While reading the posts on this topic, I was constantly answering (mentally) the different questions that have arisen here. Now that I have come to making my own response, I am having difficutly deciding where to begin, because there are SO many questions that have been raised here.
1. God - how is this concept defined?
2. Good and Evil - how are these concepts defined?
3. God - can we know such an entity?
3a. Knowledge - how do we define this concept, and does that definition allow
for knowledge of God?
4. God - Eternal or Temporal?
4a. How do we define the Eternal, and how does this concept apply to God?
4b. How do we define the Temporal, and can it be applied to the nature of God?
5. Religion/Religious texts - which are right? Can any be considered more valuable,
reasonable, or more true than the others?
As you can see, the list is long. I will, however, try to address each of these questions accoring to those beliefs that I hold to be true.
1. God - how is this concept defined?
Most of you here are probably familiar with how I define the term "God," or at least how I understand this term. From the different religious texts and teachings, as well as the different philosophical essays and writings on the subject that I am familiar with, God, that is, the monotheistic God, is said to be "the Supreme Being," "infinite," "beyond human understanding," "the only Necessary Being," "First Cause," "Uncaused Cause," "Oneness," "Limitlessness (another word for infinite)," and the like. As Anselm put it, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." For the sake of simplicity, I will take the notion of the infinite to describe the concept of God, since all of the other descriptions that I have listed are notions that are necessarily true if the concept of infinity is applied to God (except, arguably, the notion of First Cause). Many people only understand infinity as a mathematical term which refers to an endless series, or an endlessly dense set. Since mathematics (outside of geometry) refers simply to numerical values, the infinity concept within mathematics is of a quatitative kind (that is, it speaks about unlimited quatities). Many philosophers have endeavored the task of applying the concept to the universe as a reality. Such application, however, results in many, many absurdities and contradictions, such as the "Hilton Hotel" problem. Not only does infinity propose problems for physical realities in the universe, but it also poses problems for temporal realities of the universe. One problem of saying that time is infinite, really, is that if it were true, there could be no present, as such, since, an infinite amount of time ago, all time events would have become identical. It would take much more time and space to explain that in this post, so suffice it to say, this is conclusively known by anyone who has taken the time to study, indepthly, the concept of infinity. Ergo, the universe itself doesn't seem to be infinite, both by temporal argumentation, and by physical argumentation. So, if one is to posit that God is infinite, then God cannot be identical with this universe.
This is where one must make a discernment between different kinds of infinities. As I said before, there are quantitative infinities. However, there are also qualitative infinities (unlimited sets of qualities), and essential infinities (unlimited sets of essences). Each of these different forms of infinities can be broken down into two more basic kinds of infinities; Actual Infinities, and Potential Infinities. Any form of infinity that is Actual, exists in reality, and is a complete set (i.e., not growing). Any for of infinity that is Potential, exists in concept, and is not a complete set (i.e., growing). An example of a potential infinite is, say, the universe. That is to say, that the universe is potentially unlimited. It doesn't exist actually as unlimited, but, conceptually may be unlimited, in that it may grow, or exist forever. If it is said to be able to grow forever, then the universe would be Qualitatively Potentially Infinite. If the universe is said to be able to exist forever, then it is Quantitatively Potentially Infinite (may accumulate an infinite number of time frames). Nothing can be Essentially Potentially Infinite, since if essence can change, then the essence that existed prior to the change no longer exists, and the essence that exists after the change is created at the point of change. Therefore, to be Essentially POTENTIALLY Infinite represents a contradiction, since to be Essentially Infinite would be Actual Infinity, rather than Potential. Therefore, a thing may only be Essentially Actually Infinite. Therefore, since it can be seen that no actual infinites exist within the universe, nor is the universe itself, the essense of an actual infinite would be infinity itself, and would not be a part of this universe (but may, theoretically, exist both within and without this universe... ergo through this universe). Such an entity would be Transessential (that is, it's essence passes through all essences) and Omnissential (that is, it's essence contains every possible essence).
2. Good and Evil - how are these concepts defined?
These are very vague and abstract ideas for most people. Generally, most people who consider these concepts would say that something that is good is beneficial (to whatever degree), and that something that is evil is harmful (to whatever degree). I would describe Good and Evil as Positive and Negative, or Constructive and Destructive, within the intelligent/free-willing, or divine, sphere. I say within the divine (according to Hindu terminology) sphere because it is quite obvious that there is Position and Negation, Construction and Destruction, in the non-divine sphere that appear to be part of the universal structure of finite things, and as such aren't considered either necessarily good or necessarily evil, but rather, simply, part of the finite design. Hence, Good and Evil exist as part of the divine sphere, and can only be applied to those things that are free-willing and intellectual. Therefore, moral basis is dependant upon constuction versus destruction within the divine sphere, and therefore only relegated to those intellectual and free-willing entities.
Yet, how are we to know that which is positive and negative within our sphere of life? Because the divine sphere within humans is united with the non-divine sphere (physical, non-free-willing and non-intellectual) and is both affected by and affects the non-divine sphere, it is necessary that we act both in line with the structure and design of the non-divine sphere, as well as in those ways that are means of growth within the divine sphere. Remember, by divine I simply mean "free of will and intellectual." Therefore, freedom is a necessary moral base for goodness. Mental advancement is a necessary moral base for goodness. Emotional (emotion being a result of an interraction between will and intellect) health is a necessary moral base for goodness. Physical health is a necessary moral base for goodness. Humans are social creatures by nature, and so the social aspect of the said moral bases must also be a moral base for goodness in itself. These are examples of Good, within the structure of morality, and their opposites are, then, to be considered as Evil. However, on a day-to-day basis, it is often best to go by experience in judging good actions from bad actions. Realizing what I have outlined above will simply help in understand which actions really are good and which ones are evil.
3. God - can we know such an entity?
3a. Knowledge - how do we define this concept, and does that definition allow
for knowledge of God?
Concerning 3a., there have been volumes written on Epistemology, the study of knowledge, and I'm not sure that anyone has really come to a conlusion about how and what we know, or can know. I, for myself, haven't reached such a conclusion, but I simply have a vague idea about what we can and do know. Therefore, I will refrain from writing on 3a. and simply attempt an answer to 3. based upon my answer to 1.
According to my answer for question 1., God is an infinite being. As such, no finite intelligence can know, fully, the infinite. If, as some believe, the intelligent creature is potentially infinite and may live forever and grow, mentally, forever, then, still, such a creature could never FULLY know the infinite, and so never fully know God. Hence, as such, God, in full, is unknowable. However, is this to say that God is ENTIRELY unkowable? Obviously not. By the very fact that the intelligent creature can come to know anything at all is enough to say that it can know God TO AN EXTENT. In fact, because God, as defined as an infinite, is infinite, one may come to know God in a potentially infinite way. In other words, one may learn forever about God, or the infinite, but never know God, or the infinite, in full. This is because no potential infinite can actually reach infinity. For everything one might know about the infinite, there will always be something unknown. Hence, to answer this question in short, God is knowable to an extent, but unknowable in full.
4. God - Eternal or Temporal?
4a. How do we define the Eternal, and how does this concept apply to God?
4b. How do we define the Temporal, and can it be applied to the nature of God?
In order to answer question 4., it is best to answer it's subquestions. Therefore, that is where I will begin.
Eternal, as a basic definition, is beginningless and endless. That which has no beginning and no end is said to be eternal.
Temporal, as a basic definition, is that which has a beginning, but it is unknown whether it has an end.
As you can see (or perhaps you don't), these basic definitions have correlation to two ideas that I have previously mentioned; actual infinity and potential infinity. Temporality deals with time, which is a sequential movement from one event to another. If the Temporal and the Eternal are said to be opposites, like potentiality and actuality, then that which is in time cannot be eternal. I have heard it posed that the Eternal is an infinite set of time frames. I disagree with this evalutation. Which the definition of eternality, as I have given, allows for this construal, what we know about the universe (it being a space-time construct, and time being a dimension of it), and time being necessarily tied to real events, such a construal cannot be allowed. This is because, as has been shown by those studiers of the infinite concept, the universe cannot be actually infinite, which means that it did have beginning, which means that time cannot be infinite. Ergo, to construe eternality as an infinite time set, would be to say that time CAN be infinite, yet this is known to be false (time being a dimension of a universe that did have beginning, and must have had a beginning by accounts of both infinity theorists and by scientific theory). Ergo, I believe Temporality and Eternality to be opposites.
So then how do we construe the definition of eternality in a way that makes sense, and makes it a possibility. As has already been said, time (or Temporality), is a sequential movement from one event to another. We know, however, the sequence isn't the only construct existing. Our brains, actually, use two different methods to reach conclusions, each method being controlled by the opposing hemisphere. One is Logic and the other is Intuition. Logic is that method by which a sequential movement from premise to premise is applied in order to reach a conclusion. Intuition, being a faster method, is a holistic considering of the premises applied to reach a conclusion. That is, all premises are considered simultaneously, as opposed to seuqentially. Temporality and Eternality may be considered under such a light. Temporality is a sequential movement, or experience between events. Eternality, then, would be a holistic experience of every event, all being experienced, or occurring, simultaneously. Obviously, anything that is constructed within the space-time construct may only experience events in time, or sequentially. However, as stated, God, who is said to be infinite, was not constructed within the space-time construct, nor would be limited to it, and so may be said to be eternal, and therefore "sees" or experiences all time frames, or events, simultaneously.
5. Religion/Religious texts - which are right? Can any be considered more valuable,
reasonable, or more true than the others?
Well, my post is already quite extensive, so I will try to keep my answer to this question short. Which religions or religious texts are right, most valuable, or most true? Obviously, this is debatable. Which are right? I think all religions, and religious texts hold truth, and are therefore right in their own respects. Furthermore, I also believe that each religion and religious text holds falsities. Therefore, I do not believe any one to be RIGHT, absolutely. Nor do I consider any one to be WRONG absolutely. I don't know which is MOST true, and which is MOST false. My bet is that it depends on what aspect of reality that any religions comments upon you wish to examine. Some religions are more scientific, and deal with more scientific phenomena than others. Therefore, in regards to scientific questions, they are probably going to hold more scientific truths than others. This is a simple example of what I mean by "depends on what aspect of reality you wish to examine."
Therefore, in answering the question, "Which is most valuable?" I would answer that the one that is most valuable is the one that makes the most study and comment on the widest range of life-realities. This is because such religion would be welcoming to the widest range of people, and therefore promote the most unity. Ergo, such a religion would actually be inclusive of other religions, making inclusion of those aspects of other religions that it considers to be true, in conjuct with the other areas of life that it studies. There is only one religion that I know of (and correct me if you know of others) that openly claims universality. That is, Catholocism (which, by definition of terms, is universal.... Catholic=universal). However, whether it actually lives up to this claim, or otherwise, is definitely open to debate. However, when considering its history, it seems to be the most inclusive of religions, since it often took on religious practices from other religions, adopted teachings and concepts from other religions, makes comments on scientific propositions and claims (albeit, these comments, and ensuing activities weren't always correct), takes a ready stance on world politics and government, etc... I am not saying that the Catholic Church is always correct when it comes to such activities (and I would certainly discount many actions of individuals associated with the religion as being catholic, according to its teachings), and neither would the Catholic Church claim infallibility in any area except morality and faith (as teachings... obviously in practice most catholics are not true to the teachings), but it just seems that the Catholic Church is most active in as many areas of life as it can be, than others. However, if I am mistaken in this respect, I welcome correction.
.
