Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 13 items for :

  • All: "Definitions" x
  • Philosophy of Religion x
Clear All
Author: Uwe Meixner

) condition for entering into sophiology and into Bulgakovian panentheism. 4. The Divine Sophia The fundamental sophiological definition is this: The Divine Sophia is the unfolded Divine Ousia (Divinity, Godhead), the one nature of the three persons of the Trinity unfolded as to content

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism
Author: Rainer Carls SJ

unter einen eher übergeordneten Begriff fällt. Außerdem setzt jede Definition voraus, dass Worte wie »Gott« oder »ein Gott« bzw. die dazugehörigen Gottesbegriffe mindestens in zwei einfachere und damit umfassendere Begriffe oder Terme zerlegt werden können, deren Bedeutung besser bekannt sein muss. Wenn

In: Mensch und Gott

, although as we will explain later, this perception is nonsensory. God and creatures both exert causal influence. The formal definition of love applies both to God and creatures capable of love, but there exist differences in degrees, expressions, and modalities. 31 In sum, theocosmocentrism offers a

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism

avoid this dismal fate in two ways. First, she provides a model of the kind of definition and demarcation necessary, by outlining the family of positions known as panpsychism in philosophy of mind. Second, she tests the correspondence of specific versions of panpsychism to panentheism’s two central

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism

, suggests that God must be viewed as »extended in his own way«: Firstly, the definition which you give of matter or body is far broader than is warranted. For God also seems to be an extended substance, as do angels and indeed every thing subsisting through itself. Hence, extension is apparently

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism
Author: Philip Goff

knowledge outlined above may be adequate to account for the epistemological situation of the Quineans but it cannot fully account for our situation. The ground of LNC, by definition, explains the truth of LNC. It follows that if one understood the essential nature of the ground of LNC, and one had

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism

under the panentheist’s banner of relationality, naturalness, scientific credibility, and embodied spirituality, is a good to which clear definitions should be willingly sacrificed. 6 For such a purpose, emphasising »family resemblances« between even the most disparate positions is enough. 7 However

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism
Author: James M. Arcadi

instance, the, so-called, ›Definition‹ of Chalcedon states: Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consisting] of a rational soul and a body; homoousious with the Father as to his Godhead, and the Same

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism
Author: Karl Pfeifer

ensouls the world. If the »en« of »ensoul« works like the »en« of »envelop«, then there is a semantic linkage to »in« that implies the world’s being in God. However, if we go with the Oxford English Dictionary ’s secondary definition of »ensoul« as »to infuse a soul into« then ensouling could be either

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism

) Panpsychism cannot explain the existence of S by recourse to the physical complexity of S. Therefore: (4) Panpsychism is false. The truth of the premises is decisive for the soundness of the argument. The first premise is true by definition, because it expresses the minimal panpsychist thesis

In: Panentheism and Panpsychism