Free Will

[Immanuel Can]

The thing is, you seem to think that if God formed its intelligence from chaos then it is not worthy of being considered "God" - just god at best eh? - certainly, "He" will note that.

It’s not that I “think” it: it’s that it’s necessarily the case. The term “God,” in monotheism, denotes the First Cause, not a caused sub-god. And it has nothing to do with “worthiness”; it has to do with a god having been created by some other, prior “thing.” Anything that has a prior creator is, by definition, dependent for its existence on that thing, and as such, is no longer being said to be the Supreme Being, but is a contingent, secondary being.

So it’s really your own description of things that is making your “God” into merely a “god.” And if there’s any insult in that, it’s actually coming from the failure of the description you’re offering.

So, sorry — the problem’s inherent to your own account of who you think “god” is.

Again, you appear to reject God if it is not eternal

“Rejecting” only applies to your definition. You don’t know the difference between “a god” and “the God,” apparently. So you are mistaking a Demi-god or daemon or familiar spirit for the Supreme Being…even while declaring that this “god” is not supreme, and is not the First Cause. I can’t make sense of that. Nor can anyone, I think.

IC: "“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one."

Are you suggesting God does not have any physical existence?

I’m suggesting that God exists as transcendent and immanent, not as some piece of mere furniture “within” the “container” of the physical world. It’s this world that derives its being from being less-than God, being “within” the power of His activity…not the other way around. That’s what “transcendent” implies.

[Harbal]

The thing is, you seem to think that if God formed its intelligence from chaos then it is not worthy of being considered "God" - just god at best eh? - certainly, "He" will note that.

It’s not that I “think” it: it’s that it’s necessarily the case. The term “God,” in monotheism, denotes the First Cause, not a caused sub-god. And it has nothing to do with “worthiness”; it has to do with a god having been created by some other, prior “thing.” Anything that has a prior creator is, by definition, dependent for its existence on that thing, and as such, is no longer being said to be the Supreme Being, but is a contingent, secondary being.

So it’s really your own description of things that is making your “God” into merely a “god.” And if there’s any insult in that, it’s actually coming from the failure of the description you’re offering.

So, sorry — the problem’s inherent to your own account of who you think “god” is.

Again, you appear to reject God if it is not eternal

“Rejecting” only applies to your definition. You don’t know the difference between “a god” and “the God,” apparently. So you are mistaking a Demi-god or daemon or familiar spirit for the Supreme Being…even while declaring that this “god” is not supreme, and is not the First Cause. I can’t make sense of that. Nor can anyone, I think.

IC: "“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one."

Are you suggesting God does not have any physical existence?

I’m suggesting that God exists as transcendent and immanent, not as some piece of mere furniture “within” the “container” of the physical world. It’s this world that derives its being from being less-than God, being “within” the power of His activity…not the other way around. That’s what “transcendent” implies.

It's like someone once decided there was God, then decided what sort of God, then decided what would have to be what to make it true, and then decided it all must be true. But then I suppose people do that with all sorts of ideas.

[Fairy]

…one unitary reality without a second, as there is no separation between what is seeing and what is seen, …
I'm speaking here in a nondual context…

I recognize the problem you’re recognizing here. Simply put, it’s that one monolithic “oneness” cannot actually exist. Existence requires at least two things, because it requires “differentiation.” To say that something “exists” is only to say it is “not another thing,” in some way. And this does, indeed create a problem.

Hinduism and Taoism recognize this, and try to solve it, each in their own way. If God is merely “one,” then there is no existing. And this is why they have to suppose the externality of the physical universe — that it must be permanently differentiated from “the god.” But the Hebrew conception of God does not suffer from this problem. He is the “I AM,” meaning, “the self-existent One.”

“How is that even coherent,” the Hindu or the Taoist, or some other non-dualist would ask. And Judaism, in the modern form, has no simple answer to that. But Christianity does. For God Himself is triune…which means that even in eternity, God was both Himself and the Divine Other, united in Spirit…all before the universe ever began, as the apostle John so clearly describes in the beginning of his gospel, and as is found in Genesis 1. And if that’s right, then it means that the problem that exists in a pure monolithic conception of god does not exist in the Christian worldview.

However, in non-dualism, the problem is persistent. Material reality must remain eternal, in order to serve as the “other” that allows the existence of the god. Unfortunately for non-dualism, we already know that the universe was not eternal. It’s a contingent, time-limited, unnecessary entity. And mathematics itself, along with the causal chain and entropy, which are some of the most well-established scientific realities we have, demonstrate this. So the problem returns: if there was a non-dual god, then there was also a time when the universe of material things did not exist. How then did this “god” ever manage to exist, rather than being dissolved by its own pre-creation oneness?

Thanks for that rather intriguing explanation - a lot of it resonates in a sense, but I’ll have to spend more time digesting it until I fully understand it, which I would very much like to. In fact I like the way you say what you say, it kind of makes sense to me, in a way I’m not sure why or how at the moment, but I will attempt to make it make sense to me because I like to think I have a really open mind to other peoples ideas, especially when the subject is God. I just want to understand how your mind works IC when it comes to the subject of God.




I would sincerely like to see what you are seeing here, but I can’t at the moment.

I googled this ….in response to the idea of a triune God….

“Non-dualism, in the context of spirituality or theology, refers to the idea that there is no fundamental distinction or separation between the divine, the self, and the rest of existence. It is a perspective that transcends dualities, such as subject-object, self-other”

[Fairy]

IC …. The main thing is that God does definitely exist. I know this to be true, because it’s obvious that there is a much greater power going on here that is totally beyond my finite comprehension and perception of myself. This power is so much bigger than I could ever imagine. I understand that I am not the one who breathed breath into my lungs at my birth, nor was I the one who chose to be born, yet here I am. Nor am I the one who started my heart beating soon after the conception of my zygote that then continued on through the embryonic process within my mothers womb. And neither was my mother or I the one who made the milk flow immediately from the breasts when I cried out loud in my mother’s arms. All this, to me, informs I am being lived by a much higher power that is not my power.. there are so many nuances involved when trying to grasp how there must be something much greater than myself who is driving this aliveness that is our being that is capable of becoming a self-aware entity that cannot be refuted, denied or negated. It’s obviously self-evident that something supreme and almighty is responsible for all this.

[attofishpi]

The thing is, you seem to think that if God formed its intelligence from chaos then it is not worthy of being considered "God" - just god at best eh? - certainly, "He" will note that.

It’s not that I “think” it: it’s that it’s necessarily the case. The term “God,” in monotheism, denotes the First Cause, not a caused sub-god. And it has nothing to do with “worthiness”; it has to do with a god having been created by some other, prior “thing.” Anything that has a prior creator is, by definition, dependent for its existence on that thing, and as such, is no longer being said to be the Supreme Being, but is a contingent, secondary being.

So it’s really your own description of things that is making your “God” into merely a “god.” And if there’s any insult in that, it’s actually coming from the failure of the description you’re offering.

So, sorry — the problem’s inherent to your own account of who you think “god” is.

You need to understand that I am attempting to provide my most rational account for God's existence.

You have absolutely NO explanation as to how an intelligence can exist eternally. You keep banging on about First Cause as if that's some requirement for ANY concept of captial G God.

I believe the universe IS eternal and that it is cyclic, therefore, consider my theory:

You will scoff at this, but I am a Christian that believes in pantheism/panentheism. That GOD is ALL - throughout all matter. This belief is a result of 27 years of analysis of experience of God and what it is capable of.

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This then suggests that energy (God) is eternal and since everything material in existence is of energy, then the universe is eternal. As entropy increases, this energy changes form to less useful, disordered state moving towards chaos - maximum entropy (this is of scientific consensus).
Eventually, this maximum entropy chaotic disordered state with no causal chains, by chance, by eventual random mutation begins to reform in a logical manner and causality returns, God's intelligence reforms and again, now with ample useful energy, begins to reform a universe that life, and us can again can wonder at the perceivable universe.
Whether God can carry over any logic\memory over that transition is something I have pondered for some time. I know from my sage that reincarnation is part of life - that our souls karmically traverse through time, though unfortunately our memories are wiped. Can we be so bold as to consider a 'similar' thing to God itself.

Again, you appear to reject God if it is not eternal

“Rejecting” only applies to your definition. You don’t know the difference between “a god” and “the God,” apparently. So you are mistaking a Demi-god or daemon or familiar spirit for the Supreme Being…even while declaring that this “god” is not supreme, and is not the First Cause. I can’t make sense of that. Nor can anyone, I think.

Well, I never mentioned my above theory - that God cycles chaos-order-chaos-order - so not sure if that will allow you to re-capitalise the Geee in God? <-- since you could consider God eternal, even though it loses and regains its intelligence.

IC: "“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one."

Are you suggesting God does not have any physical existence?

I’m suggesting that God exists as transcendent and immanent, not as some piece of mere furniture “within” the “container” of the physical world. It’s this world that derives its being from being less-than God, being “within” the power of His activity…not the other way around. That’s what “transcendent” implies.

So what? It is impossible to account for an intelligence ALWAYS existing - there is no scientific nor philosophical argument that could hold water for such an account. At least with my account it's only the intelligence within the energy that possibly is entirely lost cyclically.

[Immanuel Can]

I would sincerely like to see what you are seeing here, but I can’t at the moment.

I googled this ….in response to the idea of a triune God….

“Non-dualism, in the context of spirituality or theology, refers to the idea that there is no fundamental distinction or separation between the divine, the self, and the rest of existence. It is a perspective that transcends dualities, such as subject-object, self-other”

Right. Fair enough.

Non-dualism simply means that there’s no actual distinction between God and His Creation, including mankind. But the problem returns in this form: if everything is only ONE thing, then “exist” is not even an adjective that can apply to anything.

Put it this way: imagine that you are surrounded by air, but that air is made up of only one thing: oxygen. Next, imagine that the trees, the rocks, the animals, and you are made up of nothing but oxygen, too…and the earth beneath your feet is oxygen, and space is filled with oxygen, and not even so much as a membrane or line exists which is not also made up of oxygen.

If that were how things were, nothing would exist. And why? Because everything would be oxygen, and not even a membrane or dividing line would separate things that are oxygen from things that are not. There’d be nothing to hear, to see, to think about, to contemplate…all would be oxygen. In such a place, there would be no “place-ness,” even. There would only, ever and always be oxygen. So in what sense could you say that “Fairy exists?” You couldn’t. There would be nobody to say it, and the word “Fairy” would not designate anything that wasn’t actually oxygen. To speak of something as “oxygen,” even, would make no sense, since everything is oxygen. Existence itself would cease to exist, because it could not be identified over and against anything else. All is oxygen.

The same is true if we try to say, “All is the divine,” or “All is God.” If true, it would mean that nothing else exists, and hence, that even the word “God” has no referent or meaning. All is whatever all is. That’s all that could be true.

That’s the problem behind non-dualism. If it were true, then nothing would exist. And the Hindus would be right: all is really maya, illusion. The existence of the illusion, and of percipients capable of having illusions, is a different question and problem. But non-dualism would erase all existence by turning it into an illusion.

[Immanuel Can]

The thing is, you seem to think that if God formed its intelligence from chaos then it is not worthy of being considered "God" - just god at best eh? - certainly, "He" will note that.

It’s not that I “think” it: it’s that it’s necessarily the case. The term “God,” in monotheism, denotes the First Cause, not a caused sub-god. And it has nothing to do with “worthiness”; it has to do with a god having been created by some other, prior “thing.” Anything that has a prior creator is, by definition, dependent for its existence on that thing, and as such, is no longer being said to be the Supreme Being, but is a contingent, secondary being.

So it’s really your own description of things that is making your “God” into merely a “god.” And if there’s any insult in that, it’s actually coming from the failure of the description you’re offering.

So, sorry — the problem’s inherent to your own account of who you think “god” is.

You need to understand that I am attempting to provide my most rational account for God's existence.

I see that. I just see the rational problems in it.

You have absolutely NO explanation as to how an intelligence can exist eternally. You keep banging on about First Cause as if that's some requirement for ANY concept of captial G God.

I do, as a matter of fact. But you have no explanation for such a thing, yourself. You call it “chaos,” but “chaos” is your Supreme Being and First Cause, then…and how such a thing as chaos can be that, well, you’ll just have to explain.

I believe the universe IS eternal and that it is cyclic,

That won’t work. We know it’s not true, from multiple scientific angles…the red shift effect, entropy, the impossibility of infinite regress…Science simply won’t back that view. So in what sense are you supposing it to be “rational”?

You will scoff at this, but I am a Christian that believes in pantheism/panentheism.

Not “scoff,” but “point out the impossibility of it, for sure. That’s what philosophy is about, of course.

Pantheism and Panentheism are actually distinct. You really cannot be both. But both are irrational, because they issue in such serious logical contradictions that reconciling them seems to me impossible.

According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Like all scientific postulates, this is an assumption that stands in need of confirmation, and is only ventured “until further notice,” meaning, “until a more complete theory replaces it.” It’s not absolute. But it also only pertains to the material world; and my suggestion would be that the existence of God requires us to consider transcendence as bracketing the material world (the Panentheists would partly agree with that, but the Pantheists would not).

Again, you appear to reject God if it is not eternal

“Rejecting” only applies to your definition. You don’t know the difference between “a god” and “the God,” apparently. So you are mistaking a Demi-god or daemon or familiar spirit for the Supreme Being…even while declaring that this “god” is not supreme, and is not the First Cause. I can’t make sense of that. Nor can anyone, I think.

Well, I never mentioned my above theory - that God cycles chaos-order-chaos-order - so not sure if that will allow you to re-capitalise the Geee in God? <-- since you could consider God eternal, even though it loses and regains its intelligence.

I’m suggesting that God exists as transcendent and immanent, not as some piece of mere furniture “within” the “container” of the physical world. It’s this world that derives its being from being less-than God, being “within” the power of His activity…not the other way around. That’s what “transcendent” implies.

So what? It is impossible to account for an intelligence ALWAYS existing - there is no scientific nor philosophical argument that could hold water for such an account. At least with my account it's only the intelligence within the energy that possibly is entirely lost cyclically.

Actually, it’s not at all impossible. It follows from the very natural question, “What is the nature of the First Cause, given the evidence of intelligent design within the universe?” And I suggest that the most scientific answer would be, “It would seem to be the product of a Grand Intelligence, not of some chaotic chance.”

[attofishpi]

OMG. You don't back up anything you state with anything rational or intelligent - just waffling unjustified claims of no substance.

Duh!! GOD DID IT

[Immanuel Can]

OMG. You don't back up anything you state with anything rational or intelligent - just waffling unjustified claims of no substance.

Duh!! GOD DID IT

If this response signals the limits of your intellectual capacities and personal maturity…then…have a nice day.

[attofishpi]

OMG. You don't back up anything you state with anything rational or intelligent - just waffling unjustified claims of no substance.

Duh!! GOD DID IT

If this response signals the limits of your intellectual capacities and personal maturity…then…have a nice day.

Naaw, you too!

PS. What caused God?

[Dubious]

It follows from the very natural question, “What is the nature of the First Cause, given the evidence of intelligent design within the universe?” And I suggest that the most scientific answer would be, “It would seem to be the product of a Grand Intelligence, not of some chaotic chance.”

Just to be in the clear, are you referring to Intelligent Design or Creationism?

[Fairy]

“Non-dualism, in the context of spirituality or theology, refers to the idea that there is no fundamental distinction or separation between the divine, the self, and the rest of existence. It is a perspective that transcends dualities, such as subject-object, self-other”

Non-dualism simply means that there’s no actual distinction between God and His Creation, including mankind. But the problem returns in this form: if everything is only ONE thing, then “exist” is not even an adjective that can apply to anything.

Nonduality doesn't mean that at all. Where do you get this idea that there is no distinction between creator and creation, between formless and form? Think about it like this...Take a long stick for example. The stick has two ends to it, both ends completely opposite to each other, yet that does not take away the fact that the stick is still one whole piece of stick, and no matter how many parts of the stick is chopped off the stick, the stick is still the stick. All the parts are not really distinct from where they branched off from, they are just smaller wholes of the bigger whole stick.

But surely this is about the knowledge that is distinction. The concept ''distinction'' can only make sense within the known conception itself. What I mean by known conception, is that I am aware I am aware, which is self-awareness, the direct experience of experience, the experience of consciousness.

But notice the distinction is an artificial divide. Because for an eternal God to 'exist' ..existence of God doesn't need any other thing to be God. God is known to himself through the knowledge of ''otherness'', that being the conception of himself. In an apparent polarised sense. For example: There is no God, and this is nothing but God, is saying the same thing as the quote I've left at the top. It's saying God knows he is not a thing, he knows he is a causeless, formless eternal spirit, because he is also aware of himself as being a creator of form. God is both the formless consciousness, and his created form which is concept, in this conception, his conception of himself.. So God is not a thing, but at the same time is the creator of many things, that are only from him alone.

I do not understand how you cannot see this that way. This is not saying that everything is just simply one thing PERIOD, like everything is just energy and no thing else, it is saying that every thing is a manifestation of the one formless consciousness, which is not a thing, it is the formless out of which comes all formed things, of which are the mirror image of creator.
Try this experiment: think of an apple. What that apple might look like. Can you see the thought ''apple'' ? No, you can't see the 'thought' can you.
The physically seen apple, is identical to the 'thought apple' though isn't it?
So that's how how we can say (There is no God, and this is nothing but God, is saying the same thing. )

That’s the problem behind non-dualism. If it were true, then nothing would exist. And the Hindus would be right: all is really maya, illusion. The existence of the illusion, and of percipients capable of having illusions, is a different question and problem. But non-dualism would erase all existence by turning it into an illusion.

Try self-inquiring, checking direct experience that will clarify and inherently dispel any 'problem'.

The illusion of separation is how the illusion of the whole works, it's how self-reflection works. It's how a mirror is able to work, it is only by being imageless, is the mirror able to reflect an image. All in all, the mirror and it's image are not two things, they are one and the same, only seemingly two separate things.

blob.jpg

[Fairy]

IC... God cannot see his own face, he is faceless, he has to be faceless if he is to see himself. So in a sense there has to be two things, there has to be both the imageless and the image for self to be known and recognised to itself alone.

The same idea can be applied to knowing.
God is not known to himself except in the conception of himself as and through the WORDs ...I am that I Am.

In other words. God being the ABSOLUTE cannot know he is the absolute, because he is the absolute. In other words, there is NO God because the is no OTHER than God.

The thing is, a temporal being like the physical body of matter is not the same as the eternal consciousness aware of the temporal physical body of matter, because one is formless, and the other is form. But both form and formless have to exist together always, else neither of them exist. And non-existence is never one's direct experience. Only eternal existence is our experience. There is no experience in death, and yet death has to happen in order for the experience of consciousness to be known to itself, how, because experience is only known and has any meaning by association, in relation to what is NOT an experience.

So you see, there is already here, eternal life, it's not something a person has to earn by being a good person, it's already the case.

You have never experienced death. Death is only a concept known, it's the exact and polar opposite of life, and both cannot exist without the other, yet both are one and the same phenomena. The distinction is known via distinction, being, death is not an experience, where as life is an experience.

[BuzzCap7]

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQlODfIWIQ

The above link will bring you to Tor Norretranders "take" on free will, which I believe in. If you start the above at 24:59 (24 minutes and 59 seconds) you will get to the heart of it.

The "Cliff's Notes" on this matter is this....you know nothing until you are aware of something. Who/what is putting the information in your mind so you can become aware of that information? The deeper you or what Tor Norretranders is calling "me". The deeper you.

Great stuff!

Mark

[Immanuel Can]

PS. What caused God?

If you believe in “caused gods,” then you’ll have to answer that one. I can’t, because I don’t believe God WAS “caused.”