence. It is he who shall turn in times ruled the earth and filled it in animals. (Baruch 3:32

)

not multiply the speeches arrogant, arrogance does not come out of your mouth, because the Lord is the God who knows everything and his works are governed. (1 Samuel 2:3 )

have no other god but me. (Exodus 20:3) The term "omnipotent" means "anything that can, and can be attributed only to God (from dictionary), so anything imaginable can be made by God ( if someone believes that "anything" is not synonymous with "every conceivable thing," you can now reads: "at least every conceivable thing can be done by God," because in this case "everything thinkable" is a subset just "whatever"). At this point, postulating that (PA) there is a single entity called God of which (to borrow the terminology of St. Anselm) nothing can be more: (PA) ∃ x [R & ( ⌐

∃ z (z> x) & (y) (Dy

⇾ x = y))]

with D: "to be God."

for "greatest of all Board" means the entity that possesses all perfections, and intuitively, perfection is a desirable property the highest degree. Here is revealed with clarity throughout the arbitrariness on which the Saint Anselm's definition of God: the preferability implies, for example, feel better goodness to evil, life or death, but this requires a human to judge subjectively the best that can be said - namely, what is best for the judging

. And the fact that some people deem it preferable property does not mean that God possesses. The same

Gödel, in his "mathematical proof of the existence of God," warns the problem, and speaks of "positive properties." However the issue remains unchanged: we have no yardstick to determine objectively as possible which property can be said and what is not positive, once again, the only yardstick is the human one, returning the properties to the same positive refutation of property preferable. But what is puzzling is what a property could ever be "the highest degree." It might be expected that all properties are crystallized into archetypes, and the objects according to the hierarchical proximity to these archetypes. Give now, mo 'for example, any color, brown. In nature there are various shades of brown, but no one can say with certainty Brown, it can happen then apply an agreement through which it is determined that "this here is brown. From that point on, you can prioritize all the bodies because of their proximity to the archetype established, which is brown in the highest degree. But what is considered "maximum", "archetype" has been established arbitrarily, that is, by men.

In summary, to say that God possesses all perfections support means that only the properties that people prefer and the way you determine which, euphemistically, is not very persuasive. a ploy to stem the problem is to consider the properties

eminentiori

sensu (ie extended indefinitely), instead of "the highest degree." This will replace an unacceptable arbitrariness with something that no one understands the meaning, but justified by the fact that God is beyond human cognitive faculties. So, for example, well, controversial concept in itself, in God is an infinite good - even more controversial.

But now, flying over the property sull'inaccettabilità positive or preferable, let's assume that God exists.

We know it can do anything you can imagine by virtue of his omnipotence. So it could be a dog or a plant. There are consequences more fatal, which would lead to absurd logic, such as the fact that

(a)

God can not be himself or

(b)

institution can create a "greater than he" (meaning Anselmo). To grasp the absurdity in all its glory, note the formalization of (a):

(a) ∃ x (Dx & (Y) (Dy

⇾

M
⌐ Dy & x = y))

with M = modal operator of possibility. For (b) applies instead: (b)
∃ x [R & (y) (z) (Dy

⇾

MCyz & x = y & z> x)]

where C = "create an entity".

A theologian may rightly place the emphasis on the operator is not truth-functional M: in fact this is only possible, and God could not do it. Theology tells us that in reality

(1st) exercise the omnipotence of God as an act of will

or whatever God wants he can do. Meanwhile, by (b) we note that there is at least the possibility that there is an even greater authority of God himself, call 2 God, but God 2, being greater than God, is even more powerful, and will certainly create a God 3, and so on to infinity. So we have an infinite number of potentials. So (b1) is possible that God exists at least one of n-th level created by one God of level n-1. This is a generalization of (b):
(b1) M ∃ x [D x & n ∃ y (n-1 D & y (z) (n-1 D z ⇾ SXZ & y = z & ⌐
x = y))]

= S "being created by".

Since humans can not know when and how God exercises his will (from (1a)), for (b1) we must correct the theologians and say that there is at least a God who could have created (not just more of him: divine entities may also create less than or equal to itself, resulting in a similar pantheon that described by the currents and the Gnostic Corpus Hermeticum):

(TNU) Theorem to potential non-uniqueness of God :

∃ x (Dx & MGxx)

where G = "create more institutions, equal to or less than."

The (TNU) contradicts the assumption (0): If God is omnipotent, we must admit that may not be the only God, but if we admit the uniqueness at all costs, we must recognize that may not be omnipotent.

But is not the only contradiction. We can ask if (1) God is able to do things that he himself does not know: if he can do it, then it is not omniscient, if it can not omnipotent. Even if such action would be potential omniscience would be compromised, since it would ignore the possibility.
Finally, the character of omnipotence includes the possibility of evil actions (this argument is known for millennia and has been properly resolved in different ways, with important modifications of the concept of God and Amalric, and Schelling), but from (3) we know that God is infinitely good, then God can not do evil. The fact remains that could do it as a possibility: but this is impossible, since God is essentially good. Since the Good can not do evil even in power, God can not do evil even in power. Therefore God is infinitely good, or is or omnipotent.

Hl-dt-st Dvdram Gh40f Funktioniert Nicht

BECOME HARD!

Enzo Biagi during an interview with Pier Paolo Pasolini, who argued that television - a medium of mass - was "false" and "alienating", urged him thus: "television, in addition to bringing the cheese at home, as she once wrote, now brings his words ... we are discussing all with great freedom and without any inhibition or not?"

Pasolini's response was dry, sharp, peremptory and beautiful in the entire Her scandalous truth:

"no, not true. I can not say everything I want. I could not because I would be accused of contempt ... I can not really say anything. And then, beyond that, objectively, in front of naivety or sprovvedutezza of some listeners, myself I would not say certain things. " _{Pasolini feels, in a public context, to be forced to limit (and wanting to self-limited) because consciously feel a kind of boundary - the Pillars of Hercules of critical thinking - beyond which we can not push; penalty, vilification and accusations of being lynched by the community.} Those aspects of a society to which they can not be planted the seeds of doubt without arousing scandal, are enclosed in the domain of the sacred , intended as a reference system which is based on a dogmatic culture. Every culture has the same design concept of the sacred, but it may have different content. It directs the plasma and the people's common sense - is the foundation of moral nietzscheiana of the flock, the same flock "naive and inexperienced" to which Pasolini prefers to adopt an attitude of fear, or perhaps his father, silence (despite this, ventured too - he was then killed). The perverse mechanism that he complained in the interview is the reversal of subject-object: the original free individual, active and conscious is dragged into a dialectical course through the medium of mass that the "alien" objectifies it - the individual becomes receptive , and starts a relationship of total subordination to the mass medium, which evens out the plasma and the object, making the subject. The action that holds the new entity massifying primarily to entrench ever more deeply in the consciousness in the holy faith. In any rough and "helpless" flat soul can always find a place in a totally unreflective an ideal that is beautiful and majestic, almost self-evident , the individual who receives it and is in good faith, not even suspect its total arbitrariness . All this is evident in the fascist period, or in any religious fundamentalism, but is actually a process present in every historical moment, even if it is less obvious, is constitutive of the fact that intimate human tendency to sleep and laziness.

However every man is left to the right of choice. The dialectical process of inversion of subject and object is not in need , everyone is free to take the path of the existence or inauthentic existence that full and complete.

is defined as 'inauthentic existence' to be receptive object, an instrument at the mercy of the dominant forces, is the choice of the flock, where you deny the individual the individual will and intellect to become slaves of an alien will undifferentiated and alienating .

life that is authentic but has two conditions: recognition of one's will as distinct and essential to the success of the ontological entity, or as a way of affirming the oneness of the individual self, which is reflected in the activity creator and destroyer, and the confidence in the intellect as the only instrument capable not only of the direct ' speculation and scientific, but also free to conduct the individual self through the "mystical forest," populated by statues and shadows of the sacred.

The main role that must play the analytical mind is to demystify and thus destructor fictional concepts and hairpieces. The criticism, to be truly such, must consult with all its analytical power and polish to the sacred, which is the glue of the flock, the system of dogmas overpowering, unquestionable and inviolable, and shall cause for scandal, defile - the only way to be totally free and consistent with its role as demystifying, making reappropriate the ego of its deepest and most authentic roots, and making it free.

In this sense we must recover a fundamental virtue which belonged to the Socratic school of cynics, this is the year of
parresia , which is to tell the truth when it caused a sensation in the audience, but also when you run the risks of the text. Socrates, Diogenes of Sinope and Friedrich Nietzsche are three shining examples of majestic and exercise of virtue parresiastica.

must admit that in the modern world it is hard to talk about "truth" relativism (if not nihilism) prevents us from using it when not talking about factual truth (real objects). If nothing else, then, parresia has a duty to bring to light the absolute (this is absolute!) Passed to arbitrary concepts and most certain unquestionable dogmas.

E 'need to avoid the intellect and haunting take the easier path of temptation; his analytical faculties could sopirsi, and turning against the sacred without it, build a model of thought based on that mindless opposition. This is not a critical act nor demistificatorio, it is a trivial and immediate claim to the contrary, it may have for example (in religion) the form of blasphemy vulgar, empty, purely external. Such a position only serves to reaffirm the purpose of the opposition through its systematic denial: an anti-identity is constructed in the image and likeness of the sacred, which has its roots in it and from which it depends.

The analytical power should be therefore be directed also to the intellect itself, which must constantly refer to honesty, consistency, and above all the tireless critical exercise. only after revealing the arbitrariness of any content of the sacred, the subject can make, through the will, orthopraxy its own, built around its own being. From the rubble of the sacred, from the consequences of his thought, every one gets a successful ethical individuality, the construction of references (or, more evocative with an expression nietzscheiana, "stars") in particular to the self can and should be left to the speculation of each.

Among the biggest mistakes of humanity - and indeed elevated to the rank of "sacred" - is the concept of God Already Spinoza (XVII century), the reality began to blur dangerously (or, if you prefer, it became theoretically knowable, as it coincides with nature; therefore unnecessary!) with Nietzsche came to its final death

"what are now more churches if they do not tombs and sepulchres of God? "