A universe without God.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Upchurch
edited to add: whoops, looks like a lot of people picked up on the inconsistancy right away. Sorry for the redundancy.

To my mind, the more damning inconsistency is that there is a truth that God cannot countermand. Not only does this destroy its claim at omnipotency, it means there is something outside of its very will. That does not bode well for God's status as primal-cause.

 

[Dancing David]

double post

 

[Dancing David]

God is the origin... the primal-cause. God is the origin of effort/force.
So, God is without origin, but is the origin of everything else.

The nature of force in the realm of perception is due to imbalance if you will the breaking of symetry or the state of perfection.

I am trying to reconcile your view with that of modern physics, I understand your enforcer argumenet, but why would the enforcer chose to fracture into say four fields of energy,
-emr
-weak force
-strong force
-gravity
?

The key would be in thier unity at scales below the plank level or at energies of a very high level. As I said in the past LifeGazer, physics often has the same message as you ,'the search for underlying unity'.

So again I ask, could not a perfect state of being chose to fracture thier perfection and give up the elements of 'primal cause' in a sort of self sacrifice?

I do understand your totality of existance argument, and the enforcer argument, I am just asking if it would not have been possible for god to have blown themselves into the fractured nature that we see. I have read the 'within the nature of god's awareness argument', but I think that I am heading in a different direction.

Could not the state of perfect being have chosen to fracture into the state of unbalanced being?

 

[Beleth]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Effort/force without an origin... an enforcer? Impossible.

[and in a different post:]

God is the origin... the primal-cause. God is the origin of effort/force.
So, God is without origin, but is the origin of everything else.

So in your belief system:

1) There are no effort/forces without an origin.
2) God is without origin.

The third statement in this syllogism is "God is not an effort/force."

Is that the conclusion you wish to reach?

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Meet your God.

Was this ever addressed, or are we just assuming that the primal/first-cause is singular?

I've been thinking about this a real tiny little bit.

In the past, a dualistic creative tradition was all the rage, usually incorporating a feminine/masculine deal, earth/air, or earth/water, or good/evil. Jewish philosophy/theology was adamantly opposed to such ideas. I base my primal/first-cause as singular on that fact.

If there is more than one first-cause you have to ask which first-cause is, hierarchically, higher in the chain of being. Or you don't have to ask that question. I forget which.

Not advocating Anselm's thingy here, but in my mind there has to be a first cause, a greatest, an ultimate creative entity. That's just me. Plurality in first-causes was an idea that has pretty much been supplanted, at least in Western culture. For good reason? I don't know, just the way it worked out.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

So in your belief system:

1) There are no effort/forces without an origin.
2) God is without origin.

The third statement in this syllogism is "God is not an effort/force."

Is that the conclusion you wish to reach?

If 1) works within physical laws of the universe, and God transcends the physical laws of the universe, you don't reach that conclusion.

-Elliot

 

[Dancing David]

God is omnipotent because only God possesses any power. God is all-powerful because only God has power.
God is omnipresent because God is all existence.

Now, God can create any perception that God wants to create, but God cannot undo the truth that only God exists.

In previous thread this has been stated by Lifegazer before, God can choose to limit thier power because that falls under the purview of 'all-powerful', I think that this is a very cool refinement on your part LG!

This statement seems to be that god is all powerful, because god is all the power that there is IE god is the manifestation of all energy. And that gad is everywhere because 'god is everything there is'.

Cool, as I recall LG, you did agree in the past that God might chose to limit thier power in the pursuit of creation, which was a great way to get around the 'god making a buritto so big they can't eat it 'argument.

Although i don't see the inconsistancy of saying tha an all powerful god made it look as though god doesn't exist, even if it is true that they do.

 

[elliotfc]

omnipotence

These are two very different statements. The first one says that God can do anything. The second says that God is just the one with the most power, not necessarily all-powerful.
This statement is consistant with your second statement above, but not with your first. If God possesses any power, God possesses the power to undo the truth that only God exists.


edited to add: whoops, looks like a lot of people picked up on the inconsistancy right away. Sorry for the redundancy.

Whever people talk about omnipotence I cringe.

Here is how I view omnipotence (in my mind).

God is, by definition, omnipotent. Nothing else is omnipotent. Does that mean God can do things that we wish he could do, theorize he could do, want him to do? No, for then he would not be omnipotent. His power/omnipotence is not subject to any of our theories or desires.

Could God duplicate himself? Make an exact copy? If he couldn't, would that make him NOT omnipotent? No, because any creative act is open to corruption (original sin). That is a fundamental tenet of theists. God is perfect, but anything he does (his action) is a step removed/below God.

God's omnipotence follows his own rules, and not ours. If we can construct ludicrous thought challenges to his power that means little to nothing, since he is by definition omnipotent. Not by our definition, the definition is defined by what he does and what he doesn't do.

-Elliot

 

[Beleth]

If 1) works within physical laws of the universe, and God transcends the physical laws of the universe, you don't reach that conclusion.

But Lifegazer's God, being the whole of the Universe as He is, does not transcend those laws. He can't. He is those laws.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Dancing David
In previous thread this has been stated by Lifegazer before, God can choose to limit thier power because that falls under the purview of 'all-powerful'

If it can limit its power, then its powers can be defined in a list of "can-do's" and "can't-do's." I would say divided into a list, but that can't be true. LG told us God was INDIVISIBLE.

 

[lifegazer]

This statement seems to be that god is all powerful, because god is all the power that there is IE god is the manifestation of all energy. And that gad is everywhere because 'god is everything there is'.

Cigar Sir?
Yup... omnipotence simply means possessor of all power.

 

[triadboy]

Re: omnipotence

Could God duplicate himself? Make an exact copy? If he couldn't, would that make him NOT omnipotent? No, because any creative act is open to corruption (original sin).

Can God create something that is NOT open to corruption? If not, we never had a chance, did we? So we wouldn't need Jesus, because we are as we were created.

God's omnipotence follows his own rules, and not ours. If we can construct ludicrous thought challenges to his power that means little to nothing, since he is by definition omnipotent. Not by our definition, the definition is defined by what he does and what he doesn't do.

Since (in my mind) God does not exist - talking about His omnipotence makes me cringe too.

Can God microwave a burrito so hot, even HE cannot consume it? - Homer

 

[triadboy]

Re: omnipotence

Could God duplicate himself? Make an exact copy? If he couldn't, would that make him NOT omnipotent? No, because any creative act is open to corruption (original sin).

Can God create something that is NOT open to corruption? If not, we never had a chance, did we? So we wouldn't need Jesus, because we are as we were created.

God's omnipotence follows his own rules, and not ours. If we can construct ludicrous thought challenges to his power that means little to nothing, since he is by definition omnipotent. Not by our definition, the definition is defined by what he does and what he doesn't do.

Since (in my mind) God does not exist - talking about His omnipotence makes me cringe too.

Can God microwave a burrito so hot, even HE cannot consume it? - Homer

 

[Atlas]

Lifegazer,

I cannot improve on the postings of others trying to shine light on your darkness. So maybe I am guilty of taking a lower road. But all of us are trying to get you to see what you are saying.

It is however, a fools errand, is it not?

O Let me try to see it your way then....

I guess it's not so bad being God. I mean, I don't feel any different. Can you tell me what to think now that I've surrendered my reason? How long before I can do magic tricks? Is now a good time to die? Would I get a prize?

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer,

I cannot improve on the postings of others trying to shine light on your darkness.

Perhaps then, you might enlighten me as to which particular posts you think have refuted my argument.
Stop waffling.

So maybe I am guilty of taking a lower road.

The gutter squire. It's so easy to mock and belittle someone. Not so easy to justify ones tirades in the process, particularly as it's blatantly obvious that my argument is more than credible.

But all of us are trying to get you to see what you are saying.

I know exactly what I am saying. Incredulity is something I face on a daily basis. Hardly surprising when I tell someone that they are God. You have to deal with your shock and come back later, perhaps. Otherwise, try another poster, one more susceptible to defeat by insult.

It is however, a fools errand, is it not?

It's a fool who ridicules a philosophy without addressing that philosophy. Are you Geoff in disguise?

O Let me try to see it your way then....

I guess it's not so bad being God. I mean, I don't feel any different. Can you tell me what to think now that I've surrendered my reason? How long before I can do magic tricks? Is now a good time to die? Would I get a prize?

You think that this is either original or funny? Didn't I tell you to get a new act?
This is a philosophy forum squire whereby some posters present arguments and ideas for scrutiny by the masses. So, either scrutinise my argument/philosophy or take a hike. I do not even think that you are capable of anything other than eloquent smirking.

 

[Atlas]

Look, I could be just as cynical as you. I actually throw alot away - It sounds so mean.

But Hey - what do I get outa being God that I don't have already.

 

[Atlas]

As far as disputing your philosophy.

I've said it before - You derive it from high level definitions that can be reduced to 'God is everything but foremost he is everything I say he is.'

I know this game. I could say ' My thoughts have existence so they are God - just as I am God. Dragons are as real to a 4 year old as his own closet. The child, the closet and the dragons are God.'

Then you say - 'Wrongo Atlasman' dragons have no existence so they are not God.'

Then I say - What about Komodo dragons?

And you say - Screw you Atlas - Why do you try to out clever me. I'm making this up from my own definitions. I say what God is. Don't get smart.

Well - you get the idea.... Everybody asks a question or a clarification and you grant us your deep insight. But you aren't explaining what is gained by the shift back to the Ptolemaic Spheres. Only that you are more clever with your own definitions, faulty and full of gaps in logic that they are.

That's what I mean by a fool's errand. We're in your playground. Not scientific - a Lifegazer dream.

 

[Atlas]

One more thing to describe my frustration I guess.

Your 'Philosophy' is semantics. The question about the hot burrito is exactly the right one.

It is a measure of the value of these 11 pages of posts.

There has to be a meaning behind it. A way for us to live life once we embrace your Singularity/God/Man/Me.

So far you've said you believe in the unity of man, No war, borders. etc.

I like fuzzy bunnies. And they are real!

Besides, war and Man's inhumanity to man have created you with all your knowledge. So it's worked out for you.

It has given us this exchange across the weird web. Why should you now lead us into a Talibanic communism. Or some other Utopia.

 

[Beleth]

Perhaps then, you might enlighten me as to which particular posts you think have refuted my argument.
Stop waffling.

I can. In fact, I'll name two.

1) Upchurch's suposition that there could possibly be more than one acausal effect. Nothing further in your argument can be reasonably discussed until you refute this one successfully.

2) My syllogism that shows that your beliefs lead to the conclusion that God is not an effort/force. This is even closer to the beginning point of your argument than Upchurch's, and again, must be addressed before it is reasonable to proceed.

You have not answered one to anyone's satisfaction and have avoided the other entirely.

Stop your own waffling.

 

[RussDill]

Okay Russ, I'll give you another shot. Explain (again please, because I've forgotten) how an ice-cream debunks my philosophy.

too lazy to click the numbers on the top of the page I see...

Put simply, it should have been predicted eons ago that the energy yielding this existence should possess a base indeterminancy. In 1800, for example, I might have said something like "The conclusion that there is a primal-cause infers the prediction that the essential energy of this existence should possess a base indeterminisn." I.e., philosophy might have predicted QM long before science ever got there.

But QM isn't just about indetrminism, there is still excating probability within it. You wouldn't be able to predict free-will like that. It would be like postulating, without ever seeing you eat ice cream, that exactly 65.43202093820% of the time, you will choose chocolate. And then observing your ice cream choices millions of times, and seeing it match. Doesn't sound like free will to me.

(Determining the probabilities of events occuring without seeing them is a fairly straightforward process in QM.)