God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[AAF]

Prince_James: “…….Creatorhood is indeed held to be a part of God by many theologians, but questions as to its validity is worth testing without necessarily throwing out the fullest extent of Godhood. But we'll get back to that in a bit...That not withstanding, it does not follow that God must be able to create himself in order to be an absolute creation, for God must only need be able to satisfy the condition "capable of creating all things which are capable of creating" to be an absolute creator, for creation implies creatability. God, as an absolute, could not be created and thus God would be freed of any such obligation to create himself………….”.

Re: Suppose for the sake of argument that God cannot create Himself! This assumption is reasonable and quite logical. The main problem, here, is that God’s SELF is a very large collection of almost every attribute under the sun! Thus, it follows at once, from this postulate, that none of those numerous attributes has been created by Him. And things such as infinity, eternity, knowledge, love, purposefulness, mind, reason, logic, planning, thinking, ideas, ideals, sense of right and wrong, morality, etc. are as eternal as God Himself and could not be created and require no Creator to exist. The problem with the idea of Creation, in this case, gets even worse, when one realizes that the notion of infinity, for example, doesn’t come piece by piece or item by item, but in a whole integrated package that must be either present or absent as one single unit. And so if it is assumed that the infinity of God’s power is eternal and uncreated, then the infinity of numbers, the infinity of space, the infinity of matter, the infinity of causality, and so on, must be uncreated and eternal as well. In brief, the supposed Creator of every thing cannot really create anything at all. As a result, this hypothetical entity that we call ‘GOD’ must be weeded out as redundant and useless through the use of Occam’s RAZOR.


Prince_James: “……. But anyway, to directly comment on some things:
"God can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Him. "
Let us switch this from "nothingness is greater than him", to "nothing is greater than him". Does not this switch illustrate why nothingness cannot be construed as greater than anything? For to speak of nothing is to, as noted, speak of nothing at all. Moreover, if God is eternal - which he is presumed to be - then to speak of nothingness preceding God is to speak of him not being eternal…….”.

Re: That is true. It does illustrate that it cannot be construed as greater than anything. But this is precisely the point. The creation of God, in particular, and the creation of every thing, in general, out of nothing is absurd because of its inescapable implication that something is less than absolute nothing. And so for God, the creation of Himself out of absolute nothingness is not really an option. The impact of this iron constraint on God’s free will and God’s high morale must be tremendous! In human terms, it’s equivalent to a life sentence in a maximum-security prison with no chance of parole!


Prince_James: “……. "Or God cannot create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, He is not absolute. He is relative, weak, and completely redundant. "
This seems to become more and more an offshoot of the classical "Can God create a rock not even he can lift?" In that you are, in essence, pitting God against his own attributes. To say that God is a creator in regards to himself, can be said to mean that because God is an absolute, it is impossible for him to be otherwise than absolute, and thus his negation would be absurd. Self-justified, more than "self-created", for creation implies the non-absolute. Moreover, to speak of him creating himself out of nothing implies that God is conditional, which supposes against his essence, and thus you are actually asking God to create a God-like being, not God. Also, you are presenting something fundamentally illogical into your argument: That nothingness can exist. Nothing can be "brought out of nothingness", for it implies that nothingness has some sort of ontological existence which would negate its existence as nothingness……….”.

Re: Yes, it’s of the same ‘HEAVY ROCK’ varieties, except the inability of God, here, to create Himself out of nothing implies as a necessary logical consequence His inability to create anything out of absolute nothingness under any conceivable circumstances. As for the above objection to the existence of absolute nothingness, even though it’s well articulated and convincing at first sight, it is not quite correct. That is because the concept of nothingness, in this context, is an absolute ideal of the same type of ideals like absolute perfection, absolute good, absolute justice, and the biggest number of all natural numbers. All those entities exist as absolute limits and ideals; but they do not exist ontologically as part of physical reality. Nonetheless, their existence is no less real than the existence of physical things. In fact, from the standpoint of pure reason, the existence of ideals is so logically necessary and more real than the existence of physical entities that, as a rule, require diligent and very careful observation to verify their existence one entity at a time. Moreover, defined as the perception of the absence of all perceptions, the concept of absolute nothing is the complimentary notion of the concept of the Universe. It’s impossible to have a firm grasp of the idea of the Universe without having clear understanding of the idea of absolute nothingness. And so you might say, without being self-contradictory, that absolute nothingness is a whole universe all by itself!


Prince_James: “……. As to a God outside of time:
You are correct. The notion of God existing apart from time is absurd. It is also contrary to claims made by some theologians that God can act, move, et cetera, all of which necessitate an existence in time.
But to go back as to creatorhood and God, I would claim that it is far more reasonable to demonstrate that God is not a creator by virtue of the fact that, were God a creator, it would invalidate his omnipresence and omnipotence, by introducing something entirely new that would invalidate the notion of infinity that omnipresence is based on (which can allow nothing new), and omnipotence which is rooted in omnipresence (if God = everything he can do everything and does, in fact, participate in all actions).
In essence, it is a flawed viewpoint to take God as a creator, but this does not imply that God, or something which fulfills certain basic ideas about God, I.E. infinity, eternity, et cetera, cannot exist. But as to whether such a thing does, unless you wish for me to present proof here or elsewhere, I shall not go into”.

Re: I certainly agree that the idea of Creation is incompatible with the notions of God’s omnipresence and omnipotence. But these last two notions are contradictory as well. Because God can only be omnipresent and omnipotent through His action and through His infinite ability to act everywhere and at all times; and Creation is a big part of this infinite ability. And so if God cannot create, then He is neither omnipresent nor omnipotent. No matter how you look at it, the idea of God is, in the final analysis, contradictory in a very big way. The only possible existence of God, as an entity, therefore, is to reside in the world of absolute ideals that can be approached indefinitely but can never be realized in any ontological sense as real possibilities and actual entities.

 

[Prince_James]

AAF:

"Re: Suppose for the sake of argument that God cannot create Himself! This assumption is reasonable and quite logical. The main problem, here, is that God’s SELF is a very large collection of almost every attribute under the sun! Thus, it follows at once, from this postulate, that none of those numerous attributes has been created by Him. And things such as infinity, eternity, knowledge, love, purposefulness, mind, reason, logic, planning, thinking, ideas, ideals, sense of right and wrong, morality, etc. are as eternal as God Himself and could not be created and require no Creator to exist. The problem with the idea of Creation, in this case, gets even worse, when one realizes that the notion of infinity, for example, doesn’t come piece by piece or item by item, but in a whole integrated package that must be either present or absent as one single unit. And so if it is assumed that the infinity of God’s power is eternal and uncreated, then the infinity of numbers, the infinity of space, the infinity of matter, the infinity of causality, and so on, must be uncreated and eternal as well. In brief, the supposed Creator of every thing cannot really create anything at all. As a result, this hypothetical entity that we call ‘GOD’ must be weeded out as redundant and useless through the use of Occam’s RAZOR."

You have made an excellent point here. If God himself is uncreated, so are all his attributes. Similarly, your point that all necessary things would have to, also, be uncreated, therefore bringing practically everything under the non-creation of God. And yes, he does become somewhat superfluous, but Ockham's Razor does allow for us to reference such things under certain names, as as existence shares much in the way of the philosophical notion of God, it seems appropriate to speak of it in such terms, to contrast it with other notions of existence as less based on necessary things such as infinity, eternity, et cetera. That is to say, it can be practical to speak of it as God, as existence does not draw the mind to such things as eternity and infinity in the same way.

"Re: That is true. It does illustrate that it cannot be construed as greater than anything. But this is precisely the point. The creation of God, in particular, and the creation of every thing, in general, out of nothing is absurd because of its inescapable implication that something is less than absolute nothing. And so for God, the creation of Himself out of absolute nothingness is not really an option. The impact of this iron constraint on God’s free will and God’s high morale must be tremendous! In human terms, it’s equivalent to a life sentence in a maximum-security prison with no chance of parole! "

Yes. Precisely. God is completely incapable of creating anything new, as he all ready encompasses all things, by virtue of being infinite. It is one of the things which could be said to be the reason for why God is not properly a being, but a thing, and why he is simply existence. That beinghood fundamentally requires some degree of limitation in order to manifest.

"Re: Yes, it’s of the same ‘HEAVY ROCK’ varieties, except the inability of God, here, to create Himself out of nothing implies as a necessary logical consequence His inability to create anything out of absolute nothingness under any conceivable circumstances. As for the above objection to the existence of absolute nothingness, even though it’s well articulated and convincing at first sight, it is not quite correct. That is because the concept of nothingness, in this context, is an absolute ideal of the same type of ideals like absolute perfection, absolute good, absolute justice, and the biggest number of all natural numbers. All those entities exist as absolute limits and ideals; but they do not exist ontologically as part of physical reality. Nonetheless, their existence is no less real than the existence of physical things. In fact, from the standpoint of pure reason, the existence of ideals is so logically necessary and more real than the existence of physical entities that, as a rule, require diligent and very careful observation to verify their existence one entity at a time. Moreover, defined as the perception of the absence of all perceptions, the concept of absolute nothing is the complimentary notion of the concept of the Universe. It’s impossible to have a firm grasp of the idea of the Universe without having clear understanding of the idea of absolute nothingness. And so you might say, without being self-contradictory, that absolute nothingness is a whole universe all by itself!"

Whereas you are correct in stating that we can speak of an ideal of absolute nothingness - and indeed, I argue that it is an important concept in any metaphysical system, and must also have its place in epistemology by virtue that falsehood can be said to speak of non-existence - it nonetheless impossible to use nothingness to give God a limit. That is to say, nothingness can never be a limit, because it has not the capacity to limit, by virtue of being nothingness. That is to further to say say, if God is "Pure Being", or as I prefer, "The Totality of Existence", then yes, of course he is not nothing, but nothing is not a limitation of that totality, as it is not to be considered as part of such. To go back to our principle of Parsimony, it is an extraneous to add Nothing to Everything, even if nothingness can factor into ontological discussions. But yes, nothingness is indeed implied in somethingness, and thus one must understand both and consider both to truly have an appreciation for either. So yes, it has importance, despite not existing, and despite the fact that furthermore, I would claim that to directly think of nothing is impossible, for truly, the only way to think of nothing is to not think.

I, however, must disagree with you on one point, though. You speak of absolute perfection as being but an ideal, not ontologically existent. I must disagree. If we define perfection as the logical expression of the fullest sense of certain categories that can have a fullest sense (I.E. we cannot have "absolute smell" [or absolute justice, for that matter!] but can have "absolute space"), then perfection can indeed be spoken about in regards to certain attributes of God/existence, such as infinity (perfection of space), eternity (perfection of time), et cetera, et cetera. Moreover, it would be my position that physical existence cannot exist without these perfections of it, for indeed, it is upon these hooks of perfection that all contingent, temporal, transient existence depend upon. For where would existence be if not infinite? Where would time be if not eternal? Causality, for instance, demands eternity for the possibility of infinite regress, which seems a necessity, lest we abandon cause.

"Re: I certainly agree that the idea of Creation is incompatible with the notions of God’s omnipresence and omnipotence. But these last two notions are contradictory as well. Because God can only be omnipresent and omnipotent through His action and through His infinite ability to act everywhere and at all times; and Creation is a big part of this infinite ability. And so if God cannot create, then He is neither omnipresent nor omnipotent. No matter how you look at it, the idea of God is, in the final analysis, contradictory in a very big way. The only possible existence of God, as an entity, therefore, is to reside in the world of absolute ideals that can be approached indefinitely but can never be realized in any ontological sense as real possibilities and actual entities."

If God's "body" is existence itself, would not it qualify right then and there are omnipresence? And if "omnipotence" means "all power", and as all things are (parts of) God, does not he have all power by virtue of encompassing all acts and is all the things that does those acts? That is to say, if we all exist, and share in existence, does not the notion of omnipotence become a reality when that existence is shared and that existence is united and all things which occur happen within it? That is to say, all power present at any given time, occurs in existence, and all possible power, and all necessary power...The only difference in this case is that God does not consciously will the actions, as he is not a being. That is to say, omnipotence is not controlled by a being, but is an expression of existence.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: “So you are saying that you are more intelligent than scripture? Can anyone redefine the definitions established by scripture to suit their "logic" or just you?…..”.
Re: I didn’t really say that; but since you mentioned it, I’m certainly cleverer, more modern, more open-minded, more enlightened and well informed than the ancient gurus of your holy books!

Well its a bit hard to take you seriously because you construct a thread that relies on at least the theoretical acceptance of god's existence (in other words you maintain that the monotheistic god is a contradiction so at the very least you should work with the conventional descriptions of god in that sense) - I guess if you don't even have a foundation of theory in any subject of knowledgable pursuit it becomes easier to pass oneself off as an authority in that field, although it only holds any credibility amongst the unqualified ...

lightgigantic: “…Its your metal blockades that prevent you from understanding that just as heat is inseparable from fire, wetness is inseparable from water, and the sunshine is inseparable from the sun globe, the energies of god (namely eternal time) are inseparable from god - Its ironic that you are advocating outlawing half measures because you liberally apply them to establish your own concoctions……..”.
Re: They are all separable! And only your poor knowledge in the fields of chemistry and physics makes you believe they are inseparable. In addition, your God cannot emanate time. Because it’s impossible to emanate time. And because the very verb ‘emanate’ makes no sense in the absence of time.

The very moment you have something called "fire" is the same moment that you have heat. The same holds true for water and the sun. They are seperations of theory only (in otherwords it is practically impossible to seperate heat from fire, unless you have access to some brilliant mode of chemistry or taking something as fire that is not actually fire). Your error is to consider time as a cause of god - its an error due to mistaking the energy of an object for the object.
You may say that god cannot emmanate time, but you only draw on your own experience for such an ontology. Just because you cannot emmanate time does not mean god cannot - this is why there is a basic requirement for theoretical knowledge in ANY field of knowledge before you attempt to launch into understanding - unless you are clear of the definitions of the article in scrutiny you may be relying on fallacy for your logic. In the case of this thread you choose to ignore the differences between the ontological classifications of the ordinary living entity and the superior living entity. It is just like saying there are no whales in the ocean because you examined a drop of sea water under a microscope and found no whales (In other words you are making rational statements that are not true- eg "It is said that time is an energy of god. It is also seen that time does not emmante from normal human beings. Therefore the beforementioned description of god is false")

lightgigantic: “…Why do you try to pass monotheism off as polytheism (apart from the fact that it is very easy to establish that a polytheistic god is a contradiction)…….”.
Re: It is not me who is trying to pass it off as polytheism. It’s your awful bias against polytheism, which makes you see polytheists everywhere, even out of context. To overcome this unnecessary obsession and to enhance your integrity, you have to do a lot of soul-searching, pal!

If you accept time as a cause for god you present a paradigm for other "gods" to appear - this is an essential distinction between polytheism and monotheism

lightgigantic: “…The issue is that you try to establish that the definitions of god as the cause of all causes doesn't actually mean the cause of all causes - this is the primary distinction between a monotheistic paradigm and a polytheistic paradigm - if you find a person who does not have a cause you have found god - if you accept a personality who has a cause as god you are not working with the definition of a monotheistic god……”.
Re: It appears you don’t even have sufficient knowledge of the basic dogmas of various religions. What makes you think polytheists have causes for their gods? Most of them don’t even recognize causality in the real world; let alone the other world.

Well what specific dogmas of various religions are you referring to when making such authoratative statements?

lightgigantic: “…If you are eternally situated on the same platform of conscious existence time is not an issue………”.
Re: Time is always an issue. Nothing can make any sense without time. Language itself becomes an utter nonsense in the absence of time. Therefore, your Deity cannot be eternal without eternity.

Thats why the state of eternity is a quality by which one can recognise god - just like heat is a quality by which one can recognise fire, and by wetness one can recognise water and by sunlight one can recognise the sun - Talking about god without eternity is like talking about fire without heat - in otherwords it seem slike you have a flimsy grasp on the subject in discussion

 

[lightgigantic]

That is what overweight people are always saying to their skinny relatives!
http://www.supersizeworld.com/

Not sure what you are trying to say?

That fat people and skinny people are the same size just as god and the living entity are the same catergory of conscious being?

You sure do have a flexible reportoire of definitions to suit your ideologies

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

If you would be so kind - and if you have all ready described this, please simply show me where you have so I might gain it without bothering you to repeat it - might you give us both a definition of transcedent as you are using it and proof for God's transcendental nature? In essence: Might you present to us a certain foundation where we can have continued discourse on the matter? For I am at wit's end in from both the meaning of "transcendental" as you so note, as well as the foundation you offer for such a belief.

IN essence - god is conscious being just like we are also conscious beings - the difference is that he is more superiorly conscious (he is infinite and we are infintesmal), just like there is a difference between a drop of sea water and the entire ocean (its a difference of quanitity not quality).
Now if you want to apply an emiracal process to understanding god that will fail because it is a process that only bears results with dull matter - empirical processes do not allow us to even perceive our own consciousness (we cannot see what we are seeing with), so what to speak of god's existence.
By transcendental I am meaning that god is beyond the approach of our material senses, he can only be approached by persons who he agrees to reveal himself to. Much like the only way to directly perceive the president is if he reveals himself to a person - of course one can gather a general understanding that the president exists (symptomized by a functional and orderly administration) but as far as getting his personal interview one has to reciprocate with him by behaviour that he deems suitable.

There are several problems with this thread

* that the epistemology for understanding matter is advocated as the epistemology for understanding god

*An absence of at least the theoretical distinctions between the living entity and god (just because an ordinary human being cannot do something doesn't mean that god cannot)

*Attributing a material cause to god which has lead to a confusion of the ontologies of polytheism and monotheism (perhaps a variation of the first problem, namely applying the epistemology for understanding dull matter and using that paradigm for cramming in a definition of god)

Feel free to quote holy scripture of any religion to back your viewpoint, although I shall more likely respond from a philosophic viewpoint, with little of my own quotation. That is to say, I do not recognize the scriptures as a source of privileged information, and shall treat them but as arguments.

Thats okay - scriptural conclusions (at least the ones I am familiar with) are not irrational, but they do require a foundation of theoretical knowledge, just as any branch of knowledge requires a foundation of definitions and applications in order to venture into an examination of understanding

Now, to ask you a few questions based on direct quotes:
""Yes the president is free and so is god - but still you see that powerful persons tend to behave in a certain predicatable way - for instance how many times in the past ten years has the president came over to your place for dinner?""
By free, you mean free to choose differently? To act differently? In which case, I must disagree:

The more power you have the more you can make free decisions of free will - just compare the president with a person in jail - in the case of god because he is the most powerful he has the most free will - one such quality is that god doesn't have to work to attain any result, since the laws that govern result are subservient to him

God is omniscient, is he not? That is what you claim, presumably, yes? Well let us consider that if God is omniscient, then God is pre-aware of all his decisions, both past, present, and future, yes? That is to say, an act God shall make thirty years from now, is known now to God just as surely as an act of ours but a minute ago may be known to us with certainty, nay? But just as the past is immutable to us, must not God's perfection and knowledge of the future, demand that the future is also determined, and so God cannot act against that which he has foreseen himself as doing? That even if we speak of God being "outside time" - which is rather a nonsensical notion, but we shall discuss this if you rise specific claims to such - we must come to realize that an absolute entity, acting in anyway, cannot act but according to his perfections, and in the most perfect way, all of which demands that God is not free to act within anything but the strict limit of his own perfection, even if his foreknowledge is comparable to present knowledge to us. THat is to say, that an act of God is determined if not by the future, than by the present, and cannot be free because of such determinations which stem not from an exterior source of God, but God himself.

God's form is not limited - so regarding something that may "happen" to god, it is happening eternally. An example is there that the sun appears to appear on one horizon and disappear on another, thus it appears to undergo a creation and annhilation, but actually it is situated in a constant mode of existence and it appears temporal only to those who are in temporal existence

""Thats right - the mind is limited because it is a material phenomena - in other words the mind has a beginning and an end - but since god is transcendental one must apply a transcendetal process to understand him (which begins with obedience to him) - basically god is different than matter so one cannot expect to understand him by applying the same process one applies to understand matter (ie it relies on a different epistemology)""
Please clarify in what way God is not matter, and if not matter, what he is composed of, how you know of this composition, its nature, and other things pertinent to an understanding of your statement.

God is composed of a transcendental form - I guess for further clarification this requires an analysis of our own existence - just as there is a distinction between our bodies and our consciousness (symptomatic of conditioned life) - To understand the nature of consciousness and its distinction from matter is a step towards understanding the nature of god just as understanding the quality of a drop of sea water (saltiness) is a step towards undersatnding the quality of the sea.
Just as the epistemology for understandking science can be found in science books, the epistemology for understanding god can be found in scripture - in otherwords there is no seperating the discipline of an epistemology if you want to progress towards its ontology

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “But that’s the problem - you are not using reason and logic - you are defying the established definitions of "monotheism" (regardless of whether you accept them or not) and borrow from the established definitions of polytheism in order to debunk it - if you examine your original thread this is not the right forum for a person who wants to redefine the established norms of monotheism - if that is in fact your desire you would be better off rewriting the thread to something about undermining the established authority of monotheism rather than trying to push through your concocted redefinitions of monotheism as a vehicle for your "logic"……….”.

Re: Now, if one uses logic and reason to criticize and demolish the monotheistic concepts of God, then, in your view, that is a violation of the established definitions and an attempt to undermine the established authority of monotheism. Well, in this case, you’re pointing out the obvious; but you are not arguing against or trying to stop the process of demolishing and undermining those definitions and authorities. And so the destruction goes on; and the main THREAD needs no examination or re-writing!


lightgigantic: “…The point is that a zealot lacks a philosophical approach, regardless whether they are religious or atheistic zealots - in your case your lack of philosophy is indicated by your absence of a foundation in theoretical knowledge by which one can adequately use the word "monotheism"…..”.`

Re: But finding out the contradictions and the absurdities of monotheism is the philosophy and the main purpose in this context. And you are not trying to stop the destruction!


lightgigantic: “…Actually I am just saying that if you want to examine the logical premise of monotheism it behooves you not to redefine the established definition midway through to suit your ideology….”.

Re: Redefining the definitions means for you pointing out their inherent contradictions and falsehood. If, for instance, one takes your famous ‘ cause of all causes’, examines it very carefully, and then concludes that it would not work because God cannot be the cause of His own existence, then it’s certain that you will protest very loudly that your definition has been redefined! But this is only a protest, not an argument on your part. That is because your definition is not redefined. Your ‘cause of all causes’ is demolished!


lightgigantic: “…We'll let the pagans or polytheists speak for themselves - if you want to talk about monotheism however why do you insist on borrowing from other philosophies outside of monotheism to prove that monotheism is a contradiction?…………….”.

Re: Reason, for sure, is outside monotheism. And its principles and methods must be used to examine and discover the inherent contradictions and absurdities at the heart of monotheism and theism in general. Accordingly, it does your case no good to call that ‘polytheism’! Since both monotheism and polytheism are the intended target here. And you and the polytheists are in the same boat!


lightgigantic: “…What’s the point if I say i am a practitioner or not? You lack the foundation of theoretical knowledge to determine whether I am lying or not ... Just as a fanatic blindly believes everything you blindly disbelieve everything - so despite your animosity towards narrow minded evangelists you have more in common with them than you think because you have no philosophical platform due to a complete absence of theoretical knowledge”.

Re: How can you say that? You were the one with ‘animosity towards narrow minded evangelists’; and I was the one who called them ‘smooth-spoken, good-looking & smartly dressed’! Unfortunately, they are confirmed monotheists and have much more in common with you than with me. In short, they are your natural allies; and you should welcome them, love them, hug them, and kiss them!

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"IN essence - god is conscious being just like we are also conscious beings - the difference is that he is more superiorly conscious (he is infinite and we are infintesmal), just like there is a difference between a drop of sea water and the entire ocean (its a difference of quanitity not quality)."

So God is similar to us but on an infinite scale, whereas we are limited? Now, two things:

1. I think "infintesimal" is the wrong word here. That implies infinitely small. Clearly we are not infinitely small, but simply small.

2. Upon what do you base that God is conscious? And how does an infinite consciousness work? And what do you mean by the term conscious precisely?

"Now if you want to apply an emiracal process to understanding god that will fail because it is a process that only bears results with dull matter - empirical processes do not allow us to even perceive our own consciousness (we cannot see what we are seeing with), so what to speak of god's existence."

This is fine. We are dealing mainly here with objects of thought and reason, not of empirical validation.

"By transcendental I am meaning that god is beyond the approach of our material senses, he can only be approached by persons who he agrees to reveal himself to."

How is he such and why is he such? Moreover, if God is infinite, does not this imply that he exists everywhere and thus we should be able to have knowledge of him because we -are- him, by virtue of being part of infinity?

"Much like the only way to directly perceive the president is if he reveals himself to a person - of course one can gather a general understanding that the president exists (symptomized by a functional and orderly administration) but as far as getting his personal interview one has to reciprocate with him by behaviour that he deems suitable."

So what you mean is we can't get personal unless he wants to? Well, how is that so? If he is infinite, he all ready is very personal with me. Indeed, he is me!

"* that the epistemology for understanding matter is advocated as the epistemology for understanding god"

Why do you suggest this is wrong? Moreover, what is God made up of? WHat is the nature of this substance? What proof do you have for it?

"*An absence of at least the theoretical distinctions between the living entity and god (just because an ordinary human being cannot do something doesn't mean that god cannot)"

Where do you suggest someone has said this?

"*Attributing a material cause to god which has lead to a confusion of the ontologies of polytheism and monotheism (perhaps a variation of the first problem, namely applying the epistemology for understanding dull matter and using that paradigm for cramming in a definition of god)"

What do you suggest in its place?

"Thats okay - scriptural conclusions (at least the ones I am familiar with) are not irrational, but they do require a foundation of theoretical knowledge, just as any branch of knowledge requires a foundation of definitions and applications in order to venture into an examination of understanding"

By the way: What scriptures do you follow?

"The more power you have the more you can make free decisions of free will - just compare the president with a person in jail - in the case of god because he is the most powerful he has the most free will - one such quality is that god doesn't have to work to attain any result, since the laws that govern result are subservient to him"

Do you mean that he does not even have to will it? Or that his will is instanteneous? Moreover, how are the laws of result subserviant to him? Similarly, how is this anything but a relative freedom? Both the prisoner and the president, if they have a metaphysical free-will, would be equally free in all but -expression- of that will.

"God's form is not limited - so regarding something that may "happen" to god, it is happening eternally. An example is there that the sun appears to appear on one horizon and disappear on another, thus it appears to undergo a creation and annhilation, but actually it is situated in a constant mode of existence and it appears temporal only to those who are in temporal existence"

That would place God in even a less free position, you realize? For if there is only -is- for God, then he cannot do anything but what he -is-, and therefore choice - which necessitates a "may" - cannot factor into his equations. If we have free will - doubtful - we'd actually be more free than God.

Moreover, you are relating God's movement completely to the illusion of movement of the sun? That is to say, it is our perspective which states that he is moving, when in fact we are moving, and he is not? How then is he acting?

"God is composed of a transcendental form - I guess for further clarification this requires an analysis of our own existence - just as there is a distinction between our bodies and our consciousness (symptomatic of conditioned life) - To understand the nature of consciousness and its distinction from matter is a step towards understanding the nature of god just as understanding the quality of a drop of sea water (saltiness) is a step towards undersatnding the quality of the sea."

What is a "transcendental form"? So yes, let's analyze our existence. Is there really a difference, save a relative one, betwixt our consciousneses and our physical existences?

Moreover, I shall pose a question that arose from Descrates to you: If consciousness and matter are different substances and share nothing similar to one another, how are they capable of interacting whatsoever?

"Just as the epistemology for understandking science can be found in science books, the epistemology for understanding god can be found in scripture - in otherwords there is no seperating the discipline of an epistemology if you want to progress towards its ontology "

The difference is more pronounced than you make it appear to be. Science is not to be found in the books, but to be found in an outside source that serves as the reason why those books are written, revised, and completely re-written over time. A scripture is a text not subject to change and with no exterior source but a claimed God and its claims are neither science, nor philosophy, as they do not rest on empirical or logical evaluation, but on the assertion of a supposed deity, and no arguments to back said things up.

But yes, we must speak of epistemological concerns regarding God, all of which I have tried to tackle by getting you to both define, and then present reasons for, your assertions. Let's continue with that, so we might see whether it is reasonable to conclude as you do.

 

[AAF]

Prince_James: “…Whereas you are correct in stating that we can speak of an ideal of absolute nothingness - and indeed, I argue that it is an important concept in any metaphysical system, and must also have its place in epistemology by virtue that falsehood can be said to speak of non-existence - it nonetheless impossible to use nothingness to give God a limit. That is to say, nothingness can never be a limit, because it has not the capacity to limit, by virtue of being nothingness. That is to further to say, if God is "Pure Being", or as I prefer, "The Totality of Existence", then yes, of course he is not nothing, but nothing is not a limitation of that totality, as it is not to be considered as part of such. To go back to our principle of Parsimony, it is an extraneous to add Nothing to Everything, even if nothingness can factor into ontological discussions. But yes, nothingness is indeed implied in somethingness, and thus one must understand both and consider both to truly have an appreciation for either. So yes, it has importance, despite not existing, and despite the fact that furthermore, I would claim that to directly think of nothing is impossible, for truly, the only way to think of nothing is to not think…………”.

Re: With regard to your first comment, I could not establish a beachhead for disagreement; and so I omitted it! It’s even harder to disagree with this second comment. However, I have something to say about nothingness as a limit, which would not, hopefully, be some sort of ‘much ado about nothing’! In the case of the physical essences (space, time, & matter), nothingness clearly plays the role of the ultimate limit, which can be approached simply by dividing those essences ad infinitum. But none of these physical limits is an absolute nothingness in the strict sense of the term. The geometrical point, for example, loses the extension attribute of space but still has the position attribute. And so it is not an absolute nothing. The same applies to the temporal moment and the idealized point particle. Now, if absolute nothingness is not a limit of physical essences, then it’s a limit of what? Obviously, it must be a limit of something absolute. There are only two absolute entities for absolute nothingness to limit: the Cosmos & God. Let’s assume that the Cosmos is A. Then it follows by logical necessity that absolute nothingness is –A. This is clearly the limit that can be approached indefinitely by shrinking and emptying the Cosmos of its contents ad infinitum. Let’s suppose next that there is God. In this case, some of the essential attributes of the Cosmos must be given to God; and hence this Cosmos unlike the previous one is not an absolute totality. The absolute totality, here, is God & His Universe. Let A denote both! Absolute nothingness, therefore, must be -A. This is the absolute limit that can be approached infinitely by emptying the Universe of its contents and negating the attributes of its God indefinitely. Finally, to assert its epistemological status as a limit for the stand-alone Cosmos or for God & His Universe, absolute nothingness keeps for itself their most essential attribute, i.e. the absoluteness attribute. Very interesting!



Prince_James: “…I, however, must disagree with you on one point, though. You speak of absolute perfection as being but an ideal, not ontologically existent. I must disagree. If we define perfection as the logical expression of the fullest sense of certain categories that can have a fullest sense (I.E. we cannot have "absolute smell" [or absolute justice, for that matter!] but can have "absolute space"), then perfection can indeed be spoken about in regards to certain attributes of God/existence, such as infinity (perfection of space), eternity (perfection of time), et cetera, et cetera. Moreover, it would be my position that physical existence cannot exist without these perfections of it, for indeed, it is upon these hooks of perfection that all contingent, temporal, transient existence depend upon. For where would existence be if not infinite? Where would time be if not eternal? Causality, for instance, demands eternity for the possibility of infinite regress, which seems a necessity, lest we abandon cause………..”.


Re: If I understand the above argument correctly, then perfection defined as the ‘logical expression of the fullest sense of certain categories that can have a fullest sense’ must denote either specific states of certain categories defined arbitrarily as perfect by a decision-making agent, or closing an endless series of these possible states by making the familiar mental jump and treating it ontologically as finite. The absolute perfection of the first possibility is nullified by its arbitrariness. The second possibility, however, is a constant source of mistakes and misconceptions and must be treated with extreme caution. It’s undoubtedly convenient to view and treat the elements of an infinite series as a given totality. And as long as one continues to deal with it ontologically as potential infinity, there should be no problem. But if one, here, intentionally or unintentionally switches from the potential infinity to the actual infinity, then the limits become elements and the whole investigation collapses on itself. Take, for example, the infinite series of natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3…). This series goes on and on forever with no chance of encountering the biggest number of all natural numbers. It’s logically consistent and completely free of contradictions and paradoxes. The biggest number, here, is simply an ideal limit. But all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes appear as soon as one starts to treat this ideal limit as an actual entity that must exist in the ontological sense of the term. The same is true in the case of absolute perfection, where the absolutely perfect must remain an ideal limit of the series, not a member of it.

Finally, it should be pointed out that both space & time are not absolute ideals or limits to anything. They are actual essences and absolute only in the Newtonian sense. According to Newton, space is absolute because it is independent of and does not interact with anything else; and time is absolute because it flows independently and regardless of everything else. The Newtonian absolutes, therefore, are quite different from the absolute ideals, which can be approached forever but can never be realized.



Prince_James: “…If God's "body" is existence itself, would not it qualify right then and there are omnipresence? And if "omnipotence" means "all power", and as all things are (parts of) God, does not he have all power by virtue of encompassing all acts and is all the things that does those acts? That is to say, if we all exist, and share in existence, does not the notion of omnipotence become a reality when that existence is shared and that existence is united and all things which occur happen within it? That is to say, all power present at any given time, occurs in existence, and all possible power, and all necessary power...The only difference in this case is that God does not consciously will the actions, as he is not a being. That is to say, omnipotence is not controlled by a being, but is an expression of existence”.

Re: I am not very sure about the difference between the concept of God as defined above and the notion of absolute Cosmos. At first glance, these TWO look the same to me. And so I have no good reason to disagree with you on this specific issue. However, I’m a bit worried that I might have missed something crucial in the above reasonable argument; and the classical God (along with His Heaven & Hell) might have been smuggled in somehow!

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “But that’s the point - by your last statement you are establishing your own brand of religious perception - at the least it is merely an opinion, at the worst another branch of theology (even if only atheist like yourself are among the "devout") - this is why I say you are out of your league with this thread because you insist in redefining the established object of debate for the purposes of debate - you would be better off thinking about working on a different thread that aims at undermining the established authority of scripture ….….”.

Re: The most obvious and productive method to undermine the ‘established authority of scripture’ is to work out and expound the glaring contradictions and absurdities of its fundamental core belief, i.e. its concept of God. You call this procedure ‘redefining the definitions’; and I call it ‘examining and dissecting the definitions’. And according to the dictionary, I’m right and you are wrong, and that is the end of it!


lightgigantic: “….Again you use your own existence as a yardstick for determining the parameters of god, and therefore have no qualification for entering into what is delineated in scripture, hence you are left with a complete absence of theoretical knowledge which gives you no credibility for your "understanding"- there are stacks of clear scriptural quotes that declare time as subservient to god and that god's existence is beyond what we laterally experience as time………”.

Re: The absolute existence of all things is the measuring rod here. This existence implies time and makes no sense in the absence of time. Time cannot be created or radiated or emanated in any way, because the verbs ‘create, radiate, & emanate’ require time as an absolute condition in order to work or make any sense at all. And this is where you’ve made your biggest epistemological mistake by turning a blind eye to the logical necessity of time and continuing to use the same verbs and words and terms as if they were independent and can function in the absence of time. It behooves you to realize that nothing can work or function prior to or independent of time, absolutely nothing at all.


lightgigantic: “….You judge god's ontology by your own ontology - is that reasonable and logical given even the theoretical nature of god's existence?…………”.

Re: The concept of God is created by humans; and it should and it must be evaluated and examined and verified by the standards of the human logic, the human reason, and the human mind. And so you cannot belittle the term of ‘absolute existence’ by calling it ‘only my existence’ in order for you to save the existence of your God from the ravages of time. That is just plain wrong! Since neither my existence nor your existence nor God’s existence can be meaningful or sensible in the complete absence of time.


lightgigantic: “….Sophist? You are the one using your own ontology as the means to determine god's –lol………….”.

Re: ‘LOL’ @ your reflective thinking! You’ve just played the role of the untrained sophist by giving me a special kind of ontology and giving God the other type of ontology! The trouble is that you can never perceive or explain what this ‘Divine Ontology’ is. You just quite simply have no idea what this imaginary thing is. And because you just don’t know what this proposed thing is, you are absolutely sure it does exist! And so ‘LOL & LOL & LOL’ @ your special brand of apologetics!


lightgigantic: “….Well on what basis should we accept your authority over scripture? What do you know of your own cause except your father and mother - why do apply the same general principle to god, especially since you lack even a primary theoretical foundation of knowledge - you are just like an illiterate villager speculating about astronomy. - Where is the possibility of debate without established definitions? If you want to borrow from polytheism to prove that monotheism is a contradiction why should we foolishly go along with it?……. ‘.

Re: With all due respect, the clumsy ‘VILLAGER’, around here, is very clearly you; and I’m obviously the sophisticated urban ‘DUDE’! And this satisfies and suits me just fine! And by the way, villagers around the world are quite familiar with the night sky and with its starry constellations. And so, ‘LOL’ @ you new branch of apologetics!


lightgigantic: “….Well if you want to debate about astronomy don't you rely on the authority of astronomers and astronomy books? Or is the reasonable and logical path to throw all of it out the window and begin by saying "You know I had a good look at the stars last night from my kitchen window and I think all those eggheads in university are wrong"…”.

Re: Well, the night sky, in this case, is the primary reference and the authority. And any thing in those ‘eggheads’ books’ that is not confirmed and verified by observing the night sky must be thrown out without hesitation. And so ‘LOL’ once again @ your rational defense of your basic religious doctrines!

 

[Prince_James]

AAF:

"However, I have something to say about nothingness as a limit, which would not, hopefully, be some sort of ‘much ado about nothing’!"

That made me grin. Very clever, my good man.

"In the case of the physical essences (space, time, & matter), nothingness clearly plays the role of the ultimate limit, which can be approached simply by dividing those essences ad infinitum. But none of these physical limits is an absolute nothingness in the strict sense of the term. The geometrical point, for example, loses the extension attribute of space but still has the position attribute. And so it is not an absolute nothing. The same applies to the temporal moment and the idealized point particle. Now, if absolute nothingness is not a limit of physical essences, then it’s a limit of what? Obviously, it must be a limit of something absolute. There are only two absolute entities for absolute nothingness to limit: the Cosmos & God. Let’s assume that the Cosmos is A. Then it follows by logical necessity that absolute nothingness is –A. This is clearly the limit that can be approached indefinitely by shrinking and emptying the Cosmos of its contents ad infinitum. Let’s suppose next that there is God. In this case, some of the essential attributes of the Cosmos must be given to God; and hence this Cosmos unlike the previous one is not an absolute totality. The absolute totality, here, is God & His Universe. Let A denote both! Absolute nothingness, therefore, must be -A. This is the absolute limit that can be approached infinitely by emptying the Universe of its contents and negating the attributes of its God indefinitely. Finally, to assert its epistemological status as a limit for the stand-alone Cosmos or for God & His Universe, absolute nothingness keeps for itself their most essential attribute, i.e. the absoluteness attribute. Very interesting! "

Can it truly be said that anything divided ad infinitum would be accorded to nothingness and not simply the "infinitely small"? Though we could never reach the infinitely small by definition that its infinite status would make it impossible to be reached, it must nonetheless be a the ultimate end, as every number - or every portion of space - is infinitely divisible and never would reach zero (nothingness) in the process. As a number's quotient cannot be zero if that nubmer is divided by another number, one could never reach zero through the process of division.

"But none of these physical limits is an absolute nothingness in the strict sense of the term. The geometrical point, for example, loses the extension attribute of space but still has the position attribute."

Whereas I do agree that if we take this as true that it would not lose its positionary aspect, I must disagree with you on one point, namely, that it could so lose its extension in space. But this also hinges upon my objection to the conception of a dimension not united with the two others. For instance, consider a truly two dimensional square suspended in three dimensional space. Now, according to the viewpoint that there can exists two dimensions apart from a third, the square has litterally no notion of "depth". That is to say, it has no extension in the third dimension, so it is litterally flat. But I ask, if then looked at on the corner, would not it have no existence? Or even if one looks at it so that the square is viewed from above and its flatness ought to be seen, I ask whether this would even be possible? For if it has no depth, how does it retain this flatness? For there would be nothing to separate it from the nothingness above and beneath it. That is to say, such an square could not exist. The only way to satisfy its existence as a "virtually two dimensional square" would be to postulate the existence of an infinitely small existence in the third, to allow for the least amount of depth possible. Or to bring it back to our philosophic discussion, I postulate that the ultimate point of space must be infinitely small in all dimensions, not lacking in any, and thus retains both space and position, rather than simply position.

"Now, if absolute nothingness is not a limit of physical essences, then it’s a limit of what? Obviously, it must be a limit of something absolute. There are only two absolute entities for absolute nothingness to limit: the Cosmos & God. Let’s assume that the Cosmos is A. Then it follows by logical necessity that absolute nothingness is –A. This is clearly the limit that can be approached indefinitely by shrinking and emptying the Cosmos of its contents ad infinitum."

Yes, nothingness would be that limit we begin to approach on the infinitely small scale, and which the infinitely small is infinitely small away from.

"Finally, to assert its epistemological status as a limit for the stand-alone Cosmos or for God & His Universe, absolute nothingness keeps for itself their most essential attribute, i.e. the absoluteness attribute. Very interesting! "

So by allowing it to stand in as a semi-limit to the infinitely small and in opposition to existence as a whole, we find out that indeed, nothingness must be an absolute, just as existence, its pair, must be. Fascinating! That this further accords in a very litteral sense with nothingnesses complete lack of capacity to do anything, to house anything, et cetera, is truly also indicative of the truth of this.

"Re: If I understand the above argument correctly, then perfection defined as the ‘logical expression of the fullest sense of certain categories that can have a fullest sense’ must denote either specific states of certain categories defined arbitrarily as perfect by a decision-making agent, or closing an endless series of these possible states by making the familiar mental jump and treating it ontologically as finite. The absolute perfection of the first possibility is nullified by its arbitrariness. The second possibility, however, is a constant source of mistakes and misconceptions and must be treated with extreme caution. It’s undoubtedly convenient to view and treat the elements of an infinite series as a given totality. And as long as one continues to deal with it ontologically as potential infinity, there should be no problem. But if one, here, intentionally or unintentionally switches from the potential infinity to the actual infinity, then the limits become elements and the whole investigation collapses on itself. Take, for example, the infinite series of natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3…). This series goes on and on forever with no chance of encountering the biggest number of all natural numbers. It’s logically consistent and completely free of contradictions and paradoxes. The biggest number, here, is simply an ideal limit. But all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes appear as soon as one starts to treat this ideal limit as an actual entity that must exist in the ontological sense of the term. The same is true in the case of absolute perfection, where the absolutely perfect must remain an ideal limit of the series, not a member of it."

As a beginning question: What sort of contradictions and paradoxes do you propose come about when you consider infinity in a numerical sense? That is to say, that such things as half of infinity cannot be defined, that every number is equal in distance to the end of infinity? For if we investigate the concept of infinity, we find that many of these concepts, which at first glance, seem absurd, are in fact rather reasonable. That half of infinity cannot be defined points to the fact that infinity cannot be divisible by virtue of having no boundary and that boundary is the source of all divisibility in a true sense, whereas 1 and 1010234182108 being equal to the end of infinity demonstrates, once again, this same point - that infinity is always an infinite distance from the finite. That being said, the infinite must indeed be composed of an infinite series of finite parts, so that numbers cannot end is very appropriate and also points to the fact that finite space can always be compared to finite space regardless of the size of one side or another, that is to say, 1132431231 and 1023108320820381038108861912379122312987319871561 can interact regardless of the fact that the latter number is astronomically higher than the first. That all finite things would also equal finite things, but the sum of all finite things would be infinite, is also here found.

Now, as regards arbitraryness, I think your perception of my argument implying such came from poor wording on my part, and for this I apologize. Let me give a better description of what I mean "things which can have a fullest sense".

Now there seems to me two things. Things which cannot have a perfection as they have no logically greatest point, and things which can because they do. An example of the former would be smell. What is "the perfect smell"? Or for that matter, "the perfect colour"? And even if these two absurdities existed - which they do not - would they be necessary? But necessity is needed for perfection, otherwise you are right, it is arbitrary, and clearly nothing in this existence can be arbitrary if it is a perfection. On the other hand, what is the perfection of space? Well, space extended ad infinitum, no? For time, time extended infinitely, yes? Well, are not both of these things actually necessary? For if we allow only existence and non-existence to ultimately exist, then for space to not extend ad infinitum is to allow only for non-existence to surround it, which would either be an absurdity if we coudl claim such, or the same thing as saying "it extends infinitely". Whilst the same could be said with time, or for another argument, if all effect has a cause, then infinity is demanded as it is the only process that could contain an infinite regress without invalidating such by reference to an uncaused cause, which would defeat the purpose of causality itself, as well as being bolstered by the fact that for nothingness and somethingness to not be opposites of one another in an absolute sense forever, would make their opposition arbitrary, as well as somethingness capable of becoming nothingness, which is further made impossible by the fact that it is infinite, and thus would take an infinite time to dissolve. In essence, by postulating that both space and time are perfect, we find justification for both the true realities of infinite space and time, and indeed, it is the only way such can be the case.

"Finally, it should be pointed out that both space & time are not absolute ideals or limits to anything. They are actual essences and absolute only in the Newtonian sense. According to Newton, space is absolute because it is independent of and does not interact with anything else; and time is absolute because it flows independently and regardless of everything else. The Newtonian absolutes, therefore, are quite different from the absolute ideals, which can be approached forever but can never be realized. "

In contrast to this, I proclaim that space and time (as well as a third thing, relation) are fundamentals which, as a triune system, make up existence. That is to say, when we speak of existence, we speak of a combination of these three fundamentals which are united and depend upon one another, but can also be spoken of individually. Moreover, they share in the absoluteness of existence, by virtue that existence, in order to be absolute, must be composed of them.

If you wish for me to elaborate, I shall likely be writing something about this in the philosophy section within the next week or so.

"Re: I am not very sure about the difference between the concept of God as defined above and the notion of absolute Cosmos. At first glance, these TWO look the same to me. And so I have no good reason to disagree with you on this specific issue. However, I’m a bit worried that I might have missed something crucial in the above reasonable argument; and the classical God (along with His Heaven & Hell) might have been smuggled in somehow!"

No. Not at all. My God is simply another term for existence and used to provoke the idea of existence as an absolute, rather than something less philosophical. A utilitarian name, rather than one which is precise, but made clear when it is explicitly noted, after initially using the term, that when we speak of God, we are truly speaking of existence as an absolute.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: “But that’s the problem - you are not using reason and logic - you are defying the established definitions of "monotheism" (regardless of whether you accept them or not) and borrow from the established definitions of polytheism in order to debunk it - if you examine your original thread this is not the right forum for a person who wants to redefine the established norms of monotheism - if that is in fact your desire you would be better off rewriting the thread to something about undermining the established authority of monotheism rather than trying to push through your concocted redefinitions of monotheism as a vehicle for your "logic"……….”.
Re: Now, if one uses logic and reason to criticize and demolish the monotheistic concepts of God, then, in your view, that is a violation of the established definitions and an attempt to undermine the established authority of monotheism. Well, in this case, you’re pointing out the obvious; but you are not arguing against or trying to stop the process of demolishing and undermining those definitions and authorities. And so the destruction goes on; and the main THREAD needs no examination or re-writing!

Is it rational or riduculous to use the definitons of one situation or branch of knowledge to disprove something that is not related to it?
For instance if a person sets out to prove that the composition of space shuttle tiles are faulty by basing their observations and definitions on lego blocks without ever observing actual space shuttle tiles wouldn't you think they are bit strange?
The point is that when you set out to prove that monotheism is a contadiction you prove that you don't know what you are talking about when you propose "What created god?" - First off all you have to understand the proper definition of god.
Until you do that you don't even begin to demolish anything because you haven't even approached the subject you are trying to demolish.

lightgigantic: “…The point is that a zealot lacks a philosophical approach, regardless whether they are religious or atheistic zealots - in your case your lack of philosophy is indicated by your absence of a foundation in theoretical knowledge by which one can adequately use the word "monotheism"…..”.`
Re: But finding out the contradictions and the absurdities of monotheism is the philosophy and the main purpose in this context. And you are not trying to stop the destruction!

But that's the point - you have only uncovered the contradictions of polytheism and are trying to cram monotheism in the sme catergory

lightgigantic: “…Actually I am just saying that if you want to examine the logical premise of monotheism it behooves you not to redefine the established definition midway through to suit your ideology….”.
Re: Redefining the definitions means for you pointing out their inherent contradictions and falsehood.

No it means what I said - falsely assuming the qualities of one object to belong to another - its called an absence of knowledge, which is a prerequisite for debate. What I am attempting to get you to reconsider is your perception by which you draw up "god" because at the moment you are talking about something that is not even god

If, for instance, one takes your famous ‘ cause of all causes’, examines it very carefully,

"Carefully" seems to mean that if you examine the nature of conditional human life as the means for defining the parameters of god's existence - this is just like examining what a prisioner in jail gets for breakfast in order to determine what the ruler of a nation gets for breakfast. This is not careful examination but foolish examination

and then concludes that it would not work because God cannot be the cause of His own existence, then it’s certain that you will protest very loudly that your definition has been redefined!

Well you expect me to agree with the nonsense that a prisioner lives like a king?

But this is only a protest, not an argument on your part. That is because your definition is not redefined. Your ‘cause of all causes’ is demolished!

perhaps in your mind, but then you never had an adequate definition to begin your attempts of "demolition" at

lightgigantic: “…We'll let the pagans or polytheists speak for themselves - if you want to talk about monotheism however why do you insist on borrowing from other philosophies outside of monotheism to prove that monotheism is a contradiction?…………….”.
Re: Reason, for sure, is outside monotheism.

If you want to examine conditional human life as the means for examining god it is definitely unreasonable since conditional humans are not god - hardly something you have to have a philosophical debate about ....

And its principles and methods must be used to examine and discover the inherent contradictions and absurdities at the heart of monotheism and theism in general.

Well why don't you actually begin with those principles and methods then rather than redining them midway to suit your own preconceived terms?

Accordingly, it does your case no good to call that ‘polytheism’!

But I didn't call that polytheism - I called accepting that the monotheistic principle that time is a byproduct of god is the primary distinction betwenn polytheism and monotheism

Since both monotheism and polytheism are the intended target here. And you and the polytheists are in the same boat!

Actually its not uncommon to encounter atheistic arguments that matter is eternal principle (which, BTW is also an idea corroborated in scripture) - actually your premise that there is nothing eternal in the material creation is absurd even from an atheistic point of view.

lightgigantic: “…What’s the point if I say i am a practitioner or not? You lack the foundation of theoretical knowledge to determine whether I am lying or not ... Just as a fanatic blindly believes everything you blindly disbelieve everything - so despite your animosity towards narrow minded evangelists you have more in common with them than you think because you have no philosophical platform due to a complete absence of theoretical knowledge”.
Re: How can you say that? You were the one with ‘animosity towards narrow minded evangelists’; and I was the one who called them ‘smooth-spoken, good-looking & smartly dressed’! Unfortunately, they are confirmed monotheists and have much more in common with you than with me. In short, they are your natural allies; and you should welcome them, love them, hug them, and kiss them!

Sarcasm cannot camouflauge your affinity

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

"IN essence - god is conscious being just like we are also conscious beings - the difference is that he is more superiorly conscious (he is infinite and we are infintesmal), just like there is a difference between a drop of sea water and the entire ocean (its a difference of quanitity not quality)."
So God is similar to us but on an infinite scale, whereas we are limited? Now, two things:
1. I think "infintesimal" is the wrong word here. That implies infinitely small.

Clearly we are not infinitely small, but simply small.

Depends how big god is by his potencies, which include such things as the entire material creation etc. Remember, this is made on the basis that the consciousness of the living entity, whether an ant or whale, is the same "dimensions", since their comparative distinctions are only one of matter (ie the size of their body, which inevitably doesn't travel with them when they die) - hence there is a scriptural statement to the effect that "Amongst small things I am the living entity" (ie smaller than even the atom).

2. Upon what do you base that God is conscious? And how does an infinite consciousness work? And what do you mean by the term conscious precisely?

Consciousness is distinct from matter - in otherwords matter cannot exhibit any free will, like despite however complex a computer may be a tiny bacteria is superior to it (in one sense) because it can exhibit free will (however small) and the computer, despite the complexity of its applications, cannot exhibit free will (unless their is an operator of course).
As to the basis why god is conscious (despite there being tons of scriptural refernces), why would you think that god could not be conscious? Or to put it out of theistic terms, how did consciousness emmanate from something that is not conscious?

"Now if you want to apply an emiracal process to understanding god that will fail because it is a process that only bears results with dull matter - empirical processes do not allow us to even perceive our own consciousness (we cannot see what we are seeing with), so what to speak of god's existence."
This is fine. We are dealing mainly here with objects of thought and reason, not of empirical validation.
"By transcendental I am meaning that god is beyond the approach of our material senses, he can only be approached by persons who he agrees to reveal himself to."
How is he such and why is he such?

Its an opulence of being conscious and powerful - even in this world we don't reveal ourselves to everyone and anyone - instead we gauge it according to how they reciprocate with us - god is the same.

Moreover, if God is infinite, does not this imply that he exists everywhere and thus we should be able to have knowledge of him because we -are- him, by virtue of being part of infinity?

Actually this was a point I might as well bring up now (but I haven't because I have been having too much trouble just to establish the basic foundations) - the living entity is also eternal, full of knowledge and blissful by nature, but due to not being the cause and sustainer of the material energy (which is a seperated energy from god) we have the tendency to fall into illusion and thus do not consciously perceive this nature (its called conditional life and its where we are at the moment) - as for god existing everywhere it is just like the rays from the sunshine exist everywhere and are in onesense nondifferent from the sun (since they indicate the suns presence) but at the same time it is not the sun since the sun would surely scorch everything to a cinder if it came into person contact with everything the sunshine does - in other words the all pervasive nature of god is a seperated energy of god, just like the sunshine is a seperated energy of the sun.

"Much like the only way to directly perceive the president is if he reveals himself to a person - of course one can gather a general understanding that the president exists (symptomized by a functional and orderly administration) but as far as getting his personal interview one has to reciprocate with him by behaviour that he deems suitable."
So what you mean is we can't get personal unless he wants to? Well, how is that so? If he is infinite, he all ready is very personal with me.

God has many infinite potencies and they are divided into personal and impersonal infinite energies - its just like saying that the sunshine is the same thing as the sunglobe - the sunshine indicates the object but it is not the object -

Indeed, he is me!

Actually there are some religious practioners (bogus of course) that advocate this same philosophy, that the living entity is god - the obvious question is raised then how does ignorance enter into the equation?


"

* that the epistemology for understanding matter is advocated as the epistemology for understanding god"
Why do you suggest this is wrong? Moreover, what is God made up of? WHat is the nature of this substance? What proof do you have for it?

God is not matter - he is composed of consciousness - in other words our existence at the moment is both matter and consciousness, but for god there is no difference between his body and his self - on the liberated platform the living entity also has the same existence but its like a spark compared to a blazing fire (the same quality is there but not the quatity)


"

*An absence of at least the theoretical distinctions between the living entity and god (just because an ordinary human being cannot do something doesn't mean that god cannot)"
Where do you suggest someone has said this?

Its what's been gong on with AAF - he is stating that god cannot exist due to the limits of human existence and what we perceive as possible and impossible - indirectly this is like saying god and the living entity are on the same platform , which is something that proper monotheism never advocates


"

*Attributing a material cause to god which has lead to a confusion of the ontologies of polytheism and monotheism (perhaps a variation of the first problem, namely applying the epistemology for understanding dull matter and using that paradigm for cramming in a definition of god)"
What do you suggest in its place?

Well you could always work with the established definitions of monotheism that god is a supremely tarnscendental object and is without a cause.

"Thats okay - scriptural conclusions (at least the ones I am familiar with) are not irrational, but they do require a foundation of theoretical knowledge, just as any branch of knowledge requires a foundation of definitions and applications in order to venture into an examination of understanding"
By the way: What scriptures do you follow?

Whats the point of getting in to this too deeply if you don't accept scriptural reference? Its enough for the moment just to stick to general principles of monotheism

"The more power you have the more you can make free decisions of free will - just compare the president with a person in jail - in the case of god because he is the most powerful he has the most free will - one such quality is that god doesn't have to work to attain any result, since the laws that govern result are subservient to him"
Do you mean that he does not even have to will it? Or that his will is instanteneous?

His will is instanteous

Moreover, how are the laws of result subserviant to him?

These laws emmanate from him, and can be withdrawn or established according to his will

Similarly, how is this anything but a relative freedom?

relative to what? God is only relative to god, although he is impartial to his surrendered devotees

Both the prisoner and the president, if they have a metaphysical free-will, would be equally free in all but -expression- of that will.

Well if you cannot express that free will how is it free will?

"God's form is not limited - so regarding something that may "happen" to god, it is happening eternally. An example is there that the sun appears to appear on one horizon and disappear on another, thus it appears to undergo a creation and annhilation, but actually it is situated in a constant mode of existence and it appears temporal only to those who are in temporal existence"
That would place God in even a less free position, you realize? For if there is only -is- for God, then he cannot do anything but what he -is-, and therefore choice - which necessitates a "may" - cannot factor into his equations. If we have free will - doubtful - we'd actually be more free than God.
Moreover, you are relating God's movement completely to the illusion of movement of the sun? That is to say, it is our perspective which states that he is moving, when in fact we are moving, and he is not? How then is he acting?

The point is that there are real observations and illusory observations - just like the sun is obscured and influenced by many illusory conditions of our existence (sunrise, cloud cover etc) the sun is also composed of real conditions also (sunflares and spots) - there is a world or variety simply in "is"

"

God is composed of a transcendental form - I guess for further clarification this requires an analysis of our own existence - just as there is a distinction between our bodies and our consciousness (symptomatic of conditioned life) - To understand the nature of consciousness and its distinction from matter is a step towards understanding the nature of god just as understanding the quality of a drop of sea water (saltiness) is a step towards undersatnding the quality of the sea."
What is a "transcendental form"?

A form that is not subject to the inebrieties of material existence (birth, death old age disease etc)

So yes, let's analyze our existence. Is there really a difference, save a relative one, betwixt our consciousneses and our physical existences?
Moreover, I shall pose a question that arose from Descrates to you: If consciousness and matter are different substances and share nothing similar to one another, how are they capable of interacting whatsoever?

By illusion - just like a person can mistake a rope for a snake and scream "snake!!!" by the power of illusion

"Just as the epistemology for understandking science can be found in science books, the epistemology for understanding god can be found in scripture - in otherwords there is no seperating the discipline of an epistemology if you want to progress towards its ontology "
The difference is more pronounced than you make it appear to be. Science is not to be found in the books, but to be found in an outside source that serves as the reason why those books are written,

So is god and scripture, but just like in science you do quite a few semesters of theory before prac (what to speak of coming to the point of rewriting science) the epistemolgy of religion in the proper sense is also the same because it requires an element of practical application after acquired theory befor eone arrives at understanding (from which point you can determine real from false religious principles outside of denominations of faith, tradition, country etc)

revised, and completely re-written over time. A scripture is a text not subject to change and with no exterior source but a claimed God and its claims are neither science, nor philosophy, as they do not rest on empirical or logical evaluation, but on the assertion of a supposed deity, and no arguments to back said things up.

There are lots of arguments in religious pursuit - lol - if people do not see that it is because they do not see the value of religion (a common trend, even amongst the religious) - religion relies on a descending process of knowledge as opposed to an ascending or empirical process of inquiry, hence religion is constantly "re-established" according to time place and circumstance by god or god's pure representatives (jesus in the case of the Xtians)

But yes, we must speak of epistemological concerns regarding God, all of which I have tried to tackle by getting you to both define, and then present reasons for, your assertions. Let's continue with that, so we might see whether it is reasonable to conclude as you do.

ok - sounds reasonable

 

[Sarkus]

Consciousness is distinct from matter - in otherwords matter cannot exhibit any free will, like despite however complex a computer may be a tiny bacteria is superior to it (in one sense) because it can exhibit free will (however small) and the computer, despite the complexity of its applications, cannot exhibit free will (unless their is an operator of course).

You have such a narrow view.

1. Please show evidence of anything demonstrating consciousness that is not composed of matter.

2. Please define "free-will" and then please show evidence of a bacteria having this "free-will" (however small) - as opposed purely to obeying instinct.

3. Please define "consciousness" and provide evidence that it is "distinct from matter" and not merely just a byproduct of the complexity of the structure of that matter.

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Depends how big god is by his potencies, which include such things as the entire material creation etc. Remember, this is made on the basis that the consciousness of the living entity, whether an ant or whale, is the same "dimensions", since their comparative distinctions are only one of matter (ie the size of their body, which inevitably doesn't travel with them when they die) - hence there is a scriptural statement to the effect that "Amongst small things I am the living entity" (ie smaller than even the atom)."

Could not we take this statement to also imply a pantheistic conception of God present in small and large alike? Moreover, you are saying that "consciousness" has no dimensions now? That the consciousness of a man and whale are the same "size"?

"Consciousness is distinct from matter - in otherwords matter cannot exhibit any free will, like despite however complex a computer may be a tiny bacteria is superior to it (in one sense) because it can exhibit free will (however small) and the computer, despite the complexity of its applications, cannot exhibit free will (unless their is an operator of course)."

I am not trying to be nit-picky here or anywhere else, but I want to know -exactly- your beliefs, so I am questioning anything:

1. What is the will?

2. How is it free?

3. What proof do you have for the freedom of this will?

4. How is consciousness distinct from matter?

5. How does consciousness exist apart from matter?

6. Why does consciousness only exhibit itself in matter?

"As to the basis why god is conscious (despite there being tons of scriptural refernces), why would you think that god could not be conscious? Or to put it out of theistic terms, how did consciousness emmanate from something that is not conscious?""

HOw does the bridge come from a bundle of sticks? Relation. Just as I cannot find a structure's unique properties by regulating it to its individual parts without recourse to their relation to one another, so too do I postulate that consciousness is a relational entity. Similarly, the question you posed can simply be turned on its head and put back at you: How does the non-conscious emmanate from that which is conscious?

But as to why I think God cannot be conscious, consider that if God is omniscient, he cannot think, because he all ready knows all things, including all his thoughts, and which would make him incapable of participating in consciousness in any meaningful way. Also, if he is omnipresent, how could he even recognize "other"? The concept of "other" would be a contradiction to God, for nothing within him could be other, nor could he peer outward. Similarly, knowledge of certain things is needed before one can think of them - consider colours, or any sensory preception - and if God existed before they existed, and their existence depend on his creation of them, then he could not have knowledge of them, nor could he be their creator. God also has no sensory organs and if he is not made of matter, how can he perceive matter?

I have other arguments if you are interested in some, but I thought a few were enough.

"Its an opulence of being conscious and powerful - even in this world we don't reveal ourselves to everyone and anyone - instead we gauge it according to how they reciprocate with us - god is the same."

So God desires to be grand? God can feel ill about not having reciprocation? But if we do not know him, how can we reciprocate?

"Actually this was a point I might as well bring up now (but I haven't because I have been having too much trouble just to establish the basic foundations) - the living entity is also eternal, full of knowledge and blissful by nature, but due to not being the cause and sustainer of the material energy (which is a seperated energy from god) we have the tendency to fall into illusion and thus do not consciously perceive this nature (its called conditional life and its where we are at the moment) -"

Material energy is seperate from God? It exists outside and independent of him?

"as for god existing everywhere it is just like the rays from the sunshine exist everywhere and are in onesense nondifferent from the sun (since they indicate the suns presence) but at the same time it is not the sun since the sun would surely scorch everything to a cinder if it came into person contact with everything the sunshine does - in other words the all pervasive nature of god is a seperated energy of god, just like the sunshine is a seperated energy of the sun."

Surely the parts are not the whole, but is not a slice of apple still apple? And a slice of that apple? And a slice of that apple? Are not we by definition, then, God? And if so, how can he hide from us, whom he is? Similarly, if God is truly omnipresent, there is no point where he is not fully within, for to allow any distinction that makes one different from God, would be to invalidate the very notion that God exists in -all- places. In order to exist in all places, God must not only fill the glass, but to be the glass.

"God has many infinite potencies and they are divided into personal and impersonal infinite energies - its just like saying that the sunshine is the same thing as the sunglobe - the sunshine indicates the object but it is not the object -"

Yet he must also be equally in each part, lest he is not present throughout. And even if they are "impersonal attributes", they are still part of God, and thus we are not divorced from him. Moreover, as I am apart of God, he cannot exist apart from me, for I would cease to exist, so too would God lose a part.

"Actually there are some religious practioners (bogus of course) that advocate this same philosophy, that the living entity is god - the obvious question is raised then how does ignorance enter into the equation?"

Ignorance of what?

"God is not matter - he is composed of consciousness - in other words our existence at the moment is both matter and consciousness, but for god there is no difference between his body and his self - on the liberated platform the living entity also has the same existence but its like a spark compared to a blazing fire (the same quality is there but not the quatity)"

Describe this substance of consciousness and again, why God is such and not matter? Why is he not both? What do you base God being consciousness on?

Or as I asked before:

WHat is the nature of this substance? What proof do you have for it?

"Its what's been gong on with AAF - he is stating that god cannot exist due to the limits of human existence and what we perceive as possible and impossible - indirectly this is like saying god and the living entity are on the same platform , which is something that proper monotheism never advocates"

If we cannot say what is possible or impossible, how do we believe in God? Belief cannot come from faith, for it asserts, rather then knows.

"Well you could always work with the established definitions of monotheism that god is a supremely tarnscendental object and is without a cause."

How does something not have a cause?

"Whats the point of getting in to this too deeply if you don't accept scriptural reference? Its enough for the moment just to stick to general principles of monotheism"

Curiousity, really. I am thinking some form of Islam, Sikhism, or perhaps a strongly monotheistic Hindu school.

"His will is instanteous"

Fair enough.

"These laws emmanate from him, and can be withdrawn or established according to his will"

How and when did he create these? Moreover, what proof do you have that he created these and they did not create him? Why do they need a creator? And if result is a creation of him, how did he create result, if result is required in order to create? Similarly, do you have any proof that he can withdraw or establish them on a whim?

"relative to what? God is only relative to god, although he is impartial to his surrendered devotees"

This greatly depends on my question above regarding free-will, but how is it not a freedom simply inhibited by determinism?

"Well if you cannot express that free will how is it free will?"

Does a blind folded man have no capacity to see forevermore?

"The point is that there are real observations and illusory observations - just like the sun is obscured and influenced by many illusory conditions of our existence (sunrise, cloud cover etc) the sun is also composed of real conditions also (sunflares and spots) - there is a world or variety simply in "is""

You asked me how consciousness stems from non-consciousness. I ask you how variety stems from homogeny.

Similarly, how do you know there is a variety in "is"? How could what "is" manifest as "what is varied"?

"A form that is not subject to the inebrieties of material existence (birth, death old age disease etc)"

That doesn't explain much. How does it not have birht? How does it not have death? How does it not have old age? How is it a form? What is its composition and structure? How do you know?

"By illusion - just like a person can mistake a rope for a snake and scream "snake!!!" by the power of illusion"

So all is illusioin? And how does illusion explain that you are claiming that non-material substances can impact material substances and vice versa?

Suppose I was God. Suppose I had a baseball bat of transcendence and a ball of matter. Suppose I threw the ball at myself - as I am omnipresent, I guess I can do this - and went to strike the ball with the bat. Do I hit the ball, or do they interact? And how?

"So is god and scripture, but just like in science you do quite a few semesters of theory before prac (what to speak of coming to the point of rewriting science) the epistemolgy of religion in the proper sense is also the same because it requires an element of practical application after acquired theory befor eone arrives at understanding (from which point you can determine real from false religious principles outside of denominations of faith, tradition, country etc)"

Yet science is there to be found by anyone, whereas God can only be found in this book. Indeed, why would there be a need for this book if God can be found out alone?

"There are lots of arguments in religious pursuit - lol - if people do not see that it is because they do not see the value of religion (a common trend, even amongst the religious) - religion relies on a descending process of knowledge as opposed to an ascending or empirical process of inquiry, hence religion is constantly "re-established" according to time place and circumstance by god or god's pure representatives (jesus in the case of the Xtians) "

Reestablishment implies falsehood on the part of God through the non-truth of the prior statements of said religion. Moreover, to have a reevaluation of religion implies a change in God, which would make him not perfect. That and one cannot verify the claims of God if they change, which would make them meaningless.

Moreover, if there are arguments, clearly GOd has not been clear enough and thus we have a flaw, or his words are so that they contradict one another and require rationalizing. More often than not, we find that.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “Well its a bit hard to take you seriously because you construct a thread that relies on at least the theoretical acceptance of god's existence (in other words you maintain that the monotheistic god is a contradiction so at the very least you should work with the conventional descriptions of god in that sense) - I guess if you don't even have a foundation of theory in any subject of knowledgeable pursuit it becomes easier to pass oneself off as an authority in that field, although it only holds any credibility amongst the unqualified ………...”.

Re: There is a big difference between examining the conventional descriptions of God and believing in them. In the former case, you need only to make sure that they are conventional and recognized as such by the conventionalists. In the latter case, by contrast, you have to obtain the approval of your priests before you can make use of those descriptions in your meditations and prayers.


lightgigantic: “…The very moment you have something called "fire" is the same moment that you have heat. The same holds true for water and the sun. They are separations of theory only (in other words it is practically impossible to separate heat from fire, unless you have access to some brilliant mode of chemistry or taking something as fire that is not actually fire). Your error is to consider time as a cause of god - its an error due to mistaking the energy of an object for the object.
You may say that god cannot emanate time, but you only draw on your own experience for such an ontology. Just because you cannot emanate time does not mean god cannot - this is why there is a basic requirement for theoretical knowledge in ANY field of knowledge before you attempt to launch into understanding - unless you are clear of the definitions of the article in scrutiny you may be relying on fallacy for your logic. In the case of this thread you choose to ignore the differences between the ontological classifications of the ordinary living entity and the superior living entity. It is just like saying there are no whales in the ocean because you examined a drop of sea water under a microscope and found no whales (In other words you are making rational statements that are not true- eg "It is said that time is an energy of god. It is also seen that time does not emanate from normal human beings. Therefore the beforementioned description of god is false")……….”.

Re: God is presumed unable to emanate time unless proven otherwise. You did not provide such a proof, and therefore, your argument is defective. In fact, it’s impossible to even imagine the emitting of time because it’s a pure absurdity and because the verb ‘emit’ itself presupposes time as given before it can make any sense. Your entire argument can be reduced to this ‘you cannot emanate time, therefore, God can emanate it’! And so you’re using an impossibility to prove the possibility of impossibility; and you call it the foundation of your theoretical knowledge! Very rational and convincing!


lightgigantic: “…If you accept time as a cause for god you present a paradigm for other "gods" to appear - this is an essential distinction between polytheism and monotheism……..”.

Re: How can that be possible? What prevents the appearance of lesser gods in monotheism is not the absence of time, but the various infinities made as essential attributes of the monotheistic God. And so your objection is wrong; and time is an absolute condition for the existence of all entities, including the supposed existence of the monotheistic God.


lightgigantic: “…Well what specific dogmas of various religions are you referring to when making such authoritative statements?………”.

Re: I’m referring specifically to their basic dogma of a highest God.


lightgigantic: “…That’s why the state of eternity is a quality by which one can recognize god - just like heat is a quality by which one can recognize fire, and by wetness one can recognize water and by sunlight one can recognize the sun - Talking about god without eternity is like talking about fire without heat - in other words it seems like you have a flimsy grasp on the subject in discussion”.

Re: Wrong! ‘Wetness’ is an attribute of many things beside water; and so is 'heat'; and so is 'light'! Also talking about God without eternity is not like talking about fire without heat. But it’s, in fact, like talking about fire without any kind of fuel at all. And therefore, your grasp of this one is also very close to NIL!

 

[AAF]

........................................................................................Sarcasm cannot camouflauge your affinity

:m:

Affinity to what or whom?

And that was not a 'sarcasm'; but a sincere ADVICE given to you for free! The 'fundamental evangelists' are, indeed, your natural allies. And so it behooves you to love them, hug them, and kiss them; unless they try to take some of your 'SHEEP' away!

 

[lightgigantic]

You have such a narrow view.

In what way? You are advocating only matter and I am advocating both matter and consciousness - seems like I have at least one more thing to offer than yourself.

1. Please show evidence of anything demonstrating consciousness that is not composed of matter.

Please show how consciousness is intrinsic to matter - Basically you are getting yourself into epistemological difficulties because you are saying that consciousness independant of matter is not perceivable, to which the reply is "perceivable to who?"

2. Please define "free-will" and then please show evidence of a bacteria having this "free-will" (however small) - as opposed purely to obeying instinct.

Free will is the ability to see to one's own benefit - just like a table cannot see to its own benefit yet a bacteria will react with the environment to its life of feeding

3. Please define "consciousness" and provide evidence that it is "distinct from matter" and not merely just a byproduct of the complexity of the structure of that matter.

Well just compare a baby that is born dead and a baby that is born alive - you can see the results easily enough after a few weeks - I don't know where you get the idea that matter is conscious since we don't have a single experience of that and despite all the pseudo -scientific hype it has not been labrotarily proven

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

"Depends how big god is by his potencies, which include such things as the entire material creation etc. Remember, this is made on the basis that the consciousness of the living entity, whether an ant or whale, is the same "dimensions", since their comparative distinctions are only one of matter (ie the size of their body, which inevitably doesn't travel with them when they die) - hence there is a scriptural statement to the effect that "Amongst small things I am the living entity" (ie smaller than even the atom)."
Could not we take this statement to also imply a pantheistic conception of God present in small and large alike? Moreover, you are saying that "consciousness" has no dimensions now? That the consciousness of a man and whale are the same "size"?

Pantheism is only half teh picture just like the sunshine is not the full picture of the sun (it also includes the sun globe as the source of the sun) - the difference between the consciousness of the living entity and the consciousness of god is that the living entities consciousness is limited to its body and the consciousness of god pervades the entire manifestation

Consciousness is distinct from matter - in otherwords matter cannot exhibit any free will, like despite however complex a computer may be a tiny bacteria is superior to it (in one sense) because it can exhibit free will (however small) and the computer, despite the complexity of its applications, cannot exhibit free will (unless their is an operator of course)."
I am not trying to be nit-picky here or anywhere else, but I want to know -exactly- your beliefs, so I am questioning anything:
1. What is the will?

Charactersed by independence - a microphone stand cannot see to its own benefit because it has no consciousness

2. How is it free?

It is given options - there is adistinction between the freedoms offerred by the laws of karma - hence th eliving entity is rewarded or punished in material life by being awared a higher or lower body according to how they exhibit their free will - this is particularly pertinent to humans, hence human society is goverened by laws whereas animals act according to their natures - in other words animal life does not award many options of free will that amount to anything distinct

3. What proof do you have for the freedom of this will?

Well conscious things certainly can do more things than dull matter

4. How is consciousness distinct from matter?

Matter is inert - if matter appears to moving it is only due to consciousness or forces that are directed by consciousness

5. How does consciousness exist apart from matter?

I am not sure what you are asking here - I mean it seems pretty straight forward - just compare a dead person to a living person - if the difference is not consciousness what is it?

6. Why does consciousness only exhibit itself in matter?

Its kind of like a person wearing blue glasses asking why everything appears blue -

"As to the basis why god is conscious (despite there being tons of scriptural refernces), why would you think that god could not be conscious? Or to put it out of theistic terms, how did consciousness emmanate from something that is not conscious?""
HOw does the bridge come from a bundle of sticks?

But I can take a bundle of sticks and build a bridge - can you take a bundle of matter and invest it with consciousness (outside of reproduction which is an operational ability living entities possess as opposed to a creational ability)

Relation. Just as I cannot find a structure's unique properties by regulating it to its individual parts without recourse to their relation to one another, so too do I postulate that consciousness is a relational entity.

But its easy to see th erelation between a bundle of sticks and a wooden bridge - its not so straight forward with consciousness and matter

Similarly, the question you posed can simply be turned on its head and put back at you: How does the non-conscious emmanate from that which is conscious?

This brings us to the position that there is a third party, namely god - god has two main catergories of energies that are seperated from him - the external (material) energy and spiritual (conscious) energy. IN other words there is dull matter, there is the living entity and there is dull matter. The living entity is marginal, inotherwords it is sometimes taking shelter of matter and sometimes taking shelter of spirit, hence it can be defined as liberated or conditioned according to its consciousness

But as to why I think God cannot be conscious, consider that if God is omniscient, he cannot think, because he all ready knows all things, including all his thoughts, and which would make him incapable of participating in consciousness in any meaningful way.

Unless he is also interacting with other conscious entities, namely living entities on the liberated platform

Also, if he is omnipresent, how could he even recognize "other"? The concept of "other" would be a contradiction to God, for nothing within him could be other, nor could he peer outward.

The "other" are conditioned living entities - of course they are still "his" but he provides the medium of illusion (matter) so that they can work through their desires - in other word sif he gives free will he must give th eopportunity for illusion and mistakes otherwise it wouldn't be free will

Similarly, knowledge of certain things is needed before one can think of them - consider colours, or any sensory preception - and if God existed before they existed, and their existence depend on his creation of them, then he could not have knowledge of them, nor could he be their creator. God also has no sensory organs and if he is not made of matter, how can he perceive matter?

The difference between conditional life and liberated existence is that we are born in to ignorance - in otherwords our processes of epistemology don't bear anything on the liberated platform, what to speak of god's existence. God has no sensory organs? He has the most powerful sensory organs.

I have other arguments if you are interested in some, but I thought a few were enough.

A few are good -lol - I don't have heaps of time as much as I enjoy this it is already challenging my spare time

"Its an opulence of being conscious and powerful - even in this world we don't reveal ourselves to everyone and anyone - instead we gauge it according to how they reciprocate with us - god is the same."
So God desires to be grand? God can feel ill about not having reciprocation? But if we do not know him, how can we reciprocate?

God doesn't desire to be grand because he is completely full of all opulences at all the time - just like a filthy rich person has no desire to earn money because even if they went crazy and purchased anything and everything they would still have tons of money - as for our reciprocation at the moment we are reciprocating with dull matter

"Actually this was a point I might as well bring up now (but I haven't because I have been having too much trouble just to establish the basic foundations) - the living entity is also eternal, full of knowledge and blissful by nature, but due to not being the cause and sustainer of the material energy (which is a seperated energy from god) we have the tendency to fall into illusion and thus do not consciously perceive this nature (its called conditional life and its where we are at the moment) -"
Material energy is seperate from God? It exists outside and independent of him?

Matter doesn't have independence - its like comparing the establishment of a factory with a factory owner - everything moves under his order

"as for god existing everywhere it is just like the rays from the sunshine exist everywhere and are in onesense nondifferent from the sun (since they indicate the suns presence) but at the same time it is not the sun since the sun would surely scorch everything to a cinder if it came into person contact with everything the sunshine does - in other words the all pervasive nature of god is a seperated energy of god, just like the sunshine is a seperated energy of the sun."
Surely the parts are not the whole, but is not a slice of apple still apple? And a slice of that apple? And a slice of that apple? Are not we by definition, then, God? And if so, how can he hide from us, whom he is? Similarly, if God is truly omnipresent, there is no point where he is not fully within, for to allow any distinction that makes one different from God, would be to invalidate the very notion that God exists in -all- places. In order to exist in all places, God must not only fill the glass, but to be the glass.

By the same argument you could say that a bundle of wool is completely non-different from a woolen jumper

"God has many infinite potencies and they are divided into personal and impersonal infinite energies - its just like saying that the sunshine is the same thing as the sunglobe - the sunshine indicates the object but it is not the object -"
Yet he must also be equally in each part, lest he is not present throughout. And even if they are "impersonal attributes", they are still part of God, and thus we are not divorced from him. Moreover, as I am apart of God, he cannot exist apart from me, for I would cease to exist, so too would God lose a part.

What you are saying is true - it is only through the influence of illusion, an influence that does not affect god, that we can consceive of being seperate from god

"Actually there are some religious practioners (bogus of course) that advocate this same philosophy, that the living entity is god - the obvious question is raised then how does ignorance enter into the equation?"
Ignorance of what?

If we are god how is it that we became overcome by ignorance that we were god - god is not affected by ignorance just as the sun is not affected by darkness

"God is not matter - he is composed of consciousness - in other words our existence at the moment is both matter and consciousness, but for god there is no difference between his body and his self - on the liberated platform the living entity also has the same existence but its like a spark compared to a blazing fire (the same quality is there but not the quatity)"
Describe this substance of consciousness and again, why God is such and not matter? Why is he not both? What do you base God being consciousness on?

The existence of a pure transcendental realm of which this life (which we empirically draw our epistemologies for ontologies) is a reflection.

Or as I asked before:
WHat is the nature of this substance? What proof do you have for it?

Logic can only bring you to the point of applying the principles of scripture - it will not grant you the ability to perceive god as you might perceive dull matter because we are dealing with a superiorly conscious living entity - in other words the proof comes from the application of existential conditions of existence - you have to behave in a certain way to understand god just as you have to behave in a certain way to perceive the president face to face (otherwise you won't get past the first of his 10 000 secretaries if you rely on your own potency)

"Its what's been gong on with AAF - he is stating that god cannot exist due to the limits of human existence and what we perceive as possible and impossible - indirectly this is like saying god and the living entity are on the same platform , which is something that proper monotheism never advocates"
If we cannot say what is possible or impossible, how do we believe in God? Belief cannot come from faith, for it asserts, rather then knows.

We cannot say what is possible or impossible by our limited senses since they are imperfect - just like the easiest way to find out your father is to ask your mother - the difficult process is to try the telephone directory - in otherwords hearing from a person established in knowledge is how you understand what is possible and imposible - just like if you want to know what is medically possible/impossible you ask a doctor. If you want to know what ios legally possible/impossible you see a lawyer. And the same holds true with spiritual knowledge, hence scripture and saintly persons

"Well you could always work with the established definitions of monotheism that god is a supremely tarnscendental object and is without a cause."
How does something not have a cause?

If it is transcendental

"Whats the point of getting in to this too deeply if you don't accept scriptural reference? Its enough for the moment just to stick to general principles of monotheism"
Curiousity, really. I am thinking some form of Islam, Sikhism, or perhaps a strongly monotheistic Hindu school.

The later is more accurate - Since your curious there are many scriptures in the vedas but the Bhagavad-gita is like a primary overview for spiritual knowledge

"These laws emmanate from him, and can be withdrawn or established according to his will"
How and when did he create these?

Its just like asking how and when did fire emmanate heat - its part of the qualifications that determine the object

Moreover, what proof do you have that he created these and they did not create him? Why do they need a creator? And if result is a creation of him, how did he create result, if result is required in order to create? Similarly, do you have any proof that he can withdraw or establish them on a whim?

These are big questions but I will just give replies in essence - basically you have to look at what is meant by god - often it is said that god is great but generally people have no idea how he is great - like for instance he is not a being subject to th e limitations of linear time - because we are in the medium of illusion we cannot conceive of these things - basically to conceive of them you have to be on the liberated platform - its just like asking what is the taste of honey - you could say it is sweet , etc etc but the only real way to know is to taste it.
As for why matter needs a creator or maintainer, do you have any experience of matter acting independently?

"relative to what? God is only relative to god, although he is impartial to his surrendered devotees"
This greatly depends on my question above regarding free-will, but how is it not a freedom simply inhibited by determinism?

I am not sure what you are asking? How is it inhibited? If the only thing determining your free will is practically your own self?

"Well if you cannot express that free will how is it free will?"
Does a blind folded man have no capacity to see forevermore?

Only for as long as he remains blind

"The point is that there are real observations and illusory observations - just like the sun is obscured and influenced by many illusory conditions of our existence (sunrise, cloud cover etc) the sun is also composed of real conditions also (sunflares and spots) - there is a world or variety simply in "is""
You asked me how consciousness stems from non-consciousness. I ask you how variety stems from homogeny.

I think I answered that at the beginning with the points about god's internal and external energy

Similarly, how do you know there is a variety in "is"? How could what "is" manifest as "what is varied"?

When you come to the source - just like if you examine the variety of sunlight you could be drawing conclusions that are actually relative to the cloud cover etc but if you can somehow trace them and observe their source, that is the sun, then it can be said that you are observing the truth of the phenomena of sunlight.

"A form that is not subject to the inebrieties of material existence (birth, death old age disease etc)"
That doesn't explain much. How does it not have birht? How does it not have death? How does it not have old age? How is it a form? What is its composition and structure? How do you know?

It s just like observing the sun independant of sunrises and sun sets and night time.

"By illusion - just like a person can mistake a rope for a snake and scream "snake!!!" by the power of illusion"
So all is illusioin? And how does illusion explain that you are claiming that non-material substances can impact material substances and vice versa?

Its not all illusion - only conditional life - as for material and non material, we can do so many things to dull matter due to consciousness.

Suppose I was God. Suppose I had a baseball bat of transcendence and a ball of matter. Suppose I threw the ball at myself - as I am omnipresent, I guess I can do this - and went to strike the ball with the bat. Do I hit the ball, or do they interact? And how?

Well god can expand himself but he gets greater pleasure from interacting with other conscious living entities (preferably the liberatde ones) rather than his own direct expansions

"So is god and scripture, but just like in science you do quite a few semesters of theory before prac (what to speak of coming to the point of rewriting science) the epistemolgy of religion in the proper sense is also the same because it requires an element of practical application after acquired theory befor eone arrives at understanding (from which point you can determine real from false religious principles outside of denominations of faith, tradition, country etc)"
Yet science is there to be found by anyone, whereas God can only be found in this book. Indeed, why would there be a need for this book if God can be found out alone?

He can be found out alone, just like you can discover the elements of science without theory and prac, but it is a hell of a lot easier if you have done systematic training to arrive at understanding - it saves wasting time

"There are lots of arguments in religious pursuit - lol - if people do not see that it is because they do not see the value of religion (a common trend, even amongst the religious) - religion relies on a descending process of knowledge as opposed to an ascending or empirical process of inquiry, hence religion is constantly "re-established" according to time place and circumstance by god or god's pure representatives (jesus in the case of the Xtians) "
Reestablishment implies falsehood on the part of God through the non-truth of the prior statements of said religion.

No - it implies the weakness to add and substract to an already perfect process

Moreover, to have a reevaluation of religion implies a change in God, which would make him not perfect.

God doesn't change - its the imperfect perception of god gained by wrong practice that is re-established by something closer to the truth of the matter

That and one cannot verify the claims of God if they change, which would make them meaningless.

Unless you have knowledge of god - just like a person who has knowledge of gold can detect fake gold

Moreover, if there are arguments, clearly GOd has not been clear enough and thus we have a flaw, or his words are so that they contradict one another and require rationalizing. More often than not, we find that.

Actually the faults belong to us - its kind of a case of bad habit sdie hard so the process of religion is generally a gradual one over many lifetimes although it can theoretically be arrived at in a moment.

 

[Sarkus]

In what way? You are advocating only matter and I am advocating both matter and consciousness - seems like I have at least one more thing to offer than yourself.

Narrow in your perception of what matter is, and what it is capable of.

Please show how consciousness is intrinsic to matter...

There is no evidence of "consciousness" without matter.
You are claiming there is, or there could be - so the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

- Basically you are getting yourself into epistemological difficulties because you are saying that consciousness independant of matter is not perceivable, to which the reply is "perceivable to who?"

First - do not put words into my mouth - you are only setting yourself up with a strawman.
Secondly it is not a question of epistemology it is a matter of definition and then evidence.
Without evidence you are stuck in the realm of theory - and without the possibility of evidence you are stuck with an unscientific claim.

Don't get me wrong - I am not one who says that God does not exist - I merely do not have a belief that it does.

Free will is the ability to see to one's own benefit - just like a table cannot see to its own benefit yet a bacteria will react with the environment to its life of feeding

Poor definition of free-will, IMO.
You can build machines that will "see to one's own benefit".
Some solar-powered machines seek out light when their fuel supply runs low, or, in the case of "Hyperion" - will tilt its panels toward the sun and plot a course to avoid shadows... HERE.

These are pre-programmed "instincts", the same that a bacteria has - and not what I would call "free-will" at all.

Well just compare a baby that is born dead and a baby that is born alive - you can see the results easily enough after a few weeks - I don't know where you get the idea that matter is conscious since we don't have a single experience of that and despite all the pseudo -scientific hype it has not been labrotarily proven

I do not, and have not, claimed that ALL "matter is conscious".
I do claim that "consciousness" is merely a word to describe the vastly complex material interactions within our vastly complicated material brain. Out of the complexity arises what we have determined as "consciousness". Without the complexity of these physical interactions within a physical system there will be no consciousness.

So your example of the two babies - one alive, one dead - of course there will be a difference in that ONLY ONE HAS THE VAST COMPLEXITY OF MATERIAL INTERACTIONS - and so ONLY ONE IS CONSCIOUS.

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Pantheism is only half teh picture just like the sunshine is not the full picture of the sun (it also includes the sun globe as the source of the sun) - the difference between the consciousness of the living entity and the consciousness of god is that the living entities consciousness is limited to its body and the consciousness of god pervades the entire manifestation"

Yes in order for God to be infinite, must not there be nothing but him? And if there is nothing but him, again, do we not find that God cannot truly be distinct from anything whatsoever?

But you claim that, in essence, both are made of the same substance, but differ in quantity and in that we are limited to bodies, whereas God is not? How is God not and why are we limited by bodies?

"Charactersed by independence - a microphone stand cannot see to its own benefit because it has no consciousness"

What does independence entail?

"It is given options - there is adistinction between the freedoms offerred by the laws of karma - hence th eliving entity is rewarded or punished in material life by being awared a higher or lower body according to how they exhibit their free will - this is particularly pertinent to humans, hence human society is goverened by laws whereas animals act according to their natures - in other words animal life does not award many options of free will that amount to anything distinct"

And you claim that in being given options, that a free choice can be made?

"Well conscious things certainly can do more things than dull matter"

They can do more things, yes, but how does this make them free?

"Matter is inert - if matter appears to moving it is only due to consciousness or forces that are directed by consciousness"

The wind is not moved by consciousness. How can it then be in motion and move others?

"I am not sure what you are asking here - I mean it seems pretty straight forward - just compare a dead person to a living person - if the difference is not consciousness what is it?"

But this would actually imply that consciousness cannot exist apart from matter, for once the matter in question degrades, consciousness ceases to be. In essece, with the death of the body, so too comes the death of the mind.

"Its kind of like a person wearing blue glasses asking why everything appears blue - "

So consciousness does not manifest only in matter? How do you know? Where do you find it?

"But I can take a bundle of sticks and build a bridge - can you take a bundle of matter and invest it with consciousness (outside of reproduction which is an operational ability living entities possess as opposed to a creational ability)"

Presumably, yes. In a testtube, with sufficient time and effort, one could painstakingly create a cell out of atoms, and if all was correct, one would see it squiggle to life.

"But its easy to see th erelation between a bundle of sticks and a wooden bridge - its not so straight forward with consciousness and matter"

It is when you take into consideration, for instance, that when that relation is disruptive - through injury or through surgery to the brain - the consciousness is impacted. Just as if the bridge's supports are altered, so too would its capacity to hold under certain stresses.

Yet you will agree that no bridge is found in any individual piece of wood that constructs it?

"This brings us to the position that there is a third party, namely god - god has two main catergories of energies that are seperated from him - the external (material) energy and spiritual (conscious) energy. IN other words there is dull matter, there is the living entity and there is dull matter. The living entity is marginal, inotherwords it is sometimes taking shelter of matter and sometimes taking shelter of spirit, hence it can be defined as liberated or conditioned according to its consciousness"

What is "the living entity"? I did not ask this before and should.

And wait wait wait, you said God was consciousness. Now you said that consciousness is distinct from God? That God can be separate from it?

And you did not explain: How can the non-conscious arise from the conscious? For surely you are not saying that absolute consciousness has non-consciousness mixed with it, yes?

"Unless he is also interacting with other conscious entities, namely living entities on the liberated platform"

Such thoughts of theirs are also all ready known to him and he cannot react because he all ready knows his own response (or lack thereof). He cannot think of a response, nor can he be a responder.

"The "other" are conditioned living entities - of course they are still "his" but he provides the medium of illusion (matter) so that they can work through their desires - in other word sif he gives free will he must give th eopportunity for illusion and mistakes otherwise it wouldn't be free will"

How is matter illusionary? And how could he even know they are distinct, if he in fact is present everywhere?

You also claim that God is free. Can God be tricked by illusion or make a mistake?

"The difference between conditional life and liberated existence is that we are born in to ignorance - in otherwords our processes of epistemology don't bear anything on the liberated platform, what to speak of god's existence. God has no sensory organs? He has the most powerful sensory organs."

He has the most powerful sensory organs? Where are they? Why is there not a huge ear floating in space?

How and why are we born into ignorance?

You also did not directly reply to my objections concerning the empirical foundations of all thought.

"A few are good -lol - I don't have heaps of time as much as I enjoy this it is already challenging my spare time"

GOod, good, as yes, this is a big conversation all ready.

"God doesn't desire to be grand because he is completely full of all opulences at all the time - just like a filthy rich person has no desire to earn money because even if they went crazy and purchased anything and everything they would still have tons of money - as for our reciprocation at the moment we are reciprocating with dull matter"

If I am to reciprocate with a person, I must know them, must I not? But if God does not reveal to us himself, and does not reciprocate with what does not reciprocate with him, how do we ever reciprocate with him, if we do not know him?

And okay, God may not desire to be opulent because he has all opulences, but nonetheless has the habit of the opulent to view themselves as powerful and beyond revealing?

"Matter doesn't have independence - its like comparing the establishment of a factory with a factory owner - everything moves under his order"

Yet you said that material energy is separate from God. How then is this not independent of him?

"By the same argument you could say that a bundle of wool is completely non-different from a woolen jumper"

Only in a relative sense are they different. But no, I do not deny that such relativity is important on a limited sphere. I am not claiming that you and I are one person because we are both (part of) God, but rather that God would both consider us himself, even as we do not distinguish our fingers from ourselves, although to God, I do not imagine he would even have such notion of distinguishment as we do. Again, there is no "other" to God ever, so even to speak of internal "other" seems to be impossible.

"(Mine)Yet he must also be equally in each part, lest he is not present throughout. And even if they are "impersonal attributes", they are still part of God, and thus we are not divorced from him. Moreover, as I am apart of God, he cannot exist apart from me, for I would cease to exist, so too would God lose a part. ”

(Yours) What you are saying is true - it is only through the influence of illusion, an influence that does not affect god, that we can consceive of being seperate from god"

So you are right, we are, in fact, God?

"If we are god how is it that we became overcome by ignorance that we were god - god is not affected by ignorance just as the sun is not affected by darkness"

This presumes that God on an infinite scale has a mind that could be ignorant or not.

"The existence of a pure transcendental realm of which this life (which we empirically draw our epistemologies for ontologies) is a reflection. "

Where does this transcendental realm exist? How do you know it exists? What proof can you present of it? Et cetera, et cetera.

"Logic can only bring you to the point of applying the principles of scripture - it will not grant you the ability to perceive god as you might perceive dull matter because we are dealing with a superiorly conscious living entity - in other words the proof comes from the application of existential conditions of existence - you have to behave in a certain way to understand god just as you have to behave in a certain way to perceive the president face to face (otherwise you won't get past the first of his 10 000 secretaries if you rely on your own potency)"

So God is "above" logic and can only be presented in the way the scriptures say? How then can the scriptures be verified? And if these proofs come from the existential conditons of existence, are not they then independently verifiable and found from the scriptures? And in fact, are not they even also capable of being found, if they are necessary?

"We cannot say what is possible or impossible by our limited senses since they are imperfect - just like the easiest way to find out your father is to ask your mother - the difficult process is to try the telephone directory - in otherwords hearing from a person established in knowledge is how you understand what is possible and imposible - just like if you want to know what is medically possible/impossible you ask a doctor. If you want to know what ios legally possible/impossible you see a lawyer. And the same holds true with spiritual knowledge, hence scripture and saintly persons"

A doctor studies medicine and the original doctor studied the body to make science. Similarly, lawyers studied law, and the original lawyer wrote the laws. Yet would not this mean it is the priests who make the religion? And if that is the case, how do they know? For all the other causes you referenced reduce to human effort and, in the case of the objective medicine, independent experimentation. It thus seems that either the priests could have made the religion, or they came upon religion in the natural world through philosophy. If philosophy is the source of your religion, then it could still be found today, in the same was as a doctor can learn medicine simply if he experiments with the body just now, or a new lawyer can be made if he writes his own laws. ANd of course, if you claim that God wrote the scriptures and/or inspired them, how do we prove this? HOw do we know this?

What authority do priests and scriptures really have?

"If it is transcendental"

How does the transcendental exist without a cause? What is the aspect of the transcendental that makes it causeless? If it does not have a cause, how does it exist? What shows that it has no cause?

"The later is more accurate - Since your curious there are many scriptures in the vedas but the Bhagavad-gita is like a primary overview for spiritual knowledge"

Are you, perchance, a Hare Krishna? That is, a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?

But yes, I am familiar with the Bhagavad-Gita. I have read it before.

"Its just like asking how and when did fire emmanate heat - its part of the qualifications that determine the object

These are big questions but I will just give replies in essence - basically you have to look at what is meant by god - often it is said that god is great but generally people have no idea how he is great - like for instance he is not a being subject to th e limitations of linear time - because we are in the medium of illusion we cannot conceive of these things - basically to conceive of them you have to be on the liberated platform - its just like asking what is the taste of honey - you could say it is sweet , etc etc but the only real way to know is to taste it.
As for why matter needs a creator or maintainer, do you have any experience of matter acting independently?"

Yes, existence itself, made of matter, acts independent of a cosmic will, from what I can gather. Indeed, in order for it to be eternal, it mustn't have a genesis in a will, for a will would then have to precede it, which contradicts the evidence of its eternity.

But as I argued: If God determines a law of result, does not that requrie a law of result before that? For if God wills it, and there is no "law of result", then God should not be able to will anything and have that will put into action, including putting the "law of result" in action. That is, if the law of result was neither before nor came at the same time as God, then God could not will a thing as you so say.

But you said that God emmanated the laws and thus clearly know something about them. Why can you not elaborate when and in what manner he did such? I can explain to you how fire works and why it produces heat. You do not seem to be able to do the same for God.

"I am not sure what you are asking? How is it inhibited? If the only thing determining your free will is practically your own self?"

Well let me ask you this: Does a thought have a cause?

"Only for as long as he remains blind"

Then an imprisoned man similarly does not lose his freedom of will, only its capacity to act on that freedom, just as the man blindfolded cannot see until such is removed, yet loses not his sight.

"(Mine)You asked me how consciousness stems from non-consciousness. I ask you how variety stems from homogeny.

(Yours)I think I answered that at the beginning with the points about god's internal and external energy"

Which points specifically do you think cover these things?

"When you come to the source - just like if you examine the variety of sunlight you could be drawing conclusions that are actually relative to the cloud cover etc but if you can somehow trace them and observe their source, that is the sun, then it can be said that you are observing the truth of the phenomena of sunlight."

Yet if all variety is illusionary in one way or another, how does this unity so interact with things to give said illusion? Because an absolute unity devoid of variety could not, it would seem, interact with anything besides itself, which would be unified as a whole with no distinction of parts.

"It s just like observing the sun independant of sunrises and sun sets and night time."

So it is basically like looking at the sun constantly? That God has an aspect of constantcy that doesn't permit of beginning nor end? Yet how do you know this? Moreover, what is the nature of this form beyoind that? Its structure? How did you come to this knowledge? What proof do you have?

"Its not all illusion - only conditional life - as for material and non material, we can do so many things to dull matter due to consciousness."

Yet what property of consciousness allows us to interact with something which is diametrically opposed to it? And how does it work through matter to do this? And if it is not an illusion, but conditioned life, is it then as real as this other, non-conditioned, thing?

"Well god can expand himself but he gets greater pleasure from interacting with other conscious living entities (preferably the liberatde ones) rather than his own direct expansions"

Why does he get greater pleasure? And how can that which is complete have pleasure?

But you did not answer my question: Does a baseball bat of transcendence send a baseball of matter flying?

"He can be found out alone, just like you can discover the elements of science without theory and prac, but it is a hell of a lot easier if you have done systematic training to arrive at understanding - it saves wasting time"

So then God -is- an object of independent inquiry and verification? Then why not simply resort to this?

"No - it implies the weakness to add and substract to an already perfect process"

Then you say religion is weak, because it does this? Or God is weak because he cannot make a religion that makes sense at all times?

"God doesn't change - its the imperfect perception of god gained by wrong practice that is re-established by something closer to the truth of the matter"

Yet if God created the former practice...how could he have failed?

"Unless you have knowledge of god - just like a person who has knowledge of gold can detect fake gold"

Yet cannot knowledge of God only come from the scriptures, subject as they are to change?

"Actually the faults belong to us - its kind of a case of bad habit sdie hard so the process of religion is generally a gradual one over many lifetimes although it can theoretically be arrived at in a moment. "

Cannot God so compensate for our faults that he can present something that even the faulty could not be flawed in analysis of?