Infinite Regress of Causality

[attofishpi]

So do you agree that a 'God' could be a result of causality?

No. Because you would then have to show me god. A god which is subject to causality and therefore not really god.

Why would you not consider an entity to be God if it was as a result of causality? Perhaps it formed logic from chaos and provided you with four dimensions of perception within which to comprehend your surroundings. Perhaps it provided you with a set of instructions to abide by allowing your existence to continue beyond death with reincarnation...Not God?

[apaosha]

So do you agree that a 'God' could be a result of causality?

No. Because you would then have to show me god. A god which is subject to causality and therefore not really god.

Why would you not consider an entity to be God if it was as a result of causality?

That's just quibbling over a definition.

If god is not the absolute starting point then it's just another link in the chain. Part of the reason of the invention of god is the search for this definite reference point, this "beginning" from which to orientate ones perspective of the universe.

If it's just another link in the chain than what reason is there to consider it god and not that which preceded it? The god concept comes loaded with primitive anthropomorphization; the sense that the universe is caused and that this cause is an intelligence like a human being with goals, plans and feelings for it's creations.

I suppose one could worship infinity... but that's just a mammalian psychological extravagance and not of relevance to the logical concept of ex nihilo/causa sui as opposed to an infinite regress.

[attofishpi]

Why would you not consider an entity to be God if it was as a result of causality?

That's just quibbling over a definition.
If god is not the absolute starting point then it's just another link in the chain.

'just'...another link in the chain?
It is the chain. For you even to have a grounding of cognition, it quite possibly had to exist.

Part of the reason of the invention of god is the search for this definite reference point, this "beginning" from which to orientate ones perspective of the universe.

Invention? Man didnt invent God. Man perceived, witnessed and preached it.
You can regress back to that reference point if you like...is there anything absolute in chaos?

If it's just another link in the chain then what reason is there to consider it god and not that which preceded it?

The chain... '' IS '' the chain.
Preceded it? ....An inconceivable state of the universe that man quite rightly had no place in?

The god concept comes loaded with primitive anthropomorphization; the sense that the universe is caused and that this cause is an intelligence like a human being with goals, plans and feelings for it's creations.

Unfortunately...most people are unable to comprehend let alone perceive the ''greater'' being.

I suppose one could worship infinity... but that's just a mammalian psychological extravagance and not of relevance to the logical concept of ex nihilo/causa sui as opposed to an infinite regress.

For me I worship is repugnant. Its just one extra warship to do battle with those worshipping some other convolution...upon the sea of light. boom boom.

Reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth.
http://www.androcies.com

[apaosha]

'just'...another link in the chain?
It is the chain. For you even to have a grounding of cognition, it quite possibly had to exist.

So... you've conceded that ex nihilo god as creator of the universe is impossible. Then you redirect into god being causality itself. Or the "force" behind, above, responsible for, causality and which permits it to function (as if a "cause" for causality would not be a logical paradox). You are inserting unnecessary factors into the nature of reality for which you have no evidence, other than your emotional needs... which must be powerful.
Causality is not god. Reality is not god. The universe is not god. These concepts refer to the real and not a human invention created to satisfy the psychoses of primitive sapient animals.

Give me a clear definition of what god means to you and we can talk. I'm not going to waste my time if you act evasive, start redefining yourself, or accusing me of "hate" like the last idiot I discussed this with did.

For me I worship is repugnant. Its just one extra warship to do battle with those worshipping some other convolution...upon the sea of light. boom boom.

Reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth.
http://www.androcies.com

That was absurd. I literally rolled my eyes. You must feel comfortable in this forum, catering as it does for minds of your ilk.

"I-Re-Land".

[attofishpi]

That was absurd. I literally rolled my eyes. You must feel comfortable in this forum, catering as it does for minds of your ilk.

"I-Re-Land".

You expect me to respond to your bitter sad little mind? Fuck Off. If you want to get any understanding of how I perceive God...go read my posts asshole.

[Kuznetzova]

Which did not begin, therefore no creation, therefore no God.

Okay, is that what this is really about?
I'm a little deflated that you took this fascinating philosophical topic and drove it directly into the theological mudpit. I was on the verge of responding to your thread with issues about causality in science.

[Kuznetzova]

A "thing" is the mind taking perception of a fluid environment, freezing it and then comparing it to differing perception. The abstraction is not the real, it merely refers to the real. It then applies an action for this "thing" to perform.

Consider an apple. You bite it. Is it the same apple? What was it before it grew on the tree? Dirt in the ground which the tree collected and changed into an apple through a distinct interactive process. After you eat it it becomes shit and so on.... constant flow and change, never frozen, always active. But these stages: dirt, apple, shit are arbitrary classifications applied to what we decide are distinct events.

Hey.... this is pretty good. I agree with it, totally. If you are interested, follow the link below to see the same idea expressed in more academic terminology.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9587

[apaosha]

Heraclitus' Flux is the earliest expression of that idea. But since for me this is incorporated into an infinite regress (and progress) where as you've seen causation is not broken into distinct events like cause-effect but is instead a constant flow and flux, it must also exclude the possibility of a beginning or end to this movement.

And since such things are fundamentally associated with theology, it is best to mention it and get it over with.