The "place" of God ?

[JimL]

It's simple Jim, God could prevade every part of the universe but extend further than the universe. The universe would only be "part" of God's energy, not God's energy in total. Look at it this way - my essence (DNA) prevades every part of my hand. But my hand is not synonymous with me, partly yes (same genetic make up) but not totally. Really Jim, this is not a very convincing argument you are putting forward.

Whether or not existence extends beyond the universe doesn't change the fact that it is the same substance out of which the universe is formed. Existence extends beyond your own existence as well but that doesn't make you any less a part of it. It doesn't seem logical to me to say that a thing can pervade every part of a thing while at the same time claiming it to be distinct from that thing. If the universe, as you put it, is part of Gods energy, then it is part of the whole of existence which you call God, and not a different thing. You actually seem to be closer to agreement with me than you think. Your argument is that we may be part of existence but not the totality of existence. Well, I would not disagree with that at all.

[seer]

Whether or not existence extends beyond the universe doesn't change the fact that it is the same substance out of which the universe is formed. Existence extends beyond your own existence as well but that doesn't make you any less a part of it. It doesn't seem logical to me to say that a thing can pervade every part of a thing while at the same time claiming it to be distinct from that thing. If the universe, as you put it, is part of Gods energy, then it is part of the whole of existence which you call God, and not a different thing. You actually seem to be closer to agreement with me than you think. Your argument is that we may be part of existence but not the totality of existence. Well, I would not disagree with that at all.

Right James, but like the fact that my hand is made of the same "stuff" as me, I am something more than my hand. My genetics prevade every part of my hand, but I can not be reduced to just my hand. Your theory, or this theory, does not preclude an intelligent source for all life, nor does it preclude the idea that God is more than the universe, even if the universe is part of God.

[JimL]

Right James, but like the fact that my hand is made of the same "stuff" as me, I am something more than my hand.

But as I pointed out earlier, your definition of creation is different than mine. The fact that you are more than the parts of your body does not imply that those parts are something distinct from you. The fact that you are made of the same stuff as the eternal and necessary existing stuff means that just like the unity between you and your hand, there is a unity between you and the eternal and necessary existing stuff. There is no distinction between you and it and therefore, from my point of view, that is not creation. If you want to call the totality of existence "God," like you call the totality of the parts of your body "you", thats fine, but the totality of existence is still one thing, all the same substance, distinct only by the nature of the changing forms within it.

My genetics prevade every part of my hand, but I can not be reduced to just my hand. Your theory, or this theory, does not preclude an intelligent source for all life, nor does it preclude the idea that God is more than the universe, even if the universe is part of God.

Existence pervades every part of the universe too, but it can not be reduced to just an individual part of itself either, such as yourself, a tree, or the earth, so if you want to say that existence creates, then what it creates is its own self, or the parts or the changing forms therein if you will. But I would not call that creation for it is nothing but the changing of forms within one and the same thing.

[seer]

Existence pervades every part of the universe too, but it can not be reduced to just an individual part of itself either, such as yourself, a tree, or the earth, so if you want to say that existence creates, then what it creates is its own self, or the parts or the changing forms therein if you will. But I would not call that creation for it is nothing but the changing of forms within one and the same thing.

`

Except in my model it is intelligence that does the organizing. So certain forms or outcomes would not be possible without intelligence directing the process. So in a sense something new did come into being. New forms, new ways of energy interacting that would not have existed without said intelligence.

[JimL]

`

Except in my model it is intelligence that does the organizing. So certain forms or outcomes would not be possible without intelligence directing the process. So in a sense something new did come into being. New forms, new ways of energy interacting that would not have existed without said intelligence.

But on what basis do argue an intelligent designer of oneself? The universe that we perceive produces the different forms within it out of the necessity of its own nature. A tree does not intelligently design the acorn and so forth, all things evolve according to the cause and effect nature of existence itself and if that nature is eternal, which is the theory we seem to be in agreement on, then it is by necessity and not by intelligence or will which is the cause of the changing forms within the whole.

[seer]

But on what basis do argue an intelligent designer of oneself? The universe that we perceive produces the different forms within it out of the necessity of its own nature. A tree does not intelligently design the acorn and so forth, all things evolve according to the cause and effect nature of existence itself and if that nature is eternal, which is the theory we seem to be in agreement on, then it is by necessity and not by intelligence or will which is the cause of the changing forms within the whole.

Jim, I'm not arguing that God designed Himself. I'm arguing that God (if the universe is part of God) caused this present state of affairs to come about. We have a universe with certain properties and laws that then bring forth biological life and human intelligence - there is no rational reason to believe that this necessarily had to happen. And there is no reason to believe that mindless energy could or did form itself into this present universe with its law and properties that gave rise to sentient life.

[JimL]

Jim, I'm not arguing that God designed Himself. I'm arguing that God (if the universe is part of God) caused this present state of affairs to come about.

I think that the emphasis you put on God, whether he exists or not, obscures the argument we are dealing with. When you put the emphasis on God it is as though you are still arguing that God is a thing distinct from created existence. If we concentrate on the necessary eternal existence itself without giving it a title other than that of existence itself, then what you are arguing is that existence is the intelligent designer of itself, that existence is the intelligent cause of the changing state of affairs within itself, and that it intelligently wills its own change.

We have a universe with certain properties and laws that then bring forth biological life and human intelligence - there is no rational reason to believe that this necessarily had to happen. And there is no reason to believe that mindless energy could or did form itself into this present universe with its law and properties that gave rise to sentient life.

And this I think is the point, there pertains to existence certain properties and laws which bring forth the necessary state of affairs of nature like biological life and human intelligence. The properties and laws are one with and therefore as eternal as existence itself so there need be no will or intelligent designer.

[JHardin]

Yes, you are in your house, and you and your house and everything else consisting of energy/matter, a substance by the way which itself is eternal, are synonymous with that substance. To assert that the eternal energy/matter pervades existence is to make the assumption that it is something different than existence. That would be like saying that existence pervades existence. The particular forms arising out of the eternal, though distinct from one another in form are not distinct from the underlying substance of which they are a part. I think, though I would have to look more closely at it, that quantum mechanics hints at this idea in its understanding that nothing is local, which I take to mean that in some sense everything is connected.

String theory insinuates that this would be a possibility, but as someone else said, this actually suggests Panentheism instead of precluding the existence of God.

Actually, as a newbie here, not knowing your theological position, I thought you were arguing for the existence of God in my first response, I apologize for that.

[JimL]

String theory insinuates that this would be a possibility, but as someone else said, this actually suggests Panentheism instead of precluding the existence of God.

Actually, as a newbie here, not knowing your theological position, I thought you were arguing for the existence of God in my first response, I apologize for that.

Apology accepted, but there is really no need of an apology as even I when re-reading what I've wrote realize that I don't always articulate very clearly what I mean to say, but as far as panentheism goes, as I have explained earlier, I do not think it to be a logical alternative to what some refer to as pantheism. Panentheism is said to allow for a distinct creator or God because that God not only pervades the universe as it does in pantheism, but unlike pantheism which equates God as synonymous with the universe, the God in panentheism extends beyond it, but I don't see how that should make any difference for whatever existence is, whatever form it takes, whether within or without of this universe, it is still one and the same eternal substance or what is referred to as the necessary existent. So in other words panentheism, the way I read it, is just pantheism on a larger scale, a pantheism which extends beyond our particular universe.

[seer]

I think that the emphasis you put on God, whether he exists or not, obscures the argument we are dealing with. When you put the emphasis on God it is as though you are still arguing that God is a thing distinct from created existence. If we concentrate on the necessary eternal existence itself without giving it a title other than that of existence itself, then what you are arguing is that existence is the intelligent designer of itself, that existence is the intelligent cause of the changing state of affairs within itself, and that it intelligently wills its own change.

Yes, I'm arguing that behind it all lies intelligence. That intelligence changed itself. You are arguing that non-intelligent forces brought forth intelligence, I'm arguing that intelligence brought forth intelligence. Why is your view more plausible?

And this I think is the point, there pertains to existence certain properties and laws which bring forth the necessary state of affairs of nature like biological life and human intelligence. The properties and laws are one with and therefore as eternal as existence itself so there need be no will or intelligent designer.

But you are begging the question. Where is your evidence these properties and laws are necessary? Why was it necessary for energy to form matter? Why was it necessary for matter to form intelligence? What form did energy take before this present universe came into being?

[JimL]

Yes, I'm arguing that behind it all lies intelligence. That intelligence changed itself. You are arguing that non-intelligent forces brought forth intelligence, I'm arguing that intelligence brought forth intelligence. Why is your view more plausible?

Not really seer, I am not arguing that anything brought forth anything. I am arguing that existence is what it is, it is eternal, and that whatever attributes are applied to it, being that existence itself is eternal, its properties are natural and not created or brought forth. Thats why I think my view to be more plausible than yours. Being that existence itself is eternal, nothing has to be brought forth as though created, its all already there, just like it is in your idea of God.

But you are begging the question. Where is your evidence these properties and laws are necessary? Why was it necessary for energy to form matter? Why was it necessary for matter to form intelligence? What form did energy take before this present universe came into being?

Well, I think the point is that there is no evidence to the contrary. Again , even if existence of the universe is only a part of the whole of existence the attributes or properties that are inherent in it is due to the fact that those properties are in inherent in the whole. You can give the whole of necessary existence the title of God if you like but it doesn't change the fact that it is still one necessary and uncreated thing.

[seer]

Not really seer, I am not arguing that anything brought forth anything. I am arguing that existence is what it is, it is eternal, and that whatever attributes are applied to it, being that existence itself is eternal, its properties are natural and not created or brought forth. Thats why I think my view to be more plausible than yours. Being that existence itself is eternal, nothing has to be brought forth as though created, its all already there, just like it is in your idea of God.

Well no Jim, that does not follow. We have intelligent beings in the universe. Intelligence is not an inherent quality of atoms, electrons, neutrons, etc... So either intelligence was "brought forth" or intelligence is an eternal quality of existence. Which is it?

Well, I think the point is that there is no evidence to the contrary. Again , even if existence of the universe is only a part of the whole of existence the attributes or properties that are inherent in it is due to the fact that those properties are in inherent in the whole. You can give the whole of necessary existence the title of God if you like but it doesn't change the fact that it is still one necessary and uncreated thing.

Jim what form did energy take before this present form we call the universe? And what law or property caused it to take this present form? And who says that law or property is necessary or inherent? Where is your evidence that that is so?

[JimL]

Well no Jim, that does not follow. We have intelligent beings in the universe. Intelligence is not an inherent quality of atoms, electrons, neutrons, etc... So either intelligence was "brought forth" or intelligence is an eternal quality of existence. Which is it?

But how are you defining intelligence? I would not call it "a thing" that exists in itself but rather an action that is performed. It isn't "a thing" that exists in matter but rather it is a function of matter. We wouldn't say intelligence is a "thing" that thinks, we say that a thing that thinks is intelligent.

Jim what form did energy take before this present form we call the universe? And what law or property caused it to take this present form? And who says that law or property is necessary or inherent? Where is your evidence that that is so?

Well, I would say that energy/matter, if we take it to be eternal, is always the same, in that it is one thing, and always changing, in that, that is its nature. The laws of its nature I would say are necessary in the sense that they are determined by nothing other than its own eternal nature.

[seer]

But how are you defining intelligence? I would not call it "a thing" that exists in itself but rather an action that is performed. It isn't "a thing" that exists in matter but rather it is a function of matter. We wouldn't say intelligence is a "thing" that thinks, we say that a thing that thinks is intelligent.

Jim old friend, no matter how you define it intelligence is either an eternal property of matter/energy or it was brought forth. Even if you reduce it to mere "function" the question remains. Is intelligence an eternal function of matter/energy or was that function "brought forth?"

Well, I would say that energy/matter, if we take it to be eternal, is always the same, in that it is one thing, and always changing, in that, that is its nature. The laws of its nature I would say are necessary in the sense that they are determined by nothing other than its own eternal nature.

Ok, but you have no way of knowing this correct. You can not say you know what matter/energy looked like or acted like before this present form we call the universe. Also, are you saying there were universes before this present universe?

[JimL]

Jim old friend, no matter how you define it intelligence is either an eternal property of matter/energy or it was brought forth. Even if you reduce it to mere "function" the question remains. Is intelligence an eternal function of matter/energy or was that function "brought forth?"

Well, this is a tough question no doubt, and the philosophical answer is that there is no such thing as intelligence per se, that the idea of intelligence is just a subjective term that we use in our defining of the nature of the whole of existence. If, as I have been arguing, existence itself is one thing, then there is no plurality in it whereby distinct attributes such as love, wisdom, intelligence or whatever can exist as distinct one from the other. If existence is one thing then all of the subjectively perceived attributes or properties reduce to one and the same thing. The attributes themselves are merely ideas in the finite mind by which it explains existence. I'm not sure that I completely understand this view myself, but I think that I would say that intelligence is something that existence does, something that it does through itself, not to itself, through the finite minds that form or arise within it. I think that to call that a thing "brought forth" or "created" or something that is eternal would be a misunderstanding and that a better understanding would be that intelligence is not an attribute or an existing thing but rather is a necessary function of existence itself.

Ok, but you have no way of knowing this correct. You can not say you know what matter/energy looked like or acted like before this present form we call the universe. Also, are you saying there were universes before this present universe?

Well, I am not claiming to know, even though I may come across that way in discussing the matter. I am just philosophizing if you will. So in answer I would repeat my last post in that energy/matter, being that it is eternal, is always the same in that it is one thing and always changing because that is its nature and quite possibly, though I hadn't thought of this aspect of the matter myself, that could mean there are an infinite amount of universes within the infinite cosmos of existence.