let's put the breaks on until we clear this point.
Is there anything that prevents an eternal object having an effect?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
let's put the breaks on until we clear this point.
Is there anything that prevents an eternal object having an effect?
Can an eternal object have an effect?I am quite happy that more than one eternal article can exist in the same evironment - but if god, being one of them, is the "cause of all causes" then the others are logically irrelevant.
God is the cause of all causes and god is eternal - as you have said of this superior god.
If the eternal fire next to him is causing anything (heat, light, etc), regardless of whether or not it is simultaneous, then that must have been originally caused by god - due to the first claim.
If you disagree with this, please tell me how an eternal fire can be a cause, and sit beside god - the cause of all causes - without this god being the cause of the eternal fire? And please answer the question - do not merely dismiss it with "well, if you don't understand.... blah blah blah". If there are two separate things being causes, eternal or otherwise, and one is the "cause of ALL causes" then that one MUST have caused the other.
The only alternative is that this fire IS god - in which case it is meaningless and adds nothing new. Thus there can only be the one eternal cause of all causes and everything else is merely part of that, including the eternal fire, including us.
However, if this IS your stance then we get back to the logical conclusion that god can neither cause (as all things are already part of him) nor create (as all things are already part of him) - and thus to claim him as the cause of all causes is pointless and meaningless as he can do neither - and thus not a quality of superiority as you claim.
If no, why?
if yes .....
Can an eternal object have a constant effect (like for instance, would an eternal fire be constantly hot)?
If yes, you've understood my point
If no, at what time did the eternal fire start to get hot?
Yet you have singularly failed to understand mine - and have tried to bypass it with this now irrelevant issue.Can an eternal object have an effect?
If no, why?
if yes .....
Can an eternal object have a constant effect (like for instance, would an eternal fire be constantly hot)?
If yes, you've understood my point
Bravo.
So I shall repeat what I said above until you bother to answer it...
please tell me how an eternal fire can be a cause, and sit beside god - the cause of all causes - without this god being the cause of the eternal fire?
If there are two separate things being causes, eternal or otherwise, and one is the "cause of ALL causes" then that one MUST have caused the other.
The only alternative is that this fire IS god (or part thereof) - in which case it is meaningless and adds nothing new. Thus there can only be the one eternal cause of all causes and everything else is merely part of that, including the eternal fire, including us.
However, if this IS your stance then we get back to the logical conclusion that god can neither cause (as all things are already part of him) nor create (as all things are already part of him) - and thus to claim him as the cause of all causes is pointless and meaningless as he can do neither - and thus not a quality of superiority as you claim.
Yet you have singularly failed to understand mine - and have tried to bypass it with this now irrelevant issue.
Bravo.
So I shall repeat what I said above until you bother to answer it...
please tell me how an eternal fire can be a cause, and sit beside god - the cause of all causes - without this god being the cause of the eternal fire?
If there are two separate things being causes, eternal or otherwise, and one is the "cause of ALL causes" then that one MUST have caused the other.
The only alternative is that this fire IS god (or part thereof) - in which case it is meaningless and adds nothing new. Thus there can only be the one eternal cause of all causes and everything else is merely part of that, including the eternal fire, including us.
However, if this IS your stance then we get back to the logical conclusion that god can neither cause (as all things are already part of him) nor create (as all things are already part of him) - and thus to claim him as the cause of all causes is pointless and meaningless as he can do neither - and thus not a quality of superiority as you claim.
you seem to have trouble understanding how more than one eternal article can exist in the same environment. So rather than complicate the issue by talking about god I have tried to simplify it by asking you to conceive of an eternal fire (I never asked you to think about an eternal fire and eternal god standing nearby so I don't know why you latched on to it)
Regarding this hypothetical eternal fire (forget about god for the moment) is the question how long it would have been hot for.
If we cannot determine whether an eternal fire has eternal heat, there is not much hope for determining how an eternal god can stand next to an eternal fire
I have no trouble with that.you seem to have trouble understanding how more than one eternal article can exist in the same environment.
Eternal fire = eternal heat, light etc
Moving on...
Please explain how the eternal god (the cause of all causes) can stand next to the eternal fire UNLESS:LG said:If we cannot determine whether an eternal fire has eternal heat, there is not much hope for determining how an eternal god can stand next to an eternal fire
a) the god is NOT the cause of all causes
b) all eternal objects ARE god.
If you accept (a) then fair enough - you admit god can not be the cause of all causes.
If you accept (b) then we can finally begin to move on to how this SINGULAR eternal object (from which ALL OTHER ETERNAL OBJECTS - e.g. fire / light / heat are but attributes of) who is supposedly superior can NOT CREATE - period.
Please tell me where your issue is.
Sarkus:
Would it not stand to reason that an eternal fire would have been hot eternally? And that the heat, whilst similarly as eternal as the fire, would nonetheless depend upon the fire for its existence?
Would it not stand to reason that an eternal fire would have been hot eternally? And that the heat, whilst similarly as eternal as the fire, would nonetheless depend upon the fire for its existence?
let's put the breaks on until we clear this point.
Is there anything that prevents an eternal object having an effect?
Woah, you're jumping ahead. Let's put the breaks on until you understand the first point. Scroll back a bit.
Yes. No issue with this.Sarkus:
Would it not stand to reason that an eternal fire would have been hot eternally? And that the heat, whilst similarly as eternal as the fire, would nonetheless depend upon the fire for its existence?
BUT.... (and there's always a but)...
LG is also claiming that God is the "cause of all causes".
My point is that if god is the "cause of all causes" then whether or not there are other eternal objects, dependent upon god or not, these are IRRELEVANT in terms of "causing" etc.
If, using LG's own example of the eternal fire, there are other eternal objects that are dependent upon but not caused by god (e.g. god = eternal fire, and the other eternal objects = eternal heat etc) then these other eternal objects, while dependent upon god, can NOT be the cause of ANYTHING - as while they are dependent upon god, only god can be the cause of all causes.
The only alternative is if the other eternal objects ARE also god.
Is this what you are saying?
If god is the cause of all causes (as LG has stated of his superior god) then if god did not cause the other eternal objects then those other eternal objects can NOT have caused anything, regardless of whether those other eternal objects are dependent upon god or not, because then God will not be the cause of all causes.
The only other possibility is that the other eternal objects ARE god. In which case we get back to there being ONLY god and nothing yet to create for. Which makes this god an inferior god, as per my previous arguments.
This is irrefutable logic.
For example, if we assume the eternal fire is god - and the heat and light are eternal objects dependent on god, then for god (the fire) to be the cause of all causes he MUST cause the heat and light - by definition - OR the heat and light ARE God
So please tell me where you don't understand it.
that is the first point - namelythe issue of multiple eternal entities existing in an environment of contingency - hence the issue of an eternal fire and eternal heat needs to be addressed before other aspects of comprehensionWoah, you're jumping ahead. Let's put the breaks on until you understand the first point. Scroll back a bit.
therefore to take one step further, if god is the cause of the fire, like the fire is the cause of the heat (meaning that god is the cause of the phenomanal world through which we understand fire) wouldn't there be a link of cause and effect.Yes. No issue with this.
BUT.... (and there's always a but)...
LG is also claiming that God is the "cause of all causes".
My point is that if god is the "cause of all causes" then whether or not there are other eternal objects, dependent upon god or not, these are IRRELEVANT in terms of "causing" etc.
If, using LG's own example of the eternal fire, there are other eternal objects that are dependent upon but not caused by god (e.g. god = eternal fire, and the other eternal objects = eternal heat etc) then these other eternal objects, while dependent upon god, can NOT be the cause of ANYTHING - as while they are dependent upon god, only god can be the cause of all causes.
The only alternative is if the other eternal objects ARE also god.
Is this what you are saying?
If god is the cause of all causes (as LG has stated of his superior god) then if god did not cause the other eternal objects then those other eternal objects can NOT have caused anything, regardless of whether those other eternal objects are dependent upon god or not, because then God will not be the cause of all causes.
The only other possibility is that the other eternal objects ARE god. In which case we get back to there being ONLY god and nothing yet to create for. Which makes this god an inferior god, as per my previous arguments.
This is irrefutable logic.
For example, if we assume the eternal fire is god - and the heat and light are eternal objects dependent on god, then for god (the fire) to be the cause of all causes he MUST cause the heat and light - by definition - OR the heat and light ARE God
So please tell me where you don't understand it.
If you can accept two eternal articles (fire and heat) existing in a relationship of contingency, you should be able to accept 100 000 eternal articles existing to one singular cause
If contingent eternal attributes exist then neither of them is the cause, neither is the effect. One is dependent upon - but not caused by.therefore to take one step further, if god is the cause of the fire, like the fire is the cause of the heat (meaning that god is the cause of the phenomanal world through which we understand fire) wouldn't there be a link of cause and effect.
An eternal fire can not CAUSE another eternal attribute.
Cause implies beginning.
An eternal fire has no beginning - thus has no ability to cause those other eternal attributes.
The attributes ARE dependent, but neither of them is the cause and neither of them is the effect. They are merely dependent eternal objects.
No - eternal objects can not CAUSE eternal effects - they can only exist with contingent effects.If you can accept two eternal articles (fire and heat) existing in a relationship of contingency, you should be able to accept 100 000 eternal articles existing to one singular cause
NOTHING ETERNAL CAN BE CAUSED - NOTHING CAUSED CAN BE ETERNAL (in the sense that eternal means "has no beginning").
This is logic.
Irrefutable.
Otherwise please tell me when the eternal fire was caused.
Another problem with your "eternal fire / light / heat" example, (although I do accept the principle that your example is trying to get across in my arguments above) I have realised, is your understanding of the physics - and your usage of language that hinders you...
By that I mean you distinguish the fire from the light and the heat - you see each of these as a separate "thing" - when in fact they are actually all parts of the whole.
In creating a fire you cause one thing - only one thing - but can view it in many ways (light, heat, etc) - but they are all THE SAME THING. A fire doesn't "cause" these things... it IS these things.
A fire IS the emittance of photons and it IS the excitation of molecules.
(Smoke, by the way, does come after and is certainly not instantaneous.)
So an eternal fire IS the eternal light and IS the eternal heat.
Separating the "fire" from the "light" and "heat" is meaningless - so please do not continue to use it. Pick another example - or you will add to your own, and thus our, confusion.
Otherwise it is like saying "I cause a house to exist, which causes its height, and width and length to exist simultaneously. And these things are dependent upon the house."
I am sure you will agree that it is meaningless.
Last edited:
Sarkus:
To continue with the fire analogy:
Whereas one can speak of the fire in separated terms - as in, the flame of the fire, its light, its heat, et cetera, et cetera - one can not separate attributes in reality. A fire without a flame is not a fire, nor is it one without heat, nor without light. A fire is defined as ignited gas producing heat and electromagnetic radiation.
Now, even if this is true, one can still speak of the light and heat as emanating and dependent upon the flame, as the light and heat require a source. However, as you've pointed out, if one holds the fire to be the source of all things, then one must affirm that the light and heat - despite being dependent upon other aspects of the fire - must be part of the fire in order to be a cause.
Accordingly, the fire and its potencies (to take a word from LG's lexicon) must be one in the same, as you affirm.
It is rather like someone shouting from a distance. We do not say that the shouting - that is, the sound waves - is doing the talking, but the person who produced those soundwaves.
Yet as LG has pointed out, dealing with the indirect heat of the fire is not the same as pushing one's hand into the flame. One can stand at a distance from the fire and be comfortably warmed. Thus we cannot say that to experience the light, is to experience the fire in full - but only in part.
But yes, I agree: If we hold God to be the cause of all causes, all expressions of God must be equally considered to be God. Omnipresence thus demands that everything be God, even if it is not God "on the whole".
My point is that if god is the "cause of all causes" then whether or not there are other eternal objects, dependent upon god or not, these are IRRELEVANT in terms of "causing" etc.
If, using LG's own example of the eternal fire, there are other eternal objects that are dependent upon but not caused by god (e.g. god = eternal fire, and the other eternal objects = eternal heat etc) then these other eternal objects, while dependent upon god, can NOT be the cause of ANYTHING - as while they are dependent upon god, only god can be the cause of all causes.
The only alternative is if the other eternal objects ARE also god.
Is this what you are saying?
To continue with the fire analogy:
Whereas one can speak of the fire in separated terms - as in, the flame of the fire, its light, its heat, et cetera, et cetera - one can not separate attributes in reality. A fire without a flame is not a fire, nor is it one without heat, nor without light. A fire is defined as ignited gas producing heat and electromagnetic radiation.
Now, even if this is true, one can still speak of the light and heat as emanating and dependent upon the flame, as the light and heat require a source. However, as you've pointed out, if one holds the fire to be the source of all things, then one must affirm that the light and heat - despite being dependent upon other aspects of the fire - must be part of the fire in order to be a cause.
Accordingly, the fire and its potencies (to take a word from LG's lexicon) must be one in the same, as you affirm.
It is rather like someone shouting from a distance. We do not say that the shouting - that is, the sound waves - is doing the talking, but the person who produced those soundwaves.
Yet as LG has pointed out, dealing with the indirect heat of the fire is not the same as pushing one's hand into the flame. One can stand at a distance from the fire and be comfortably warmed. Thus we cannot say that to experience the light, is to experience the fire in full - but only in part.
But yes, I agree: If we hold God to be the cause of all causes, all expressions of God must be equally considered to be God. Omnipresence thus demands that everything be God, even if it is not God "on the whole".
well saidSarkus:
To continue with the fire analogy:
Whereas one can speak of the fire in separated terms - as in, the flame of the fire, its light, its heat, et cetera, et cetera - one can not separate attributes in reality. A fire without a flame is not a fire, nor is it one without heat, nor without light. A fire is defined as ignited gas producing heat and electromagnetic radiation.
Now, even if this is true, one can still speak of the light and heat as emanating and dependent upon the flame, as the light and heat require a source. However, as you've pointed out, if one holds the fire to be the source of all things, then one must affirm that the light and heat - despite being dependent upon other aspects of the fire - must be part of the fire in order to be a cause.
Accordingly, the fire and its potencies (to take a word from LG's lexicon) must be one in the same, as you affirm.
It is rather like someone shouting from a distance. We do not say that the shouting - that is, the sound waves - is doing the talking, but the person who produced those soundwaves.
Yet as LG has pointed out, dealing with the indirect heat of the fire is not the same as pushing one's hand into the flame. One can stand at a distance from the fire and be comfortably warmed. Thus we cannot say that to experience the light, is to experience the fire in full - but only in part.
But yes, I agree: If we hold God to be the cause of all causes, all expressions of God must be equally considered to be God. Omnipresence thus demands that everything be God, even if it is not God "on the whole".
regarding your last statement though, god is said to be nondifferent from his name, form, qualtiies, pastimes and service - i won't endeavour to explain the first 4 but will examine the 5th - service.
What you say is essentially correct, nothing can be non-god, since everything ultimately emanates from him - however due to illusion (ignorance,material desire etc) the living entity cannot see this - there is teh example that the sun causes water to evaporate and huge clouds to form which make it appear like the sun is invisible - the sun of course is not invisible, it is merely behind the clouds and its actual form is not hindered in any way by the cloud - but still, due to the inferior perspective of a person on the earth, it appears that the sun's form is obscured by clouds (which ultimately were caused by the sun) - in the same way god appears invisible due to material enagement.
If however one takes to the (pure unmotivated) service of god, this illusion is broken - under such circumstances one has the ultimate vision that you indicate - that everything is related to god (but as a further addition, the natural disposition that under rides such a perspective is to use everything in god's service)
- in other words one views everything and everyone as existing to give pleasure to god (as opposed to the materialistic vision of everything existing to give pleasure for oneself - which of course commonly results in frustration which in turn gives rise to false idea that renunciation is the essence of all sufficent qulalities in spiritual life, when in reality it is just the flip side of sense gratification turned sour).
This principle of service to god (utilizing things in this phenomenal world for his enjoyment) is the dynamic process of spiritual life - in other words even if one is jam packed full of material desires, if one is habituated to utilize things for god's enjoyment, one's material desires are destroyed at the root - this is how one over comes material desire, as opposed to do priyas citta (trying to balance ones sinful activity by doing a pious activity eg - charity for the homeless). This is the quality (service to god) that distinguishes between mundane and pure religious principles (nothing wrong with piety mind you - except that it is not capable of destroying the root of material desire)
hence the issue of an eternal fire and eternal heat needs to be addressed before other aspects of comprehension
As explained, the fire/heat analogy is faulty - because the fire creates/causes the heat, (or to use Sarkus' argument, it is the fire). If you claim that there is an eternal god and he dwells in a 'cosmic manifestation' that is also eternal you have a problem - unless you're then saying that the cosmic manifestation is somehow a part of him, that god indeed is that 'cosmic manifestation', is where he dwells - and I wonder how you'd do such a thing.
However, if you were to support that they are two separate things: 1) god 2) place where god lives then the only way the existence of one is contingent upon the other is if it was created/caused - which does not apply to that which is eternal.
I am reminded of a Rube Goldberg Machine (for those who don't know what they are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kvdq8cRNBM) and Aristotle.
Can one hold a "God is the cause of all things" yet affirm that he is only a direct cause at the beginning, ala Aristotle's Prime Mover argument?
For as demonstrated in Rube Goldberg machine, a single cause can set a whole bunch of them in motion. Moreover, even if each one is directly caused by another, we must speak of the ultimate cause being the initiating action.
It would thus seem that the idea that "God is the cause of all things" and "things follow natural law" are not contradictory.
LightGigantic:
Yet can one truly speak of "doing something for God's enjoyment" when rationally it would seem that that which has all things cannot enjoy them more?
Can one hold a "God is the cause of all things" yet affirm that he is only a direct cause at the beginning, ala Aristotle's Prime Mover argument?
For as demonstrated in Rube Goldberg machine, a single cause can set a whole bunch of them in motion. Moreover, even if each one is directly caused by another, we must speak of the ultimate cause being the initiating action.
It would thus seem that the idea that "God is the cause of all things" and "things follow natural law" are not contradictory.
LightGigantic:
Yet can one truly speak of "doing something for God's enjoyment" when rationally it would seem that that which has all things cannot enjoy them more?
LightGigantic:
Yet can one truly speak of "doing something for God's enjoyment" when rationally it would seem that that which has all things cannot enjoy them more?
the point is that by doing things for god's enjoyment, the performer gets "linked up" with gods nature of enjoyment -
god is constitutionally joyful, and therefore for the living entity to be "linked up" with god's enjoyment (habituated to doing things for the service of god) is the living entiy's constituitional position of happiness.
Even in the material world we can see that if a person wants to be happy it is not through money, intelligence or any other material possession - a person is happy if they can do things for other people (the service mood predominates) - like for instance a (heterosexual) man cannot be happy unless he serves a woman, the mother serves the child etc etc - even in cases of extreme ignorance, a rich man cannot be happy unless he has friends to show hi s new toys too - in all these and many more cases a person is happy becasue they are serving someone (although that "someone" is often not god, which gives us the standard of material happiness we are all familiar with and expressed in another thread you have about teh conjugal affairs of philosophers)
What about conquering men? Surely, they are not in the service of others, and seek enjoyment in the crushing of enemies?
Or dominant sexual types, that prefer to have women service them almost exclusively?
Or the child who takes up all his mother's time?
Or dominant sexual types, that prefer to have women service them almost exclusively?
Or the child who takes up all his mother's time?
usually tehy are quite patriotic or have some other idealism vested in the betterment of a certain class or creed (at the expense of another class or creed of course)What about conquering men? Surely, they are not in the service of others, and seek enjoyment in the crushing of enemies?
they usually like it when the women they hand over their money to express, somewhat artificially, their delight in his associationOr dominant sexual types, that prefer to have women service them almost exclusively?
a child's sense of happiness and distress or guilt an innocence is strongly determined by the value systems of their parentsOr the child who takes up all his mother's time?
WTF???What you say is essentially correct, nothing can be non-god, since everything ultimately emanates from him...
This is what I have stated as the logical conclusion for... god-knows how long - and yet you avoided stating in until now!!!
Jeez Louise!
Blood from a stone!!
Right - you admit that "nothing can be non-god".
Then how can god be the cause of all causes - when everything is god - and everything is merely an eternal attribute of god?
There is nothing else - by your own definition.
One can not cause when only eternal objects exist.
Your claim that god is the "cause of all causes" is thus logically incompatible with the claims that "god is eternal" and "god is everything" - and thus the quality "cause of all causes" is NOT a quality of the superior god.
But if you are also claiming that god can cause outside of his eternal self (i.e. not all things are part of god - as one can only create that which is not eternally part of you), then it is still a logical conclusion - without any question - that if this god causes then this god is NOT the superior god.
Why? For the arguments I put forward days ago....
This God creates - and is the "cause of all causes" (your claim of the superior god).
You have agreed earlier that one creates / causes out of a lack.
A god who creates / causes is thus lacking.
It is thus an inferior god to the god that has no need to create as the superior god is not lacking in ANY REGARD - internally or externally.
Furthermore...
If everything is god (i.e. nothing is non-god) then you are effectively saying nothing about anything at all.
You are just wrapping up EVERYTHING and saying it is included in the package of EVERYTHING - but renaming the word EVERYTHING to the word GOD.
"Nothing is non-god" = "Everything is god"
"Nothing is non-everything." = "Everything is everything".
Actually, I admit, you have added one thing - you have added to that: "God is eternal" = "Everything is eternal".
Why couldn't you have just said that at the start????
Sarkus:
Barring debate of determinism v. libertarianism, is it not true that we are the cause of our own actions?
If you agree to such, can not one say the same of a God who is everything?
LightGigantic:
What say you to this: No man can be selfless - to act truly for another - as all action entails value and the evaluator and the beneficiary (by attaining to the value) is the self.
Barring debate of determinism v. libertarianism, is it not true that we are the cause of our own actions?
If you agree to such, can not one say the same of a God who is everything?
LightGigantic:
What say you to this: No man can be selfless - to act truly for another - as all action entails value and the evaluator and the beneficiary (by attaining to the value) is the self.