Proof For Thing

[LearningToLetGo]

If no thing then no thing.

If thing then thing and no thing.

Thus thing.

In other words, if there is only no thing, then there is nothing to know there is no thing.

But if there is thing, then there is thing to both know there is thing, and know there is no thing.

Thus to express fullness, there must be thing.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Alternately:

If FALSE then FALSE.

If TRUE then TRUE and FALSE.

Thus TRUE.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Stated yet another way, you can have zero only because you have non-zero. For example, 1, 2, 3 etc. If all you ever have is zero then you don't know you have zero since there is nothing to compare it to.

It is the comparison that allows definition. Without boundaries, nothing can exist, thus no thing requires thing.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Likewise you can have one only because you have zero and two. They are one's boundaries. The same is true for all the other numbers. Lower and higher are needed for definition itself.

But this is not just true of numbers but of all things.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

I'm going somewhere with this...

 

[BibleLover]

I'm going somewhere with this...

I'm in agreement with you. Everything that exists must by nature have an opposite. Evil can't exist unless good exists, heresy can't exist without orthodoxy, light can't exist without darkness, etc.

We'll soon be into deep epistemology.

 

[In Awe of Him]

DA SHEEP...... NO DA SHEEP........ = DA SHEEP because you can't get rid of DA SHEEP by NO DA SHEEP. HA

 

[bobinfaith]

Stated yet another way, you can have zero only because you have non-zero. For example, 1, 2, 3 etc. If all you ever have is zero then you don't know you have zero since there is nothing to compare it to. It is the comparison that allows definition. Without boundaries, nothing can exist, thus no thing requires thing.

Likewise you can have one only because you have zero and two. They are one's boundaries. The same is true for all the other numbers. Lower and higher are needed for definition itself. But this is not just true of numbers but of all things.

I'm in agreement with you. Everything that exists must by nature have an opposite. Evil can't exist unless good exists, heresy can't exist without orthodoxy, light can't exist without darkness, etc.
We'll soon be into deep epistemology.

Good morning, LearningToLetGo;

Reading Proof for Thing filled me with two thoughts. The first is English. To me, is a beautiful language. Sure, we talk about the Hebrew, Greek and it's interesting multi-meanings. English also has it's own qualities, characteristics and dual meanings, for example, your formulas / theories regarding zeros and numbers.

The second thought from this thread remind of me of the "contrast" Proverbs, for example, the difference between righteous versus evil in one given chapter or verse.

I'm curious to learn where this is going.

God bless you, Jason.

Bob

 

[LearningToLetGo]

I'm curious to learn where this is going.

It's axiomatic to Christianity that God is triune, but I don't recall anyone asking, "why...?"

I can't answer that either, but I can say why God is not unitary. The Son is not the Father. The Father is not the Son. They define one another. Without the one, the other does not exist. They are the perfect complement.

As to the Holy Spirit... a little nagging voice in the back of my head tells me it has to do with Love, and relationship between Father and Son. I haven't found better words to articulate that yet.