The "place" of God ?

[JimL]

I'm trying to find out if you think that consciousness is an eternal attribute of matter and energy or did matter and energy create (so to speak) consciousness. And if it is an eternal quality, why not call that God? See, nothing you are arguing eliminates the possibility of an eternal, all knowing, all powerful, being like God. Or makes such a being unnecessary.

We can both agree that consciousness is an eternal attribute of existence, but again that doesn't mean that the attribute of consciousness is somehow distinct from, and creator of, the self same eternal existence of which it is an attribute. Unlike your conception of existence I don't describe the relation of the necessary existent to the parts therein as a relationship of creator to created, but rather I would define it as one as a relation between the whole to part. By what rationale are you making a distinction?

[seer]

We can both agree that consciousness is an eternal attribute of existence, but again that doesn't mean that the attribute of consciousness is somehow distinct from, and creator of, the self same eternal existence of which it is an attribute. Unlike your conception of existence I don't describe the relation of the necessary existent to the parts therein as a relationship of creator to created, but rather I would define it as one as a relation between the whole to part. By what rationale are you making a distinction?

Ok, I follow. So you do agree that consciousness is an eternal attribute . This is where we differ. Even though consciousness is part of the whole, it does not necessarily have to be all of the whole, or in all of the whole. My brain is part of the whole but it is not all of my body. And my brain directs my other parts. My other parts are not conscious. So there is a thinking part of me and non-thinking parts of me. The non-thinking parts being under the control and direction of the thinking part. All parts (thinking and non-thinking) being made of the same "stuff."

So it is possible that the mind of God controls his other non-thinking parts and organizes them into things like the universe, biological life, human minds, etc... That we could rightly say that God created the universe since it (the non thinking part) would have never, in its raw form if you will, formed itself into what we call the universe or into biological life or into conscious minds without God's control and direction.

[JimL]

Ok, I follow. So you do agree that consciousness is an eternal attribute . This is where we differ. Even though consciousness is part of the whole, it does not necessarily have to be all of the whole, or in all of the whole. My brain is part of the whole but it is not all of my body. And my brain directs my other parts. My other parts are not conscious. So there is a thinking part of me and non-thinking parts of me. The non-thinking parts being under the control and direction of the thinking part. All parts (thinking and non-thinking) being made of the same "stuff."

So it is possible that the mind of God controls his other non-thinking parts and organizes them into things like the universe, biological life, human minds, etc... That we could rightly say that God created the universe since it (the non thinking part) would have never, in its raw form if you will, formed itself into what we call the universe or into biological life or into conscious minds without God's control and direction.

No, not really, the underlying substance out of which all things are made does not itself consist of parts, it is simple in nature and the attributes by which we define it in actuality reduce to one and the same attribute which could be called power. If the assumption is that energy is the eternal substance, the necessary existent, then it is one simple and indivisible thing, the infinite attributes or the power which is identical with it manifests itself in the forms that emanate from it. It is the infinite cause of those finite forms, but it is an eternal and necessary cause, not a mindful or willed cause. You could think of it in the terms that you expressed it but the point remains that the biological life, human minds, trees, planets, stars, universes, or in other words anything that exists are not creations in the sense that we normally mean by creation because they are all temporal and changing forms, or parts if you will, of the same eternal substance itself out of which they emerged. They exist in it because they are part of it and when their temporal existence comes to an end, well, some would say they go back to God.

[seer]

It is the infinite cause of those finite forms, but it is an eternal and necessary cause, not a mindful or willed cause.

Just a couple of points James; Why do you say this? I'm saying that no matter (forgive the pun) where the matter/energy existed it would not have taken the form it did in this universe without a mindful, willed, direction. And I still don't see why we can't call this "created." An artist creates a painting even though he uses materials already in existence. I think you are using an arbitrary definition of create.

[JimL]

Just a couple of points James; Why do you say this? I'm saying that no matter (forgive the pun) where the matter/energy existed it would not have taken the form it did in this universe without a mindful, willed, direction. And I still don't see why we can't call this "created." An artist creates a painting even though he uses materials already in existence. I think you are using an arbitrary definition of create.

Would you say that the necessary existent, or that which some would call God, could have, by an arbitrary act of will, omitted to do anything that it has done, or that it could omit to do anything in the future that in its mind exists eternally? Wouldn't that betray an imperfection in its nature? If you agree that it is impossible for that which you call divine to do other than it does then it follows that the universe is not willed into existence but follows from the necessary nature of its cause. You could call that creation I suppose, but it is not the traditional theological conception of creation, it is not the creation of a thing outside of itself, nor is it the creation of an intellect or will, it is more like the creation of an acorn by an oak tree, there is no volition involved, only necessity.

[seer]

Would you say that the necessary existent, or that which some would call God, could have, by an arbitrary act of will, omitted to do anything that it has done, or that it could omit to do anything in the future that in its mind exists eternally? Wouldn't that betray an imperfection in its nature?

No that does not follow all Jim. Having a choice (in this case to create or not create) is not an imperfection. How is a degree freedom, or the ability to choose an imperfection?

If you agree that it is impossible for that which you call divine to do other than it does then it follows that the universe is not willed into existence but follows from the necessary nature of its cause. You could call that creation I suppose, but it is not the traditional theological conception of creation, it is not the creation of a thing outside of itself, nor is it the creation of an intellect or will, it is more like the creation of an acorn by an oak tree, there is no volition involved, only necessity.

Well since I do not agree that is impossible for God to have done otherwise I guess this does not apply. Remember in our past discussions I suggested that God was only immutable in His moral character. So whether God created or didn't create He would have remained the same ethically. This would fall under our traditional view of creation. Since will and intent were behind it. It did not happen by chance.

[JimL]

No that does not follow all Jim. Having a choice (in this case to create or not create) is not an imperfection. How is a degree freedom, or the ability to choose an imperfection?

I would say that the ability to choose would be an imperfection because the necessary existent being an eternal and unified whole, in order that it be perfect would imply a necessary nature. If it should act other than it does act, then it would not be perfect in those actions. It is free in the sense that it is not compelled by an external cause, but it is necessary in that it follows the laws of it own nature alone.

Well since I do not agree that is impossible for God to have done otherwise I guess this does not apply. Remember in our past discussions I suggested that God was only immutable in His moral character. So whether God created or didn't create He would have remained the same ethically. This would fall under our traditional view of creation. Since will and intent were behind it. It did not happen by chance.

Again though, will, intent, intellect, wisdom etc. etc. are only homonymous terms by which we define the necessary existent in human terms, but being that it is one simple substance these terms or attributes reduce to a single term, such as power, which more accurately defines a simple indivisible unity. To define the necessary existent as one simple, immutable substance and then to give to that self same substance distinct characteristics would be a contradiction.

[Adam]

I would say that the ability to choose would be an imperfection because the necessary existent being an eternal and unified whole, in order that it be perfect would imply a necessary nature. If it should act other than it does act, then it would not be perfect in those actions. It is free in the sense that it is not compelled by an external cause, but it is necessary in that it follows the laws of it own nature alone.
Again though, will, intent, intellect, wisdom etc. etc. are only homonymous terms by which we define the necessary existent in human terms, but being that it is one simple substance these terms or attributes reduce to a single term, such as power, which more accurately defines a simple indivisible unity. To define the necessary existent as one simple, immutable substance and then to give to that self same substance distinct characteristics would be a contradiction.

Someone here has no sense of humor, so therefore God does not either?

[seer]

I would say that the ability to choose would be an imperfection because the necessary existent being an eternal and unified whole, in order that it be perfect would imply a necessary nature. If it should act other than it does act, then it would not be perfect in those actions. It is free in the sense that it is not compelled by an external cause, but it is necessary in that it follows the laws of it own nature alone.

Again though, will, intent, intellect, wisdom etc. etc. are only homonymous terms by which we define the necessary existent in human terms, but being that it is one simple substance these terms or attributes reduce to a single term, such as power, which more accurately defines a simple indivisible unity. To define the necessary existent as one simple, immutable substance and then to give to that self same substance distinct characteristics would be a contradiction.

Jim first, I believe your definitions are somewhat arbitrary. I see no logical reason to accept them. For instance, a being who decides to create or not create does not violate its moral nature in either choice. Nor in particulars - to create a goat as opposed to another kind of creature also would not violate its immutable moral character. There is no rational argument that I know of that precludes such a being, being immutable in some aspects of its nature and free in others.

Second, why should I accept your definition of simple? If it is accurate then it does not apply to the God of scripture. The God of scripture is personal, a Person. With all that entails - will, volition, intent, moral sense, etc… We don’t believe that said God can be reduced to a single attribute such as power.

[JimL]

Jim first, I believe your definitions are somewhat arbitrary. I see no logical reason to accept them. For instance, a being who decides to create or not create does not violate its moral nature in either choice. Nor in particulars - to create a goat as opposed to another kind of creature also would not violate its immutable moral character. There is no rational argument that I know of that precludes such a being, being immutable in some aspects of its nature and free in others.

I think that in reply to this the logical reason would be that the necessary existent, if you accept that it is one thing and that all existing things are a part of the self same eternal substance, and if you interpret the laws of that existence to be eternally the same, then it isn't a matter of deciding to create or not to create but rather all things are determined by necessity, by the eternal law of that one eternal substance to which all things pertain. I think that while we seem to be in agreement that existence is one thing, you continue to argue on the basis that the creator and the created are distinct entities.

Second, why should I accept your definition of simple? If it is accurate then it does not apply to the God of scripture. The God of scripture is personal, a Person. With all that entails - will, volition, intent, moral sense, etc… We don’t believe that said God can be reduced to a single attribute such as power.

True, it does not apply to the God of scripture, at least not in the literal sense, but if you are arguing for the God of scripture then you can no longer argue that all of existence pertains to one and the same eternal substance, as one half of your eternal substance becomes creator, while the other becomes the created. But my argument is that all of existence is one thing, the particulars of which arise by necessity according to the eternal and necessary laws inherent in the eternal substance to which all of those particulars pertain.

[seer]

I think that in reply to this the logical reason would be that the necessary existent, if you accept that it is one thing and that all existing things are a part of the self same eternal substance, and if you interpret the laws of that existence to be eternally the same, then it isn't a matter of deciding to create or not to create but rather all things are determined by necessity, by the eternal law of that one eternal substance to which all things pertain. I think that while we seem to be in agreement that existence is one thing, you continue to argue on the basis that the creator and the created are distinct entities.

True, it does not apply to the God of scripture, at least not in the literal sense, but if you are arguing for the God of scripture then you can no longer argue that all of existence pertains to one and the same eternal substance, as one half of your eternal substance becomes creator, while the other becomes the created. But my argument is that all of existence is one thing, the particulars of which arise by necessity according to the eternal and necessary laws inherent in the eternal substance to which all of those particulars pertain.

James old friend, let me see if I can explain this again. What I’m saying is that your conclusion does not necessarily follow even if everything, including God, is made of the same stuff. Again my analogy; my body and my brain are made of the same stuff - but my hand, foot, fingers, etc… are not the thinking part of me. And my thinking part directs the non-thinking parts. Or look at it this way - me and a rock are made of basically the same stuff but I can take that rock and turn it into a beautiful sculpture - the reverse can not happen. Which shows that an intelligent being (made of the same stuff) can direct, change or alter the non-intelligent parts of matter.

So even if God (the intelligent part of the universe) was made of the same stuff - He could still direct, change or alter the non-intelligent parts of the universe and form them into what ever configuration He chose. That would fit, somewhat, with the Christian concept of God.

[JimL]

James old friend, let me see if I can explain this again. What I’m saying is that your conclusion does not necessarily follow even if everything, including God, is made of the same stuff. Again my analogy; my body and my brain are made of the same stuff - but my hand, foot, fingers, etc… are not the thinking part of me. And my thinking part directs the non-thinking parts. Or look at it this way - me and a rock are made of basically the same stuff but I can take that rock and turn it into a beautiful sculpture - the reverse can not happen. Which shows that an intelligent being (made of the same stuff) can direct, change or alter the non-intelligent parts of matter.

So even if God (the intelligent part of the universe) was made of the same stuff- He could still direct, change, or alter the non-intelligent parts of the universe and form them into what ever configuration He chose. That would fit, somewhat, with the Christian concept of God.

Yes, but by comparing yourself with the underlying substance from which all particulars, including yourself are derived, you are acknowledging that the particulars that make up the whole, like the parts that make up the whole of your body are one and the same thing. Your thinking part may direct the non-thinking parts, but as you yourself acknowledge all of the parts remain one and the same being, one and the same substance, and that is the gist of my argument, that existence is one thing. If there is an immaterial as well as a material aspect to existence then they are not distinct one from the other as in creator to created. The creator and the created remain one in the same thing in my argument, which is not really creation but necessary change within the whole, which argument allows for no division within the whole.
We are I think basically in agreement that existence is one thing, but we disagree in that that one thing, that underlying substance, is actually two things, one part of which acts upon and directs the other.

[Adam]

From the OP:

Does God exist every "place", or is God himself every "place" that exists, for if God exists every "place" then something called "place" must necessarily have been existent prior to God in order that he exist within it, but if God himself is every "place" then everything must necessarily exist in God. But if everything that is exists in God, then everything that is is one with God. Notice that Universe could be inserted in the place of God above and you have the same result.

What's good for the goose....
Let's go one better. Substitute "space" in "place" of "place" above as well, but thereafter be careful not to shoehorn in "everything" in place of "every place" above, and it comes to read:
Does the Universe exist in every "space", or is the Universe itself every "space" that exists, for if the Universe exists in every "space", then something called "space" must necessarily have been existent prior to the Universe in order that It exist within it, but if the Universe itself is every "space" then every space must necessarily exist in the Universe. But if every space that is exists in the Universe, then everything that is is one with the Universe.

With this rewriting, the conclusion seems necessarily that we are identifying the Universe with Space. That said, are we denying that stars and planets do not exist other than their participation in occupying space? We might as well join with the 5th Century B. C. Greek philosopher Parmenides who proclaimed that all was One. That ontology led to some fine paradoxes by Zeno and to the Sophists that Socrates refuted, but what is there to it more than the word games we have seen in this thread?
Not that such issues are not worth addressing here in Philosophy 201, but I don't see any wider interest to it even in the other branches of philosophy that may seem to be involved here such as logic, epistemology, and maybe not even metaphysics. (I don't count "rhetoric" as a true branch of philosophy.)

[JimL]

From the OP:

What's good for the goose....
Let's go one better. Substitute "space" in "place" of "place" above as well, but thereafter be careful not to shoehorn in "everything" in place of "every place" above, and it comes to read:
Does the Universe exist in every "space", or is the Universe itself every "space" that exists, for if the Universe exists in every "space", then something called "space" must necessarily have been existent prior to the Universe in order that It exist within it, but if the Universe itself is every "space" then every space must necessarily exist in the Universe. But if every space that is exists in the Universe, then everything that is is one with the Universe.

With this rewriting, the conclusion seems necessarily that we are identifying the Universe with Space. That said, are we denying that stars and planets do not exist other than their participation in occupying space? We might as well join with the 5th Century B. C. Greek philosopher Parmenides who proclaimed that all was One. That ontology led to some fine paradoxes by Zeno and to the Sophists that Socrates refuted, but what is there to it more than the word games we have seen in this thread?
Not that such issues are not worth addressing here in Philosophy 201, but I don't see any wider interest to it even in the other branches of philosophy that may seem to be involved here such as logic, epistemology, and maybe not even metaphysics. (I don't count "rhetoric" as a true branch of philosophy.)

No, you misunderstand, I am not denying that the stars and planets exist, what I am denying is the existence of a distinct 'space' or 'place' itself in which the stars and planets are said to exist or to be contained. What I am denying is that there is any such thing as empty space, and what I am affirming is that there is only one thing that exists, and that the stars and planets and all of the particulars if you will, exist in that one thing as do parts exist within a whole. In other words that the one existing thing is a continuous quantity with nothing else existing externally to it. I would be interested though to hear of the paradoxes to which you say "this ontology leads".

[Adam]

No, you misunderstand, I am not denying that the stars and planets exist, what I am denying is the existence of a distinct 'space' or 'place' itself in which the stars and planets are said to exist or to be contained. What I am denying is that there is any such thing as empty space, and what I am affirming is that there is only one thing that exists, and that the stars and planets and all of the particulars if you will, exist in that one thing as do parts exist within a whole. In other words that the one existing thing is a continuous quantity with nothing else existing externally to it. I would be interested though to hear of the paradoxes to which you say "this ontology leads".

You seem to be confessing that you have not studied much philosophy, though I'll admit that Parmenides is not a current favorite. Even though you have never heard of Parmenides, you have come to his philosophy.
From Wikipedia under "Zeno of Elea":
Plato says that Zeno's writings were "brought to Athens for the first time on the occasion of" the visit of Zeno and Parmenides (Parmenides 127c). Plato also has Zeno say that this work, "meant to protect the arguments of Parmenides" (Parmenides 128c), was written in Zeno's youth, stolen, and published without his consent (Parmenides 128e). Plato has Socrates paraphrase the "first thesis of the first argument" of Zeno's work as follows: "if being is many, it must be both like and unlike, and this is impossible, for neither can the like be unlike, nor the unlike like" (Parmenides 127d,e).

According to Proclus in his Commentary on Plato's Parmenides, Zeno produced "not less than forty arguments revealing contradictions" (p. 29), but only nine are now known.

Zeno's arguments are perhaps the first examples of a method of proof called reductio ad absurdum, literally meaning to reduce to the absurd. Parmenides is said[citation needed] to be the first individual to implement this style of argument. This form of argument soon became known as the epicheirema (ἐπιχείρημα). In Book VII of his Topica, Aristotle says that an epicheirema is a dialectical syllogism. It is a connected piece of reasoning which an opponent has put forward as true. The disputant sets out to break down the dialectical syllogism. This destructive method of argument was maintained by him to such a degree that Seneca the Younger commented a few centuries later, If I accede to Parmenides there is nothing left but the One; if I accede to Zeno, not even the One is left.[6]
Also see in Wikipedia "Zeno's Paradoxes". For a very long study, see "Parmenides" therein.