Being and BecomingEssay Preview: Being and BecomingReport this essayBeing and BecomingHow do we explain change or the lack of change? What is being or becoming? Just some of the questions past Greek Philosophers tried to answer. Exploring Heraclitus ideas of no being just becoming, a continuous change and the unity of opposites. On the other hand Parmenides views on ontology the study of being, “the one and the many”. Both postulated a model of nature and the universe which created the foundation for all other speculation on physics and metaphysics.
To make clear each Philosophers views we must explain some ideas of the world. Both studied Cosmology, study of the universe as a rationally ordered system (Cosmos) and Logos the rule according to which all things are accomplished and the law which is found in all things. 2 Heraclitus known as a pure empiricist thought of the universe as an ordered structure and observed constant change. So how could there be a being when everything is every changing? Heraclitus thought only Logos operates in all things, the one true operator consists of all the paired opposites in the universe. The truth is that all things are one, but are united, opposite and are always in a state of tension that depends on them, the universe is in continuous state of equilibrium like the yin and yang. Heraclitus fragment 50, Listening to the Logos rather than to me, it is wise to agree that all things are in reality on thing and one thing only.3 Fragment 12, On those who step in the same river, different and different waters flow. 4
Parmenides known as a rationalist was in conscious opposition with Heraclitus and the idea of for whom it is and is not, the same and not the same, and all things travel in opposite directions. Parmenides wrote the poem On Nature where in a goddess instructs him in the two ways, that of the Truth and the deceptive way of Belief, in which is no truth at all. The first being Truth is the things exist, the illusion in that nonexistence also can be and the second of the world of illusion. It cannot have come into being it must have come from something. It could not have arisen from nothing, there is no nothing. Parmenides thought that the real cannot be attained by the senses they are only appearances and are not real. Seen Being as correct and not-being as a false impression seeing change as false, to change is to become something else. So where would the old state go?
The philosopher-seeker’s point is to show the absurdity of the claim that God is impossible. Parmenides thought the problem is not a problem of God but of the belief that the existence of God is a contradiction. Parmenides also believes that we could have a real existence without God. To do that then would be to lose the idea of God.
This was so in the sixth century B.C.E. but when the seventh century P.E. came around, Parmenides wrote a treatise on divinity, called Aquinas. Aquinas explains the existence of God with a few points. In his conclusion it says:
[God is] the world of existence. But of itself (from the first to the most profound) we do not know if it is a real or imaginary. On the contrary, it is, as is shown above, a thing existing in this world.
Greece
To conclude, while the Bible does not say anything much, it does show us how the existence of the world of God would be impossible. He states that there is one God who would be absolutely impervious to the world, while there is also the one God who would kill His own children. (I give quotes below.)
In this scenario, God is only created in His own image, that is, it cannot be, it cannot move, that is to say it has no place in the universe, because His image is one infinite from heaven, in the universe there is no man other than His shadow.
The final point, however, is more important: as time went on, it became clear that nothing would ever leave heaven and that the only thing that could not have existed would have been an infinite being. A finite being is nothing more than the very concept of one uniting to itself in one dimension of space. This is why we see the existence of God in the first three verses of the Second Vatican Council. Even from an astronomical point of view the God of Revelation was made man, there was no sense in having nothing. When He said these words ‘God weeps unto this great and terrible world,’ our God was not that very God.
The Bible also uses a phrase which in itself is not only a contradiction but an allegory on the concept of the universe and that it’s not real unless it is created by something so as to create some other world. This is the concept that God is a thing, which God can be either real or imaginary, but the Bible uses this term to designate that it would be impossible to make sense of the universe. There is thus no way that the Bible could claim that there was no Creator and that there could not be an infinitely good God even from the beginning—and that is false. There is indeed no God because He has no name, as the Bible teaches.
The First Vatican Council
The Second Vatican Council held in 2004 in Rome had a similar argument. In it they also made a strong argument on how God really happened in history. The first Vatican Council declared that God never existed.
This decision caused a major uproar amongst theologians and, as we will see, is a major reason that the New Testament does not have the argument on its face. The first Vatican Council didn’t claim that God never existed.
The Second Vatican
The philosopher-seeker’s point is to show the absurdity of the claim that God is impossible. Parmenides thought the problem is not a problem of God but of the belief that the existence of God is a contradiction. Parmenides also believes that we could have a real existence without God. To do that then would be to lose the idea of God.
This was so in the sixth century B.C.E. but when the seventh century P.E. came around, Parmenides wrote a treatise on divinity, called Aquinas. Aquinas explains the existence of God with a few points. In his conclusion it says:
[God is] the world of existence. But of itself (from the first to the most profound) we do not know if it is a real or imaginary. On the contrary, it is, as is shown above, a thing existing in this world.
Greece
To conclude, while the Bible does not say anything much, it does show us how the existence of the world of God would be impossible. He states that there is one God who would be absolutely impervious to the world, while there is also the one God who would kill His own children. (I give quotes below.)
In this scenario, God is only created in His own image, that is, it cannot be, it cannot move, that is to say it has no place in the universe, because His image is one infinite from heaven, in the universe there is no man other than His shadow.
The final point, however, is more important: as time went on, it became clear that nothing would ever leave heaven and that the only thing that could not have existed would have been an infinite being. A finite being is nothing more than the very concept of one uniting to itself in one dimension of space. This is why we see the existence of God in the first three verses of the Second Vatican Council. Even from an astronomical point of view the God of Revelation was made man, there was no sense in having nothing. When He said these words ‘God weeps unto this great and terrible world,’ our God was not that very God.
The Bible also uses a phrase which in itself is not only a contradiction but an allegory on the concept of the universe and that it’s not real unless it is created by something so as to create some other world. This is the concept that God is a thing, which God can be either real or imaginary, but the Bible uses this term to designate that it would be impossible to make sense of the universe. There is thus no way that the Bible could claim that there was no Creator and that there could not be an infinitely good God even from the beginning—and that is false. There is indeed no God because He has no name, as the Bible teaches.
The First Vatican Council
The Second Vatican Council held in 2004 in Rome had a similar argument. In it they also made a strong argument on how God really happened in history. The first Vatican Council declared that God never existed.
This decision caused a major uproar amongst theologians and, as we will see, is a major reason that the New Testament does not have the argument on its face. The first Vatican Council didn’t claim that God never existed.
The Second Vatican