Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
|
Shermer’s Last Law Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God  As scientist extraordinaire and author of an empire of science-fiction books, Arthur C. Clarke is one of the farthest-seeing visionaries of our time. His pithy quotations tug harder than those of most futurists on our collective psyches for their insights into humanity and our unique place in the cosmos. And none do so more than his famous Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” This observation stimulated me to think about the impact the discovery of an extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) would have on science and religion. To that end, I would like to immodestly propose Shermer’s Last Law (I don’t believe in naming laws after oneself, so as the good book says, the last shall be first and the first shall be last): “Any sufficiently advanced ETI is indistinguishable from God.” God is typically described by Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent. Because we are far from possessing these traits, how can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us? We can’t. But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI! Consider that biological evolution operates at a snail’s pace compared with technological evolution (the former is Darwinian and requires generations of differential reproductive success; the latter is Lamarckian and can be accomplished within a single generation). Then, too, the cosmos is very big and very empty. Voyager 1, our most distant spacecraft, hurtling along at more than 38,000 miles per hour, will not reach the distance of even our sun’s nearest neighbor, the Alpha Centauri system (which it is not headed toward), for more than 75,000 years. Ergo, the probability that an ETI only slightly more advanced than we are will make contact is virtually nil. If we ever do find an ETI, it will be as though a million-year-old Homo erectus were dropped into the 21st century, given a computer and cell phone and instructed to communicate with us. The ETI would be to us as we would be to this early hominid — godlike. Because of science and technology, our world has changed more in the past century than in the previous 100 centuries. It took 10,000 years to get from the dawn of civilization to the airplane but just 66 years to get from powered flight to a lunar landing. Moore’s Law of computer power doubling every 18 months or so is now approaching a year. Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines , calculates that there have been 32 doublings since World War II and that the singularity point — the point at which total computational power will rise to levels so far beyond anything that we can imagine that it will appear nearly infinite and thus be indistinguishable from omniscience — may be upon us as early as 2050. When that happens, the decade that follows will put the 100,000 years before it to shame. Extrapolate out about a million years (just a blink on an evolutionary timescale and therefore a realistic estimate of how far advanced ETIs will be), and we get a gut-wrenching, mind-warping feel for how godlike these creatures would seem. In Clarke’s 1953 novel, called Childhood’s End , humanity reaches something like a singularity and must then make the transition to a higher state of consciousness. One character early in the story opines that “science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor, but they have few followers now.” Although science has not even remotely destroyed religion, Shermer’s Last Law predicts that the relation between the two will be profoundly affected by contact with an ETI. To find out how, we must follow Clarke’s Second Law: “The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.” Ad astra! |
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
471 visitors
CAUTION! Backing up. . . and entering a discussion about God and ETI.
I think, "ET", would make themselves known. "God"? Still waiting for even a tiny bit of evidence. Of course we can blame both for good or bad.
My toaster didn't burn my toast this morning. I can easily say, "God" did that, or, I can be realistic and say, "the toaster didn't fail me".
Same thing with just about anything...it's easy to give credit for good deeds to something you believe in, but in the case of "God", or, "ET", you have zero proof. Example..
A tornado passes through a town, kills a few people and you'll always see that person on the news that says, "Thank GOD I didn't get hurt!!!". Well, why did "God", kill those other people then? There is the rub... You cannot give credit without assigning blame when things do NOT turn out so well. In other words, you don't get it both ways.
I know what the article is saying, and to a point, I agree. We could just as easily say, "It's the almighty Henry the eternal Goat!!!", and it would have jut as much meaning as saying it was "God" or, "ET".
For the record... Do I think we are alone in the almost literally infinite universe? No. In fact I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that we are the only (semi)intelligent species. In our own solar system...we live on Earth, Mars, if it was a little warmer, would be habitable and if Venus was cooler, we could live there too, (I know I know...). We are ONE rock around one sun, in an ocean of trillions of stars? Yea, I would bet the farm that there is another intelligent species out there somewhere.
In any case, sorry if I strayed a tad off topic. Interesting article.
Mr. Frost, I have to smile. Sounds like my work is done here. HA!
My toaster didn't burn my toast this morning. I can easily say, "God" did that, or, I can be realistic and say, "the toaster didn't fail me".
Well, unless your toaster can create Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him!) in a piece of toast-- I'd say it failed you:
22 People Who Found Jesus In Their Food
He may have been crucified 2,013 years ago today ( ish ), but when you scarf potato chips, he's watching .
“Any sufficiently advanced ETI is indistinguishable from God"
It may wish to appear as "God"
No way will AI computer science advance that quickly. Intelligence is way more than raw computing power.
( I know you are not necessarily supporting this Cal - I am rebutting the author. )
How is "Watson AI" getting along these days?
It is a strategic product of IBM. Developers can produce software that uses Watson as an AI engine.
This is an historically difficult question to answer. Basically, how can we determine that a sentient entity is actually the creator of the universe?
I would say that if the entity can specifically tell the future or can create a small sun orbiting our sun or something absolutely remarkable like that, one might have to consider its claim of being the creator. However, we really would not know that this is the creator ... just be convinced of awesome power.
Also, consider the possibility that the creator of our universe is a supremely powerful entity that was itself created by an even more powerful entity.
Regardless, I would be shocked if this entity said something like: "The Bible? Yes indeed, that is my divine, perfect Word.".
TiG, have you read Childhood's End or viewed its three-part SYFY miniseries. (Plays with concepts of religious symbolism and a singularity.) And one more,
2036 Origin Unknown. (Plays with alien AI technology and a singularity.)
If you know something about the two movies it can add something to the discussion, If you have not seen one or both it is no matter and we can continue on.
Nope
If the power to create is simply a case of awesome power, what characteristic might distinguish the Creator from a highly advance ET?
Precisely. A highly advanced entity could easily fool us into thinking it was God.
But, . . .for us, it is God, yes? God is first and foremost defined as: "Creator."
When we can envision God has an alien. Can we envision God as something "other" in or out of nature? What insists we stick with nature?
If we were to somehow identify the creator of the known universe and found that the creator was itself created, which would you consider to be God?
First one would need to establish that there is something outside of nature. 'Supernatural' is a concept. We (human beings) imagine all sorts of things - that does not mean they are true.
In other words, until we can establish that there is a 'supernatural' there is no point imagining creatures of supernatural existence.
By the way, if you define 'supernatural' as simply that which does not comport to our current understanding of physics then I would argue that what you are describing is natural. Under this definition, an alien that can channel the forces of what we call dark energy / dark matter would be using physics that are beyond our current comprehension. It would be natural but would likely qualify as 'god-like' to us.
True, there is a physicist, Frank Tipler, who imagines God is the apex of nature. And that the word, "supernatural" is an expired construction to speak of that which is numinous (touching on the divine and miraculous). For example, just to throw this in the mix, Dr. Tipler, imagines a future world where supercomputers will evolve into God and recreate (that is, resurrect) the past. Interesting.
Processing. . . .
The Creator has authority to define and redefine. Is this allowed?
I set no rules. I asked a question.
The Creator has authority to define and redefine.
Of course, "supernatural" can also be thought of that which is outside of nature/natural. It is a complex word.
That is the standard meaning.
So what qualifies as god-like powers? Would:
How about predicting the future? Something like predicting the exact stock prices for the DJIA at end of trading tomorrow.
Cosmologically, reversing the orbit of a planet - something like that which is never seen.
Either:
(Good humor.)
If we, humans, can consider there are intelligent alien beings existing in diverse types and kinds of natural worlds, we can consider a class of "unknown" intelligent types and kinds of worlds.
We (can) and do consider all sorts of wild things.
Natural and supernatural, in my opinion.
Yes, human beings have even invented a second realm of existence. There is no limit to human imagination.
Sovereignty. When applying that word to God it means not simply supreme power and authority but also complete independence from everything not Himself. Examples would be, not needing space to exist in, not needing to have a physical existence (either matter or energy), impervious to anything not itself and so on. It would not be possible to imagine a condition necessary for God to exist except that He exists. All attributes of God would be infinite.
Anything less would not be worthy of the title.
Is this personal speculation or do you have a source?
Hello and Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Drakkonis! I accept and agree with your comment.
And Jesus,
New American Standard Bible Hebrews 10:5
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
I have a source, but it's also logical.
Thank you.
Are you going to keep the source and the logic secret?
The source you already know. Don't know why you're asking.
As to the logic, if God were dependent on any condition outside Himself, how could He be all powerful or hold all authority? He would necessarily be subject to, and limited by, something not Himself and therefore not worthy of the title.
So as to not presume.
Agreed. To be all powerful, an entity would have to be the cause of everything. (The word everything is highly significant.)
So basically God must not be dependent on anything - including His own existence - the very form of His sentience - His complexity.
( hint )
Your logic translates (it appears) into God = existence itself. Pantheism. Defensible.
Applying this logic to the biblical God would be a staggeringly brilliant accomplishment.
That is not what Drakkonis meant in context, read it again please:
if God were dependent on any condition outside Himself, how could He be all powerful or hold all authority? He would necessarily be subject to, and limited by, something not Himself and therefore not worthy of the title.
That's what he does. Always changing things. Making it seem as if you said something you didn't. For example...
Says he agrees with what I said but then rewords it in such a way as it doesn't actually say what I said.
Another seeming agreement which isn't. Not only that, makes a major change without explanation.
Simply declares it translates as such, even though it's obviously does not. The only way he could reach this conclusion is the changes in meaning he made to what I said, if even then.
Gets tiresome.
Show my misunderstanding because the words read the same to me this morning as they did last night. I will go by your boldfaced words for now since you think that explains things.
You emphasize that God (per Drakk) is not dependent on anything outside Himself and not limited by something not Himself. Yes, that is what Drakk wrote and that is what my paraphrase supports ("So basically God must not be dependent on anything"). Establishes God as the supreme entity - no higher sentient form. My words were a standard confirmation of basic meaning in preparation for taking the next step in the dialectic.
The next step (for me) was analysis - to inspect the implications of the posit - to explore the immediate consequences. Drakk might disagree with the consequences, and then that would be a point of debate.
What are these consequences?:
First, (within 'something not Himself') would you assert that God (or anything) is not dependent upon His own existence, His form, His complexity? If God is not dependent upon existence then God would not exist. Existence is the one attribute that everything real shares. Darth Vador (the real entity) does not have the attribute of existence; thus there is no real Darth Vador. God necessarily is of existence or does not exist. This should be obvious but it is important to establish what it means for something to exist - either of existence or non-existent.
Next, God is implicitly sentient (would be surprising if Drakk does not assume sentience in God). Sentience is complexity. Thus God is necessarily complex (and thus depends on His own complexity). If you wish to argue that God is devoid of form / complexity (and thus no sentience) yet still is independent of all things outside itself, then all that is left is existence itself.
The above is all offered for the purposes of debate. This was my accepting Drakk's posit and moving to the next step.
I stated agreement with your logic because I agree with your logic. I then added my own perspective. The fact that I agree with your logic does not mean there are no consequences. My comments illustrate the consequences as I see them. But, what precisely is your objection to my follow-on comment:
Seems to be entirely consistent with the logic.
You complain of 'seeming' agreement. Why? Must I only write full agreement with you simply because I noted agreement with your opening logic? And I am not trying to simply restate, I am moving forward in analysis. These words are now my contribution to the discussion. I do get to present my views, right? For explanation see: @7.2.10
I even included the 'it appears' and you still claim it is a declaration. Clearly I presented my conclusion:
Your post was nothing but (unjustified) complaints, not a shred of adding value or even asking questions for clarity. So I get it; you do not wish to discuss this.
Much better to simply state that upfront rather than attack my integrity.
"God is not dependent on anything outside Himself and not limited by something not Himself. That statement does not read as God is not dependent on anything (at all). Of course, God is dependent on attributes which form its nature. At least as far as our human minds can grasp such an entity's attributes.
Good. So now if you read my entire sentence in my original post:
You will see that I am pointing out that God is necessarily dependent on attributes which form its nature. This is the point of discussion. If God is dependent upon such attributes then one might logically consider the implications. Or not.
My statement takes the notion of an independent God and starts to apply reason to the boundary of that independence. Focusing on the dependencies of the entity itself while accepting the premise that God would not be dependent on other entities - would be the highest possible entity. Analysis.
Your statement reads this way:
So basically God is not dependent on his own existence, his sentience, his complexity.
Is this what you mean to say? Because if it is—that is not what is being said by Drakkonis (if I can speak for him) or me. I can not engage with you on "dependencies" of God because (and this would be a divergent discussion all its own) such has not been revealed to mankind for careful thought.
Considering no empirical evidence of God has ever been revealed to mankind, wouldn't that mean you shouldn't "engage" on any discussions claiming he/it exists? Obviously his/its "dependencies" haven't been reveal because he/it hasn't been revealed. It's like saying "I cannot discuss things that are hidden behind this curtain..." "What curtain?" "Okay, well imagine a curtain, now imagine there's stuff behind it I can't discuss...". Of course, it's far easier to imagine a curtain since they actually exist and we can picture one in our minds. In the case of God, the only images that come to mind are artistic portrayals created by other humans that are almost always of very terrestrial things like God with a beard because of course he lives somewhere cold and needs the facial hair to stay warm. Which brings me to another query, if man was made in Gods image, does that mean God has all the same vestigial body parts we do?
It is exactly what I mean to say. I took Drakk's point and emphasized the boundary conditions (existence, form, sentience, complexity).
Super simple:
No problem, as noted several times, with God being independent of all other things. God is defined as the supreme entity (e.g. no creator for God). Top of the totem pole. Prime mover, first cause. That part is is clear. But when we get to 'Himself' things are fuzzy. What, specifically, is 'Himself'. My comment directly lists the immediate fuzzy parts I noticed: existence, form, sentience, complexity. All of these are implicitly necessary for God to exist as defined. Existence should be obvious. Sentience necessitates complexity and complexity necessitates form.
So the next question of analysis would be: Is God dependent on these things? I say yes, by definition. And if Drakk considers these to be part of God (part of Himself) then we can run with that (same concept as initially offered but now with more details). The discussion then would naturally turn to the nature of these self-dependencies and the implications thereof. For example, if existence itself is part of God that logically means that God and existence are synonymous. That is, God cannot exist before existence itself. Lots of implications.
I do not know what Drakk would answer since he offered nothing in his response. But the question is out there.
There are no "implications" specifically for you to work with. Even among people who trust in God only enough has been revealed to encourage faith. As for logically defining God, what more could someone who does not accept the supernatural is possible and that God is the sum peak of nature (if you allow) it can you study? There are few if any direct evidences for the logicians to examine, and people of faith walk as I have stated.
I take it you see what I mean. It's always like this.
You ignored my opening example and just went to a categorical 'there are no implications'.
The implications are on the logical side. Note that Drakk said that he has two sources. One he will not state and the other is logic. I have focused on the logic. Logic can absolutely be analyzed. I have already given you a hint as to how that works.
Drakk gave a logical definition for God and I accepted his definition. He defined an entity that is necessarily supreme. I agreed with that - what he defined would be supreme by most anyone's interpretation of the word. Next is to inspect the logical definition. That will not happen here, obviously, but that is the next logical step.
Few, true, but few is not none. I have given you a starter set.
I don't think this is a case of misunderstanding. I think you know very well what I've said and what it means. We have had this argument often enough. What you are attempting to do is reshape what I say, intentionally, so this can be argued on pantheistic grounds. Not going to happen. My worldview is that God is His own existence. Everything you consider existence exists at God's pleasure and can cease to exist at His pleasure as well. What you consider existence is not part of God. It' isn't an extension of Himself. Not a dream in His mind. There is nothing in what you consider nature that you could point to and say "That's God" or "that's part of God." The only connection is that He made it and rules over it. There is a greater separation between what is God and what He created than there is between me and a piece of furniture I created. At least the furniture and I share some of the same basic elements. Not so with God and His creation. It may contain reflections of Him but they are not Him anymore than the face you see in the mirror is you.
But you keep trying to change the meaning of what I say to fit your pantheistic ideas.
I assert that God is dependent on His own existence (He simply exists.) Everything else, you, me, everything you consider natural is dependent on God. But even if we subtract God, you are not dependent on your own existence. You are dependent upon the universe to exist in. You are dependent on countless generations preceding you. You are dependent on an oxygen rich atmosphere and so on.
And here's a great example where you try to shift what I said onto pantheistic grounds. You know I meant God literally depends on His own existence. He is His own existence separate from what you call nature. But because of what you believe, you are trying to force a discussion on the grounds of pantheism. That if God exists, He's merely an emergent property of nature, something I do not believe to be true.
So, rather than trying to make my words fit your argument, why don't you just accept what I say as just the way I see it?
If you can do 'it', go for it. (Smile.)
Wrong. Tone down the presumption. I illustrated in detail that I did not reshape anything. Ignoring my rebuttals and simply restating your claim accomplishes nothing of value.
I have no interest in driving this to pantheism (or anywhere specific at this point), but it certainly seems that pantheism is logically where it would go based on your opening statement of logic. I am not a pantheist and see no advantage if you aligned with pantheism. My interest is exploring the implications of your logic.
Then you must redefine the word 'existence' to envision your world view. Splitting an indivisible concept; one of the most fundamental concepts we have. Something either exists or it does not exist. God either exists or does not exist. God could exist in some special supernatural (as in a nature beyond our current scientific understanding) reality (easy to invent these things) but He still exists (or does not).
Are you stating a fact or providing a definition? Your comment would make sense to me if it were: 'what you consider reality is not part of God ...'. Splitting existence contradicts the meaning of the word (existence = totality of existent things; the opposite of non-existence).
I was not going there.
You clearly want an existence underlying our reality (our universe, etc.) and an existence (some distinct reality) underlying (or being) God. But it is all existence. Existence is the most fundamental attribute we have and you are trying to split it to provide an untouchable concept to host God.
I presume this is just your imagination. Or do you have something that supports splitting the fundamental concept of existence? If so, where did you get such information other than from God?
Again, this is your own concept, right? You are just expressing what you imagine, not actually stating fact. Correct?
Looks like I was responding to your comment as you were making changes. Sorry, that was not my intent.
I am not a pantheist. You presume too much. Artie was the pantheist, not me. I wonder now how many of other people's views you have transferred to me in your mind.
Drakk, if you realize that we are dependent upon the universe than you must realize that the universe is dependent upon existence. Existence is the common attribute of everything that is real. Thus we are all ultimately dependent upon existence. If there was no existence (i.e. nothingness) then we would not exist. Also, if nothingness were true there would be no God either.
And you are claiming I did not acknowledge this strange concept of yours?
Uh, Drakk. I am not and never was a pantheist. You have me confused with Artie. Again, do not presume. It is a horrible way to operate.
Of course you do not believe that. But note that what you just described is NOT pantheism.
What I am reading (still) is unsubstantiated negative personal allegations rather than debate. Seems to me you want me to simply accept what you write and offer no intellectual challenges.
Will pick up here tomorrow. Good night! (Smile.)
I will say this about the above exchanges on pantheism and mistaken "assignment" of a worldview on occasion.
TiG, What you may not feel is just how hard it is to focus on people popping in and out of many discussions-which is a natural disruption in its own right-who express different worldviews about secularism, humanism, atheism, pantheism, et ceteras while simultaneously in agreement with one another against theism. It is a 'tussle' for me, and I can imagine for others as well. So, from time to time we simply will get people 'crossed-up.'
It does not mean something is wrong with my, our, minds or that we are 'confused.' It signifies we are attempting to ingest and hold on to a great deal of discussion across many articles/throughout threads.
So some understanding of this dilemma for those of us who are reading many harmonizing "voices" is called for-and would be nice.
Where do you get this 'something is wrong with my, our, minds' stuff?
That is evidence of one recent example. There are other instances, by other members, in other past threads. Too many to pour through looking for examples. Trust me when I say that I have been (on occasion) on the receiving end of members abruptly telling me they are "A" and not "B" or "AB" and not "BC" —all while supporting each others' messages.
I offer this for understanding sake and I have no desire in deflecting to this. It is an aside (an effort at "housekeeping" nothing more), and I would like to happily move on now.
The open comment format isn't set up for one on one conversations where you can slowly develop and articulate your thought to one person. It is exactly what most people here are looking for, the ability to pop in, give our two cents, then pop out of a conversation never to come back to it if they don't feel like it.
As for you feeling "tussled", what you're experiencing are many people from many different backgrounds all agreeing on logical conclusions that you interpret as an attack on your personal beliefs.
It's like if someone is told by everyone around them, parents and peers, that the color of fire trucks and stops signs was called "blue", and they lived in a little bubble-like town with no exposure to the outside world, they'd have no reason to doubt them. But once they get out in the world they get confronted by everyone around them, grocers, policemen, teachers, everyone is telling them the color is called "red". Now at first I'm sure this would be upsetting, a closely held personal belief passed on to them by parents and peers is being questioned by everyone around them, they feel under attack. But maybe the best course of action is to allow oneself to question the indoctrination instead of disbelieving everyone outside their bubble and trying to force everyone outside the bubble to conform to their belief that the color of stop signs and stop lights should be called "Blue".
Doubt is not a dirty word. Skepticism is a good thing. If you truly believe in your brand of theism, fine, stand up for it, defend it, but don't expect everyone to just accept your claims without evidence. Expect doubt, expect skepticism, expect your beliefs to be challenged by more than one person at a time, if they're built upon a solid foundation they'll surely never fail you. You'd only need to worry if you're not so sure of that foundation...
Look Cal, if someone presumes something about me and it is wrong I am going to object. Especially if the majority of the post is based on the presumption that I am a pantheist and am trying to manipulate things so that pantheism rules.
If someone presumes you to be a YEC I am sure you would object and correct them.
My comment was a statement given to help facilitate (further) discussion. That's all. I called it "housekeeping" for a reason. That is all.
Very true. I was just doing some general housekeeping in general.
Mine was as well. It's better to understand the format and work with it than to continue complaining about it but coming back daily anyway.
Okay, I was being nice. But, of course, nice does not work with some people. So. . . .
I think you did. Let's look at it. The subject with which I am addressing is...
I gave an answer, claiming that it was logical. When you asked what that logic was, I replied...
You replied...
This is not an actual agreement with what I said. I know this because I remember all the conversations we've had on the subject of God's existence and I know what your position is. The reason this isn't agreement is because what you mean, and what differs from what I said is "would have to be the cause of everything." The reason it differs is I know you mean by the cause of everything, you include God in that. You know I believe God did not have a cause. I know, based on past discussions, that you believe that if there is a God He would be an emergent property of what you define as existence. That totally contradicts what I said, so you have not in fact agreed with me.
No, there's no need to redefine the word "existence." The definition of "existence" is...
There is nothing in that definition that states all that exists, exists in the same manner. It seems to be your idea that because something does or may exist it all must fall under one vague category of your making. You have an idea that there is some quintessential underlying principle that fundamentally underlies all existence and binds it all together, like some sort of ultimate theory of everything. I disagree with it but I don't claim that it is illogical. In fact, it's possible that I agree with it in a sense. However, the binding reality of all that exists is, in my belief, God. Not because He is a fundamental part of, or emergent property of what you think of as existence, but rather, that He causes all that exists apart from Himself.
I am providing a definition of what I think God would have to be to be God. I'm not, however, "splitting" the meaning of existence. It is perfectly correct to say that God is part of all that exists. That is, in the set "all that exists" God would be a subset of that set. But there is nothing in that fact that means everything that exists has the same kind of existence. There is nothing about stating that God is in the set of "all that exists" that subjects Him to something not Himself. Nothing that makes Him dependent on something not Himself. It's just a statement that He is one of the things that exists. Nor could it be said that He is subject to existence because that would imply that He could also be subject to non-existence, something not possible. He simply exists.
Not everything that exists, exists in the same way. A meme doesn't exist in the same way a stone exists. You appear to be the one trying to give existence a meaning it doesn't have. That for something to exist it must exist in the same manner and for the same reasons as everything else. That is not supported by the definition of the word.
I believe it is a fact.
I didn't say you were. I said you were trying to steer the conversation onto pantheistic grounds. Perhaps it would help if we looked a the definition of pantheism.
And with this, let's look at what you say next.
Nothing "depends" on existing. It either just does or doesn't. Existence isn't some sort of force. It's simply a state. You aren't actually talking about whether or not something exists. You are talking about the manner in which something exists. You don't like the idea that God has a separate existence from everything else. To you, if God exists, it is as an emergent property of the universe. That is, a part of the universe and not separate from it. Pantheism.
I'm not here to substantiate it. I'm here to answer the question of what I believe qualifies as God-like powers. I'm not asking you to believe it. I don't mind if you oppose it.
I agreed with you that the supreme entity as defined would NECESSARILY be the cause of everything ("To be all powerful, an entity would have to be the cause of everything."). Everything depends on the supreme entity (by definition) and the supreme entity is not dependent on anything other than itself. So, for example, the supreme entity would not have a creator.
But your definition has logical problems (defines an impossible God) which I then started to illustrate (triggering, I suspect, this meta nonsense).
Yes.
What I define as existence?? I am not redefining fundamental concepts; that has been your approach, not mine. But your recollection (on this one point, congratulations) is correct since existence is the most fundamental concept there is. Something either exists or it does not. And it is not a belief, it is by definition. God (or anything) being the cause of existence itself is irrational. That which exists cannot be the cause of existence - that is circular (and thus demonstrably wrong).
The Supreme entity NECESSARILY would be the cause of everything but it would not be cause of its own existence and thus not the cause of existence itself.
It is late for me and this is more of the same endless meta nonsense - imposing your own meaning on my words rather than engage in honest debate. Maybe tomorrow I might have more patience, but at this point this form of discourse is nothing short of obnoxious.
We have no inkling what comes (if anything) before God, because as an article of our general faith: God is all and all. Signifying that everything we know of comes from the energy and mind of God. Beyond this: What is there for the "believing" world s to ponder?
To put it another way: Believers state that God and Existence are One. Whatever comes before God (if anything); who can/should ponder this?
Good night all, better day ahead!
That is somewhat like pantheism. Drakk has announced that he rejects pantheism because to him God is distinct from the reality we call the universe. Indeed, Drakk curiously splits the monadic concept of existence into distinct parts: 'normal' existence and divine existence. This is a little bit like (but not the same as) panentheism where God exists in a distinct realm but everything is still part of God - God is everywhere (somewhat like the Christian concept of omnipresence). The key (but not only) difference between these notions and what Drakk described is that in both pantheism and panentheism the concept of existence is unary - existence itself is not redefined - it remains true that something either exists or it does not.
To wit, there is no such thing as believers believe 'X'. Believers believe all sorts of contradictory notions. You and Drakk hold different beliefs (as evidenced by your post). I suspect you also do not believe, as Drakk does, that God decides our leaders. Then again, you and Drakk both hold beliefs quite different from resident YEC MBFC. Beliefs are many and varied because they are not rooted in an immutable reality and thus are free to evolve with human imagination.
Want a different belief? No problem. Redefine the concept of existence and imagine away. One can believe anything one can imagine and imagination has no apparent boundaries.
From my point of view, it is you who are attempting to define existence outside it's actual meaning. Again, the definitions which apply are
There is nothing in any definition I have looked at which states or implies that which exists does so in the same manner. You appear to be insisting that it does. You seem to be insisting that because something exists it therefore exists the same way as everything else. That doesn't logically follow. If something exists, then about all you can say is that it exists.
Existence concerns a state of being or not being. That is all it does. It doesn't have anything to say about why it exists, how it came to exist, the manner in which it exists or anything like that. You are trying to build a logical case based on a definition that doesn't exist.
I am not arguing whether or not something exists or not. As you state, it either does or doesn't. But for some reason, because I state that God's existence isn't like ours, you think I'm arguing about what exists and what doesn't. I'm not. My belief is about the manner in which something exists. Not the same thing at all.
So, rather than go on about existence, why not just state your position about what God must be, should He exist, as you define existence and just leave it at that? It isn't as if a lot of argument is going to bring agreement between us on this.
No surprise there, that which exists always does so in a manner different from something else that exists . What you have been talking about is more specific than that extremely vague notion of 'same manner': a 'natural' existence and a divine existence. Try finding that in a definition of existence.
Existence, in concept, is very simple. If something exists then it has the attribute of existence. It is of existence. Period. So God either exists or He does not.
You can claim God exists in a supernatural realm but that is still existence (if true). One can envision all sorts of places to host God that are entirely unfalsifiable (and thus safe from scientific scrutiny) but no matter what you come up with, God will either exist or He will not exist.
Everything that exists is founded on existence - even the supreme entity - unless 'God' is synonymous with 'existence'.
No. Maybe I should have stated God is "Lord of All."
"God is all and all" and "God is in you all" both, are in the Bible. But, what I actually mean in the entirety of my comment is God is Lord of All. Wholly existing and sat apart from God's creation.
Forgive me, it was late and my eyes were crossing. (Smile.)
No problem, I suspect most people see that as part of the definition of God. Basically that is the supreme entity concept. Nothing rules God. Likely will not get anyone objecting to that notion.
What did you intend by this?:
Actually, an inherent property of faith is involved here. Living by faith means to live understanding in part. We, believers, tend and strive to move and have our being in accordance with our Faith/s.
For example, you mentioned pantheism and panentheism above. Well, both worldviews can be derivatives (in the Christian point of view) from statements written down in various places throughout the Bible. However, neither of these two concepts addresses the totality of what the Bible says about God, in my opinion:
Isaiah 44:24-26 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
24 Here is what Adonai says, your Redeemer,
he who formed you in the womb:
“I am Adonai, who makes all things,
who stretched out the heavens all alone,
who spread out the earth all by myself.
&
Isaiah 44:24-26 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things.
Through the use of many passages such as these, the message of One God wholly apart from creation is established in the minds of beilievers.
Moreover, some believers accept the Bible alone while others use differing texts in addition to the Bible. In this way, without the direct intervention on God, we are left to live and build our faith according to our understanding (some 30, some 60, some 100 percent)!
Generally, our thoughts on existence do not delve beyond the Creator. Our beliefs do not attempt to explain-elucidate existence outside of God. For us, everything exist in God. Beyond this, I, as a believer, hold no opinion.
And they pretty much all have a different understanding of the message. Many varied 'truths'.
So God and Existence are not really One (much like pantheism), but rather you believe that everything exists in God (is part of God?)? Is that what you mean?
That sounds very much like panentheism.
But, with one unifying belief in God! We are unified in the "majors."
Everything exist separate and apart from God as made by God.
NOTE: I may blotch my wording on this from time to time, because Christians use "bible-speak" on such issues between themselves. For my part, I do not often discuss this area. Bottomline: Going forward, nothing I share about God should be construed as God being in everything or an existing member of creation.
This post makes no sense. I'm not claiming God doesn't exist. I'm not claiming something doesn't exist. I'm not arguing against the idea that if something exists, it therefore exists. That doesn't even make sense. I really have no idea at this point what you're trying to point out. I, of course, believe God exists, has always existed and there was never a point where He didn't exist. We, I believe, also exist but we were created. We began. I guess I could say God has unconditional existence and we have conditional, but there isn't any argument about either category existing.
Why are you going on about the meaning of existence?
That does reduce it. Most people believe in a God as in the supreme entity - creator of the universe (reality as we know it).
From there the beliefs start splitting as the religions add details that they could not possibly know. Islam defines Allah as a merciful, omnipotent yet unknowable master to which all human beings are slaves. Christianity defines God (Jesus in this case) as the God of Love replete with all sorts of attributes, stories of exploits, personality, etc. And those two are the dominant religions of the world - and both draw from the OT and thus are very close in origin and roots. The other religions (well, other than Judaism) are from very different origins and their beliefs are quite different. Hinduism, for example, is polytheistic (although one could -I suppose- argue that Brahman equates to the biblical God).
As more attributes, etc. are added (and they are ... endlessly) the beliefs splinter into many and varied 'truths'. All based on human imagination and unfalsifiable 'experiences'. When it gets down to the beliefs that people hold true - the truths are quite varied and conflicting. Much like what one would expect of a creative human system of generating beliefs.
Now you are expanding to a new discussion which has little at all to do with this prior discussion. Are you discussing God, Faith, or World Religion? I think you are discussing God, for what it is worth.
That what you think I meant???
Existence is a singleton concept - it is unique. If a banana exists then it is OF existence. If a god exists then it is OF existence. Existence is the most fundamental attribute and is shared by all things that exist - even if one of the things is the supreme entity (unless the supreme entity IS existence).
Because it is critically related to the attributes or eternal and sentience (complexity). The point I was starting to make originally.
I just illustrated how the one unifying belief is only at the most abstract level but when one gets down to the more concrete level (where religions and beliefs live) the beliefs (what an individual holds to be true on faith) are many and varied.
But if all you got out of my post was 'expanding to a new discussion' then my comment is: nevermind.
What believers do is based on interpretation. What is occurring with faith is it produces—like everything God creates produces. In this manner, in every generation there are people striving in faith, because the Word of God is alive, and affecting people on "many and varied" deeper levels. Being that people, around the world, and especially in our country are a blended society, we pull out different meanings from the same texts of life-giving or life-changing information.
In this reality, people of different faiths, or even the same confession, are not a monolith. The obvious reason why not being that we have these fleshly bodies which in themselves are not spiritual.
More later. . . . I close by repeating that what we have in common is a belief in God, everything else can come after.
Yes, belief is a product of interpretation.
Every human being with an imagination can contribute to this production - countless have and we see the many varied religions as a consequence.
With many and varied 'truths'.
Vague language which has no roots other the concepts expressed in the language enable people to be very creative in their interpretations. Demonstrably.
Certainly not. Very much the opposite. Has been this way for all of recorded history. Of course many of the old gods have fallen out of favor over time.
Which God? What is common is belief in a supreme being (and in some cases beings).
Most of if not all of what you just did is not conducive to a greater understanding of this shared discussion. You seem to believe that you hold all the "right" cards here and apparently this thought gives you license to 'override' and direct the thinking of others. Nothing could be further from the truth. I, we, are sharing with you what we have faith in. We do so without any apology.
I, we—including you, are fully aware that you look for direct evidence of God and having found none sufficient to your wish to put through the rigors of direct experimentation, still for some unexplained reason, you have not turned in a huff of disinterest in this god-worldview and everything to do with it and walked away.
However, our beliefs "many and varied," are afforded us under the U.S. Constitution. That is, freedom of speech. As believers, by definition we do believe in God, as atheists, by definition, many do not believe in any god or gods. Interestingly, as believers we see atheists and some of us do not bother to ask the question, Why does God allow non-believers to exist or thrive?
The informed believer accepts that God allows the unchanged person, because God knows how to change anybody or patiently wait for change to come.
Certainly, there is plenty good room for all of us - plenty time available for change to manifest, o not.
Note: this is the point where you moved from discussion into a personal attack followed by making me the topic.
What is the topic now ... freedom of religion??
Your post was entirely non-responsive to what I wrote.
Yeah. I know it's the crux of your view. Basically, you seem to feel that existence is the supreme entity and everything results from it, even what I call God. Is that about correct?
Almost. I have no evidence that suggests existence itself is sentient so calling it a supreme being is unjustified. I simply call it by its English name: existence.
My position is one that makes no assumptions:
Sentience is complexity. It is thus a form of the quintessential substance of existence. Nobody knows anything about this 'quintessential substance' other than it IS because existence is true.
Note: there is no assumption of physical form or that the form is even that which would conform to our understanding of physics.
Yep. Self-evident.
Knowing what you consider existence to be, this seems just as big an assumption as my saying only God has existed eternally.
Pretty much a restatement of your first point, as far as I can see.
The biggest difference between us. You speak of a quintessential substance without any evidence of such existing. Something that, as far as I can tell, is something beyond elemental particles. You're claiming it exists simply because things exist. How is that not changing the meaning of "existence?" Instead of simply taking existence to mean something that is, rather than is not, you insist it refers to some sort of quintessential something or other. Don't you think that's a rewrite of the definition?
But let's suppose there really is some quintessential something underlying existence. Why would it necessarily all be the same for all that exists? Why would there not be different quintessential somethings for different kinds of existences? I am asking this as a purely secular question. That is, in the realm of what you consider natural. Not necessarily in this universe but in others, should they exist, or in some sort of reality that isn't contained in a universe. Realities that we cannot detect directly or even by inference.
This is not in any way an attempt to explain how God has a reality or existence different from ours. It's simply a question as to why there is only one quintessential something in your view. Seems like you'd have to know an awful lot about all possible existences and realities.
Existence is the foundation of all that is real. It is the opposite of Nothing (merely a concept). Everthing that exists is -by definition- OF existence. This is one of the most basic concepts there is.
Look around. We are all forms of existence. There is something there - reality - with an underlying substance (even though we do not know what it is). Currently science has taken us to the level of particle physics. It is quite likely that there is more below that level. Whatever it is, when we finally get to the core we have the quintessential substance of existence. And if particle physics (or let's just say 'energy') is the lowest this goes then that would be the quintessential substance of existence. Maybe it would help if you just put 'energy' in as a temporary placeholder for QE. That would be an assumption but it might make the discussion smoother.
That is like saying: let's suppose that existence is true and that things (forms) exist. How can it NOT be so??
Who says that it is? From my prior post:
We know that existence is true and we know that forms emerge from existence (such as stars and human beings). This is evidenced. Other very exotic forms might exist and be entirely unlike anything we have seen - to the point of not even being composed of particles. No assumptions have been made to rule that out. But no matter how exotic, these forms either exist (are OF existence) or they do not exist.
See above. You are talking about different forms in different realms. All share existence. Using the term 'existences' muddies the water and would make this discussion impossible. Existence is a single thing. Other forms that might emerge from existence still would share the attribute of existence with us - even if there is nothing else in common.
And I believe I have addressed your questions in an entirely secular, logical fashion.
My response is appropriate. I am speaking to a subject matter "blockage"—not you personally.
As an atheist, you are not qualified to instruct us in faith. What experiences do you have in religious experiences? Evidently, none which carry any weight or value for you. Talk of spiritual matters carries little to no interest for you: This is a fact.
Imagine if I had written: As a religious person you are not qualified to discuss science or claim to think critically.
The above should illustrate a) that you are still talking about me and b) that your dismissal of my opinion has no foundation in logic or facts.
This is plainly about atheism. Of course, if you are an atheist (you are) and you continue to "block" spirituality from being a useful frame of reference (you do) - you could be sensitive over this matter.
As for me, I am a religious person who has no issue with atheists who allow that I should be allowed to worship God in any manner I wish as long as I do not harm anybody. Are you one of these atheists?
CB @7.2.56 is clear as a bell.
Now you want to discuss freedom of religion? I am discussing existence and what one can infer about a supreme entity based on logic and evidence.
The problem with your argument as I see it is that you are taking the meaning of "existence" beyond it's definition. Rather than do that, I think it would better serve your argument to just say that there is some quintessential something behind all that exists. The way you put it makes it seem the word has some metaphysical property. It doesn't. There isn't some potential existence pool of some quintessential stuff that existence draws from in order to make something exist, for example. Existence isn't the cause of existence. It is simply a statement that something is rather than is not.
Actually, though, your argument isn't all that different from mine, in a way. I suppose it could be said that I believe there is a "quintessential" something that underlies most of what exists. That something being God's will. It is my belief that all of existence (apart from God) was created by God and is sustained by God. God Himself would not be included in that, not having been created. God exists due to the fact that He exists. We exist (this universe) because God wills it so.
Not really. We don't have to suppose things exist because it's evident they do. It is not evident that there is some quintessential (calling it Q from now on) something in the manner you suggest that underlies existence.
Yes, existence is a single thing, but I don't believe it is in the manner you suggest. It is simply a binary solution set. It either exists or it doesn't. It doesn't address fundamental properties of what exists, such as if it physically exists or something that only exists in the mind, such as ideas. The word only cares whether something is there or not there. That's it. You are attempting to tie a grand theory of everything to the definition of existence. The only thing that unites everything in the set "exists" is that it actually has to exist to be in that set.
Put another way, you seem to be saying that existence isn't merely a matter of existing but rather, existence is defined as sharing some unknown underlying something beyond the mere fact that something exists.
What's more, if you try to load the word the way you do, how do we address things such as ideas, which can't possibly share this Q something? We wouldn't be able to say ideas exist because they wouldn't share whatever this Q is. Ideas exist in an entirely different fashion than a rock does. If that is so, how can they share this Q something?
That is precisely what you are doing. You insist, no demand, discussion of "a supreme entity" with religious believers assembled, while demanding direct evidence and direct experimentation. How much more "direct" can we be in informing you that ours is cumulative indirect evidence and conveys through faith?
Before one can reasonably discuss God with people of faith, one has to have a positive view of the so-called, "supernatural" (you do not).
The problem with your response is that you are rejecting the basic meaning of existence.
If you want to think of it in those terms then do so. But existence would be nothing if it has no substance. It is substance that distinguishes existence from non-existence. Seems rather basic and obvious (and directly in line with the meaning of the word).
Of course not. Odd that you think I was suggesting something like that. X is never the cause of X. Existence has no cause. Again, by definition.
You are again using the word existence in two different ways and that will simply muddy the discussion. Another way to express your thought is this:
'It is my belief that all that exists (apart from God) was created by God and is sustained by God.'
The above clearly shows that you are speaking of things that exist (emergent properties of existence ... forms) rather than existence itself. For God to be able to create all that exists (apart from God) God would necessarily first exist. God must exist to do anything.
Agreed (as I did in the original post and for the same reasons). God, per your definition, is the supreme entity and necessarily was not created (and this is indeed by definition). If God had a creator then that would be God. So we agree on the immediate consequences of your definition of God. And per your definition of God, this universe exists because God created it.
Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. An analogy: you see a building and know that it is made of bricks and other materials. This is direct evidence. But we also know that bricks are made of various molecules which are composed of atoms which are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons, weak and strong forces which are all (except electrons) composed of various particles. The particles are at least composed of the thing we call 'energy' and we do not know how low this goes. BUT WE ABSOLUTELY DO KNOW THAT IT GOES WELL BELOW THE BRICK LEVEL. So it is quite evident that anything that exists is a form of some substance that we do not yet understand but clearly exists. If it did not exist, particles would not exist, atoms and forces would not exist ... all the way up to the bricks of the building.
I do not have a special meaning for existence Drakk. Just reciting what human beings already know.
It is not a 'grand theory' to observe that if something does not exist then it is nothing but if it does exist it is something. It is not difficult to understand that the difference between something and nothing is substance. Without substance existence is false - there is only nothing. Clearly this is not the case.
Existence means there is substance. Non-existence means there is no substance. The nature of 'substance' is unknown - all we know about 'substance' is that everything that exists is a form of it.
Why not? Describe an idea that exists without substance. Think carefully.
Yes they do. Now what does that mean to you? Does it mean they exist without substance? Again, think carefully. I stated upfront (to help avoid semantic problems caused by intuitive notions) that the substance of existence is not necessarily anything that resembles our understanding of physics.
Now you are off complaining about debates in general - that people ask for evidence. Complaining that others do not accept things as true on faith is a waste of time. I realize it must be very frustrating to have to plead with people to accept things as you see them rather than put forth a solid argument. But complaining that people dare ask for evidence and supporting logic is counter-productive (and demeaning to the complainer). My advice is to get out of the debate business.
My view of the supernatural (religious definition) is neither positive nor negative. I see no evidence that it exists. That is an objective assessment.
Also, (depending on definition), the supernatural is simply the horizon of empirical knowledge. So what was once supernatural is now natural. That makes the supernatural mean 'natural things we cannot yet explain'.
We know that words are human constructs; how human beings communicate. Observe @ 7.2.67 I used the phrasing, 'so-called, "supernatural." Nevertheless, at the level of God so-called, "nature" operates at its apex (used that before too).
As to debate tactics, it is you that is repeatedly creating a category mistake. I can accept naturalists will not acknowledge anything supernatural (just go with the word for contrast purposes) as valid. You will not seriously acknowledge the supernatural. Why? Because you can not test for spirituality. You see indirect evidence of spirituality throughout the world everyday in human confessions, and you choose not to accept the statements as valid, because it is not "natural" and a claim of the scientific establishment.
So what is really being "executing" in here? You are holding a perpetual so-called "debate" with a permanent category mistake built into it. That is, you demand naturalistic explanations for God and do not allow the discussion to advance beyond nature. In this manner, you ignore the supernatural and force of people of faith into an a situation where we must argue the impossible.
Thus, what is being created is a gross waste of time.
It's not difficult to understand
With you so far.
And this is where you lose me. At the moment, we don't have any reason (that I've read about) to believe there's anything beyond (or below) elemental particles. You appear to be dealing with this more philosophically than scientifically. It is less that "we do not yet understand" and more "we have no evidence for it." But even if we did, at what point would we get to this Q something? Based on your reasoning, why would we stop at Q? Why wouldn't there be something below that? And below that? And so on ad infinitum? Wouldn't your logic just keep us assuming there's always some other underlying something one step beyond into infinity? How would we know we arrived at Q?
Accidently erased most of what I said so I'm just going to go to bed now.
"ad infinitum." People choose ad infinitum rather than agree with some point being made!
Incidentally, I do understand the erasure 'situation.' It happened to me just this morning: the phone rang > talked for a while > got wrapped up in talking > reached over F5'ed (refreshed) my screen > oops! (Smile.)
Complaining (endlessly) is not debating.
Your recent bizarre logic is that I cannot not be convinced that a religious supernatural exists because it is a category error to expect evidence for that which cannot be evidenced.
I am not convinced that a religious supernatural exists. That is the reality you must accept. If you think you have a convincing argument for the religious supernatural then make it rather than merely c o m p l a i n .
If you see me making an argument of certainty that the religious supernatural does not exist because it is unevidenced rather than simply state that I am not convinced it exists then you can go re-read about category errors and make a legitimate claim. Until then, your crying 'category error' on an opinion is itself a category error.
The reasons to expect (not believe is true, expect) that there are lower levels include the following:
Beyond that, I often make statements to answer questions before they are raised. For example:
Do you see that I am not making any claim about what QE is - just that there is a lowest level of substance for existence.
Correct. This argument is based mostly on logic but holds true to scientific findings thus far. That is why I use the term quintessential substance of existence (QE) to reference the lowest substance of existence. Science does not know what that is. It would be wrong for me to simply label this 'energy' because it is possible that QE is lower than what we envision as 'energy'. Thus my argument works only with what is known and does not make assumptions. It is an argument of logic and consistent usage of English words - i.e. no double meanings.
I think you are trying very hard to not understand a basic concept ('this Q something' reveals a negative bias - not a desire to understand). Note that you are complaining that you do not understand that there is a substance of existence and that this substance is likely lower than particle physics. How you cannot understand that at this point is a mystery and I have run out of words to explain it. But it is a very easy concept. And, again, if you want to use energy or particles as your quintessential existence (if that makes it more familiar) then please do so. But note that it is NOT my argument that those levels are the lowest level substance of existence. I am quite willing to accept the possibility that existence is far more sophisticated than what we currently understand.
Do you really not understand that QE has been described as the lowest level? If there is a level lower than what you envision as QE then that level is what I mean by QE. Kind of like your God concept - if God had a sentient creator then that creator would ipso facto be God. The label references the most extreme - this is definitional. It makes no sense to ask about what is lower than lowest. QE = 'lowest'.
That is an entirely different matter. My argument does not require we know what QE is. It simply takes it as a given that there is ultimately a lowest level substance of existence. No need to know what that is or if we would ever know. Does not matter in this argument.
In short:
This is the point, as people of faith, we are not obligated to convince you of anything. It is you who show up and takeover the discussion with you "demands." Science and Religion are not at war with each other, generally. However, you are definitely trying to end faith in God. More later today.
Oh is that the point you were making? You should have stated that upfront and spared all those pointless words.
True. You are not obligated to convince people of anything. So feel free to not write anything and I will not object.
This is your seed, right? So why do you incessantly make obnoxious allegations like the above quote (accusing me of demanding something or 'taking over') that are false, personal and derogatory? You continue to derail your own seed with pointless personal attacks.
And yet you persist in whining and playing the victim card. It is enough. I do not have to convince you of anything and as for derailing a thread; it is you with your "demands" to hold long-winded discussions about a God you at this point in your development could/should care less about! All with a pretense of a lack of understanding. All for now.
Cease trolling me.
Okay. Let's go with that. How does this address the question...
How does what you put forth here answer that question? Or, perhaps the question should be, what would God be necessarily in light of what you have said here, assuming God exists?
I do not think it does answer the question, but I really was not trying to answer that question. But let's give it a go since that is interesting.
God, as defined by you and in the context of what I outlined, would likely have the following powers:
You know, the question really is what God (as defined) would NOT be able to do.
And that would be?
Not sure. Do you have any ideas?
Some obvious starters:
And, of course, God could not produce a divine book that was errant.
( kidding )
More complex ones:
No. I wouldn't have any. My understanding of God hasn't changed. I was just curious what you thought God might be like under your understanding of reality.
This seems to imply that there would or may be things (that exist) not created by God. It also limits His omni-whatever. Why do you think it would and where would these other things (that exist) but not created by God come from?
If this were so, and there being multiple Gods, I would assume that multiple Gods is the limiter of all the Omni's, which would more or less contradict the meaning of omni, wouldn't you think? I'm not sure you could actually say any particular God was truly omnipotent, for instance, if any other God could resist that God's efforts. I wouldn't call such beings Gods. I might call them gods. And to my mind, if they are merely gods, I would assume they were actually subject to something higher than themselves. There would have to be some reason outside themselves that governed their limitations concerning interactions with each other.
This is why I think my statements concerning what God would have to be makes more sense. The only limiting factor someone deserving of the title "God" should be God's nature. By nature, I mean in the same sense we mean when we talk about human nature. The innate or essential qualities or character of a person. God would not lie because it isn't in His nature to do so, for example. And He cannot be subject to anything not Himself or else He can't be omnipotent.
With a single supreme God per your requirement all things that exist would be created directly by God or indirectly by a sentient creation of God (a lesser 'god').
Absolutely! At this level of abstraction perfect words do not exist. That is why I put in the qualifier 'but only regarding His creations.' God's omni-* qualities are necessarily limited to His realm (that which He creates). And this is not my view of reality - it is the logical consequence of sentience (i.e. omni-* are properties of sentience and -at best- apply to all that outside of the sentient entity).
However, if the only things that exist (other than God) were created by God then for all purposes the omni-* qualities could apply. To the creations, God would indeed by omni-*.
Each God, under this scenario, would have distinct realms consisting of that which they created. That would be by definition (the way I defined realm; realm = all that God created). There is no logical way to infer if the peer Gods would know everything of another God's realm or if the omni-* properties are limited to a realm or if there are complex conditions. No way for us to know.
The omni-* properties are at least limited to that which exists (outside of the God Himself). So we still are dealing with a qualified set of omni-* properties. An interesting, but unanswerable, question is if one God could know all of another God. Would a God be able to know everything about other Gods ... be able to predict what other Gods will do? We can determine what might make more sense to us (following our preferences) but again, at this level, this is unknowable.
Given. The omni-* terms are qualified.
Only so many words to use. I am obviously trying to minimize coining words to avoid confusion.
But that puts back the supreme entity constraint. Here we are exploring a reality without that constraint.
Why? Take two people and put them on an island isolated from all rules of society. It is the two people - collectively - which govern their interactions.
All of the above makes sense if 'makes sense' means 'is logically sound'. If 'makes sense' means 'matches my intuition' then I understand what you mean.
That is fine, but now you are imposing your own rules to shape a God of your design; you are inserting assumptions. I am not objecting to you offering your opinion, but rather noting that I have not been offering my opinion, but rather offering scenarios that logically follow from an eternal existence wherein forms emerge. The key question (initially) was the limitation on powers of a single supreme sentient entity.
The way you use omnipotent (the unqualified conventional meaning) is logically impossible because anything that is OF existence is necessarily not able to create itself. So a qualified omnipotence is the absolute best that can be logically achieved. That is, unless you consider God to be existence itself.
Correct. The so-called 'beauty' of the Judeo-Christian concept of "one God" is there is no collective flowing out of it. God is One, it follows the adherent a singular focus.
As Christians, our faith, infers God is existence itself. Whatever is 'beyond' God is beyond any comprehension of mankind—God's created thing.
Not sure Drakk would agree. 'God=existence' is the essence of pantheism.
If 'God is existence itself' then by definition there is nothing beyond God.
@7.2.48 Bottomline: Going forward, nothing I share about God should be construed as God being in everything or an existing member of creation.
God before creation, that is.
If there is anything at all before God our Creator, it falls to the Creator to inform us (at some point.) Everything else is utter speculation. It is an attempt to by-pass God, and God "ain't" having this.
But by all means. . .go with your pride and hubris. I may chime in from time to time now that I have given this stipulation.
There is no aspect of this statement I can agree with as written. Perhaps you mean something other than what it literally says, though. Your statement seems to indicate that our universe is part of God Himself. I do not believe that is true in any way. I believe the universe reflects things about God, but no part of creation contains "portions" of God or is made up of God. As TiG states, if the universe was God, that would be pantheism, something I totally reject.
How is this called for given what I wrote?:
I offered an informed opinion. Stated an easily verifiable fact. And noted that by definition nothing can be beyond existence.
Hi Drakkonis. I have been telling TiG throughout this thread that God 'is God all by Godself.'That, God is outside of time and space. That, God is not a created thing. All this in so many words. Still TiG, persists in bringing up pantheism. See @7.2.89 and @7.2.48. Pantheism does not work outside of the universe!
What I am conveying, even if I may be doing so poorly, is if there is any existence before God, it is not an article of the Christian faith—at least, not mine. God is at the apex of my belief in God. Thus, what I deep-think beyond God is, for me, of no value.
Hope that helps clarify this some. I am doing my best to write about it without getting too much into Christian doctrine, that is, I am being brief.
Do let me know what you 'hear' coming from me, by all means. (Smile.)
Which, probably unsurprisingly, is what I feel about your views on this subject.
I disagree. While it's logical enough, there's no evidence that the existence you countenance is eternal rather than created. Meaning, for your idea of QE to be true, it is at least implied that QE is eternal (has always existed and never had a beginning) To my mind, there is only one unconditional eternal existence. God. All else is conditional.
That is, there are those that think matter and energy (or QE) have always existed (eternal) and everything, even God, is an emergent property of that eternity. I think that is backward. God is eternal and is not in any way an emergent property. Nor could it be said that matter and energy or QE are emergent properties of God because these things didn't emerge from God but rather, were created out of nothing by Him. God's existence wasn't conditional in the sense there had to be something for Him to emerge from. All else is conditional because, without God, there would be no way for it to exist.
They are hardly mine. That is, I didn't come up with what I think God is (within the context of this discussion). When I was younger, a lot of my thoughts about God were closer to pantheism than I'd like to admit. But over time, after learning more about God through reading the Bible and listening to others, I came to believe what others already knew millennia ago. I became convinced they were right.
And as far as assumptions go, since we neither one can provide actual proof of our position, but rather, philosophical reasoning, I think we're both relying on a certain amount of assumption.
When discussing matters at the God-level there is not much further beyond God you can 'explore.' It is 'uncharted territory,' if it is anything at all. Lots of "ifs."
The revealed word (which you do not consider valid) informs the believers' faith; you are attempting to go beyond God using logic and yet reason (with humility) surely tells you that without new information such an exercise - knowing what is beyond God is baseless and without any foundation.
It is helpful and important to know when to 'pull by on the reins' a little or a lot as well.
Sorry to be so blunt.
Quoting yourself making comments and claiming I deemed your comment pantheism is an ugly tactic.
Accordingly, I am going to show you the mirror. Below is where I identify something you have offered as pantheism:
Reread what you accused me of doing and compare it with what actually took place.
Think what you wish.
What assumptions have I made?
Existence is eternal by definition. It is not 'my existence' it is existence. And there is no need for additional evidence that existence is eternal since it follows logically from what we already know. Explain how existence itself could not be eternal? How could there be literal nothingness and then existence? Existence just spontaneously appears??
QE is not some hypothesis. Existence is real. Existence has substance. Substance is form. Underlying all form is the most primitive substance. QE is simply a label for that unknowable substance.
The most complex thing imaginable would then exist before existence itself? You might need to break that one down because I do not see how that computes.
I am not aware of anyone who holds that view. Matter (and possibly even energy) seem to be very complex forms. I certainly do not hold that view. My view is that if there is a God then He emerged from existence itself (or is existence itself). That does not mean matter, it means the quintessential substance of existence (and I have no idea what that is but it is clearly well below the level of matter).
I understand your belief. But simply stating your belief without supporting logic takes us nowhere. Note that my argument is based solely on that which can be asserted by definition and by logic based on definition and what little evidence we have to work with in this topic.
Well that is nothing like anything that yields from the logic I have presented.
Again, I get your belief. I am more interested in the logic behind it.
Okay, adopted assumptions from religion (the Bible). The point is that these are claims that cannot be logically substantiated - certainly not at the level of abstraction in which we are operating.
I disagree. Throughout I have been quite careful to rely only on basic definitions, few terms, extremely obvious evidence and then logic.
That is precisely what I always try to avoid. I am more interested in what is true, not what I want to be true.
Yeah, well it would be profoundly better if you added to the discussion (logically, factually) rather than personally with repeated implications that I am not qualified to have this discussion.
Your advice about what I may or may not have sufficient knowledge to discuss is not sought. My candor to you.
We have shared, in part, our beliefs based in faith with you. We are justified in doing so.You simply will not be permitted to overlook this element of discussion.
You do not have to agree, and it does not have to take you anywhere. You 'argument' is speculation for you have no direct or indirect evidence for such claims.
You are using a man-made definition for existence and we can reasonably take this discussion only so far and then it stops cold.
You are spec-u-lating. Logic is not actively informing you about the truth of ultimate reality at this stage of your development, TiG. I don't believe it to be so.
It is quite interesting to attempt playing out these philosophical musings, but one should know where to leave off. At some point things turn to the ineffable . Logic refuses to convey you to that place. Faith won't survive the journey either. It is pure whim and using words as containers there.
See @7.2.101
First, I do not overlook the beliefs. I acknowledge them.
Second, who do you think you are ... telling someone what they are not permitted to overlook?
Prove your claim. Show me the argument you think I have made. At every turn when I have speculated I have noted it as such - and the speculative parts are not part of my logic. Frankly I do not think you can correctly depict the logic I have presented.
LOL. So what non-man-made definition shall I use for existence?? Yeah, CB, I am using a man-made language with man-made words whose definitions are man-made.
I am not going to argue over it.
This is difficult to answer because I don't know what is in your mind when you refer to "existence". When we talk about existence, we are speaking in the perfect progressive tense. That is, an ongoing action at the time that a statement is made. When we talk about existence, we are talking about things that are actively existing at this moment. We are speaking of a state, not an actual object. But you seem to be using it as a noun. You aren't referring to their state of being in existence, you are using existence as referring to the actual objects themselves rather than simply their state as existing.
So it's confusing as hell when you make a statement such as "Existence is eternal by definition" because the definition of existence has nothing to say about eternity. The word only refers to some object's state of being at a given time. There is a big difference between "Something has always existed" and "Existence is eternal." You can't really say existence is eternal. You can only say some thing's existence is eternal.
This is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. QE seems to be something like the most basic particle (for lack of a better word) possible, so you are referring to some thing. Then, rather than say QE is real, you say existence is real, using existence as a noun apparently having the same meaning as QE. You are saying existence is the actual object QE. IF you weren't, you'd have said:
QE is not some hypothesis. QE is real.
On a side note, I did a search on QE. I could only find one reference to the concept. Congratulations. It was yours. You're famous : )
Anyway, it's late. Have a good night.
I have explained it many times so one more time will likely not do any good. Start with the most simple concept: everything that we say 'exists' is OF existence. I cannot get more basic than that.
Existence 'itself' refers to that which provides the attribute of existence to all things which exist. The substrate of all that exists.
It should not be since I stated that if we did not have existence (itself) then there would be nothing. We do not have nothing. What we have is existence. It is that simple.
Given we demonstrably have existence and since existence cannot spontaneously emerge from nothing (since there is literally nothing there) existence is necessarily eternal. It cannot come to be, it must have always been.
Quintessential existence is a descriptive term. Existence is what you search on. Then apply the well-defined adjective quintessential. It is how I use English to label an extremely abstract notion. Without a label it is impossible to communicate. I have not ever claimed that QE is something you can look up ... it is a label to express an abstract concept in an abstract discussion.
What is your point, TiG?
Given 108 comments in on this thread I have made quite a few points. So are you referring strictly to my post @7.2.108 or in general? If on this single post, what part does not make sense? Offer a quote and a specific question.
Assuming you are asking the most general question covering this entire thread my point (as it were) would be this:
Note the above are summaries - I have obviously not repeated the supporting arguments - all that is in the prior comments.
That is as far as I have taken it in this thread. There is more to discuss but up to now most of my time has been spent on these abstract posits.
You might also consult what I wrote @7.2.74.
@7.2.108. & @7.2.110
Are you saying that God exist from what we shall label the beginning, or that God is created by a substance called existence? Make it plain, please.
Neither. I have no evidence or logic that suggests God exists and if God exists I have no evidence or logic that suggests when God's existence 'started'. If God = existence itself (which Drakk does not agree to in his definition of God) then God would be eternal.
If God exists (and by 'God' we are referring to the supreme entity) then God necessarily is OF existence (or, as noted, is existence itself). But God would not be created, God would be an emergent property of existence.
Precisely what I have been doing all along. This is an abstract topic. One must ponder and objectively try to understand what is written.
What does that mean to you?
Try this differently. You tell me what you think it means. One-way communication is not working. It is silly for me to keep repeating myself. Bring out the specific nuance that you find troublesome and ask a specific question.
You invoked the phrase, you should be willing to explain it.
I have explained it throughout this entire thread. Repeatedly. In detail. Did you literally not read every one of my explanations?
Accordingly, if you want any additional information from me you need to specify the nuance that troubles you.
How does God emerge from the substance of creation and not be, to the best of your knowledge, a thing created by existence?
If you think of God as existence then God is the first-ordered separate and distinct being; giving life to all other separate and distinct creatures. we know.
If you think of God as emergent; then God becomes the unique effect of some other cause/s. As such, God becomes the first of many effects.
Creation is an intentional act. Existence, by default, is not intelligent and thus would not act - that which occurs would be undirected. (Existence might be 'intelligent' (at least in effect), but we cannot assume it is.) Accordingly, without making assumptions, existence itself cannot be seen as creating anything. The normal language used for that which comes from existence (not created) is emergence. Thus, a sentient entity (or a star, or a universe) would be an emergent property of existence.
Yes, if someone equates God with existence then God would indeed be that which gives form (life is one form, note that a galaxy is also a form) to all that exists. But in this case, God would not be distinct - God would be everything and every form is ultimately part of God. (This is how pantheists view things.)
That is more like the classical view. God would be the very first (or possibly merely the dominant) form. At the very least, God (as human beings would perceive God) would be that which creates all that we know. And here the word 'create' is appropriate because a sentient entity is (per this scenario) intentionally acting.
Probably not. I guess the problem is I don't see how you can logically make some of the claims that you do. That doesn't mean I don't see the logic within what you've constructed, just that some of the elements of the construct do not seem valid to me. For instance...
I'm not trying to be difficult here, nor am I trying to shoot down your logic. I'm trying to understand it. That said, this statement reads as if existence 'itself' is an actual force of some kind. I'm fairly certain that wasn't your intent, but that's the way it reads. If I took that statement and used it in my own argument it would read like this...
So, since that is the way I think, it's difficult to see what you say in your version as anything other than "existence" does what I believe God does.
Not the way I would put it, but this seems an assumption to me. There isn't anything that connects something existing to eternity. Saying, it exists, therefore it is eternal doesn't work. All you can actually defend is that it exists. Especially when an alternative is presented, such as God. And no, God is not part of the kind of "existence" you support. That is the major problem with your argument. I know you don't like the idea that God is a law unto Himself, but that doesn't delegitimize it.
There may actually be this QE you speak of. That is, an electron may not be an elemental particle at all, but rather, have components, and those components may have components until there is QE. But it is just as logical to believe that there is a God, separate from all that is ultimately formed of QE, that created that QE and forms it as He desires. God that is not of QE. I can't think of a reason philosophically why that shouldn't be possible.
Assuming the God I believe in doesn't exist.
I know. I assumed such all along, but I wondered if anyone else was speaking in such terms and I had never checked before. I wasn't trying to make some point that QE wasn't real because there was no information on it (in those terms). Basically, I was just confirming my assumption. I just thought it was cool that you were, um, published? in a way? Thought it was cool TiG came up in a search.
You will have to choose if your 'model' of existence has intelligence or not. Because to have God be an emergent property of existence you will need an entity (being, it will be used interchangeably) which has to develop, establish, and mature itself in order to use energy (create) new things. Or,
arrive fully-fledged and of course, intelligent.
This, you can not know for it is not researchable. And, revealed word acceptable in the Christian faith does not touch on anything developing as God. So, where is the basis for this?
If you are stating that everything is energy at the deepest level, then yes. However, no human should think God is inert matter, spiritless, or flesh and bone.
Unlike in pantheism, the theistic God is whole, set apart, and Spirit. It is the rationale for God's holiness, that is God can not be polluted by creation. Having created the natural order for natural born creatures such as we see existing all around us and in the "heavens."
Of course God would have to will creation.
This may come off as a tautology: If God creates all man can know; there is nothing we can know that is not from God.
All forces (in a physics sense) exist and thus are forms of existence. But existence itself is not a force, as we use the term.
The key difference in the above is that existence is the foundation for everything - by definition. If something is not OF existence then it flat out does not exist. To insert God in the above sentence that translates into this:
'That which necessarily is itself OF existence' refers to that which provides the attribute of existence to all things which exist. The cause of all that exists.
The statement is circular in that something that necessarily is OF existence is that which causes existence. God, as you define the term, would cause the existence of all in His realm (i.e. God would create things -forms of the quintessential substance of existence- ... God would cause these forms to 'come into existence' in the designated form). God creating the Earth, for example, would be an intentional act of a sentient entity forming the substance of existence into our planet. Creation is the intentional formation of something. And when the form ceases to be (e.g. it dies) the substance of existence that comprised the form would likely end up in other new forms (new creations).
It logically fully works if God is existence itself. Otherwise, God has some limits and God is not necessarily eternal.
However at this level of abstraction where we are talking about a God that would literally create an entire universe, the inhabitants of the universe would not necessarily see any limitations. God, in this case, could be omnipotent (to them), omnipresent (to them), omniscient (to them), eternal (to them), etc. Philosophically, if God's omni-* properties will always appear to be 100% to His creations does that mean He is or is not legitimately labeled as omni-* by believers?
I have yet to provide the logic for that in this thread. On purpose, because it is a difficult thing to intuit. Here is the logic:
First the observation is that existence is real - this has profound implications. We have something rather than nothing - existence is real rather than absolute 'eternal' nothingness. Note also that nothingness is literally nothing at all. Thus if nothingness were true it would be perpetually true since there is literally nothing available to make anything exist. Given that, we know that existence did not have a beginning. Existence necessarily has always been. Forever 'back' towards 'historical' infinity, existence has always been. We know this because existence is true for us now.
The other side of this is the question of existence fading away into nothingness. We need to consider this for completeness sake. If existence could fade away then given an infinite 'history' it would have faded away. Once it faded away (again, just allowing the notion that this is even possible) it could never come back. Pure nothingness cannot yield existence. Thus existence does not fade - existence has always been and will always be. It is eternal. There is no other option.
This particular part takes some time to digest. One needs to contemplate infinite 'time' and English words actually get in the way. That is why I have not tried to open this aspect while dealing with the balance of easier notions.
My argument remains sound even if there is no way to insert a God that exists but does not 'exist'. And it is not that I do not 'like' a particular notion. If it works logically and does not violate what we can establish as true then it is good. Frankly I am interested in truth so this is more about what can be logically inferred based on what we know rather than achieving some particular outcome that 'I like'. I do not like, for example, the idea that we are all alone and at any point in time our planet could cease to exist or cease to be a habitat for life. I do not like the notion of death as the finality of my form (and of friends and family). But what I would wish to be true gets in the way of pursuing truth.
QE is real - there is no alternative to this. QE is either at a level we already know (particles) or it is lower. Either way, QE is inescapably real because existence is real.
Major, major difference there.
QE is a placeholder for 'lowest' and we already have absolute evidence of a 'low'. If there is nothing below 'low' then our 'low' IS 'lowest'. This is just a question of labels and the reason I used the abstract label QE is to avoid making an assumption of what actually is at the lowest level. But the lowest level exists because existence is real.
God, in contrast, is an unevidenced idea. Comparing that which has absolutely rock solid evidence to that which has none is as far apart as one can get.
This defines something (i.e God) that exists yet creates existence. That is self-refuting. The philosophical problem is circular logic: God creates existence so that God can exist.
I cannot choose that which I do not know. My approach here is to not make assumptions.
Why? Emergence means forms resulting from undirected interaction. Creation means forms resulting from directed interaction. If everything must be created then you will find yourself in an infinite regress because then God would require a creator.
Or emerge (and maybe evolve to) intelligence.
That is correct, so it is important that we not make assumptions. So do not assume that existence itself is intelligent (or not). It is not possible to know. That is why I have consistently noted that one of the options for God is that God is existence itself.
Do you think we are discussing Christianity here???
Energy is a human construct. We do not know that everything is made of energy. That would be an assumption. I am making no assumptions.
I make no assumption that God exists or does not exist (the abstract God of this thread). Further I make no assumption on the specific nature of God. Only that God might exist and thus would be OF existence.
Not sure how this relates to what we are discussing. Christianity would appear at a level far lower in abstraction than where we are.
Agreed. I would not use the word 'will' because it presupposes method. But certainly, given the abstract God we are discussing, God would create all within His realm.
I believe I made a similar observation to Drakk in my latest response to him.
I am pretty sure we all come up in searches (depending on what is asked) . . . .
Why undirected? That is an assumption. Emergence is something coming out of the interaction of properties of some other things. And by undirected do you mean random?
Nothing regresses infinitely. Thus, humanly-speaking we speak of the first cause - leading us to its first effect. For believers the first cause is God. Do all the so-called, "regression" and at the stop there is God.
Infinite regression is simply an expression used to try to surpass (or pass up) God.
If it is reasonable to assume existence is undirected, where does sentience (direction) derive? Are you suggesting order emerged out of chaos?
So how can you first claim that undirected is an assumption before you even ask what undirected means?
To be directed one must assume a director - a sentient entity. If one does NOT assume a sentient entity then what do you have by default? Undirected.
Undirected = absence of an assumption
There is no infinite regress if God is an emergent property of existence itself. God, in this case, exists without a creator. Done.
An infinite regress occurs when one insists that anything of complexity (e.g. anything sentient) necessarily has a creator.
Is it reasonable to assume existence is real???
The undirected part was addressed @7.2.131
Given I have already answered this question you need to be more specific.
In this abstraction of yours, to not do so is to speak of nothing. Because intelligence is as real as existence is.
Everything which comes after existence hinges on the question: What is the cause of intelligence?
Do I think you are discussing Christianity? If you discuss God with Drakkonis and me, we reserve the right to discuss our faith and Christianity.
Good night, for now.
Apparently you were editing while I was responding. So I will respond to your edit.
Order (what we call order) emerged from existence. I am not going to assume that this was 'chaos'. But we do have order so it absolutely emerged from existence. There is no other option. Everything (every form) emerged from existence because it cannot emerge from non-existence (nothingness).
Intelligence is a form. Intelligence is OF existence.
That is an assumption. If you remove the assumption you have that intelligence (as in a sentient entity) ultimately emerges from existence. It may be the result of a long chain of sentient entities creating lower sentient entities. But the highest (first) sentient entity in the chain emerged from existence. The specifics are unknowable. But since we have sentient entities that exist it is absolutely true that sentience does indeed emerge from existence.
Not in this thread.
You have the right to discuss the Mars rover if you wish. But topically, this is an abstraction well above that of Christianity so trying to include Christianity here would make a challenging topic even more difficult to stay on track. Drakk has presented his view of God and we all know that his is the Christian God. But he has stayed largely at the level of abstraction of this topic. Appropriately. I would not consider his comments to be a discussion of Christianity in any material way.
And by undirected do you mean random?
I know what term means, wish to know how you are applying it here.
No. Undirected = 'not directed' = 'not guided by a sentient entity'
I repeat, to the human mind,nothing can infinitely regress. Even your argument defers to what you label "existence" being ultimate occupier of the space (outside of time) it takes to contain it.
Why are you repeating yourself?
The classical infinite regress occurs when someone posits: anything that exists has a creator and the ultimate creator is God.
The regress is obvious:
You seem to think that the human mind cannot comprehend the concept of an infinite regress. That is demonstrably not true.
My argument has no infinite regress. That is a good thing. If my argument had an infinite regress it would be flawed.
. . . .
Where does existence come from? Where does it get its space to do so?
I have no idea.
But I do know that existence is real and has substance.
Space is an emergent property of existence. Not the other way around.
Of course existence is real and substantive, but your abstraction is seeking to establish it as always existing so as to avoid an infinite regress. Since you have no idea where existence comes from, then how to say it is eternal?
(Eternal) Existence does not occupy space?
Note: I am running around right now. (I am distracted.) More later.
Seeking? Existence is necessarily eternal. Has nothing to do with infinite regress.
Space is OF existence. We know nothing about the quintessential substance of existence. Holding that our notion of 'space' is a requirement would be an assumption.
Indeed, even our current understanding of physics shows that space (as in the space of our universe) did not preexist the universe. Space is expanding like a balloon. It is not as though the space of the universe was preestablished and the galaxies are now filling it.
Can order be "undirected"? You state existence can not emerge from nothingness; can direction emerge from an undirected state?
Is sentience order?
Do you think it can??
I would think so.
You seem to be describing 'life' and intelligence occurring on the 'far side' of existence; how does that stack up with undirected interaction (@7.2.124)?
I do not exclude religion from this discussion. If you mention God; religion (in my case, Christianity) can reasonably enter the discussion appropriately.
Undirected and random are not synonymous?
If you know nothing how do you know it is eternal?
I do not follow you question. 'Stack up'? What are you asking?
Like I said, opine on the Mars rover if you want. That does not mean it makes sense in the discussion.
No, they are not synonymous.
Is existence itself eternal?
It is an idiom: to add up; to compare
Really?
Is existence itself eternal?
You tell me.
I do not understand your question.
Yes
Okay. Yes, existence is necessarily eternal.
I think we're making this "existence" thing a lot harder than it has to be. In an effort to simplify things I'm going to state my perspective on "existence" and see where it goes from there.
Existence refers to things that exist. Existence does not "refer to that which provides the attribute of existence to all things which exist." Things just exist and they have the attributes they have because of what they are, not because they exist. They couldn't have those attributes unless they existed, but it isn't the state of existing that gives them those attributes. That is, the only attribute that existing things share is that they exist. Darkness exists but beyond existing, shares no attributes with light.
That said:
But I claim that God is not the aggregate of all that exists. Please understand that I am not trying to insert my concept of God into your argument, your reality. I am stating an argument that is fundamentally different than yours. My argument is that God is utterly different from anything not Himself that exists.
I understand the concept of QE. I don't see any real problem with it. Perhaps we already know what QE is and it's the particles we already know about. Perhaps there's levels lower down from that. We don't really know right now. But in my argument, God is not in any way what you describe, in any form, OF QE. There is no logical reason to insist that He must be.
What you are doing, it seems to me, is insisting that all things that exist must be OF QE. You are equating QE with existence. QE, while it exists, describes what we know exists, or infer, is made of. There is nothing in the concept of "existence" that demands that all that exists must be OF QE. QE refers to the building blocks of the material world, not existence.
Interesting, "necessary existence" (undirected) and not "necessary being" (directed).
I agree with your words. Existence is not a difficult concept.
Existence is the opposite of non-existence. It is thus the opposite of nothingness. Without existence there would be no 'things' because there would be no substance formed into said 'things'.
As I have noted, the one common attribute of everything that exists is indeed being OF existence.
I agree that the state of existing (the initial attribute) is simply the starting point. The other attributes define the form of that which exists. Now, does this form have substance or does it consist of nothingness?
I understand your position. You could define God in many ways that would align with what I have presented. God as a sentient entity that is not the aggregate of all that exists seems entirely possible in this abstract discussion.
And that also works with this concept. A unique supreme entity would be a form of existence (something that exists) that is almost certainly utterly different from all other forms of existence. But so far this is a posit, not an argument.
I strongly suspect we have barely scratched the surface at this point.
Then you do not actually understand the concept. Anything that exists is OF existence. If God exists God has substance and that substance is that of existence. Sans substance there is no complexity, sans complexity there is no sentience, no power. Sans substance, God is nothingness (i.e. that would mean God does not exist).
I am noting that things either exist or they do not exist. If something exists it has substance. If it has no substance, it does not exist. ( And substance does not mean 'physical' as we define the term. The substance of existence is undoubtedly exotic based on our limited understanding of physics. )
I am stating (and this is just stating the obvious) that 'to exist' means 'to have substance'. And I have given a label to that substance for convenience of discussion. Call it anything you wish, existence is true and that which exists necessarily has substance. That which does not have substance does not exist. Try to imagine something that exists which has no substance. An idea will be your first attempt. But an idea is a manifestation of a mind and that mind has substance.
QE is not limited to the material world. That is not an assumption I have made; indeed I have been quite clearly staying far away from the material world. My comment is that if something exists it is a form OF existence - it has substance. We do not know what the substance is. But if there is no substance there is nothing. Non-existence.
To wit, that which exists = a form comprised of the quintessential substance of existence. No more complicated than that.
Yes, existence is true. Hard to deny that. And by not making any assumption we have undirected by default. To state necessarily directed requires an assumption.
To sum it up: you are simply staying away from the supernatural. It all makes sense in this way. You are using God simply and only as a 'construct' and empty hull. Frankly, it is fair when we accept this is philosophical naturalism at work. Thus, you must not acknowledge the supernatural. People of Faith are not held back from taking the supernatural seriously.
Here is maybe a different approach. Clearly your understanding of God is in the backdrop of what you are writing. So let's just go with that.
Why do you feel compelled to insert the assumption that the quintessential substance of God is somehow not the quintessential substance underlying all that exists?
In addition to (oddly) cloning the concept of existence, what does this assumption accomplish?
Without making this odd assumption, there could be a God that (to us) is omni-* and this God could be unique. But God clearly cannot manufacture His own existence. So no matter how you slice this, God is either a form of existence or God is existence itself.
God as a form of existence could still be the very first sentient entity and be responsible for the shaping of all that we know and beyond.
So what do you feel is missing?
People of faith can accept the supernatural, TiG. We have indirect evidences for doing so. It is you who can not, nevertheless.
That summary has nothing whatsoever to do with what I have written in this thread.
Caution! Humanity does not know this statement to be true or false in science or in revelation. Thus, we do not know it either.
All for now. Good night.
Good grief man, buy a vowel. You are off on an entirely different topic. And have returned yet again to the negative personal allegations.
You do not have to write it: it is inferred from your accumulated statements.
Methinks thou dost protest too much!
Nothing like someone claiming to know the intent of an author better than the author.
I think you are trolling your own seed. Drakk and I have been able to engage in a thoughtful manner yet you, the seeder, continue to pepper the thread with crap. I understand why people do not bother providing content for your articles.
You are a judge now? As I explained to you before, I do not seek fanboys and fangirls. Yes, you do protest too much!
I will be out most of the day.
Yes, existence is the opposite of non-existence. But the way you state the rest of it seems putting the cart before the horse. As if existence has to exist first before things can. Existence is because things exist. It's a simultaneous occurrence. One doesn't come before the other. All that is being said is that if there weren't things that exist, there wouldn't be existence.
I don't know what you're trying to communicate here. Agreement or stating a subtle difference from what I said? To me, being OF existence simply means something that is in the set "things that exist", but I can't help feel that you're saying something different. You emphasize the word "of" as OF, indicating significance beyond ordinary use. Looking at the definition of the word, it seems you are trying to emphasize the relationship between a part and the whole. For example, whatever QE turns out to be is a sort of pool of unrealized existence, and realized existence (what we know to exist) is derived from that pool.
Depends on what you consider substance to be concerning what is being talked about, it appears. The concept of "substance" is apparently different when speaking philosophically as opposed to normal, everyday use. What do you mean by substance? QE?
I disagree. I think it's an argument. Why do you think it is not?
Logically unsupportable. You first have to prove logically that only what comes of QE can exist. Or, put another way, all that exists is of QE. Again, you're equating QE with existence. Existence doesn't define the attributes of what exists. It simply describes a state of being. I can't think of a reason to argue that QE isn't, as I understand the term, the basis of this universe as we know it, physically. But I don't think a logical argument can be made that QE is the basis of all that exists. It is possible that there are things which exist that, beyond existing, have no juxtaposition with anything we know or could comprehend. Things that have nothing to do with space or time.
The point isn't the proposal that something we couldn't possibly detect, ever. The point is that equating QE with existence eliminates such possibilities and that can't be justified.
Do numbers exist? Do they have substance?
I am stating (and this is just stating the obvious) that 'to exist' means 'to have substance'. And I have given a label to that substance for convenience of discussion.
I am not against the idea that things that exist have substance. I do not believe that substance is QE in all cases but probably only applies to this universe or those like it, should they exist.
Actually, darkness was my first thought. I hesitate to say this because I suspect this will lead to an argument akin to the one we had about numbers, but darkness exists regardless of any mind to perceive it. Yet, philosophically, I suspect whether or not it has substance depends on what kind of substance we're talking about. Certainly not anything physical.
Maybe. We have to define what you mean by "substance" now.
Can't agree or disagree with this without knowing for sure what you mean by substance, although I predict it will be something to do with QE. It's interesting that you say QE is not limited to the material world, though. That makes it pretty vague, don't you think? Something more of a posit than something proven logically? That isn't a dig. It just seems that it is so to me.
Existence must be true in order for anything to exist. If existence is not true, nothing could exist. Existence could be true and be devoid of forms. In this case existence is true but no forms exist ... there is nothing OF existence (at the moment).
You are thinking causally; there is no notion of existence 'existing' (first, simultaneously, or otherwise). Existence 'existing' is a recursive construct; existence is either true or false. Existence is necessarily eternal and does not 'exist' or 'not-exist'. Also, we have proof that existence is true.
Everything that exists is a form of the quintessential substance of existence. And this substance necessarily is real because we have absolute evidence that we exist.
Existence is true. That which exists has substance. If existence were false there would be no substance.
Yes. QE = quintessential substance of existence. Ultimately I have been talking about existence and the substance underlying all things that exist. I figured I could use less awkward language at this point so I was using substance as a shorthand.
Because you are simply making an assertion: "My argument is that God is utterly different from anything not Himself that exists.". What is the argument? I, for example, could support your assertion via an argument using your definition. You have defined God as the supreme sentient entity. In that regard God would certainly match your assertion (the word 'different' is justified). The argument is one supported 'by definition'. And, at this level of abstraction, we have a small amount of evidence, truth by definition and the rest is logic.
That which has no substance does not exist. This is by definition. There is substance (rather than nothingness) to everything that exists. Otherwise it would not exist. Something cannot be composed of nothing - it must be composed of something and that something is (ultimately) the very substance of existence itself.
I would very much like to hear how you envision something existing without substance. I am sure you will split substance into normal substance and divine substance (for lack of a better set of labels) but that introduces an assumption without justification. Further, what does that even mean? How is this any more than a categorization of the substance of existence. Ultimately it is all the substance of existence. ( Of course I am speculating here on what you would say. )
Numbers are a concept and that concept exists as a manifestation of a brain. Stated differently, if existence was not true there would be nothingness. Would numbers exist? If they do not require substance then numbers could exist in a pure void of nothingness.
That is simply an assertion too. I understand this is your belief (or desire) but what is the supporting argument (other than desire)? In other words to me your words state:
I do not believe that the quintessential substance of existence is the quintessential substance of existence in all cases but probably only applies to this universe or those like it, should they exist. The whole idea of 'quintessential' is to describe the lowest possible substance of existence. It is a placeholder. If you choose to define different categories of substance then not only are you introducing assumptions that need to be justified, but these categories of substance ultimately are founded on the quintessential substance. There is no escaping the placeholder of quintessential substance ... it is the lowest, common form by its very definition.
Darkness (i.e. the absence of light) is a concept. Back to manifestation of a brain.
All speculation. . . all free from the "supernatural" and revelation.
You clearly do not understand the difference between speculation and logic. (Note also that the first sentence is not mine.) Or maybe this subject matter is not your forte. Either way, your comments come across as nothing but sour grapes. Nothing to advance the discussion; just obnoxious quips. Disrupting your own seed. Incredible.
And I am not talking about Mars rovers or gay rights either. Indeed most any topic one can imagine I am not currently talking about right now. The reason is because I am discussing existence.
Buy a vowel.
And, that is not obnoxious quipping? But, you do not have to address me farther about this. Because I am actually done with this. I will leave it to you and Drakkonis (if you both want it) or lock it and call it a 'wrap.' Moving on.
Sorry, TiG, but it seems I'm all talked out on this subject. Just don't have anything left to say and I'm getting a little busy. Nice talk, though.
Me too, largely because of the hosting environment. But I agree, nice talk. I appreciated it.
It is not an issue of our diversity in this group that you feel unsatisfied. The 'host' brought the topic up in the first place—like it or lump it. No need to reply; I'm done.
Thank you everybody for sharing. Locking in five minutes.
Which leads me to state and agree: If mankind can discuss unknown natural realms of existence without direct evidence, mankind can discuss unknown supernatural realms through logical and reasonable inferences.
Mankind does and has discussed the unknown in all sorts of ways. Discussing is the easy part. We can discuss anything. Much discussion has historically taken place on the thousands of gods that have arisen in history. Lots of inferences and even quite a few unsubstantiated claims of truth. We discussed quite a few things that turned out to be nothing more than human imagination.
The saying: talk is cheap comes to mind.
Inferences reasoning does not stack up as cheap talk!
Depends on the specifics. My example of thousands of historical gods were the result of quite a few inferences and plenty of reasoning. An inference can be good or bad. Reasoning can be good or bad. Depends on the specifics.
That it does. That it does. That it does.
Of course, I am affirming good reasoning and specifics.
One of the techniques used by astrophysicists to detect exoplanets (planets orbiting another sun besides our own) is to look for star "wobble" and small changes in sun brightness as the planet passes in front of it. It is taken as evidence.
People of our world make life altering changes in themselves (turning an going in the other direction), for good or bad, based on what they testify is spirituality. In the Christian faith, it is evidence of the Son.
I'm rushing this. I could not resist posting, nevertheless!
Correct
The problem here is the proximity of the evidence to the hypothesis.
For example, when we observe matter spiraling inward to what appears to be empty space (devoid of anything, completely dark) we see that as evidence of a black hole. There is a mountain of physics that suggest that such an observation is evidence of the presence of a black hole.
On the other hand, ancient men saw thunder & lightning and to them that was evidence of an angry Zeus.
The evidence should lead to the conclusion / belief. Stepwise, close proximity. Without such a discipline one can look literally at anything and deem it evidence of anything else.
The same can be stated about people making life altering changes in themselves (turning an going in the other direction), for good or bad (zealotry), based on what they witness (verbally declare with their mouths) is spirituality. In the Christian faith, it is evidence of the Son. The change can be viewed by others.
The sheer volume of validly informed and educated men and women, including world renown (faith-centered) scientists, medical professionals, and a 'galaxy' of other professionals, is a "tell" that there is no mass delusion now occurring or spanning centuries. Across the history of mankind's existence, countless people have expressed life-altering faith and permanence to an advent of spiritual awakening. This 'universe' of folks and their caliber signifies much.
God is a Spirit-being. God is not a run-of-the-mill naturally occurring event or system. Some ancient men and women understood this. Clearly, some did not understand it.
So now read the rest of my comment @10.1:
Some people believe that the wildfires in CA are caused by God being angry with homosexuality and support thereof. A person 'finding Jesus' could be the result of any number of psychological factors. It is evidence of belief, not evidence of fact. People believe all sorts of things that are not true.
Irrelevant. People believe all sorts of things that are not true.
Could be. Also, it could be informed and educated men and women, including world renown (faith-centered) scientists, medical professionals, and a 'galaxy' of other professionals are telling you the truth of their experiences. Have you considered this?
Correct!
People speculate all sort of things, too. Like intelligent aliens, black holes, and et ceteras.
BTW, one could imagine a scenario where advanced aliens reach out to us across deep space. Being advanced and all.
Yes.
Believing exolife actually exists would be a mistake since we have zero evidence of same. Likely? Yes. Evidenced? Nope.
Accepting the reality of a black hole would be sensible given the evidence.
Radio signals and space-travel works both ways, yes? One can imagine the universe should be criss-crossed with "messages" one end to the other by now. Even from the 'early days' of ETI 'searching' for other lifeforms in the universe.
Yes one can imagine that. Thing is, the universe is incomprehensibly vast. So, by analogy, consider the Pacific ocean to be the universe. Now, trigger 100 subs to engage their sonars (sending sonar signals through the water). Is it possible that none of them detect the other?
Using the ocean analogy again, our current exploration of the universe is equivalent to inspecting a glass of ocean water. The balance of the ocean (the universe) remains unexplored and could be replete with signals. We simply do not know.
I can see your point. However, these are (say, billion year old alien races) "immensely" advanced aliens and they have physics and materials beyond our world. They have been messaging off-world for say, centuries compared to our decades. Nothing comes, nothing returns. Why probe for ETI? There is no evidence for ETI.
We probe for direct evidence. Science is all about the search for evidence and then the explanation of same. We know a tremendous amount about the universe to the point of understanding that there are about 80 trillion planets out there. We have identified (thus far) hundreds of habitable exoplanets and estimate that there are at least 11 billion of same in the Milky Way alone.
We could, as you note, just not do anything but on what basis would we conclude that we will never find direct evidence of exolife? Given science is all about exploration, why would you not explore the cosmos for exolife? I agree that exolife is merely speculation at this point. The existence of exolife is an hypothesis based on quite a bit of evidence of the makeup of our universe. Why not investigate? Gather more evidence and follow it to where it leads?
I agree with you: speculation, investigation, and lack of evidence which leads to further discovery of new things is a good thing. Now, atheists on NT should remember these thought-positions of yours when seeking direct evidence alone from people of faith.
We have indirect evidence for God and nothing from any (billion year old thereabouts) intelligent extra-terrestrials.
There is no evidence for a god; the atheist position matches the evidence. Quite logical and justified.
People have been highly motivated for at least all of recorded history to find evidence of a god and nothing thus far. So belief that a god exists is unjustified - no evidence. Belief in exolife is unjustified- no evidence. But people certainly should continue to search for the evidence of god (and exolife). Real evidence of a god would be the greatest discovery ever.
An atheist is one who is not convinced a god exists. Everyone should be an atheist based on the evidence. But that does not mean we preclude the possibility of a god. Pretty easy concept to understand.
Show me the indirect evidence for God.
That is a whole other article for some future day. This article has its own subject matter.
You brought it up.
In passing.
People who belief in God can not be "authentic" atheists,TiG. We, some of us, have spiritual gifts in us. Others are culturally confessing spiritual appropriation and connection. Thus, we can not claim to be atheist.
If one follows the evidence to where it leads, it does not lead to a god. Lots of people skip the evidence part and go directly to a god.
Or at least believe you do.
Let us not digress.
If you do not want a reply don't make a comment.
"Members" are not allowed to make up their own site rules, TiG.
Channeling Pee Wee Herman?
It is not a rule, Cal, it is common sense. If you reply to a comment and you receive a response in kind to what you posted, complaining that your comment was answered is illogical.
Not a site rule. Common sense.
Happy Thanksgiving TiG and All!
Article open!