God

Originally posted by Mila Okay, that was the best post introduction I've ever read. I disagree, but that was good.

I'm sorry, how can you disagree? Either prove to me now that god exists, and that he is manifested as the koran describes, or admit that you are taking an irrational position.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Decebal 1. Does God exist? Why or why not? Yes, understood that by God we refer to the ultimate cause of existence, whichever it is. Which is assuming there is/was one.

Do you mean that there is no ultimate cause of existence and that it is our causalist thought which is wrong?

What did Hume mean for "infinite regress"? If he meant a causality circle, then I don't know but, if he meant, a cause that is infinite in nature then I think I won't agree.

If the Universe is finite then ther must be something larger, presumably infinite (and eternal, that is the same concept applied to time), that includes it. That's what I and Spinoza call God. 

By definition, I think, the issues we're discussing are beyond the power of speech, or any communication, to describe or explain adequately; if all knowledge arises from experience, direct or indirect, like reading a book about another's experienec for instance, and consciousness remains a solitary thing ( I am only aware of my own consciousness), language can only relate shared experience. Because discussing the origin of the universe is all wholley theoretical, with even the underlying patterns of unreason being neccessarily unfamiliar to us, we cannot really talk about this thing, which we each ( I assume) have only felt in our own being, inexplicably.

So, bear with me.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it truely is, infinite." The brain did not develop, biologically, to think abstractly; that is a pleasant side effect. Rather, like all organisms, humans developed to survive. I hypothesize that the brain looks for patterns where there need not neccessarily be any. Cause and effect bind our thinking, because that is all we ever perceive, and to even imagine what the alternative might possibly be, is beyond our capability.

It seems to me that the universe might well just be, in varying states of is, but otherwise unchanging, once out of the human perception. Of course, I can't tell you much more.

Originally posted by Amedeo Does the word "god" designate a) Being (That Which Is)? b) Nothing? c) An existent (one of the things which exists)? If (c): WHAT is it it that makes MANY existents possible? (WHAT makes you say that there are MANY things?)

God is from the human viewpoint a philosophical concept: the why of existence. When you can answer scientifically and not just philosophically to that question, you will have an idea of what God is.

...

In my opinion, which is Pantheistic, the plurality derives from two facts: dimensionalization and psychization.

God is one by definition but at the same time it is infinite, total. But the infinite number of finite cuts of God makes it plural (but only in our finite perception). So far the dimensionalization cause of plurality.

The psychization is more complex and I don't have a clear idea yet. Just say that the perception (psyche, soul, mind) is always product of the expression (numen, God, will), its reflexion. When God (the Will, the Numen) expresses it causes an impression upon itself, but while the expression is unique (for instance the Sun) the impressions that it causes, for instance the names for it can be many (impressions: warmth, hot, happiness, tiredness, etc.; names: Sun, Eguzki, Sol, Helios, etc.). In the variability of these psychical reactions for a single action, there is also the origin of plurality - if you want in a more arcane sense than with the dimensionalization.

At least by my own theory based on a degree of uncertainty I would like to believe that all religions lead to Rome based upons one's kowledge of right and wrong or the golden rule, all including Christanity, Islam, Hindus or whatever. I had heard the Christian arguments against this and yes I was raised that Christianity was the only way but I have doubts about that and cannot see a loving creator sending non-believers to me tormented forever and ever and ever non stop because they never knew about Jesus Christ or have their own philosophy or religion.
I could not believe that even someone like Hilter would be tormented forever.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Maju What did Hume mean for "infinite regress"? If he meant a causality circle, then I don't know but, if he meant, a cause that is infinite in nature then I think I won't agree. What I said was ambiguous, which is why my singulars and plurals got all miced up. Hume was concerned with the assumption that every effect had a cause, which he saw as psychologically based. If you don't think every effect necessarily has a cause the question of infinite regresses doesn't arise.

Well, when you declare that God is the ultimate cause any causality stops there, so tough the cause is infinite, the cuaslity chain is finite.

If the Universe is finite then ther must be something larger, presumably infinite (and eternal, that is the same concept applied to time), that includes it. well, you start off saying IF the universe is finite, which is might not be. We have every reason to believe now that our VISIBLE universe is finite in space and in time going back (but not going forward) but there's no reason to suppose that the visible (or perceptible) universe is all there is or has been.

Let's ponder for a moment that our Universe is actually infinte, then the Universe would be God.

But... the Universe is finite, because it has a finite set of dimensions (3+i), even it is infinite in other qualites (space, time, matter, energy), therefore I understand that there must be a wider "universe", or "whole" that explains and includes the finitude of this Universe we dwell in. Tho that actually infinite whole, I call God, as it is the ultimate cause of all that exists, because it implies/englobes all the rest.

That's what I and Spinoza call God.  I knew Spinoza did.

Spinoza is cool. Some modern Marxist reivindicate his thought, though I mostly limit myself to his excellent understanding of philosophical theology.

Unlike Descartes who started the pristine exploration of the Universe at hisown  mind ("cogito ergo sum"), Spinoza starts at God. But he is not doctrinary like most of those religious people who fill their mouth with the word God without having seated to ponder what they are talking about, but very logic and analytic. It's a delight to follow his analysis, at least in the first books - later he becomes too conservative for my like but maybe is just that I don't understand what he means.

Originally posted by Amedeo I think I understand what you call psychization. But this has to do with our basis or grasp of plurality. My original point was this: If you think that God is an existent among other existents, then you admit that there are at least two realities: one divine and one non-divine.

That's not my case and I never understand those that reject their divinity and that of the World. Guess they are missing the wholeness that can be only experienced (if such thing is possible) in a-temporal eternity.

I think that God is all and all is God.

So, the question is:  What is it that objectively is responsible for the existence of MANY things? How can they be isolated, discrete, non-continuous (namely one). For there to be two or more things, they have to be discontinuious things. Think of space for a moment. It is one, a unity. For there to be two spaces, they must be separated. Will there be NOTHING between them? Is Nothing something which can do something, can keep things apart and individualized. How on eath can there be a MULTIPLICITY of beings??? How can there be two or more events in succession, after a period of uneventfulness. Is there a NON-TIME betwee the events, and can Non-time do anything and separate events. How can there be gaps in either space or time????????

Because they are elsewhere? Maybe folded, like the Superstrings theory suggests?

I'm not sure but I think that space-time is continuous: there are no gaps there. The only "gaps" are found in quantum physics, which doesn't deal with space-time but with matterial particles and electro-nuclear energies. Guess that the only thing that is finite/gapped/quantic is matter, while space-time is continuous. But ask a physic.

Anyhow punctuated physics are Newtonian and that's obsolete. Remember that theories are models of understanding, maps... not reality. Reality has only one 100% accurate map: the 1:1 scale map that is itself.

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Maju What did Hume mean for "infinite regress"? If he meant a causality circle, then I don't know but, if he meant, a cause that is infinite in nature then I think I won't agree. What I said was ambiguous, which is why my singulars and plurals got all miced up. Hume was concerned with the assumption that every effect had a cause, which he saw as psychologically based. If you don't think every effect necessarily has a cause the question of infinite regresses doesn't arise. Well, when you declare that God is the ultimate cause any causality stops there, so tough the cause is infinite, the cuaslity chain is finite.

Agreed. I was merely presenting Aquinas' argument from cause, which depends on the assertion that there cannot be an infinite chain so there must be a primal cause.

You can of course believe that there was a primal cause even though there need not have been one, and then you don't need the infinite chain argument. But once you simply say that there just happened to be a primal cause, it isn't very convincing. The question's arises 'why think there was one?'.

If the Universe is finite then ther must be something larger, presumably infinite (and eternal, that is the same concept applied to time), that includes it. well, you start off saying IF the universe is finite, which is might not be. We have every reason to believe now that our VISIBLE universe is finite in space and in time going back (but not going forward) but there's no reason to suppose that the visible (or perceptible) universe is all there is or has been. Let's ponder for a moment that our Universe is actually infinte, then the Universe would be God. But... the Universe is finite, because it has a finite set of dimensions (3+i), even it is infinite in other qualites (space, time, matter, energy), therefore I understand that there must be a wider "universe", or "whole" that explains and includes the finitude of this Universe we dwell in.

Why? The universe is all there is (that's what the word means). So even if it is finite there cannot be anything not included in it.

Your 'argument' simply reduces to asserting that the universe must be infinite, thereby begging the question.

Tho that actually infinite whole, I call God, as it is the ultimate cause of all that exists, because it implies/englobes all the rest. That's what I and Spinoza call God.  I knew Spinoza did. Spinoza is cool. Some modern Marxist reivindicate his thought, though I mostly limit myself to his excellent understanding of philosophical theology. Unlike Descartes who started the pristine exploration of the Universe at hisown  mind ("cogito ergo sum"), Spinoza starts at God. But he is not doctrinary like most of those religious people who fill their mouth with the word God without having seated to ponder what they are talking about, but very logic and analytic. It's a delight to follow his analysis, at least in the first books - later he becomes too conservative for my like but maybe is just that I don't understand what he means.

I have some fondness for Spinoza as a person myself, especially as a defender of free speech. I temperamentally tend to be attracted to anyone who was thrown out of their church for speaking their mind

However I don't go for the 'everything that happens happens out of necessity' bit: 'There is no mind absolute or free will' and 'things could not be otherwise than as they are'.

Edited by gcle2003