Womit Philosophie und Theologie sich auch befassen What philosophy and theology also deal with
Über einen personalen Gott läßt sich streiten: Wie kann anfang- und endebehaftetes „Körperliches“ im „Sein“
unverwandelbar grenzenlos „da“ sein, denn Gegenstände werden innerlich ( z. B. infolge Alterungsprozess ) und von außen durch Einflüsse verändert
( z. B. infolge Krafteinwirkung ) und können prinzipiell nicht aus „unendlicher“ Masse bestehen ...
Wie kann „Universal-Geistiges“ im „Sein“
unverwandelbar in Begrenzung „da“ sein, um dennoch immer und überall denselben elementaren Aussagewert zur Verfügung zu stellen [ z. B. G. W. Leibniz
(1646-1716): Wenn 2+1+1=4, dann ist 2+2=4 ] ...
Ein Außerhalb des „Immer und Überall“ unter dem ontologischen „Sein“-Begriff kann nicht gedacht
werden.
Dass 2+2=4 ergibt ist nicht eine Frage der menschlichen Erfahrung, sondern der Erkenntnis.
A personal God can be argued about: How can beginning- and end-bounded “corporeal“ in “being“ be
unchangeably boundlessly “there“, because objects are changed internally ( e.g. as a result of the process of aging ) and from the outside by influences
( e.g. as a result of the effect of force ) and can in principle not consist of an “infinite“ mass ...
How can “universal-spiritual“ in “being“ be
“there“ unchangeable in limitation, in order to nevertheless always and everywhere make available the same elementary statement value [ e.g. G. W.
Leibniz (1646-1716): If 2+1+1=4, then 2+2=4 ] ...
An outside of the “Always and Everywhere“ cannot be thought under the ontological
“being“-concept.
That 2+2 results in 4 is not a question of human experience, but of knowledge.
Where philosophy and theology agree factually
Ontological presupposition
a) The term “being“ as a conceivable “being of the universal totality“ includes unlimitedly and according
to b) consequent to thinking everything that once materially and immaterially exists in respective time-spatiality (“being“ time-spatial in
“only-there-being“ ).
b) The concept of “non-being“ as unthinkable “not-being“ makes out of everything that is thought into it a “something-being“
( non-being is only not ).
Determination:
Let ❖ be measurable finite as a spatiotemporally limited material ( bodies,
things )
Let ∞ be not measurable infinite as spatiotemporally unlimited-borderless Immaterial ( principles of nature, laws of nature,
laws of logic, laws of mathematics )
Let ¬ be “is not“
Let ≡ be “identical with“
Thus:
❖ means material
“something“ that existed, exists or still is possible related to itself, spatiotemporally limited in the causal context
∞ means immaterial
“something“, in only-present related to “everything“, spatiotemporally unlimited
∞ / ∞ = ∞ as “indeterminate /
indeterminate = indeterminate“ ( factor 1, there is only one infinity according to determination )
❖ ¬ ∞ as “thing is not indeterminate“
is not unlimited as a material thing
Let ❖ be for example a human being
Let ∞ be for example a law of logic
Let ❖ be ∞
results in 0, untrue ( zero )
Let ❖ ≡ ∞ be 1 (wrong thinking!), then immaterials would have to be structured and limited, so it is untrue
( one, because base false, inference false )
Spatio-temporally bound “being of the universal totality“ means philosophically “being“, theologically
“God“. “Being“ = “God“? Identification with God as immaterial equation “human being ≡ God“ corresponds to “human being ≡ philosophically being“,
ontologically wrong, as justified: “❖ ≡ ∞“ results in 0 ( untrue ). Theology deals primarily with the investigation of contents of faith
(access of human being to the idea of God). Philosophy tries to fathom the world and the human existence to interpret and to understand rational. Both of it
helps human variety.
E.R.A 2022
Sich von sich trennen: Wirklichkeit denken Separate from yourself: Think reality
It is a disadvantage, which the natural science enters, that natural laws must be able to be proven. Theology may assert beliefs. There are good arguments of competent philosophers and natural scientists, for whom the further search for objective reality instead of subjective truths is the first goal. Their often long-winded language is generally relatively rarely understood. There are good arguments of competent theologians, for whom it is important to give spiritual support in a comprehensible way, which is generally acceptable to many people. Far from this Tertullianus ( about 160 to after 220 ): “Who believes, needs about his faith nothing furthermore, because the first thing we believe is that there is nothing more, that we still have to believe beyond faith“. The fact of the not-manunmade priority of the spiritual being-component opposite the material component of being, which illustrates this primacy, is equally valid for philosophy and theology. The physics limits itself here, because indeterminacy lies beyond of its interest. Thus with its “singularity of the big bang“ it simply sets a final point, even though it commits with this final point an excursion into the extra-physical philosophy, which exceeds its own limitation. Thereby all space distances, which earthly human being can recognize thanks to technology, are only a very small section of the unlimited world totality ( because “nothing-being“ is only NOT ).
Momentenfluss ist nicht Dauer Flow of moments is not duration
Planet Erde ist das universale Zentrum? Planet earth is the universal center?