"St. Thomas likens the procession of the Word in God to our act of self-awareness when the mind is both naturally and objectively identified with itself. So it is as if in thinking of himself that God begets God. He is pure intelligibility, and his act of understanding issuing in his Word is identical with his very being." - The Thought of Thomas Aquinas by Brian Davies

So some Christians think the Son of God is God as known to God. That is, the Word is God’s self-knowledge and that his self-knowledge or self-awareness is his existence.

Your argument deduces "a horse is knowledge", I know you didnt assert it. For a horse exists and is certainly knowable, and, by your claim, that which is knowable is knowledge, thus a horse is knowledge. Am I wrong to think your claim here is that I can replace the sentence "X is knowable" with "X is knowledge"?

This is a category error, you are confusing an entity and the concept of an entity; these are two different things. Note that while the switching of categories is, via the horse example, nonsensical, you have not actually attempted to even give any justification for the claim; you merely stated it as fact.

I know “I am” in a pre-philosophical, non-conceptual sense. That knowledge of being, knowing I am a unitary being and knowing that I am, antedates quidditative or what determinations, such as I am a human. That knowledge, the axial principle that makes a being a being and a being be, is what I’m talking about, not the quiddity of things.

Okay, sure, but I don't understand the relation. I am challenging this clause: "that which is knowable is knowledge". This statement seems not just unjustified, but false due to a category error. I have explained this and don't see how any of your responses thus far speak to the point I have tried to outline.

Perhaps you could state precisely what you mean by the terms in this clause and justify the, rigorously, explaining why the category error I have identified is not present.

“That which is knowable is knowledge intelligible.”

Does that help? Or, in context:

“To exist is to be knowable, and that which is knowable is intelligible. So, the nature of existence is intelligibility.”

In effect, what I’m saying is the intelligibility of a thing is not a product of the mind apprehending it, but of the thing itself. In other words, it’s the inherent intelligibility of a being that makes a being intelligible to our mind, not our mind that makes a being intelligible.

Are birth defects, cancer and other catastrophies like a tsunami an argument against god?

well yes, it helps in the sense that you are no longer making the category error you were making before which confused an entity and the concept of an entity.However, your work is not yet done. I don't quite know what you mean by knowable and intelligible but colloquially they seem synonymous. So you need to explain what the meaningful difference is between these two words. And then you have to show the derivation that the X is knowable implies that X is intelligible which requires effort if the two adjectives are meaningfully different in some as yet determined sense. The fact that you state the implication without justification just lends weight to the idea that these two words are not meaningfully different.

God(s) aren't real.

Although, science proved there is a God particle!

http://globalgrind.com/news/god-part...d-2012-details


Classic science, leaving religion befuddled.

A. I know, therefore I am.
B. I am, therefore I know.

Those are the metaphysical axioms I work off, from which I conclude: the nature of my being-ness is to know. Which I rendered universally as: the nature of being (existence) is knowledge.

That’s what the terms mean to me. So if you’d like to substitute more fitting terms that better suit your understanding, like ‘apprehend’ or ‘awareness’, that’s fine.

Are we talking completely at cross purposes here? I am failing to see how any of your recent responses are at all related to the issue I raised, but I don't know who is misunderstanding whom.

Anyways, on this seemingly separate issue you raised, I don't see how your conclusion "the nature of my being ness is to know" follows, or what this sentence even means.

Problem of evil is an argument against a loving, carrying personal god.

Yeah, I’m a little lost as well. Maybe if you answer the question I responded to, I’ll get a better idea of the sort of response you're looking for.

1.618 Phi, the golden ratio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hvD5kLqjuw

Basically illustrating that there is an exact mathematical design to lots of **** found in nature, and one can conclude that our world was designed and not some random occurance of events. When I first learned about this I was like holy **** there it is. Obviously this is no proof that any particular religion is correct or anything just that there must be SOME sort of creator (god/race of aliens/something we can't understand/whatever)....

I'd also like to add that my first son was recently born and had some hair, and guess what shape it's in (looking from the top of his head)? A ****ing swirl!