Imperefct God

[Belinda]

The ex nihilo is the problem of traditional Xianity for me and others like me. I must look up the history of the ex nihilo.

Well, you only have two possibilities.

One is that the natural world is eternal...because it was created from something, which was created from something, which was created from something...and so on, forever. But the problems with that suggestion are so massive as to be insurmountable; because if there always has to be "something before" everything else, then there is an infinite regress of required causes -- which means that the natural world never gets started at all.

That's mathematical and certain. It's not something that depends on anybody's opinion. An infinite regress of causes never can start, because the starting point is lost in the infinite regress of the past. There never can be a "starting point" at all. And hence, there can never be a "today" either.

But there is a "today." So the universe is not the result of an infinite chain of causes. Period. QED. End of story.

There is only one other possibility: that the universe HAS a starting point, which means it was created out of nothing -- since positing any prior cause to that point subjects us to an infinite regress of prior causes again.

The upshot is that we have to arrive at an eternal entity of some kind causing things to exist. And those things have to have been made out of something that did not exist causally. There's no other possibility.

So we know that ex nihilo has to be right.

You don't seem to tell the difference between eternal and everlasting. Creation is timeless and eternity is timeless therefore eternity is not sequential as for infinite regress.

God is said to be eternal which means timeless so there is no past, no present, and no future. Time does not exist except as a mental aberration among humans who like to parcel things up into useful quantities. Everything is contained within God, or the Absolute which many people prefer.

Eternity: no past, no present, no future, no beginning, no end. It is causeless; it simply is. Next question , the big one, is "Why is there anything?"

Your first cause argument relies upon time sequence and that is why it's logically unsound.

[Immanuel Can]

Creation is timeless a

Incorrect. We can measure its entropy very easily. That puts a definite clock on it, both in the past and for the future.

Science proves that creation is not past-eternal. And mathematically, it's impossible to believe that it could be.

eternity is not sequential as for infinite regress.

Well, sorry: incorrect again. An eternal chain of causes is impossible. No appeal to "non-sequentiality" would resolve that.

God is said to be eternal which means timeless so there is no past, no present, and no future.

Right. God is eternal. So for Him, that's true. Not for us. We are creatures that exist within linear time.

But God is also uncaused, and is not His creation. So it's hard to see that this adds any information to the situation. You're only saying what Christians have always said is true.

[Greatest I am]

but firs tyou have to admit them into your camp

No, I can't "admit" them. I am not the doorkeeper. I have no say.

Only Christ has a say. And He tells us very clearly that they are not His.

So that's that.

Where in scriptures is Jesus ever anointed to Christ?

Jesus is not a Christ. Prove me wrong.

If Jesus is a Christ, and you are a literalist, then Jesus is female.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

but firs tyou have to admit them into your camp

No, I can't "admit" them. I am not the doorkeeper. I have no say.

Only Christ has a say. And He tells us very clearly that they are not His.

So that's that.

But if Christ is God , and each person is the hands and voice of God (Teresa Of Avila) then each God-fearing person should try to imitate God's mercy and understanding.

Mercy?

What is merciful in Noah's genocide or Jesus' pending Armageddon?

Where is mercy and understanding of decent morals in a god who can cure as easily as kill, Yet always kills.

Mercy, and the literalist Christian view of Yahweh and Jesus, are not compatible.

There is no mercy in genocide, homophobia or misogyny. All religious staples. Bless their evil hearts.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

...each God-fearing person should try to imitate God's mercy and understanding.

That's true, of course. But it doesn't imply that "each God-fearing person" IS God, as Pantheism would require. In fact, that suggestion implies the opposite: that man is NOT God, and so has to "fear" (or better, "reverence") and then act so as to "imitate" that which he/she is essentially not, so as to become what he/she should be but is not.

Scriptures have Jesus asking, have ye forgotten that ye are gods?

What will you answer right now, as you refuse to do as he bid you do; accept godliness.

If you are ready.


Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

If Jesus is god, --- and says you can be as well, --- why do you resist and even put stumbling blocks before you?

Only you can forgive your sins. Follow Jesus and stop ridding him as your scapegoat.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

...each God-fearing person should try to imitate God's mercy and understanding.

That's true, of course. But it doesn't imply that "each God-fearing person" IS God, as Pantheism would require. In fact, that suggestion implies the opposite: that man is NOT God, and so has to "fear" (or better, "reverence") and then act so as to "imitate" that which he/she is essentially not, so as to become what he/she should be but is not.

You sure are down on pantheism! If you read Spinoza's Ethics, or a good commentary( Hampshire or Damasio) you would see how people say Spinoza is God-obsessed.

Each God-fearing person is not God but is one of God-or Nature's creations. No creature is not a creature of God-or-Nature. I think that is the problem you have with pantheism, that your God judges his creatures and condemns some of them whereas God-or-Nature of pantheists accepts the whole of his creation with unlimited mercy, a principle well illustrated by Jesus on the Cross who said "Father forgive them as they know not what they do".

Nicely put.

I wish I had such a gift for expressing ideas.

You are correct that nature demonstrably creates for our best possible end.

Yahweh is shown as creating only for the few; as the vast majority end in the lake of fire.

I think it is the right wings of the mainstream religions that need to rethink as to why they are in a fascist, genocide worshiping religion.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

God is not the Creation. The Creation is the thing God has created, and created ex nihilo. It is not Him.

You put limits to a limitless omni-present god.

How does scriptures say it? If I wake in heaven you are there; if I wake in hell you are there.

If in the beginning a god was all there was. It is strange for you to think he would give up some of his holdings.

How big of a percentage?

Where can god not go?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

But God is also uncaused,

I and your bible disagree on this.

It has Jesus returning and urging the elect to choose a new god.

The cause that creates a god is recognition by enough followers to make a difference.

A god cannot claim that title or label.

God is a title that can only be bestowed on a person, given that there is no supernatural god worthy of us, other than nature, our real creator.

Man is greater than God, because we name and live our Gods.

Prove that wrong.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

Where in scriptures is Jesus ever anointed to Christ?

You misunderstand. "Christ" is not merely an exterior office to which one is appointed or even anointed -- as if one person or another could find themselves there.

It's an identity. "Are you THE Christ," was the question asked of Him. (Luke 22:67) Not, "are you the guy who's been anointed to the role."

There is, and can ever be, only one.

And the answer is given in Matthew 3:17.

[Immanuel Can]

Where can god not go?

If "all is one," then God cannot "go" anywhere. In fact, neither He nor you can "exist" at all.

To "go," one has to move between two places. But if "all is one," there are no "places," and no "you" or "me" distinct from those places to be "going" anywhere.

In fact, there is no "where" either.

[Immanuel Can]

But God is also uncaused,

I and your bible disagree on this.

Prove that wrong.

Easily.

Here is the whole passage, a mere part of which you wished to quote:

The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus replied to them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Therefore they were seeking again to arrest Him, and He eluded their grasp. (John 10:31-39)

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Creation is timeless a

Incorrect. We can measure its entropy very easily. That puts a definite clock on it, both in the past and for the future.

But subjective experience can't not exist and is not subject to entropy.

Science proves that creation is not past-eternal. And mathematically, it's impossible to believe that it could be.

What science is, is refinement of common sense. Science is very useful for technology and other practical applications such as sorting phenomena and creating theories. What science does not and can't do is explain existence.

eternity is not sequential as for infinite regress.

Well, sorry: incorrect again. An eternal chain of causes is impossible. No appeal to "non-sequentiality" would resolve that.

But the Absolute, i.e the eternal, is not a chain of causes, the Absolute is the uncaused cause of all that exists.

God is said to be eternal which means timeless so there is no past, no present, and no future.

Right. God is eternal. So for Him, that's true. Not for us. We are creatures that exist within linear time.

But your subjective experience once experienced can't not-exist. As had been said it is known when a sparrow falls.

But God is also uncaused, and is not His creation.

So it's hard to see that this adds any information to the situation. You're only saying what Christians have always said is true.

So what! Even the devil sometimes plays good tunes, so how much more should Christians play good tunes.
For your information, the Absolute is not only that which creates , the Absolute is also every created thing such as the experience of a dying sparrow, or any other sentient thing.
Your theology is anthropocentric.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Creation is timeless a

Incorrect. We can measure its entropy very easily. That puts a definite clock on it, both in the past and for the future.

But subjective experience can't not exist

Sure it can. That's what makes it "experience": it's not automatic and uniform, but rather unique to the individual and his/her situations.

It's most certainly contingent, and in nowise necessary at all.

Science proves that creation is not past-eternal. And mathematically, it's impossible to believe that it could be.

What science is, is refinement of common sense.

Well, it's much more than that. Common sense existed long before science, but never produced the Scientific Revolution.

The Scientific Method is a systematic method for the treating of data, actually. And it's not at all "common." It was invented in the 17th Century, by Francis Bacon. Unlike common sense, it didn't happen in every culture or all over the world.

What science does not and can't do is explain existence.

I'd agree, but I'd still be interested in your reasons for thinking that's true. However, it's irrelevant to the present question. What science does show us, and show us very definitely too, is that entropy prevails: the universe is running down, running out of energy, and will, if left long enough, most certainly end in heat death. That's really beyond dispute, scientifically.

But even if you ignore science, how will you ignore mathematics? For pure mathematics makes exactly the same point: there is no infinite regress of precedents possible.

So really, we know that as certainly as we can know anything.

eternity is not sequential as for infinite regress.

Well, sorry: incorrect again. An eternal chain of causes is impossible. No appeal to "non-sequentiality" would resolve that.

But the Absolute, i.e the eternal, is not a chain of causes, the Absolute is the uncaused cause of all that exists.

But the universe is manifestly contingent, not absolute. So the absoluteness of the Uncaused Cause has no relevance to the question of whether or not the causal chain we are in is. We're still on the clock, no matter what we predicate of Him -- that is, unless you want to go against science and maths and insist that the universe is co-eternal with the Uncaused Cause.

I don't think you do.

Your theology is anthropocentric.

Hardly. It's Theocentric. I don't regard mankind as the original point, but God.

[Belinda]

But subjective experience can't not exist

Sure it can. That's what makes it "experience": it's not automatic and uniform, but rather unique to the individual and his/her situations.

What would you suggest is happening, if not experience?

What science is, is refinement of common sense.

Well, it's much more than that. Common sense existed long before science, but never produced the Scientific Revolution.

The Scientific Method is a systematic method for the treating of data, actually. And it's not at all "common." It was invented in the 17th Century, by Francis Bacon. Unlike common sense, it didn't happen in every culture or all over the world.

I agree. As I said more concisely , science is refinement of common sense.

What science does not and can't do is explain existence.

I'd agree, but I'd still be interested in your reasons for thinking that's true. However, it's irrelevant to the present question. What science does show us, and show us very definitely too, is that entropy prevails: the universe is running down, running out of energy, and will, if left long enough, most certainly end in heat death. That's really beyond dispute, scientifically.

When the material universe ends in heat death, subjective experience will not have faded to the slightest degree from the Absolute. It will all be there exactly as it was experienced, not a jot missing from it.

But even if you ignore science, how will you ignore mathematics? For pure mathematics makes exactly the same point: there is no infinite regress of precedents possible. Mathematics measures that is what it does.

So really, we know that as certainly as we can know anything.

Yes, because it is a grand tautology.

But the universe is manifestly contingent, not absolute. So the absoluteness of the Uncaused Cause has no relevance to the question of whether or not the causal chain we are in is. We're still on the clock, no matter what we predicate of Him -- that is, unless you want to go against science and maths and insist that the universe is co-eternal with the Uncaused Cause.

More than causal chains, the Absolute is also all circumstances, and all laws of nature. There is nothing that is not the Absolute. We are not so much caught up in causal chains as we are caught up in the Absolute. Time does not exist, we feel it does but it doesn't, except as a useful dimension for measuring purposes.

Your theology is anthropocentric.

Hardly. It's Theocentric. I don't regard mankind as the original point, but God.

Well yes, but I was referring to how your version of God has man near the top of a hierarchy of which God is the top, and animals and plants lower than man.

[Immanuel Can]

But the universe is manifestly contingent, not absolute. So the absoluteness of the Uncaused Cause has no relevance to the question of whether or not the causal chain we are in is. We're still on the clock, no matter what we predicate of Him -- that is, unless you want to go against science and maths and insist that the universe is co-eternal with the Uncaused Cause.

More than causal chains, the Absolute is also all circumstances, and all laws of nature. There is nothing that is not the Absolute. We are not so much caught up in causal chains as we are caught up in the Absolute. Time does not exist, we feel it does but it doesn't, except as a useful dimension for measuring purposes.

I can see from your response, you don't know the mathematical disproof of an infinite regress of causes. If you did, you'd never be so cavalier -- and, of course, not-to-the-point. But it's easy to show you.

Try this: count backwards from zero, using negative numbers...you know, -1 ,-2, -3, and so on.

But treat each higher number as if it were a cause, by stipulating that you will not say the higher number until AFTER you've said the one below it.

So, for example, you can't say -1 until AFTER you've said -2, and can't say -2 until AFTER you've said -3, and so on, infinitely.

That models an infinite causal regress chain. For you will surely realize that, to be a "cause," a thing must happen BEFORE the alleged effect. So -2 is being modelled as if it were the cause of -1, but -3 is being modelled as if it were the cause of -2, and so on.

Ready?

Now, ask yourself this: if you do this exercise, when will you get to say the first number?

Your theology is anthropocentric.

Hardly. It's Theocentric. I don't regard mankind as the original point, but God.

Well yes, but I was referring to how your version of God has man near the top of a hierarchy of which God is the top, and animals and plants lower than man.

That's Biblical. And it's empirical too, of course. And I believe even you know it's true, as well. For I'll bet you eat plants, and you surely swat mosquitoes and bluebottle flies, too. Kind of "anthropocentric," don't you think?

Heck, if you expect me to "feel bad" about the natural hierarchy that places man above the animals, then you're asking me to do something you will never ask of an ape, a fox, an amoeba or a stalk of barley.

So you're acting as if that hierarchy is true, even while you're complaining about it. Pretty funny, if you think about it.