The "place" of God ?

[seer]

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.

Yes Jim, but in reality even though everything is made is the same "stuff" we have two distinct functions. We have non-conscious forces and conscious forces and properties. And we know from experiences that the conscious part (us) can and do manipulate, direct or change the non-conscious parts of creation. For instance we take things in nature - iron and carbon - and make something not found naturally - steel, then we build skyscrapers. These are facts.

So what I'm saying Jim is that you have not presented an argument that excludes the need of a God. That this universe has the features it has by purely non-conscious forces. That the way matter and energy was organized was not done so by intelligence.

[JimL]

Yes Jim, but in reality even though everything is made is the same "stuff" we have two distinct functions. We have non-conscious forces and conscious forces and properties. And we know from experiences that the conscious part (us) can and do manipulate, direct or change the non-conscious parts of creation. For instance we take things in nature - iron and carbon - and make something not found naturally - steel, then we build skyscrapers. These are facts.

So what I'm saying Jim is that you have not presented an argument that excludes the need of a God. That this universe has the features it has by purely non-conscious forces. That the way matter and energy was organized was not done so by intelligence.

Okay, but whether or not you define it as creation or not was not my main point, my main point was that existence is one thing, a point of which we seem to be in agreement. You believe that the changes that take place within that one body are the effects of a non-distinct consciousness, a consciousness that intelligently creates finite forms out of his own body whereas I believe that the finite forms follow by the necessary laws of the eternal whole.
But neither of these views apply to the traditional christian view of creation in which God and his creation are by nature distinct one from the other. That we make things out of existing matter, or that God makes things out of his own body is not, I don't think, the christian understanding of creation, although if it were, it would not be far off from my point of view.

[JimL]

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.

And how is any of this problematic for the theory of existence that I am advocating?

[Adam]

.... I would be interested though to hear of the paradoxes to which you say "this ontology leads".

Your words generated my Post #105.
Last time I'll take you at your word.

[seer]

Okay, but whether or not you define it as creation or not was not my main point, my main point was that existence is one thing, a point of which we seem to be in agreement. You believe that the changes that take place within that one body are the effects of a non-distinct consciousness, a consciousness that intelligently creates finite forms out of his own body whereas I believe that the finite forms follow by the necessary laws of the eternal whole.

Yes, and both positions are taken by faith. But my position does not run aground on infinite regression and, I believe, better explains the order and design of the universe and human consciousness. I have no reason to believe that non-rational forces could or did create such a precise universe, biological, conscious life. I have reason to believe that an Intelligent agent could create such conditions.

But neither of these views apply to the traditional christian view of creation in which God and his creation are by nature distinct one from the other. That we make things out of existing matter, or that God makes things out of his own body is not, I don't think, the christian understanding of creation, although if it were, it would not be far off from my point of view.

There still would be a distinction between "Mind" and things that are not conscious (the former directing and forming the latter). And to be honest scripture never tells us what God created with - it simply tells us that He created what is "seen" out of that which is "unseen." The Eastern Orthodox Church has always held a view close to Panentheism, though not quite the same. So I would not say that it is necessarily unchristian.

[seer]

Your words generated my Post #105.
Last time I'll take you at your word.

I be honest Adam, I too am not sure what your point was. Can you explain it?

[JimL]

Yes, and both positions are taken by faith. But my position does not run aground on infinite regression and, I believe, better explains the order and design of the universe and human consciousness. I have no reason to believe that non-rational forces could or did create such a precise universe, biological, conscious life. I have reason to believe that an Intelligent agent could create such conditions.

1) I can't say that I have mastered an understanding of " infinity ", but I would say that whatever title it is that you give to the infinite, whether it be "God" or plain old "existence" then an infinite regress, if it is relavent, if number has any relavence to the infinite as a whole, then it is relavent no matter what you call the infinite whole.
2) You keep talking in terms of creation, but it is not my argument that the universe was created. My argument is that the universe, if not all of existence, is a part of all of existence and therefore, just as in your idea of an eternal God, the universe, in reference to existence, is itself eternal and therefore in no more need of a creator than is your God. In other words in the same sense that no intelligent agent would be needed to create an eternal God, no intelligent agent would be needed to create an eternal universe.

There still would be a distinction between "Mind" and things that are not conscious (the former directing and forming the latter). And to be honest scripture never tells us what God created with - it simply tells us that He created what is "seen" out of that which is "unseen." The Eastern Orthodox Church has always held a view close to Panentheism, though not quite the same. So I would not say that it is necessarily unchristian.

Sorry, I am replying from work once again and have to run. I will try to get back to this sometime tonight.

[JimL]

There still would be a distinction between "Mind" and things that are not conscious (the former directing and forming the latter). And to be honest scripture never tells us what God created with - it simply tells us that He created what is "seen" out of that which is "unseen." The Eastern Orthodox Church has always held a view close to Panentheism, though not quite the same. So I would not say that it is necessarily unchristian.

But again, I think that you are equating your definition of God with your definition of the universe, giving to him differing parts, those that are conscious and those that are unconscious as if he were a human being or the universe itself, but you argue that such a thing could not be unless created by a prior rational designer. If what you call God, consisting of distinct attributes of mind and matter, can be said to be eternal and uncaused, then why do you deny that same possibility to a universe consisting of mind and matter?

[Adam]

I be honest Adam, I too am not sure what your point was. Can you explain it?

When I read Jim's #104 that he was "interested", I wondered whether he might be a profound thinker who had thought up Parmenides's philosophy on his own. Then his #108 wondering how my #105 was problematic for his beliefs, led me to the opposite conclusion that he was a troll. Here Seer's #111 sets me to regarding Jim as something in the middle, as I would have anyway, I suppose.
Besides my references in #105, I guess I should render my own analysis. I am saying that Jim's philosophy is like Parmenides's theory of the One, that all Being fills all space. Thus there is no room for any motion or change. His opponents found his philosophy paradoxical, to which his disciple Zeno countered with his own Paradoxes that proved motion and change to be impossible.
To which I say that all this confusion is based on attributing too much Reality to Words. Similarly Jim gives us a word and expands it into an all-encompassing principle that allows of no exception. It's just a word game. But there is no need to claim bad faith here. Though Parmenides and Zeno led on the one side to the mere rhetoric of the Sophists, they also inspired Plato's philosophy upon which the Western philosophy of Realism (in the ancient and Medieval sense) and Idealism was based. Even some modern philosophers follow Parmenides, most notably Heidegger.
Even in our own time the Paradoxes of Zeno trouble philosophers and mathematicians alike. So Jim is not wholly wrong. But everyone regards calculus and other reasoning as proving that the false identities in such a Parmenidean philosophy as Jim's don't prove anything like they claim.

[seer]

When I read Jim's #104 that he was "interested", I wondered whether he might be a profound thinker who had thought up Parmenides's philosophy on his own. Then his #108 wondering how my #105 was problematic for his beliefs, led me to the opposite conclusion that he was a troll. Here Seer's #111 sets me to regarding Jim as something in the middle, as I would have anyway, I suppose.
Besides my references in #105, I guess I should render my own analysis. I am saying that Jim's philosophy is like Parmenides's theory of the One, that all Being fills all space. Thus there is no room for any motion or change. His opponents found his philosophy paradoxical, to which his disciple Zeno countered with his own Paradoxes that proved motion and change to be impossible.
To which I say that all this confusion is based on attributing too much Reality to Words. Similarly Jim gives us a word and expands it into an all-encompassing principle that allows of no exception. It's just a word game. But there is no need to claim bad faith here. Though Parmenides and Zeno led on the one side to the mere rhetoric of the Sophists, they also inspired Plato's philosophy upon which the Western philosophy of Realism (in the ancient and Medieval sense) and Idealism was based. Even some modern philosophers follow Parmenides, most notably Heidegger.
Even in our own time the Paradoxes of Zeno trouble philosophers and mathematicians alike. So Jim is not wholly wrong. But everyone regards calculus and other reasoning as proving that the false identities in such a Parmenidean philosophy as Jim's don't prove anything like they claim.

Ok, thanks

[seer]

1) I can't say that I have mastered an understanding of " infinity ", but I would say that whatever title it is that you give to the infinite, whether it be "God" or plain old "existence" then an infinite regress, if it is relavent, if number has any relavence to the infinite as a whole, then it is relavent no matter what you call the infinite whole.

No Jim, again infinite regression is only a problem if we have an infinite number of past physical events leading up to this universe. Matter and energy in its present configuration. So either you deny that this present universe (in this particular form) had a beginning, or matter and energy has has been changing form into the infinite past up to this present configuration.

2) You keep talking in terms of creation, but it is not my argument that the universe was created. My argument is that the universe, if not all of existence, is a part of all of existence and therefore, just as in your idea of an eternal God, the universe, in reference to existence, is itself eternal and therefore in no more need of a creator than is your God. In other words in the same sense that no intelligent agent would be needed to create an eternal God, no intelligent agent would be needed to create an eternal universe.

But this present universe is not eternal, it had a beginning. You could say that the matter and energy that makes up this universe existed eternally into the past, but the question is why did matter and energy take this present form? Why was biological life and conscious life born? Why do we have have so many precise universal values that make said life possible. You would appeal to some mystical non-rational laws I would appeal to a rational Mind.

But again, I think that you are equating your definition of God with your definition of the universe, giving to him differing parts, those that are conscious and those that are unconscious as if he were a human being or the universe itself, but you argue that such a thing could not be unless created by a prior rational designer. If what you call God, consisting of distinct attributes of mind and matter, can be said to be eternal and uncaused, then why do you deny that same possibility to a universe consisting of mind and matter?

It comes down to this Jim, I have no reason to believe that the non-rational, non-conscious, mindless forces of nature (even if eternal) could or did create their opposite - rational, conscious, minds. And I have good reason to believe that an intelligent Mind could create them all. Like creating like.

Anyway James old friend, I think we both have made our points. I will leave you with the last word - thanks for an interesting and civil discussion...

[JimL]

No Jim, again infinite regression is only a problem if we have an infinite number of past physical events leading up to this universe. Matter and energy in its present configuration. So either you deny that this present universe (in this particular form) had a beginning, or matter and energy has has been changing form into the infinite past up to this present configuration.

Well, as I said I do not pretend to completely understand infinity, but at the same time it seems unreasonable to me to deny infinite regression being that the eternal necessary existent is itself infinite. I will ask you, or anyone else who may be interested this question: is it possible for the God that you believe to have created this universe to go on creating universes, or anything else for that matter, infinitly into the future? How is it possible to argue that he could not? And if he can then an infinite regression is not impossible.

But this present universe is not eternal, it had a beginning. You could say that the matter and energy that makes up this universe existed eternally into the past, but the question is why did matter and energy take this present form? Why was biological life and conscious life born? Why do we have have so many precise universal values that make said life possible. You would appeal to some mystical non-rational laws I would appeal to a rational Mind.

Can you answer that same question with regards to God? My answer in either case would be eternal necessity?

It comes down to this Jim, I have no reason to believe that the non-rational, non-conscious, mindless forces of nature (even if eternal) could or did create their opposite - rational, conscious, minds. And I have good reason to believe that an intelligent Mind could create them all. Like creating like.

But again if it is eternal it is not "creation". You would have no more reason to deny such an eternal reality of the universe than you do of a God. In either case whatever the eternal nature is, whatever power exists within it, it exists of necessity not by creation.

Anyway James old friend, I think we both have made our points. I will leave you with the last word - thanks for an interesting and civil discussion...

The pleasure was all yours, ha ha! No, just kidding. Really, its always a learning experience and I'm sure we will probably butt heads again in the future.

[hackysack]

Does God exist every "place",..?

To my mind, God doesn't need a "place" in order to exist, any more than, say, a classical geometric point needs a "place" in positive space in order logically to be a coherent idea. The classical geometric point has no positive space, no size, nor does it have any positive time in the sense that we are used to percieving time as a passage of a set of changes and rhythms within us. So, in view of the classical geometric point, for God to be omnipresent in space does not have to mean that God takes your chair and you fall on the floor. Rather, it can mean that everyplace, and every when, is present to God. After all, God is the primary catagory, and space as we perceive it is a very inferior category. Like saying that God is like a transparent door, and space is like the color which the door is painted so we can see it. The fact that the door has a color painted on it does not mean that the paint and color on the door is the door itself.

[hackysack]

[QUOTE=seer;3204823]infinite regression is only a problem if we have an infinite number of past physical events leading up to this universe. [QUOTE]

Is time like an empty room, with us in it, and each moment comes in empty, and we fill each moment in turn, and then that moment passes out of the room, and a new empty moment passes into the room? A sort of conveyer belt made up of empty moments of time? Is that what time is: a succession of empty moments? That seems to me awfully redundant, unparsimonious to the extreme. What happens to the things that we fill each of these moments with? Are those things brushed off of the moment as that moment passes out of 'the room of the present' (there's another useless redundancy) and into the past at the 'back' of the room? Where did the past moments go out 'back' there? Into a circle coming back around to the 'front'? Or, maybe it's just a linear conveyor, with an endless number of 'future' moments out there coming in through the 'front' of the room? All those zooptepgillions of past moments that seem to us to have simply expired, or ceased to exist, and yet are somehow, in some real way, still there. How many billions of moments have been lost forever during the 'time' it has taken me to write this post. I'm getting the strong impression that what we perceive as time is merely change and rhythm, and there is only one moment: the ever-present.

[JimL]

To my mind, God doesn't need a "place" in order to exist, any more than, say, a classical geometric point needs a "place" in positive space in order logically to be a coherent idea. The classical geometric point has no positive space, no size, nor does it have any positive time in the sense that we are used to percieving time as a passage of a set of changes and rhythms within us. So, in view of the classical geometric point, for God to be omnipresent in space does not have to mean that God takes your chair and you fall on the floor. Rather, it can mean that everyplace, and every when, is present to God. After all, God is the primary catagory, and space as we perceive it is a very inferior category. Like saying that God is like a transparent door, and space is like the color which the door is painted so we can see it. The fact that the door has a color painted on it does not mean that the paint and color on the door is the door itself.

The point that I was making is that everything that exists either exists in itself or it exists in another thing. So of course that would mean that if God exists in himself, then he doesn't need a place in which to exist. If a geometric point is a thing that has any actual existence then it either exists within a place or it is everything that exists. Same would go for God, and since it would be absurd to assert that God existed within another, then God must be everything that exists.