Defining what is God.

[Sarkus]

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?

Exactly - and actions are caused through want.

If you want for nothing - in the absolute sense - you will not act - you will not create - you WILL NOT CAUSE.

God can be the cause of his own actions - but by acting (and thus CAUSING) he becomes an inferior god to the one who DOES NOT CAUSE through absence of wanting.


LG stated that a god that does not want is superior to one that does.

The superior god does thus not cause.
God can not thus be the "cause of all causes" AND the superior god, unless he is both BUT DOES NOT CAUSE as he must want for nothing.

Thus endeth the lesson...

I hope...

But undoubtedly there will be a lack of understanding of the logic on your or LG's part (not deliberately, I am sure).
Let me know where you stumble and I'll be here to help you.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

If you want for nothing - in the absolute sense - you will not act - you will not create - you WILL NOT CAUSE.

I agree fully.

LG stated that a god that does not want is superior to one that does.

The superior god does thus not cause.
God can not thus be the "cause of all causes" AND the superior god, unless he is both BUT DOES NOT CAUSE as he must want for nothing.

What if he is considered the cause of causes in regards that all things exist within and act within his greater being? Which would be in line with the notion of omnipresence?

Thus God is not a miraculous intervener.

But undoubtedly there will be a lack of understanding of the logic on your or LG's part (not deliberately, I am sure).
Let me know where you stumble and I'll be here to help you.

Hey hey hey hey hey. Don't be so presumptuous.

 

[Sarkus]

What if he is considered the cause of causes in regards that all things exist within and act within his greater being? Which would be in line with the notion of omnipresence?

Whether the cause is internal or external is irrelevant - causes stem from want (which LG has agreed) - and an internal "want" is still a "want" - and thus inferior, by LG's own words, to the absence of "want".

Your stomach rumbles through lack of food - is caused to rumble through want.

It is thus inferior to a stomach that has no want of food - and thus does not cause rumbling.

Even if the system is entirely self contained - "want" is still present - and inferior to the absence of want.

Hey hey hey hey hey. Don't be so presumptuous.

But you know it's true.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

As I have argued this line before, I agree with you: All action implies want.

 

[lightgigantic]

WTF???

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?

I would never dream of discussing this concept with you, which is why i brough it up with PJ

You're still stuck trying to determine when an eternal fire started becoming hot

LG stated that a god that does not want is superior to one that does.

The superior god does thus not cause.
God can not thus be the "cause of all causes" AND the superior god, unless he is both BUT DOES NOT CAUSE as he must want for nothing.

Thus endeth the lesson...

I hope...

seems like my stress to which shade of the use "want" you are using slipped through your fingers

 

[Sarkus]

You're still stuck trying to determine when an eternal fire started becoming hot

Eternal fire analogy / example has been debunked.
Follow the logic of the arguments above.
Irrefutible.

Now move on, please.

seems like my stress to which shade of the use "want" you are using slipped through your fingers

Shade of "want" is irrelevant.
There is either "want" or "no want".

Now please either refute or counter the arguments put before you.
If you want to go down the line of how different shades of "want" can fit within your argument, feel free.
I'm intrigued to see if you have learnt anything from the logical arguments put against you.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Actually, didn't we all agree that the fire analogy is relatively apt for a discussion of God?

God = The Fire.

God = Also the potencies of the fire, I.E. light and heat.

The heat and light depend on the fire, but share in its eternity if the fire is eternal.

What was shown is only that it cannot be considered that God can cause anything miraculously, as this implies want. He can, however, be considered a cause in as much as all causes act within him (omnipresence), just as one can say that it is heat which sets the whick on fire, but that heat is dependent on the fire.

 

[lightgigantic]

What was shown is only that it cannot be considered that God can cause anything miraculously, as this implies want.

there is this mentioned earlier, which didn't draw a response since it got lost in the examination of the fire analogy
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1254974&postcount=429
.[/QUOTE]

Shade of "want" is irrelevant.
There is either "want" or "no want".

Now please either refute or counter the arguments put before you.
If you want to go down the line of how different shades of "want" can fit within your argument, feel free.
I'm intrigued to see if you have learnt anything from the logical arguments put against you.

I am also intrigued
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1254974&postcount=429

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

So you affirm that God can want for ones of his creations?

Does not that itself imply deficiency? God wants, but does not have, something.

 

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:

So you affirm that God can want for ones of his creations?

Does not that itself imply deficiency? God wants, but does not have, something.

How is it that a rich man doesn't have riches, if he desires that others be rich?

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus:

Actually, didn't we all agree that the fire analogy is relatively apt for a discussion of God?

God = The Fire.

God = Also the potencies of the fire, I.E. light and heat.

Yes - which boils down to: There is God and his attributes - but just God.
God is eternal - thus his attributes are eternal - but there is still just the eternal god.

There is then either things internal to god - the fire, the heat, the light etc - and things external. I.e. There is only one thing that is eternal - and that is god. All other eternal things are attributes of this god.

All things internal must be eternal.
All things external MUST have been caused - as they are not eternal - as we have agreed that all eternal things are attributes of god (i.e. internal)

Now - having said that creation / causing is through want - if god creates anything external he is NOT the superior god.

The only other thing is if god creates for things INTERNAL to himself - i.e. he creates / causes for his eternal attributes.

But then - if there is no external creation / causing - (which there can NOT be for this god to be the "superior" - for the logic above) - and merely eternal attributes - then there is NO CAUSING - as everything is eternal.

AND THUS WE GET TO THE POINT BEING ARGUED...

God CAN NOT BE the "Cause of all causes" AND be the superior god.

Causation creates a beginning for something not-eternal.
Causation of something not-eternal is done through want.
Want is due to a lack.
Lack makes the god inferior to the god that doesn't lack.



This leads us on to...

there is this mentioned earlier, which didn't draw a response since it got lost in the examination of the fire analogy
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=429
...
I am also intrigued
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=429

Firstly - let's deal with "wanting" not for oneself but for an external creation.
Since god is the "cause of all causes" and we have shown that all external creations are caused through a "want" - for god to have caused these external creations in the first instance he must have been wanting at the point he created.
This thus debunks the first possibility of a "shade of want" where it relates to an external creation - regardless of the shade or type of want. It is the external creation itself that makes this god inferior.

Secondly - let's deal with "wanting" not for oneself but for an INTERNAL attrbute - i.e. an element of the whole that is lacking where the whole does not lack.

How is this "superior" god, where individual attributes are "wanting", superior to a whole where none of the attributes are themselves lacking?

Secondly - and this is the most important part of this section - when one looks at the whole - i.e. the entirety of the eternal god (having already shown that all eternal objects / attributes are merely part of the eternal god) - then there can be NO INTERNAL "WANT".

There can be interrelation of attributes - one area creates for another's use - but this isn't "wanting" by one attribute and "giving" by another - as each individual area CAN NOT BE SEPARATED from the whole.
Everything IS the whole - and can only be viewed as such.

Can you have the light or the heat without the fire?
No.

They are both eternal attributes of the whole - they ARE the whole.
It is meaningless to thus consider one area in a state of "want" and another in a state of "giving".

So to say that god causes to provide for others' wants is meaningless - as both sides, as already shown, are merely eternal attributes of this supposedly "superior god".


Again - let me know where you disagree - as I know you will.

 

[nds1]

You could say that God is superior in all abilities and skills (power, knowledge, awareness, logic). However, if we assume that God is conscious, has a free will, and has emotions, then suddenly superiority doesn't matter.

"How is it that a rich man doesn't have riches, if he desires that others be rich?"

Let's put it this way:

1) If I am hungry, I lack food. Let's say that I then ate 10 apples and now my hunger is satisfied. So right now, I don't need any more food. I am superior in terms of being full. However, if I then saw a chocolate bar, or piece of cake, or ribs, then even though I am satisfied, I will suddenly desire more food, not due a lack of food, but because the food tastes good.

So as humans we can be in one of three states:

1) Hungry - We lack food. We NEED food to feel satisfied.
2) Satisfied - We have eaten well and now we are satisfied.
3) Stuffed - We have eaten too much and our stomachs feel almost painful.

So in a way, creating an external things may not denote a lack, but an indictator of the character of the creator.

Before creating anything God may have not lacked in anything. He was satisfied, yet still desired more. The question is, how much EXTRA things can a God desire? In human terms, is there a maximum level to goodness a food can taste? For example, think of the best food you've ever tasted. Now imagine if someone discovered or created a new form of food which tastes even better than the food you previously thought was best.

This implies that God's desire may be infinite, just as our desire for enhanced states or enhanced tastes is infinite. Does an infinite desire imply a lack? I'm not sure, but I don't think so at this point.

 

[Sarkus]

Before creating anything God may have not lacked in anything.
He was satisfied, yet still desired more.

Then he would NOT have created.
Creation/causing is due to lack.
Lack is a sign of inferiority.

A god who desires has a lack.

Does an infinite desire imply a lack?

It implies an infinite lack - and thus certainly not a superior god.

 

[nds1]

It implies an infinite lack - and thus certainly not a superior god.

However there still can exist a God which is superior in ability to fulfill that lack. A God can exist which is a source of energy, which is capable of acting, which is superior in every ability, and which had infinite desires.

It seems odd to me that a superior God which has the ability to do anything would simply do nothing for eternity.

 

[nds1]

You can actually look at it this way.

As humans we can only experience a certain level of possible pleasure. The amount of different pleasures we can experience is dependent upon the number of organs we have and other factors. For example, we can taste good food because we have tongues. We can get high because we have brains. We can have sex because we have sexual organs. We can hear good music because we have ears.

So we know there are other pleasures out there which we can't experience because we don't have the physical organs to experience them.

So we lack in capacity for pleasure.

In order to "feel" the pleasures we are capable of feeling, actions must be taken or else we can never feel those pleasures. In order to hear good music we need to listen to a CD player. In order to taste good food we need to act, and we to eat something that tastes good.

So having the capacity for pleasure isn't enough, we must act in order to fulfill that pleasure.

God has 100% capacity to feel pleasure. He can feel all the pleasures humans can plus an infinite amount more. This must be true if he is superior, since a superior God has superior capacity to feel pleasure.

So a God must not lack in capacity to feel pleasure. Also, God doesn't lack in ability to fulfill any of his pleasures. So fulfilling a pleasure doesn't imply a lack, it simply involves the process required to fulfill the pleasure. So if time didn't exist, then God would be stagnant because he is superior. But no being can feel any pleasure without the flow of time, since an action or actions must be taken to fulfill the pleasure. So since time goes on it is only natural that God be fulfilling all the pleasures which he has the capacity to have.

So as humans, we have the capacity to feel the pleasure of tasting good food. We also have the ability to fulfill that pleasure (eating good food). So fulfilling that pleasure doesn't imply a lack, it involves the process of fulfilling the pleasure based on time. Since time is present, some pleasures require time to go by in order to experience the pleasure.

For example, what good would a cookie be if time didn't exist? We could never taste it because we couldn't get the cookie into our mouth.

Similarly, what good would music be without time? Without time we be stuck with one note for eternity, and no sequence of notes.

So if I desire to eat a cookie, I am not lacking in anything. It's just that the 5 minutes of time needed to attain and enjoy the cookie haven't gone by yet.

So here's the main point:

If a being has any capacity for pleasure and the ability needed to take action and fulfill that pleasure, then the being will take action to fulfill that pleasure.

So having a capacity for pleasure doesn't create a lack, it creates an opportunity to act on it. If time didn't exist, then there would exist a lack of the time needed to fulfill the pleasure.

If God had zero capacity for pleasure then he wouldn't take any actions because fulfillment of pleasures requires action. But if God had less than 100% capacity for pleasure then he would be inferior, since superiority implies 100% capacity for pleasure. So, being superior, God has 100% capacity for pleasure and isn't limited by physical organs and has 100% ability to fulfill the pleasures which he is capable of fulfilling. So in order to fulfill them, a sequence of actions must be taken.

 

[Sarkus]

So a God must not lack in capacity to feel pleasure

Nice try.
A superior god would already be experiencing infinite pleasure with no need to act.
The god you then discuss is not the superior god - so it is all moot.

If a god has infinite capacity - and infinite ability to fulfil - then if the god is not satiated (i.e. experiencing infinite pleasure) he is lacking.

Remember, infinity is a limit - not a number, or a finite.
There is nothing further. You can not add 1 to infinity.
To do so is meaningless.

 

[nds1]

A superior god would already be experiencing infinite pleasure with no need to act.

Exactly.

Let's assume one pleasure of God is creating a material universe and humans with free will and trying to get them to love him.

Who's to say he isn't fulfilling that pleasure right now with our universe and our earth?

What you are assuming is that God doesn't need to act to experience a pleasure. That may be true for some pleasures, but not for all.

One pleasure God can experience is sharing his greatness with other forms of life, some as low as humans. In order to fulfill this pleasure he needs to act, and he needs to create a material universe, an earth, and mankind.

How could God be experiencing the pleasure of creating mankind and sharing his greatness with them without first having created them?

 

[Sarkus]

Let's assume one pleasure of God is creating a material universe and humans with free will and trying to get them to love him.

The "pleasure" God gets means that he did not have infinite pleasure beforehand - and thus he created out of this lack.
This makes him inferior.

What you are assuming is that God doesn't need to act to experience a pleasure. That may be true for some pleasures, but not for all.

No - I am saying that the "superior" god has no need to experience it in the first instance.

Pleasure is an experience generated through the receiving of what one lacks.
I do not mean that we are actually given something by another - but that our action (be it nice food, being charitable etc) GIVES us what we had been lacking.
It is the move from "not having" to "having" that is pleasure.

To experience pleasure one must therefore have a lack.

Having a lack is inferior to not having a lack.


Answer me this...
Does this superior god have infinite pleasure?
If no - he is lacking - and thus inferior.
If yes - why would he do anything for more?

 

[nds1]

"Does this superior god have infinite pleasure?"

This superior God has 100% capacity to experience every type of pleasure (whether there are infinite types of pleasure or not) in existence, and 100% ability to fulfill the experience of each type of pleasure.

"If yes - why would he do anything for more?"

He is not doing anything for more than infinite, since infinite is not a number. However, he is in the process of fulfilling the pleasure of creating mankind and getting them to love him.

You can't enjoy a song unless you hear the whole thing. If a song has 300 notes in it, what good is only hearing the first note? You can't fulfill the pleasure of listening to music unless you actually go through the process of listening to the whole song.

I think you and I are talking about two different meanings of the word infinite when we talk of having infinite pleasure. God can experience every type or infinite types of pleasure (if there are infinite types of pleasure), and he experiences most of these types of pleasure infinitely in terms of time. However, some of these pleasures, one of which being creating mankind, requires a process.

The "pleasure" God gets means that he did not have infinite pleasure beforehand - and thus he created out of this lack.
This makes him inferior.

True, he didn't fulfill all of the infinite types of pleasures beforehand, but he had the capacity for infinite types of pleasures beforehand. Some of these pleasures involve more than one level. They involve a process, just like listening to a song requires a sequence of notes, not one note, or level. So he hasn't completed or fulfilled all of his potential pleasures yet. Mankind and sharing his greatness represents one of the pleasures which he has yet to fulfill.

Getting mankind to love him is a long and demanding process because of man's free will. So it is not the inferiority of God that is making this pleasure take so long, it is the inferiority of man. We are dictating the length of time it takes for this pleasure or goal of God to be completed.

 

[Godless]

This superior God has 100% capacity to experience every type of pleasure (whether there are infinite types of pleasure or not) in existence, and 100% ability to fulfill the experience of each type of pleasure.

For a god, that's supposedly (unknowable) there sure seems to be many advocates, claiming it's/he's/her's behavior!