Peg):Figure Ontological Structure: Pegboard (ii). Figure three.3. Ontological Structure: Pegboard (ii).Each and every structure (and pegboard) would incorporate it a RP101988 Description distinct type of sort with Every single structure (and pegboard) would contain withinwithin it a distinct entity of entity using a distinct way being (or mode of existence): abstract entities that have an abstract way of a distinct way of of being (or mode of existence): abstract entities which have an abstract way of being and concrete entities possess a concrete way way of becoming. More precisely, abstract and being and concrete entities thatthat possess a concreteof being. A lot more precisely, abstract and concrete entities, though they’re every single a part of the univocal category of getting, and thus possess generic GYKI 52466 web existence (which can be expressed by the single, generic, unrestricted existential quantifier ), are taken to have different fundamental ways of becoming that correspond to distinct fundamental structures of reality. Offered the Quinean association amongst existence and existential quantification–where ontology issues what existential quantifiers range over–these structures or domains, as noted previously, are taken to be ranged over by two diverse elite existential quantifiers: `a ‘ meaning current abstractly and `c ‘ which means current concretely, each of which is completely organic by `carving nature at its joints’, and hence represent the distinct methods of being and structures of reality that are had by abstract entities and concrete entities. Within the framework provided by Theistic OP, we take God to become an entity that exists within two ontological structures: the abstract structure and the concrete structure. God is hence an entity that has two ways of being (or manners of existence): by existing in the abstract structure, God has an abstract way of being, represented by the quantifier `a ‘, and by God existing in the concrete structure, God features a concrete way of becoming, represented by the quantifier `c ‘. God is therefore an entity that exists within, or overlaps, two ontological structures and domains of reality, and therefore has two methods of being that correspond to these two structures and domains. So on the basis on the various ways of getting that happen to be had by God, 1 can re-construe (Theism) as follows:God, the right and ultimate supply of developed reality, is: (a ) in his abstract way of getting: (c ) in his concrete way of becoming: (a) Very simple (a1 ) Complex (b) Timeless (b1 ) Temporal (c) Immutable (c1 ) Mutable (d) Impassible (d1 ) Passible(7) (Theism2 )Within the abstract structure (or domain of reality), God’s manner existence is that of being an entity that lacks proper parts (i.e., is straightforward); temporal succession, place and extension (i.e., is timeless); is intrinsically and extrinsically unchangeable (i.e., is mutable); and is causally unaffectable (i.e., is passible). However, inside the concrete structure (or domain of reality), God’s manner existence is the fact that of getting an entity which has correct parts (i.e., isReligions 2021, 12,11 ofcomplex); has temporal succession, place and extension (i.e., is temporal); is intrinsically and extrinsically changeable (i.e., is mutable); and is causally affectable (i.e., is passible). Hence, provided the distinct strategies of becoming that God has, there is absolutely no absurdity inside a traditionalist affirming the CT and NCT extensions of Theism–as the 4 one of a kind attributes posited by the former, and the contraries of those attributes which can be posited by the latter, are had by God relative to a s.