God as an Impersonal Force is a Contradiction
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:24 pm
"All creation" contains within it a subset of "personal experience" thus contradicting being as driven by an impersonal force.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Another way of pointing out the truth of what you say here is to say, "If there is a Creator, how would we imagine he must not possess a feature that we recognize as an advantage, and which we believe He conveyed to us?"
Not "all."
The only ''enforcer'' of what you claim to know...is 'You'.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:48 amNot "all."
There are various mystics, like some Pantheists and Panentheists, who insist that the ultimate Being is ineffable, not personal and not even describable in human language. Instead, it's more like some unspeakable "force" than a conventional "God".
Do you even read?Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:24 amThe only ''enforcer''...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:48 amNot "all."
There are various mystics, like some Pantheists and Panentheists, who insist that the ultimate Being is ineffable, not personal and not even describable in human language. Instead, it's more like some unspeakable "force" than a conventional "God".
I stand corrected. Most creation myths ascribe personalities to their creators, thus establishing a second and opposing subset to the "impersonal force" hypothesis. Each claim regarding all creation may be equally right or wrong.
Good point.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:30 amAnother way of pointing out the truth of what you say here is to say, "If there is a Creator, how would we imagine he must not possess a feature that we recognize as an advantage, and which we believe He conveyed to us?"
That is, if we are "persons," (entities with advanced consciousness, creativity, insight, experience, preferences, volition, etc.) then why would we imagine God must be something less than a "Person"?
And if He were, how could we imagine He had given us personhood?
That isn't logical. Each claim that contradicts the others may be true or false in itself; but there's absolutely no way they're all "equally right or wrong."Skip wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:15 pmI stand corrected. Most creation myths ascribe personalities to their creators, thus establishing a second and opposing subset to the "impersonal force" hypothesis. Each claim regarding all creation may be equally right or wrong.
I really lucked out on education today.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:04 pm [S - Each claim regarding all creation may be equally right or wrong.]
That isn't logical. Each claim that contradicts the others may be true or false in itself; but there's absolutely no way they're all "equally right or wrong."
Ouch. Hate to niggle, but I can't pass that one up. Sorry: it isn't true either.Skip wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:40 amI really lucked out on education today.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:04 pm [S - Each claim regarding all creation may be equally right or wrong.]
That isn't logical. Each claim that contradicts the others may be true or false in itself; but there's absolutely no way they're all "equally right or wrong."
Correction:
Each claim regarding the personality or impersonality of the Creator/Force has an equal chance of being right with every other claim. (+/-0)
In ancient cultures there were thought to be more than one god. If this is true, they are spirits; not actually gods. I think good and bad spirits makes more sense than an all knowing and powerful God.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:47 pmOuch. Hate to niggle, but I can't pass that one up. Sorry: it isn't true either.Skip wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:40 amI really lucked out on education today.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:04 pm [S - Each claim regarding all creation may be equally right or wrong.]
That isn't logical. Each claim that contradicts the others may be true or false in itself; but there's absolutely no way they're all "equally right or wrong."
Correction:
Each claim regarding the personality or impersonality of the Creator/Force has an equal chance of being right with every other claim. (+/-0)
The claim, "God is a rainbow unicorn" and "God is a flying teapot" have very, very low chances of being right. The saying "God is everything" actually has a zero chance of being right.
But the statement, "God is the Supreme Being," (assuming God exists, of course) has such a high chance of being right that it's almost analytically true. In fact, it would be harder to imagine there being a God and Him being being something less than the Supreme Being than to imagine Him as being that.
So there are higher and lower probabilities of any account being right, and they're definitely not equal.
I don't see that that is the case at all.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:02 pm I think good and bad spirits makes more sense than an all knowing and powerful God.
I don't think explaining anything to you is sensible.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:08 pmI don't see that that is the case at all.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:02 pm I think good and bad spirits makes more sense than an all knowing and powerful God.
Positing more than one "god" surely falls afoul of Occam's razor, of course: multiple "gods" are multiplying entities way beyond the number necessary to the explanation.
But even if that goes unnoted, you couldn't help but observe how convoluted and irrational the old legends about, say, the Greek or Roman "gods" were, in comparison to the straightforward postulate of one Creator. So no, I can't see that "good and bad spirits makes more sense."
You'll have to explain your reasoning to me, I suppose.
Well, that seems unnecessarily hostile.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:13 pmI don't think explaining anything to you is sensible.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:08 pmI don't see that that is the case at all.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:02 pm I think good and bad spirits makes more sense than an all knowing and powerful God.
Positing more than one "god" surely falls afoul of Occam's razor, of course: multiple "gods" are multiplying entities way beyond the number necessary to the explanation.
But even if that goes unnoted, you couldn't help but observe how convoluted and irrational the old legends about, say, the Greek or Roman "gods" were, in comparison to the straightforward postulate of one Creator. So no, I can't see that "good and bad spirits makes more sense."
You'll have to explain your reasoning to me, I suppose.