Free Will

[Immanuel Can]

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?

It depends on what distinction you’re meaning. I do believe in God as Creator, but also that His design is intelligent in nature, and manifests the intelligence of the Designer. Is that clear enough?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I’m sorry — that contains a self-contradiction. If God-material world is non-dual, Then there is no “otherness.” No genuine understanding of the non-dual universe can include the belief in any “other.” All is God. Anything “other” would then, logically, be an illusion — and you’d be stuck with saying (as some mystical religions actually do say) that the Supreme Being is deluded. Alternatively, one could say that in order to exist, both God and material reality have to be eternal (which other mystical religions suppose, instead)…with the problem coming in that all of our science shows the opposite, namely, that the universe is both time-bound and entropic, and that the universe is expanded beyond any possible point of material collapse and cycle.

I do not understand how you cannot see this that way.

Well, because of mathematics and science — there’s no infinite causal regress, we know because of maths. And entropy, cosmic expansion, and linear time are well-established by science. So I can’t reconcile the kind of universe non-duality would require with the empirical facts.

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'.

I think that “direct experience,” meaning science, empiricism, is the very source of the problem. But maybe deeper than that is the logical contradiction of a “God” that is “non-dual” and yet has an “otherness.” Those two claims seem utterly mutually-exclusive, to me, and their consequences seem irreconcilable with reference to any entity I could recognize as reflecting the concept “Supreme Being” or “God.”

Those are the real problems I’m having.

[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?

It depends on what distinction you’re meaning. I do believe in God as Creator, but also that His design is intelligent in nature, and manifests the intelligence of the Designer. Is that clear enough?

Yes, it's clear enough...as far as your opinion is concerned in that “It would seem to be the product of a Grand Intelligence". But there are an endless amount of seems throughout history which subsequent times proved to be no-longer so seemly!

By your explanation, it seems to me you're as much deist as theist, or is deism merely a subset of theism, the latter being the whole enchilada.

[Immanuel Can]

It depends on what distinction you’re meaning. I do believe in God as Creator, but also that His design is intelligent in nature, and manifests the intelligence of the Designer. Is that clear enough?

Yes, it's clear enough...as far as your opinion is concerned in that “It would seem to be the product of a Grand Intelligence". But there are an endless amount of seems throughout history which subsequent times proved to be no-longer so seemly!

And some that do. So which one this is, will have to be settled on the basis of the facts, which is what we’re aiming to do here.

By your explanation, it seems to me you're as much deist as theist, or is deism merely a subset of theism, the latter being the whole enchilada.

No, Deism is quite different. The meaning of the term “Deism” has historically shifted somewhat, but I think that today it would not be the right term to apply to my view.

As for the proper breakdown, it may be that Theism is the largest category, Monotheism a subcategory, and Deism a subcategory within that. But that’s arguable. In any case, a Deist is not going to suppose any involved role for any God or gods beyond the moment of creation — at least if we use one current conventional belief about Deism. So I’m at a loss to understand your comment, since nothing I said implied such a thing.

[Dubious]

It depends on what distinction you’re meaning. I do believe in God as Creator, but also that His design is intelligent in nature, and manifests the intelligence of the Designer. Is that clear enough?

Yes, it's clear enough...as far as your opinion is concerned in that “It would seem to be the product of a Grand Intelligence". But there are an endless amount of seems throughout history which subsequent times proved to be no-longer so seemly!

And some that do. So which one this is, will have to be settled on the basis of the facts, which is what we’re aiming to do here.

That's only possible for those who are willing to prioritize fact over belief, and we both know, as does everyone here, that you ain't the type.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, it's clear enough...as far as your opinion is concerned in that “It would seem to be the product of a Grand Intelligence". But there are an endless amount of seems throughout history which subsequent times proved to be no-longer so seemly!

And some that do. So which one this is, will have to be settled on the basis of the facts, which is what we’re aiming to do here.

That's only possible for those who are willing to prioritize fact over belief, and we both know, as does everyone here, that you ain't the type.

That’s untrue, of course. It’s ad hominem, too. It’s always interesting to me that people who are losing an argument go there so immediately…

[Dubious]

And some that do. So which one this is, will have to be settled on the basis of the facts, which is what we’re aiming to do here.

That's only possible for those who are willing to prioritize fact over belief, and we both know, as does everyone here, that you ain't the type.

That’s untrue, of course. It’s ad hominem, too. It’s always interesting to me that people who are losing an argument go there so immediately…

It's as factual as facts can get, which deletes any assertion of ad hominem. Also, I haven't made any argument, at least not one I could qualify as such, so what argument have I lost? Your ability to make truly false assertions is staggering! The only one I know of who is your equal in the art, or better, that everyone knows of, is Donald Trump; another outstanding case where fact has no meaning.

[Immanuel Can]

That's only possible for those who are willing to prioritize fact over belief, and we both know, as does everyone here, that you ain't the type.

That’s untrue, of course. It’s ad hominem, too. It’s always interesting to me that people who are losing an argument go there so immediately…

It's as factual as facts can get, which deletes any assertion of ad hominem.

Actually, it doesn’t. The problem with an ad hom is not its truth or falsehood, so much as its relevance. It has none. So it’s what people resort to when they’ve run out of ideas.

[Dubious]

That’s untrue, of course. It’s ad hominem, too. It’s always interesting to me that people who are losing an argument go there so immediately…

It's as factual as facts can get, which deletes any assertion of ad hominem.

Actually, it doesn’t. The problem with an ad hom is not its truth or falsehood, so much as its relevance. It has none. So it’s what people resort to when they’ve run out of ideas.

If it has no relevance, why did you accuse me of it without making your accusation irrelevant?

[Immanuel Can]

It's as factual as facts can get, which deletes any assertion of ad hominem.

Actually, it doesn’t. The problem with an ad hom is not its truth or falsehood, so much as its relevance. It has none. So it’s what people resort to when they’ve run out of ideas.

If it has no relevance, why did you accuse me of it without making your accusation irrelevant?

My point wasn’t at all ad hom. It was what you verifiably did. I merely pointed out that it had nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the propositions we had been discussing, and was evidently an obscurantist tactic rather than an attempt to grapple with the ideas. That’s the problem with ad homs.

[Dubious]

Actually, it doesn’t. The problem with an ad hom is not its truth or falsehood, so much as its relevance. It has none. So it’s what people resort to when they’ve run out of ideas.

If it has no relevance, why did you accuse me of it without making your accusation irrelevant?

My point wasn’t at all ad hom. It was what you verifiably did. I merely pointed out that it had nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the propositions we had been discussing, and was evidently an obscurantist tactic rather than an attempt to grapple with the ideas. That’s the problem with ad homs.

You were never open to ideas, only to your beliefs. To be open to ideas, it's precisely the beliefs which must be questioned. For someone like you, whose beliefs have long merged into fact such an analysis is impossible.

[Dubious]

PS. What caused God?

...a long series of collective brain farts wherein god retroactively created the world as soon as WE created IT. I call it the Geneology of the Divine.

[attofishpi]

PS. What caused God?

...a long series of collective brain farts wherein god retroactively created the world as soon as WE created IT. I call it the Geneology of the Divine.

..nah.

Either:-
1. God is Divine and constructs our reality in real-time.
2. 'God' is A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. God is divine, but uses something akin to A.I. - an aethereal 'tech' to know all - our brains are like databases to this entity.

Personally from my now 27 years of experience of this entity, I am sitting on point 3.

[attofishpi]

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.”

You believe Jesus was God right?

Certainly something caused Him to be within Mary's womb or no?

[Dubious]

PS. What caused God?

...a long series of collective brain farts wherein god retroactively created the world as soon as WE created IT. I call it the Geneology of the Divine.

..nah.

Either:-
1. God is Divine and constructs our reality in real-time.
2. 'God' is A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. God is divine, but uses something akin to A.I. - an aethereal 'tech' to know all - our brains are like databases to this entity.

Personally from my now 27 years of experience of this entity, I am sitting on point 3.

You know I was being facetious being the sarcastic bastard I am but, as per your reasons, this at least is an intelligent version or versions of god which deserve to be discussed not in any theistic manner but philosophically exempt of any personal relations to some biblical overlord who annulled himself with the first of the 10 commandments. Yahweh really shot himself in the foot with that one.

If god were equivalent to a process, I'd subscribe to point 1. For me, it defaults to a question: what determines what will happen next. Laplace gave the answer...a simple one: the state of the universe right now, meaning the one we're living in among all the possible theoretical ones which may or may not exist. Actually, this combines quite nicely with your second point.

But to each his own. When you die, any comprehension one had of god dies along with you. It's easy to kill god on a personal level; all you have to do is croak, and whatever bed in your psyche you made for god becomes likewise defunct as well.