Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Why can't the universe "just be"? Why is it that "God" is allowed to "just be", but not the universe?
If G()D is the sum total of all that is conscious, then without consciousness (G()D) the universe for all practical purpose, might as well not exist, because without consciousness there is simply no thing in which to say that it does.
In order for the universe to 'just be' remove consciousness from it.
Otherwise, its days of 'just being' are over.
But in relation to consciousness, the idea of G()D being consciousness, is not 'just being' but also working itself out and figuring out WHY it is 'being' at all within the universe.
Consciousness does not seem to 'just be' in relation to the universe. Automation is more the thing 'just being'.
The one thing that is irrefutable, is that there IS a Source (does not necessarily mean Creator) of everything that exists.
Actually that is not certain at all, and in the form you have posited, is easily refutable.
If we posit that there is a source that is causally prior to the set of everything that exists, then by definition, that source is excluded from the set of things that exist. In other words, your argument proves that such a Source cannot exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
IF that Source . . . whatever it is . . . is NOT a minimal definition of a God, then I do not know what could ever be. Why must a maximal definition be accepted simply because it is the popular one (ad populum). The only thing we know for certain is that reality exists and something is responsible for it. That is pretty damn Godly . . . given its scope, ubiquity and power.
And one again, you smuggle meaning in. You have not defined what it means to be a God, you simply point to something and give it a label. Spell it out. Exactly what are the minimal qualifications for something to be a God. You have yet to really lay it out, you keep trying to define it circularly by attaching a label to something with no real justification, and then comparing everything else to that. Exactly like you wanted me to do with the word 'dog' in fact. What I am asking is for you do describe the platonic ideal of a God, in essence, not by picking something and arbitrarily applying a label to it, and then using it as a benchmark.
But, that quibble aside, I am ok with your "Source" being assumed to be God, since you so handily proved earlier that the "Source" and thus God, at least in the form you are positing, does not exist.
A logical tip, quite aside from the content of your theology, is that you should listen to Freak and spend some time understanding the various forms of the cosmological argument. Even Vizio's formulation is more logically consistent than yours. (Although I am pretty sure he is using it by rote, since he usually managed to say something in a post or two that tramples all over the carefully crafted logic necessary to make it meaningful)
The minimum qualifications for a God? To exist without being created by someone else.
Trees come from seeds, chickens from eggs, humans from parents. God doesn't come from anything. This is why the "what created God" is completely misguided. If anything created God, God would not be God.
All of us have a source. Therefore, a Source of those sources must exist.
The minimum qualifications for a God? To exist without being created by someone else.
Trees come from seeds, chickens from eggs, humans from parents. God doesn't come from anything. This is why the "what created God" is completely misguided. If anything created God, God would not be God.
All of us have a source. Therefore, a Source of those sources must exist.
You need to work on your cosmological argument as well . First off, the use of "someone" make your entire line of reasoning a bit questionable. Trees grow from a seed or a root cutting, not because "someone" assembles them. Even human shildren are not created by someone, in the sense that we would create a chair or a house. They grow due to biological processes that are part of us, they are much less a result of us "doing" and simply a part of our "being". In nature, we have actually very few examples of "creation", an entity purposefully directing and forming something, and even those are debatable because they are generally merely directing existing biology. This is why Mystic is very careful in his version of the cosmological argument not to use the word "create" and instead uses source.
Moving on to the argument itself,why is this statement not equally true?
All of us have a source. Therefore, a Source of the Source of those sources must exist.
Either you have an infinite regress of sources, or at some arbitrary point you have an uncaused thing. If you can have an uncaused thing, why must it be God?
Lets assume that the uncaused thing is simply the physical world, having not will or volition, no emotions, no moral capacity, a mechanistic reality. What utility is there is labeling that a God? It isn't transcendent, it doesn't love, hate, want, plan. In a real sense it doesn't create, because it has no will, no intention. It simply "is".
Or lets go even further. Lets assume your definition of God is useful. If the singularity that appears to have begin our universe essentially winked into existence (Lawrence Krauss has a good book on this, "A Universe from Nothing"), then that would make the infintesimal virtual particles that winked into existence and formed the singularity God, right? Those virtual particles has long since winked back out of existence ( its what virtual particles do...) so now, comological argument or not, we are left in a God-less world...
The one thing that is irrefutable, is that there IS a Source (does not necessarily mean Creator) of everything that exists. IF that Source . . . whatever it is . . . is NOT a minimal definition of a God, then I do not know what could ever be. Why must a maximal definition be accepted simply because it is the popular one (ad populum). The only thing we know for certain is that reality exists and something is responsible for it. That is pretty damn Godly . . . given its scope, ubiquity and power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Actually that is not certain at all, and in the form you have posited, is easily refutable.
If we posit that there is a source that is causally prior to the set of everything that exists, then by definition, that source is excluded from the set of things that exist. In other words, your argument proves that such a Source cannot exist.
And one again, you smuggle meaning in. You have not defined what it means to be a God, you simply point to something and give it a label. Spell it out. Exactly what are the minimal qualifications for something to be a God. You have yet to really lay it out, you keep trying to define it circularly by attaching a label to something with no real justification, and then comparing everything else to that. Exactly like you wanted me to do with the word 'dog' in fact. What I am asking is for you do describe the platonic ideal of a God, in essence, not by picking something and arbitrarily applying a label to it, and then using it as a benchmark.
But, that quibble aside, I am ok with your "Source" being assumed to be God, since you so handily proved earlier that the "Source" and thus God, at least in the form you are positing, does not exist.
A logical tip, quite aside from the content of your theology, is that you should listen to Freak and spend some time understanding the various forms of the cosmological argument. Even Vizio's formulation is more logically consistent than yours. (Although I am pretty sure he is using it by rote, since he usually managed to say something in a post or two that tramples all over the carefully crafted logic necessary to make it meaningful)
-NoCapo
Not that I don't appreciate all your helpful attempts to teach me logic and the various aspects of the cosmological argument, etc. but it is you who needs to study panENtheism and the implications of a consciousness field as the unified field establishing our reality. You might want to focus on the fact that our consciousness transcends our physical laws. You are fixated on a causal rationale while my view is based on mere existence. We exist within and as part of God, reproducing God's very consciousness in embryonic form. Our task is to develop and mature our consciousness to God's character of agape love for all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. First off, the use of "someone" make your entire line of reasoning a bit questionable. Trees grow from a seed or a root cutting, not because "someone" assembles them. Even human shildren are not created by someone, in the sense that we would create a chair or a house. They grow due to biological processes that are part of us, they are much less a result of us "doing" and simply a part of our "being". In nature, we have actually very few examples of "creation", an entity purposefully directing and forming something, and even those are debatable because they are generally merely directing existing biology. This is why Mystic is very careful in his version of the cosmological argument not to use the word "create" and instead uses source. 
