Snakelord
“
both god and the cosmic manifestation are eternal - however the cosmic manifestation is contingent on god
”
I disagree with the latter part of the statement. While the 'cosmic manifestation' cannot create, it is on purely equal terms with a god concerning existence. It has no say in his affairs, he has no say in its.
then you have a polytheistic paradigm, which differs from a monthesitic one because there is no possibility of claiming omnipotence, as you clearly indicate
“
much like an eternal fire would have eternal heat, but the heat is contingent on the fire.
”
Now you're looking at 'creation' instead of always being. The heat is contingent on the fire because, (from a human perspective), fire creates heat. If neither came first, neither created the other then you don't end up in that scenario.
therefore I mentioned an
eternal fire - it explains not what came first but what is the cause and what is the effect
Being eternal the heat is not contingent on the fire - it is eternal regardless to the fires existence unless the fire created the heat - which given your statement we know to not be true. Your god did not create the "cosmic manifestation", it just is.
the eternality of the heat owes its nature to the eternality of the fire - in other words the heat would have no scope to act independant from the fire - like if you moved the fire 100 yards the heat would follow - if you somehow moved the heat 100 yards, the fire would not follow, and the heat, newly located 100 yards away, would cease to be eternal, meanwhile th efire woul dcontinue to emmanate eternal heat in its present location
“
If you have multiple contingencies, you have a problem
”
No you don't. Having multiple beings that have always existed and a cosmic manifestation that has always existed is no different to have one being that has always existed and a cosmic manifestation that has always existed. To many christians god is three specific entities in one, (the godly trio). If you were to put these entities in a line you wouldn't suffer any more problems than if these three entities were stuck together as one entity. Going to the bible: It mentions Melchizedek - a person with that has apparently always existed and always will.. "His life has no beginning or ending.. He is like the son of god". This clearly points at a distinctly separate entity that has always existed along with god. It doesn't cause any problems given that there is now more than one that has always been.
multiple cases of eternality is not a problem , as indicated by the eternal fire and eternal heat (the eternal fire would also have eternal light and eternal smoke as well)-
multiple cases of being omnipotent is a problem, unless you advocate that the multiple causes are expansions of the same sense of being - in other words it is the same individual with the same potency appearing as different expansions (as opposed to being intrinsically different individuals in different forms making the same claim)
as for claimingthat the medium of objective existence is eternally independant (regardless whether you are talking about this phenomenal world or some abstract of pre-phenomeanl world existence) then you have a potency (ie the medium of objectivity) that is actually superior, since without this medium, your so called god or gods is powerless to act (which gives you the picture of polytheism - a lot of different "gods" duking it out within the medium of objective existence to gain superiority, while the medium of objective existence remains the unchallenged champion)
“
Is the manifested world independent from the gods?
”
Our universe? They created it, they can do anything they like with it - but they let it progress along it's own path.
then where were these gods before they created it? (ie what is the nature of this pre-phenomenal existence you are alluding to?)
Who created or is responsible for being the cause of this pre-phenomenal existence?
