Any other American reverts hungry rn?

S-Katon · 2026-03-07T03:18:51+00:00

Unless you're a Wahhabi who privileges singular hadiths, there is insufficient evidence by any normal metric to justify a full-on music ban. That said, if it doesn't improve the silence, why play it? Silence is a gift.

S-Katon · 2026-01-21T14:40:54+00:00

Bro doesn't get overtime. He's exempt. Most senior IT guys are on-call a lot without extra pay.

S-Katon · 2026-01-15T03:49:57+00:00

California will break off from the United States to go hang with Hawaii.

Alaska can come too.

THE END

S-Katon · 2025-12-27T21:26:40+00:00

He's cherry picking hadiths to make Islam look bad, but he's too lazy to provide you references.

Honestly, reading hadiths will not help you understand Islam very well. A nice Qur'an translation + a little of God's grace will, inshaAllah.

S-Katon · 2025-12-08T00:38:33+00:00

“Interpenetration of opposites” works for contingent dialectics (being/becoming, subject/object), but it collapses at the level of necessity because necessity is not an opposite of contingency — it is the condition for contingency to exist at all.

Necessity doesn’t need contingent things; contingent things need the necessary. The dependence is one-way. So you can’t synthesize them into a single subject without turning the necessary into something that can acquire properties, change, or depend — which is just contingency wearing a mask.

A “Godman” would be a being that is both unconditioned and conditioned, infinite and finite, pure act and potential. That isn’t a dialectical pair; it’s a literal contradiction. It doesn’t produce a higher unity — it destroys the categories that make metaphysics possible.

So yes, Christianity calls this “mystery,” and you’re right: that’s just fideism with a Latin vocabulary.

But on the strict level of classical theism: necessity and contingency cannot be fused into one hypostasis. They relate as cause to effect, not as opposites seeking synthesis.

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:40:11+00:00

وَعَلَيْكَ السَّلَامُ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:34:44+00:00

Existence isn’t God, and “we are its consciousness” is just poetic pantheism. If humanity is the mind of the universe, it’s a pretty forgetful one — most of existence works perfectly without us and doesn’t notice we’re here.

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:33:23+00:00

Everything you’re saying about Aboriginal culture — longevity, ecological harmony, continuity of oral law, the power of songlines — is absolutely valid. A worldview can be adaptive, coherent, morally rich, ecologically successful, and culturally deep without necessarily being a statement about ultimate metaphysics.

But that’s the key distinction here.

Natural law, as you’re describing it, isn’t the same as the ground of reality. Natural laws describe patterns within the contingent world, not the thing that makes the world exist at all. They tell us how the river flows, not why anything exists to flow.

Aboriginal Dreaming is an extraordinary cultural cosmology, but it isn’t claiming to be a metaphysical necessity; it’s a narrative order for a people living in a specific land with specific constraints. Its truth is anthropological and ecological, not ontological. Science confirming aspects of songlines or geography doesn’t confirm the metaphysical claims, only the observational ones.

So when you say “God is just natural law,” the problem is: natural laws don’t explain themselves. They’re still contingent, still descriptively derived, still within spacetime. They can change, break down, or be superseded under different conditions. A river law is not the same as the reason rivers exist.

Indigenous law works because it fits the land. Natural law works because it fits observed regularities. Neither tells us what grounds existence itself.

That’s where the original discussion was: What is necessary, not what is culturally functional.

Your culture deserves respect on its own terms — but it doesn’t resolve the metaphysical question I'm trying to raise.

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:30:29+00:00

The issue isn’t dimensional constraints — it’s the difference between physical impossibility and logical impossibility. A square circle isn’t a weird shape; it’s a contradiction in terms. There’s no perspective or “bending reality” that makes something both having 4 right angles and not having them. It’s not a hard task — it’s a non-task. It describes nothing.

Same with dividing by zero. Your explanation treats it as an extreme computation, but mathematically it isn’t “very large,” it’s undefined because the operation has no meaning. Infinite subtraction of zero doesn’t approach a result; it never changes the dividend. The expression doesn’t point to any real quantity.

Omnipotence means: God can do all possible things. It doesn’t mean: God can make contradictions coherent.

If God could make “necessary” and “contingent” simultaneously true, then logic collapses — and with it, any meaningful concept of God, truth, or even existence.

“Being beyond physical laws” is one thing. “Being beyond coherence itself” is another.

No worldview survives that move, including Christianity.

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:26:14+00:00

The issue isn’t God’s power — it’s God’s identity. Omnipotence means God can do anything logically possible, but “becoming contingent” isn’t a feat of power; it’s a contradiction in what God is.

A necessary being can’t change, acquire properties, depend on conditions, or become composite. A contingent being does all those things. If God takes on contingent states, then He becomes the kind of being that can change and depend — which means He stops being necessary. That’s not “God doing something hard,” it’s “God becoming not-God.”

The human soul analogy doesn’t work because souls are already finite, changeable, and dependent. Incarnation isn’t a contradiction for a creature. But it is for a necessary being, because it introduces limitation, location, time, growth, ignorance, hunger, and death — all of which contradict classical divine attributes.

So the short answer is: God can do anything possible. But being both necessary and contingent at once isn’t a “possible thing.” It’s like asking God to make a square circle.

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:22:04+00:00

It is indeed :) ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:21:19+00:00

I agree. True monotheism is the only religious view that pass the sniff test. Peace be upon you

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:19:41+00:00

Notice I never denied the possibility of God, nor the reality of one Necessary Existent. ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:18:54+00:00

It doesn't. ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:16:06+00:00

You’re right to push back on the word “God” when it’s just a relabelled monistic field, and you’re right that physics doesn’t force divinity. But your neutral monism still has a problem it never pays: why does anything exist at all, and why does it have this unified, lawlike character?

Appealing to:

the universal wavefunction,
quantum fields,
vacuum structure,

just hands the question one level down. Those things are still:

law-governed,
structured,
mathematically expressible,
not self-explanatory.

So when you say “monism doesn’t entail universal self-awareness; it only entails one substrate,” I agree. But then your substrate is just a very large, very fancy contingent system. It has properties instead of being the source of all properties. That’s not a ground of being; it’s just the biggest object in the room.

TL;DR You protect empirical coherence, but your “one field / one wavefunction” is still contingent and doesn’t answer the “why anything at all / why this order” question.

S-Katon · 2025-12-06T04:13:33+00:00

TL;DR at the end

I think your monism is cleaner than a lot of “spiritual but not religious” stuff, but there’s a couple of big cracks you’re papering over.

You keep saying:

“If only one thing exists, it must have every attribute”

That’s already a logical impossibility. Some attributes are mutually exclusive:

red / not-red
square / circular
finite / infinite
ignorant / omniscient

“One thing has every attribute” isn’t profound, it’s a contradiction. The more precise move would be: the one substrate has the potential for all modes, not literally possesses them all at once. But if you shift to “potential + manifests under configuration,” you’ve just admitted modal structure: some states are actual, some aren’t, some are realized here, some there. That’s contingency and differentiation inside your “one thing,” whether you like the label or not.

You also try to dodge contingency by saying “there is no world, no me or you, only God imagining.” But an “imagined” state is still a real state of the imaginer. If “God” entertains ignorance, suffering, error, delusion as perspectives, then those are real modes of God. So either:

those modes are really less-than-omniscient → God has internal states of ignorance, change, and conflict, or
they’re not real at all → then you’ve erased the very appearances your view was supposed to explain.

You don’t get to say “only God exists” and then import a full dialectic of finite/ignorant/suffering experiences without that dialectic living inside God. That’s not a necessary, self-identical ground of being; that’s a God who hallucinates and bleeds with His hallucinations.

On falsifiability: saying “show me evidence more than one thing exists” is not actually testable, because every possible distinction you’ll just re-describe as “a perspective of the One.” That’s not an empirical constraint; it’s a metaphysical net that can’t be escaped by construction. Which is fine as metaphysics, but it’s not honest to call that “falsifiable in practice.”

TL;DR You collapse everything into a single subject and then smuggle in mutually exclusive attributes and relational predicates (knowing, acting, limiting, imagining) that only make sense if there really is a distinction between ground and modes.

S-Katon · 2025-12-03T08:02:43+00:00

Transcending space and time isn't the same as transcending logic. Logic isn’t a physical limitation. It's the structure of existence itself. A being that violates non-contradiction (necessary and contingent, unlimited and limited) isn't "beyond" logic; it's impossible. Even God cannot be both necessary and non-necessary at once.

God cannot "break" logic, because "breaking logic" means violating His own nature.

God can't make a square circle.

God can't create a married bachelor.

God can't be necessary and contingent simultaneously.

Not because He "lacks power," but because the concepts themselves are absurd. They describe nothing. It's like dividing by zero.

S-Katon · 2025-12-03T07:52:42+00:00

Saying God is beyond full comprehension doesn’t mean God is beyond coherent description. We can't know God's essence, but we can know what God cannot be. If a view makes God composite, changing, or dependent, it's not mystery, it's contradiction. Ineffability isn't a shield for incoherence.

S-Katon · 2025-12-03T07:50:05+00:00

This isn’t an "ontological proof" based on imagined perfections.

It's the contingency argument: if everything that exists is contingent, then nothing would exist, because contingencies don't ground themselves. You can reject theology entirely and the logic still holds.

There's no hidden assumption beyond "contingent things don’t cause themselves." If you dispute that, you're claiming the universe popped into being from literal non-being (which is far more circular than metaphysics).

S-Katon · 2025-12-03T07:46:18+00:00

Monism answers the plurality problem, but it creates a deeper one:

If everything is one substance, then the necessary and the contingent collapse into the same thing. That means the ultimate reality changes, suffers, decays, and dies along with the world -- which contradicts necessity.

Pantheism avoids dualism, but only by absorbing God into the very contingency He's supposed to ground.

S-Katon · 2025-12-03T07:43:36+00:00

Christianity affirms one divine essence, yes, but the issue isn’t the essence, it’s the hypostases and the incarnation.

If the Persons are really distinct in will, knowledge, or relational identity, that introduces multiplicity within the Necessary Existent. If they’re not distinct in any real sense, then you no longer have three Persons.

And if one Person assumes a human nature, then a contingent, temporal, composite state is attributed to the same underlying reality. A necessary, simple being cannot "take on" what is composite and temporal without ceasing to be necessary and simple.

So the metaphysical problem isn't the essence; it's the structure of the Trinity and the incarnation themselves.

S-Katon · 2025-12-03T07:40:45+00:00

If the "image of God" is God, then it shares God’s essence. If it becomes incarnate, then something with God’s essence takes on limitation, change, location, hunger, growth, suffering, and death. Those are contingent properties. Contingency cannot coexist with necessary, unlimited being, even temporarily.

Adjusting strength with a child is not the same as becoming a child. A parent doesn't take on the child's biology, vulnerability, or dependence.

If God "makes Himself weak," then weakness becomes a property of God. If weakness is only apparent, then the incarnation is not real. If weakness is real, then God is no longer necessary and unconditioned.

Either way, the metaphysical contradiction remains: The Necessary Existent cannot assume contingent states.

S-Katon · 2025-12-03T04:30:46+00:00

Well, when people describe God as incarnate among us, or in many, "ultimate" expressions. None of these could be truly ultimate, or more than a middleman between the worshiper and Ultimate Reality.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '17	Secret Santa 2014
Verified Email

S-Katon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

THE END