Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
You say that a "test by nature is only a proof of existence". If a test is a proof of existence as you say, then why would God test anything/anyone to prove its existence when he knows it exists, especially when God is supposed to be the grounds of existence for everything? This principle implies that God needs proof of existence of things whose existence depends on God, which is absurd.
God relfects himself ad-infinitum as opposition to nothingness through being. Proof is actualization in the face of nothingness as pure being. Tests mimic this.
So test = proof of existence, and proof of existence = actualisation, presumably of something from potential existence to actual existence. Then a test = actualization. When God creates or actualizes something he is testing it? Sorry but this is not what people mean when they say that God is testing us or that this life is a test.
Let us see how your concept of test, when applied to the claim that God is testing us, will answer the question:
God is testing us in this life = God is proving our existence in this life(if something exists it necessarily exists, so why prove that something exists when God is the grounds of existence? We know that we exist and God, if he exists, knows that we exist too. Absurd.)
God is testing us in this life = God is proving our actualisation in the face of nothingness (the same as above, absurd.)
God is testing us in this life = God is actualising us (How can you actualise that which is actual? Absurd.)
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pmThe idea that God tests us to prove that we are what we are (to prove that X is X as you put it), or as you said "a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are", when God already knows what we are, is circular.
Testing is actualization.
In regards to the geometric foundation of the argument:
If a line extends into a zero dimensional point, ad-finintum, it eventually folds into upon itself througha an act of self-reflection as it can only exist through itself. Linear logic, is contradictory on its own terms as it requires exterior relations ad-fininitum, which in turn requires further exterior relations, etc. The line is merely an extension between two points as "Pi" or the circle. Many ancients, viewed God as represented through the circular. Linearism is randomness as movement towards point zero.
I don't see how "self reflecting lines" and things that "exist in themselves" answers the question of whether it is coherent or not to say that the God of orthodox monotheism is testing us.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pmWe can cut out the test part and God still knows that X is X, which is a necessary truth.
Actually you cannot cut out the test part, as the test is strictly opposition to nothingness. God opposes nothingness, through being. In turn man, as an extension, follows a similiar pattern. We do this intuitively, even rationally, such as using this argument as an example. One person provides a positive, the other provides a negative, in turn a synthesis occurs resulting in "being"...in this case "axioms" or "truth(s)".
Well, if you define "test" as "actualisation" or "proving existence" then God actualising us or proving our existence we already exist is still incoherent. God hating nothingness so he actualises us and proves our existence is nonsense I am sorry to say.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pmThere is no need to test whether something is identical to itself, we know this a priori,
Being identical to oneself implies division. "A" just is. "A = A" observes as a duality now, while simultaneously observing dual terms as "A" and "=". Equality implies division in the face of multiplicity as a form of deficiency. To imply one is identical to oneself is to seperate oneself into a form of symmetry, where "A = A" is now (A=A) = B, which in turn forms ((A=A)=B=B) = C. In these respects the observation of equality is the observation of individuation.
As extensions of God, whose self-reflects in opposition to nothingness, man actualizes himself through proof as action, intent, etc. A test is not a thing in itself but strictly absense of order.
God testing us, is merely God allowing us to be free of him by allowing a percieved absence. In these respect, a test is who we are when we are ignorant of God. What we believe and why is what forms us, and in these respects we actualize as God (or relations of) by transcending past ourselves.
You are being confused by the symbols we use to express the law of identity. A is A is how we express the idea that something cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. There is no division here, the division exists only in the perception of the symbol "A" being separated from another instance of the symbol "A" by an the symbol "=".
To say that man actualises (tests) himself is not the same as to say that God actualises (tests) man. Remember that we are talking about God testing man. Still what you said there is incoherent and, I am sorry to say, nonsense.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm and if God exists he knows this is a necessary truth. What's more, since God knows all true propositions he knows all the choices that will be made by all free beings in all situations, possible or actual. Thus the idea of God testing us to prove that we exist or to prove that we are identical to ourselves is incoherent.
God's testing is us proving we exist.
So God is actualising us to prove that we exist? Or the equivalent according to your definitions, God is proving our existence to prove that we exist. This is circular and in no way answers the question in the OP.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pmNo because testing is just actualization in the face of opposition. Opposition provide a means to free will, however free will does not require opposition. Free will allows all possibilities to exist on their own terms, if something choose to do "x" the testing process is just an observation of consequence that already happened.
God may know what we choose, but we know only through choice.
God knows a priori, we know a posteriori. So God tests us to prove that we exist and to allow us to actualise potentials in us? Lets take the right hand side of the conjunction. If I understood it correctly, God testing us means that God is allowing us to actualise our potentials through the exercise of free will. God could still create free agents who freely choose to do only what is morally good in all by actualising only the situations in which these beings will freely choose to do good. But this is now a free will theodicy and not what we are discussing here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pmAs for the students being tested so they can "express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom" does not seem plausible. The students always have the freedom to express what they have learned and are encouraged to express it. If a student learns how to create programs, then the teacher will encourage him to practice, to express this skill whenever he can, not only in an test.
Yes they have that freedom, but what freedom is it in the face of encouragement?
The same could be asked about teaching them, what freedom is it in the face of their being taught? If you teach someone to do something in a particular way, say, the right way, are you limiting or violating his free will? Of course not.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pmWhat we know about tests from looking at real world examples of tests is that if one doesn't pass a test then one cannot progress. So we test because we do not know who is competent enough to progress and who isn't. It also reveals errors to the student so they can correct them. So it is not true that the test is only for the student, but not for the teachers. Both need the test.
God reflects himself ad-infinitum in opposition to nothingness as being, he is not applying anything he himself has not experienced. As extensions, we would follow the same process. A test is merely opposition to nothingness. A teach hands a kid a paper with no answers on it, the kid must provide structure to the emptiness of the test, through answers.
Sorry but this makes no sense at all.