View Full Version : God
Im-Suffering
09-26-2014, 06:36 AM
Dear readers:
To some degree you all share in a feeling I will call disjointed. A disconnect with your feelings. Over the years you may have closed down to a degree, from pains, trauma individual to each of you. A big portion of healing is to reconnect not only with yourselves, but with love. Love first for who you are, slowly opening up little by little, in trust. The way to a magical life enters through that opening
It would help all of you here, to know who you are, and have a clear understanding of where you came from, your impulses, desires, expectations, dreams, your thoughts...you will operate with fear if you feel removed from your source of strength. You were never meant to go it alone, and in truth, you are never alone. But you cannot know self, if you separate self from the energy within you, and try to live day to day with no footing. I suggest you re-read the following several times, print it, and keep it. An intuitive understanding will help to ground you. Know, what you are about to read is needed, some have asked for it, and if it clicks within you, mark this moment in your life. For the anxious, know there is no anxiety within, anxiety is without. You will soon understand. I hope to shatter your old, outdated concepts that hinder your growth. In a very real sense you ask "where is God to help me with my troubles, my pain, and hurts"?
Love is all there is, in the greatest sense, and so this is given to you - out of that desire
The following is from a spiritual reading, channeled, with the question "who is God?" -
This is His story, experience it:
If you prefer, you can call the supreme psychic gestalt God, but you should not attempt to objectify him.
What you call God is the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.
He is not one individual, but an energy gestalt. He is a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever expanding consciousness, that creates simultaneous and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence and eternal validity.
Its energy is so unbelievable that is does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, fields and systems, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls.
Dimly remembered through what you would call history, there was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known. All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. All That Is had to learn this lesson, and could not be taught. From this agony, creativity was originally drawn, and its reflection is still seen. All That Is retains the memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus toward renewed creativity. Desire, wish and expectation, therefore, rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within the dreams of All That Is, potential beings had consciousness before any beginning as you know it.
In Its massive imagination, It understood that the cosmic multiplication of consciousness could not occur within that framework. Actuality was necessary if these probabilities were to be given birth. All That Is saw an infinity of probable, conscious individuals. These probable individual selves found themselves alive within a God's dream and they clamored to be released into actuality. All That Is yearned to release them and sought within itself for the means to do so.
Finally, with love and longing It let go of that portion of itself, and they were free.
The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.
All That Is loves all that It has created down to the least, for It realizes the dearness and uniqueness of each consciousness which has been wrest from such a state of agony. It is triumphant and joyful at each development taken by each consciousness, and It revels and takes joy in the slightest creative act of each of Its issues.
All individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is as It once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source... and yearn to give it actuality through their own creations.
Now in the same way do you give freedom to the personality fragments within your own dreams and for the same reason. And you create for the same reason, and within each of you is the memory of primal agony-- that urge to create and free all probable consciousness into actuality.
The connections between you and All That Is can never be severed, and Its awareness is so delicate and focused that its attention is indeed directed with a prime creator's love to each consciousness.
All That Is knows no other. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like Itself may exist. It is constantly searching.
All portions of All That Is are constantly changing. All That Is is constantly seeking to know Itself, for seeking itself is a creative activity and the core of all action.
You, as a consciousness, seek to know yourself and become aware of yourself as a distinct individual portion of All That Is. You automatically draw on the overall energy of All That Is, since your existence is dependent upon it.
The portion of All That Is that is aware of itself as you, that is focused within your existence, can be called upon for help when necessary. This portion of All That Is looks out for your interests and may be called upon in a personal manner. A psychic gestalt may seem impersonal to you, but its energy forms your person
Rest your weary nerves, dear ones.
In the following posts by me I will copy and paste to you the essay I wrote on God a few months back.
Does a God exist?
I believe a God does exist.
Joe Jones discusses and debates whether a God does exist. He rigorously explores the idea of God and reality itself.
However, this question is highly debated, and is one where no accepted answer to it has been formulated even though many strong arguments exist in favour of both a God existing and not existing. Theists, deists, pantheists and atheists are all schools of thought which deal with this question. In my opinion this question is purely epistemology (theories on knowledge) and should not be analysed in any other way (science, revelation). Society as a whole has lots of different views or definitions of God, some include spirituality, ‘love’ and some sort of religious connection so, it is important that the definition of a philosophical God is broad and leaves space for religious or other interpretations to be added to it ( I personally would not do this though).
Omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are essential factors for the deist God and in this essay I attempt to put forward strong arguments in favour of their existence in the first cause. The arguments don’t try to ‘prove’ the existence of God but try to formulate strong reasons in believing in the deist God using reason and logic, not faith associated with religion, and fallacies associated with atheism. The view supported in this essay is Deism, (thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism)he belief that reason/logic alone is sufficient in believing in the God I will describe.
Before beginning my arguments for God it is important for me to state and explain my reasons for relying in the methods used in the essay; logic and epistemology (philosophical logic, with exception to the mathematical theorem “Gödel’s ontological argument”).
The general stance of many scientists is to refute philosophical discussion; empiricism is a common viewpoint among theoretical physicists. Not all scientists have this stance though; some believe both disciplines are compatible.
Philosophers don’t have a general consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) on how exactly science works from a broad sense, but do agree on the following things:
1) Science relies on the scientific method to be called science.
2) Science explains a state by using a law or from a broad sense, another state.
3) Science has limits, whether it is an economical or epistemological limit, (not assertion this is the conclusion from premise one and two)
The epistemological limits are in my opinion:
1) State dependence means no first cause can be scientifically reached and/ or analysed.
2) How would science deal with abstract questions?
My view is that both disciplines offer no real relationship to each other, and don’t need to, so therefore in their own right contribute highly to progress, because sciences limits don’t really affect it, but they being they especially limit two gives room for philosophical discussion.
Atheism generally uses ‘science’ or the lack of evidence fallacy to support atheism but, like I said only epistemology is best suited to deal with this question. A few atheists attempt to use the problem of evil ( evidential) to support their world view but a God does not have to be omnibenevolent by the deist definition, only benevolence( not all- loving but loving) This is backed up by the ‘presence’ of omnipotence as a sentient being has to have ‘feelings’.
Should observation be valued higher than pure logic? This is a very important question when discussing the uses of philosophy. Observation is the basis for science (although other elements go into it), logic is the basis of philosophy, so it is in a sense philosophy versus science. When discussing a question like this it is vital to remember that philosophy never tries to advance in technologies or medical stuff as this simply is not the objective of philosophy, it is often the objective of science. On the same rule it is vital to remember that science does not work with logic in the way philosophy does as this is not the objective of science.
First what presuppositions go into belief in observations? Is logic used in asserting observations are reliable? I think so; we compute in our minds the logical inference that what we see is generally true.
Radical (or normal, with the new atheist movement) scientists don’t agree with my argument, they base all knowledge of theirs on ONLY observation. Their reason for this is if we extrapolate out just the assertion logic is only a representation of reality and has no bearing on it.
My objection to the empiricist argument would be this, even if logic is a language my argument still stands, the ‘language’ says an inference takes place.
It is rational to believe in Omnipotence in the deistic view of God because:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause; this cause is always ‘greater’ than the thing it is causing, this means a cause’s greatness is measured by how many other elements are dependent on it. There are two ‘infinities’ in this proposition, one qualitative and the other quantitative. The two infinities don’t exist in the argument because of each other but are created because of the premises. The qualitative infinity is the ‘greatness’ in the argument and the quantitative infinity is the number each stage in the argument would represent (bearing in mind nominalism). These two infinities are not in logical proportion as the qualitative can’t (illogical if it was) be proportionate because the qualitative infinity is not a number and cannot be represented as one therefore the fallacy of quantitative infinity is avoided. So what this means is one of the 3 criteria for God’s existence (omnipotence) can be interpreted as a logical strong belief. This argument depends heavily on a factor, ‘greatness’, but is not dependent in the sense of external to the premise though.
The next essential factor for the deistic god’s existence is omniscience.
This is a rational concept because:
If omnipotence is logical then because of the nature of omnipotence it must also ‘create’ omniscience (all-knowingness sentiency) as all-powerfulness is the limitless ‘quality’ of God and all knowingness would be under that. By definition a logical qualitative infinity implies within it an omniscient property.
The last essential factor for the deistic God’s existence is, benevolence (notice, not Omni-benevolence)
This is a rational concept because:
If we accept that my argument for omniscience to be right, omniscience most therefore produce ‘morals’ ‘feelings ‘and ‘sentiency’ which strongly suggest benevolence. Omniscience logically validates benevolence because to be sentient (omniscience has to be this by definition) means to also hold views on the world it creates or itself (explained in paragraph “to sum up”).
Where would God be in time?
Where would you place God in time? This question is often the most disputed factor of God and has been used as an argument against God. Religions normally place God not even in time, omni-temparal, this means God is timeless to them. The argument for a timeless God is this: if we accept Time to be a property and time to be a limitation (because of a beginning and end) then by deduction God has no ‘time’. My view is a variation of the omni-temparal God; I believe that the premise time is a limitation is correct and, and I believe time is a property of reality so must logically be created by a first cause.
Can God if immaterial create material?
A god by definition has to be immaterial and create material (reality). The way I think a God can logically do this is, because of its omnipotence so must have limitless power if that property is proven so therefore you would think if it’s power is infinity it would include a power to create material reality, but would it? To find out we have to check for any logical fallacies or contradictions, so consider the premise “limitless power includes transcendence and creation of reality from a immaterial state”, within this premise I have already used an argument to prove limitless power and transcendence but how would I define immaterial here? An immaterial being would not have structure or shape so by this definition can this property cause anything external to it? I think it could, because from a first cause perspective anything that is material (has a form and shape) would be bound by physical laws therefore rendering it not really a first cause, and as God has to be a first cause ( to fit definition) it logically must not be material.
Can a God make ‘choices’?
One element of God that can be disputed is whether it can make choices so this implies the question: to God are all truths absolute? To answer this question we need to first establish whether truths ‘humans’ can perceive are absolute or not, and I think defiantly. This is because if you use the “road runner tactic” it shows that the premise “something can be true for me but not for you” depends on an absolute truth to show subjective truths! So now I have established humans only perceive absolute truths, now would a God perceive absolute truths? I think yes, as a God is meant to be a progression from humans so subjective truths would not fit that. This leaves the question though, are the truths God knows higher than him? To me no as anything higher than infinity is still infinity! Furthermore as all facts at this level are absolute a choice would be ‘perfect’ and pre-determined. Here though I believe a epistemological limit is reached.
Gödel’s ontological argument
This is an attempt at proving God’s existence using formal logic. It’s highly technical so I can’t deduce much from it myself, but it’s still one of the strongest arguments for God.
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified
Physicists generally hold the contention that “reality can come into being spontaneously and uncaused” (this is central to atheism). Popular science and the media misrepresent ‘nothing’, for instance in quantum mechanics a particle can pop into existence from a vacuum and seemingly without know ‘cause’, but this description of their theories is highly manipulating, as the nothing in question here is not the nothing science talks about.
The word nothing should when considering questions on spontaneity, be defined as ‘absolute’ nothing a state which is timeless, massless, space-less, causeless, conception-less and ‘empty’ idea. The reason this definition is the adequate definition of ‘nothing’ is it is the absence of anything that has any ‘meaning’ therefore rightfully being nothing; hence we have the conception that absence of something is a regression towards nothing.
So first of all can this nothing exist? Exist, it’s a word which obviosly has properties, those properties stop it from giving ‘nothing’ the ability to exist. Think of it like this if nothing is “timeless, massless, space-less, causeless, conception-less and ‘empty’ idea” and it then “exists” it would therefore not be “conception-less” and as this is part of the definition of nothing (definitions always remain total) nothing would cease to “exist” ( not exist in first place anyway).
Now to the question at hand, can nothing create something? It is clear to me now in my opinion as the concept of nothing doesn’t exist the it cannot create anything in reality!
To sum up:
Dependencies and causality imply a God exists? If ‘r’ only exists because of ‘y’ then, ‘r’ is dependent on ‘y’, ‘y’ can be interpreted as either an existence or a process, but only the process would be the cause.
What I think this means is causality itself strongly supports a prime mover, as if we extrapolate this proposition; it appears a qualitative infinity is approached (because of premise two in my paragraph on omnipotence). So is a qualitative infinity a prime mover, or even a God?
A prime mover is an omnipotent, omniscient entity. A God is considered a personal manifestation of a prime mover; by personal I mean it has morals relevant to our perceived reality. From this definition of a prime mover this qualitative infinity seems to be a prime mover, so can we add logically a personal element to it?
As this prime mover is omniscient, it has absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is knowing and comprehension of ‘everything’, within ‘everything’ is morals, so this prime mover knows of morals. Now we get to a new question ‘is knowledge predisposing experience?’ .I believe, because knowledge requires justification by definition then one form of justification is experience, we know that knowledge CAN predispose experience, but does it from an absolute perspective?
Is knowledge predisposing experience? Knowledge is “justified true belief”, to justify you need to “show or prove to be right or reasonable.” Belief is “To hold an opinion on the world without justification.” So from this we can say opinions are predisposed from knowledge, this implies to me experience is then predisposed. I think this because, an opinion is defined as this “A view on the world with insufficient grounds for proof on its own”, and to even view the world in any way requires experience. This argument though has problems which can be countered; as described and explained by the philosopher, Frank Jackson, he says the two elements are mutually exclusive, he explains this idea using the thought experiment “Mary’s room”. Mary’s room, states if a person which is sentient is placed from birth in a black and white room and not allowed to see any other colours, but grows up to have a complete knowledge of all the scientific features of colours including how others describe them, then if one day she sees a blue colour she has experienced something different, something she could not experience before. This means to Frank Jackson, that knowledge and experience are two completely different categories which have no ‘link’. I would counter this objection by interpreting the same thought experiment in a different way. As, I would say once she experiences colour she infers using her previous knowledge that she in fact is seeing a colour, and that colour is blue, so to experience we have to have knowledge and to have knowledge we have to experience.
This then means to me omniscience is a valid element of God and benevolence.
Arguments for atheism (different point of view than me, http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html):
All proof has to be ‘observable’ and we have not ‘observed’ God so God has not been proven, according to atheists. A God cannot be observed scientifically so using atheism’s empirical view of knowledge, God cannot be proven so should not be believed. Another argument used in atheism is the view that reality/universe is infinite, and on that premise the cosmological argument is invalid so God cannot be proven. Other attempts of arguments/attacks against the existence of God mainly rely on stating that religion does not prove God’s existence (and it doesn’t) so therefore God was created by religion and it by itself does not exist, but this does not address why the deistic God doesn’t exist. Another argument for atheism is to object to the deistic premise “ If ‘A’ causes ‘B’ A has to be greater” they object to it by comparing it to evolution, saying actually it is the other way round in this instance. One more argument for atheism is the evidential problem of evil, this shows that there is clearly ‘evil’ in the world and as God is meant to have created it they question whether if a God exists would he do that.
These ‘arguments’ are not rigorous enough and not well, logical enough to constitute for a ToE (theory of everything) or a ‘proof’ against God.
These ‘arguments’ are not rigorous enough and not well, logical enough to constitute for a ToE (theory of everything) or a ‘proof’ against God.
This is because, the first argument “All proof has to be ‘observable’ and we have not ‘observed’ God so God has not been proven, according to atheists. Philosophically though a God cannot be observed scientifically so using atheism’s empirical view of knowledge, God cannot be proven so should not be believed.” Is a bad argument, as if only observation of things constitutes for any good argument then you are denying certain logical rules, seemingly saying illogical things can be right. . It is wrong because many seemingly empirical facts can be rightfully disputed and in many cases empirical ‘truths’ are not reliable, furthermore some non-empirical arguments seem using logic, undisputable truths ( I.e. syllogisms, deduction and deduction is the logical method used in the variation of the Kalam cosmological argument I used!). Also the second argument “Another argument used in atheism is the view that reality/universe is infinite, and on that premise the cosmological argument is invalid so God cannot be proven.” Has faulty reasoning behind it. The reason why it is invalid is the premise it depends on ‘reality is infinite’ is extremely problematic as explained using the thought experiment “Hilbert’s Hotel”. The thought experiment “Hilbert’s Hotel” says imagine a hypothetical hotel full with infinite guests and another guest turns up using the logic of infinity even though it is “full” another guest would be able to enter, and also if all the odd numbered guests left the amount of guests would be infinite, this suggests infinity cannot be subtracted nor added to anything, this means causation cannot happen in an infinite state. The argument for atheism “Another argument for atheism is to object to the deistic premise “ If ‘A’ causes ‘B’, A has to be greater than ‘b’ ” they object to it by comparing it to evolution, saying actually it is the other way round in this instance.” This is not valid because to me it confuses the existence of a thing with it causing something; they are two completely different categories as, just the existence of something ultimately does not cause anything, the process which it allows to happen. My objection to the last argument for atheism I have noticed (“One more argument for atheism is the evidential problem of evil, this shows that there is clearly ‘evil’ in the world and as God is meant to have created it they question whether if a God exists would he do that.”) is this, it seems to be a good argument against theism but it ignores the difference between deism and theism. As deism objects to a personal creator (a God which has relative morals) this type of argument cannot be postulated against it.
Arguments for Theism (not my view, my view is deism):
These arguments place emphasis on faith above solid logical evidence but they don’t refute attempts in logical justification.
Some theists claim their have had a religious experience (revelation, Inner voice) validating that their God exists. Also they use variations of the cosmological argument to imply a ‘personal creator’ for example they say it suggests if a deity is aware of its creation ( because of omniscience) it must intervene in it because of its presumed Omni-benevolence. Most importantly in the theist world view they use ancient scripture or holy books as evidence for their God, using historical sources implying a special power in Jesus or prophets claiming connection with God.
I am not saying religion is wrong in anyway by saying its God is not proven as religion is not about ‘proof’ it is about faith, but they are problems in theism when compared to deism. They is problems with theism because the first claim “Some theists claim their have had a religious experience (revelation, Inner voice) validating that their God exists” cannot be confirmed as we cannot know what happens in each other’s mind with such certainty. The second claim “Also they use variations of the cosmological argument to imply a ‘personal creator’ for example they say it suggests if a deity is aware of its creation (because of omniscience) it must intervene in it because of its presumed Omni-benevolence.” Is the strongest argument for the theist God (and I believed it myself for a while) but a few problems arise on analysis; as this premise depends on the presence of Omni-benevolence, and to me this does not exist. Omni-benevolence does not exist (well not in God) because of the apparent evidential problem of evil, although benevolence does exist in God as explained earlier. The third argument for theism is “in the theist world view they use ancient scripture or holy books as evidence for their God, using historical sources implying a special power in Jesus or prophets claiming connection with God.” But, this argument is not reliable, and has just come from historical sources when religion was the only way to explain reality.
Objections to my argument: The arguments I have put forward in this essay for deism are in my opinion very strong arguments. They are a few objections what could be used to counter my arguments for instance:
Does the presence of quantitative infinity invalidate the qualitative infinity?
The objections to my arguments can be countered; the first objection “Does the presence of quantitative infinity invalidate the qualitative infinity?” works by saying as quantitative infinity cannot be logically reached so therefore the premises are invalid so qualitative infinity is illogical, but the problem with this argument is I have said they is no relationship between the quantitative infinity and the qualitative one just they both are unavoidably created in the premise ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause and a cause is always greater than the thing it is causing’ (qualitative: “greater” quantitative: the amount of times the causation is applied, and in this case it approaches infinity).
Omnipotence paradox in a God. (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Omnipotence_paradox)
The second objection is “Omnipotence paradox” this is probably the strongest objection to the variation of the Kalam cosmological argument, but still has problems. The paradox is this ‘can God create a rock that even it cannot move’ I think though a God would because of its omniscience chose not to make such thing so it would stay omnipotent.
Maybe sentient beings don’t have to have ‘morals’?
Another objection I have noticed is “maybe sentient beings don’t have to have ‘morals’?” but I believe a sentient being/deity to be sentient by definition have to exert morals in one way or another, because of the very definition of sentiency (explained in more detail in paragraph “to sum up”).
Some philosophers object to God by claiming a regress is present if we suppose the standard model of the cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)is true; to me this in itself is highly fallacious. A regress is normally categorised as a causal loop which is thought of as special pleading (a ~ b~ c~ d…………….). When talking about God, the cause of God would have to be infinite, but so would God. This implies the question what is infinity+ infinity? It’s still infinity! So on that fact is a regress actually here? To me no as this shows no causal progress.
My counter objection does show how language could be to blame here, as language dictates that a proposition has meaning (abstract or not), it would be default for a layperson to think this is actually a sound objection to God. Whereas in my view it is not.
One more objection to my variation of the Kalam cosmological argument is the view that the mere fact that God ‘seems’ to be subject to the laws of logic means it has a ‘higher power’, so is not God.
This objection is very strong, but has a flaw. As it works on the premise that “the laws of logic would govern God’s existence” but that in my argument is not true, simply as logic is really a language which represents reality and I have inferred that God created reality using logic does not infer that God exists because of logic. For example “everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the cause of anything is always greater than the thing or logic premise it is causing” (elaborated in first paragraph) gives a ‘explanation’ of the existence of God using the ‘language’ of logic and maybe God (we cannot confidently say it’s the ‘language’ of God as this is a epistemological limit) not using any causations before God itself. This objection is highly critiqued by William lane Craig. Also it commits the fallacy of thinking ‘infinity’ plus infinity is not infinity, but it is still infinity.
A strong objection to my argument is the denial of causal relations (no causes in reality, only made by consciousness or mankind as a whole). This objection works by stating that at the most fundamental level ‘causes’ don’t exist, only unexplainable spontaneousness. The reason for believing in this is to say something causes something, you are saying the thing it is causing is dependent on it and the cause ‘effects’ it, by saying this two problems are created. One: a cause explains a state by another state, two: this means on the basis of that premise a first cause (God) cannot exist. I find that this very strong objection can still be countered with logical justification.
The problem with this objection is that it presumes at the first cause things can still be separate from the nature of God, but it is ‘monist’ at that point. This means any additional causes which can be postulated only add to the qualitative infinity not show a higher power or illogical regression. So to say a ‘first cause’ by the definition of cause has to be dependent on something is ignoring the fact that this state is the first cause and has been suggested not by linear logic but by things unrelated to time so, linear logical rules cannot be applied to it. As the objection states “a cause explains a state by another state” I have said in response to that that any additional states only add to the qualitative infinity, not creating anything separate or/and higher state.
A common way to object to God is to point out the evil in the world. This type of argument has taken many forms some more sophisticated than others. The variation of the problem I will be critiquing is the evidential problem of evil. This to me is the most sophisticated out of the variations. It works by saying ’ a good God can be the only God in all possible worlds, and if an argument includes room for a bad God than the argument is fallacious’ I.E God is good as he deems what is good to be good, you could say God is bad because he controls what is bad. This argument is normally used in conjunction to the premise that an atheist can only object to views on God.
I find though, there is a problem with using such argument as a reason to not believe in God, as it ignores the deistic God completely. So if we try to include the deistic God to the argument the argument falls apart, because as the deistic God is only benevolent and not Omni-benevolent there is no opposite of exerting some morals. Atheists to me seem too often ignore deism.
The strongest objection I have found to my argument is to ask the question “where would you place God in time? (Paraphrase)”, this means is the God only at the ‘beginning’ or is it omnipresent and still ‘here’. If it was only at the beginning then a God does not exist now. To infer that God exists now, we have to say he is eternal and exists after the first cause, allowing each perceived piece of reality to be perceived.
In response to this objection, time as a fundamental ‘element’ does not exist, many of its features are arbitrary the only feature left is the on-going perception of reality the “keeping on” of reality. Even when you deconstruct time to this point it still problematic in the context of my argument, but if we get rid of this in my argument it is no longer a problem. To rightfully get rid of time we need to adopt a form of idealism, in which time itself is created by a prime mover, God, as time is a property it must logically have a cause. If we ignore our categorisation of time into measurements only the ordering by our minds of reality remain, and this seems to me a property of reality itself.
One way to object to the deistic view of God is to claim a regression is present in my kalam cosmological argument. This is a popular way to object to God, philosophers often phrase the argument as this ‘what would cause God’. They get to that conclusion on the premise that everything needs a cause, whether it is God or not. To them as everything needs a cause than no first cause can be reached.
I believe however that objection is highly fallacious. To me is commits the fallacy that infinity+ infinity is more than infinity, but in fact it isn’t, it’s still infinity! If infinity is approached in a proposition than the proposition is irreversible and is closed.
If we suppose there is a point 'A' and a point 'B' And, B is 'after' A which then negates A. At what point does B succeed A? First we need to make a model for the proposition, so in the context of Years, when does 2014 (A) become 2015 (B)?
This seems to have an easy answer, at 00:00 New Year’s day, but if we look at it in detail and remember that this is just a model, the same proposition is left; 'when does it actually become midnight on news years day? This links heavily into the denial of causal relations argument I have addressed.
This paradox has some profound metaphysical implications. As it is not just applicable to changes in time, we can propose the question when does a cause have an effect, or even does it? This question has particular importance when exploring the validity of my argument for the deistic God because if causes are ‘meaningless’ then my argument is invalid. Now, what constitutes as a valid cause? The philosophical definition of a cause is this "the action of causing something/the relationship between cause and effect; causality" I would also add (added it because of philosophical perspective on cause) to this definition a relation to the term dependency (“Existing solely because of its cause"). So if that is what a cause is then to say if there are any causes we have to assess how a such definition actually happens in reality, and to say when exactly it happens we need to assess at what point is the effect perceivable ( because of "action" being a material experience) to us. This to me seems very plausible given the right parameters, explaining it here would be ignoring differences in context for every different cause, A and B need to stay ambiguous.
One way to object to my argument for the deistic God is to explore my interpretation of causality. For instance: “what would be greater, the sun or human consciousness? This works as an objection as you can suggest from this that causes sometimes don’t follow a linear path (therefore my kalam cosmological argument is invalid), because at first glance it seems there is no relation.
I would counter this sophisticated objection by offering a relation between them. First the greatness of a cause is determined by how many other elements are dependent on it( the universe is dependent on the big bang and the universe is very complex so the big bang has a high greatness), this means to counter such objection we need to evaluate how dependent our reality is on the elements in question. So consciousness, what depends on this? If we were not conscious then we would not know reality, we would not be alive, and this has very profound anti-realist implications. The implications are, a link between reality and our mind is inferred, supporting the CTMU (Christopher Langan, logician). We can deduct from this that our mind, consciousness, is very ‘great’. Now the sun, is that greater than consciousness? What depends on the sun? Without the sun we would not be alive in this particular solar system, but as the universe is so immense the probability of life being formed elsewhere is very high. On that premise, it seems consciousness has more elements dependent on it and therefore is greater. The conclusion from this is even from quite ambiguously related elements a fair logical relation can be drawn, so no flaw in my argument is created by this objection.
Summary for my argument for God
Part 1:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist
The universe had a cause. (Here the universe means perceived reality).
Part 2:
1. A cause is always logically greater than the thing it is causing, a cause being the process not the existence of it.
i. A causes’ greatness is determined by how many other elements are dependent on it.
2. This seems to cause a regression but it doesn’t because of two separate distinct infinities, qualitative and quantitative.
3. These infinities are not in proportion as; only one can be represented as a number.
4. Therefore the regression is avoided as the qualitative does not have a causal effect.
Part 3:
Omnipotence exists (not assertions refer two part 2)
Omnipotence is all-powerfulness; to have knowledge is a power.
Therefore An omnipotent being ( God) is omniscient ( all-knowing)
Part 4:
Omniscience exists in God. ( not assertion refer to part 3)
You can have knowledge of morals
Experience is knowledge. ( qualia)
As it is all-knowing, all possible morals are possible (not all present)
Therefore a God is benevolent
Part 5:
Time needs a beginning and end, so it is a limitation.
As it’s a limitation and God is omnipotent, God cannot be subject to time.
God is timeless.
This means he has no specific time, and as part of the first cause, created time.
Part 6:
A God has to be immaterial to exist.
It also has to create material reality.
To explain in what exact way the God created reality is an epistemological limit.
But we can show how it is logical for it to happen.
As the God being immaterial avoids a limitation and we have accepted the premise that belief in omnipotence is correct, we can propose that if a God can it will.
All apparent objections to this argument, I have tried to counter in this essay, and these counter arguments seem to be consistent with my view and successful in countering them, but maybe other objections remain. My actual argument for deism seems to me logically sound, it does leave some questions but these types of arguments can contribute much more to philosophy, generating discussion, I personally see it as progress not definite proof. This question, “Does a God exist” cannot be answered with absolute certainty and the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, it is a question which only can rightfully be answered with strong ‘logic’ based beliefs(Deism).
“Logic is not a body of doctrine but a mirror image of reality, logic is transcendental” – Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I wrote this essay around about 6 months ago, so I was in the midst of some intense symptoms, and agrophobic at the time, so I passed the time by writing this. Quite insane this essay I think.
My views have changed
jessed03
09-26-2014, 09:05 AM
What are you studying anyway, some form of philosophy?
Logic is pretty mysterious, when I wrote that essay, I was sure logic was transcendent and the truth, now as I have learnt and matured, I am more 'on the fence'.
Interesting. What makes religious debate so hard is that every form of logic can be twisted to form an arguement for, or against a higher power.
Perhaps the reason I became agnostic was my hope that there wasn't a God, and there wasn't a higher power. I'd have a real time struggling to worship anything that made such a shambolic job of life as we humans know it. And no, as you can gather, I don't believe in the concept of original sin. :)
What are you studying anyway, some form of philosophy?
Na, not yet anyway.
I do in my spare time for fun however :)
Just when I didn't go out of the house ( I do now) this was my LIFE.
I'm keen on studying philosophy at college.
Love has never had anything to do with 'my' God, because of the problem of evil/suffering/ugliness you've described, shouldn't really have twisted the definition of God that much in my essay.
Did the forum just crash then? :O
jessed03
09-26-2014, 09:40 AM
I'm keen on studying philosophy at college.
Love has never had anything to do with 'my' God, because of the problem of evil/suffering/ugliness you've described, shouldn't really have twisted the definition of God that much in my essay.
Did the forum just crash then? :O
You should study it, no doubt. Even if it was just a home college course or something.
I get that. Puppet master is surprisingly a concept I can accept a little more than loving father. Hey ho! :)
It did crash. Was that a sign?????????
At the college I plan to go to they have a course on philosophy.
Think I crashed it......must be a sign
You should study it, no doubt. Even if it was just a home college course or something.
I get that. Puppet master is surprisingly a concept I can accept a little more than loving father. Hey ho! :)
It did crash. Was that a sign?????????
"Philosophy is to be felt" No, no it's not, not in the way you mean it. That's spirituality, which I have little against.
Without reasoning, why give it the name of "God", and how can you give it that name name? You need reasoning to imagine, conceptualise and feel.
I see your point, might not be the 'truth', but believing it is the truth is certainly not harmful and could, or will, help anxiety, like you said.
I want people to refer back to the OP. The portrait I've painted cannot be reasoned, and it is designed to open the creative faculties and stir the imagination, not a post for debate in the usual sense, or to 'think it out'. Open up and just be, allow the imagination to paint pictures of wonder, miraculous is the power inside all of you. Feel, don't think....feel your own energy...read it again, close your eyes and feel.
Joe, philosophy is to be felt, that's real philosophy. One of the main reasons for anxiety is the feeling centers are closed. And that is due to the holding environment as a child. The conditioned response to trauma is to shut down, to close off love, to pull back and away. The planet is full of damaged adults who are closed off.
You've got to open your hearts, you've got to feel. The OP is meant to be felt.....feel, feel, feel, feel....feel.......feel.
Dahila
09-26-2014, 11:24 AM
Joe you should post the link to the book you just copied. I am with Jessed on that topic. Again Ims you posted very controversial topic here. I thought you are peaceful man, but I have my doubts about you , now.. such disappointment
Jesse you will be ignored, every voice of reason is ignored here. People like that killed the forum
Joe you should post the link to the book you just copied. I am with Jessed on that topic. Again Ims you posted very controversial topic here. I thought you are peaceful man, but I have my doubts about you , now.. such disappointment
Jesse you will be ignored, every voice of reason is ignored here. People like that killed the forum
All my own words haha useful thread aswell
It is hard for me to believe that anything written in this (long) thread will be of any practical use to anyone. I guess maybe it was amusing or cathartic for the authors, and that may be a benefit. But for any readers???
There are people coming here who really want/need some advice and encouragement. Would our time and energy be better spent trying to do that, rather than blathering on about abstract notions of God and philosophy?
I realize this is an open forum, and I do not deny anyone's right to post whatever they want (within some bounds of reason). I just think this has been a particularly useless thread.
<<The OP here is to be felt, that is why you consider it useless.>>
Actually, the reason I consider it "useless" is not because it is "to be felt," but instead because it is utter nonsense. You might be able to add some value here if you would learn to make your points succinctly, and in plain English, rather that pretending that you are some sort of pseudo-deity, prophet, philosopher, or psychic.
Dahila
09-26-2014, 08:12 PM
As I have told you, you are fixated on the outside world. As you get older, and the vitality that was so outwardly focused 'physically', wanes to a degree, you will begin to look within, the focus will shift. It is not an 'if' but a 'when'. This thread is about feeling. Which you put aside long ago. You've got to learn how to feel again. Feeling hurts, feeling is painful, so the child closed those doors.
The OP here is to be felt, that is why you consider it useless.
As you get older you suppose to get smarter and give people something constructive. Do not analyze me Ims I am good and sound and you know that. I have mine believes which are kind of logical. I believe in DNA and nothing more. Wrong I believe in nature healing, but not the healers. they are all frauds and I know it first hand. :))
I think my friends will not pop in because they blocked you, they do not see your posts. I am sorry. I still believe that you can give something to people, and hope you will serve it the way it helps others.
Im-Suffering
09-27-2014, 03:48 PM
I urge any readers, yes you, to please refer back to the original post on page one. Reread it and enjoy the safe, comforting feeling it gives you.
Yes you may be experiencing physical issues related to anxiety, and for the most part we all are going or have been though them. Even though I could corroborate what you feel in your bodies, and every sensation is valid, I draw your attention to the peace that this OP can give. Please bring yourself back to it.
The last page here and especially the 3 or 4 posts above this one were deliberate to draw attention away from the healing message on page one. So please refer back to the OP and allow yourself to melt into the wonderful message.
There may be more negativity to follow this post, which can be expected, so please stop here and pay no mind.
Back to page one:
http://anxietyforum.net/forum/showthread.php?29814-God
Blessings for healing
For the right people, your advise is life changing. For some people your words don't resonate with them. Most of what you write resonates with me and does chip away at the brick wall of negative beliefs I have, just not this one.
I urge any readers, yes you, to please refer back to the original post on page one. Reread it and enjoy the safe, comforting feeling it gives you.
Yes you may be experiencing physical issues related to anxiety, and for the most part we all are going or have been though them. Even though I could corroborate what you feel in your bodies, and every sensation is valid, I draw your attention to the peace that this OP can give. Please bring yourself back to it.
The last page here and especially the 3 or 4 posts above this one were deliberate to draw attention away from the healing message on page one. So please refer back to the OP and allow yourself to melt into the wonderful message.
There may be more negativity to follow this post, which can be expected, so please stop here and pay no mind.
Back to page one:
http://anxietyforum.net/forum/showthread.php?29814-God
Blessings for healing
Im-Suffering
09-27-2014, 04:29 PM
For the right people, your advise is life changing. For some people your words don't resonate with them. Most of what you write resonates with me and does chip away at the brick wall of negative beliefs I have, just not this one.
Always glad to have you around, Joe. You're a special one. Do you know that?
Thank you I'm suffering.
From what you write, you can't be normal either ;)
Always glad to have you around, Joe. You're a special one. Do you know that?
I'm Suffering frequently writes words to the effect of "Read what I posted and ignore what others posted."
You see that in this thread, and if you look through his other posts you will see it frequently.
He shows, in this respect, tremendous arrogance. He acts as if he has a monopoly on wisdom. And anyone who disagrees with him is simply not insightful enough, or cannot feel deeply enough, etc.
In a few posts, Mr. Suffering has written that he "will not be here forever." I certainly hope that is true.
Dahila
09-27-2014, 05:09 PM
I'm Suffering frequently writes words to the effect of "Read what I posted and ignore what others posted."
You see that in this thread, and if you look through his other posts you will see it frequently.
He shows, in this respect, tremendous arrogance. He acts as if he has a monopoly on wisdom. And anyone who disagrees with him is simply not insightful enough, or cannot feel deeply enough, etc.
In a few posts, Mr. Suffering has written that he "will not be here forever." I certainly hope that is true.
you are so right Kuma:) I think the best is to ignore his threads
I am not negative, I am realistic and do not suffer with massive illusion
Im-Suffering
09-27-2014, 06:32 PM
Dear readers:
To some degree you all share in a feeling I will call disjointed. A disconnect with your feelings. Over the years you may have closed down to a degree, from pains, trauma individual to each of you. A big portion of healing is to reconnect not only with yourselves, but with love. Love first for who you are, slowly opening up little by little, in trust. The way to a magical life enters through that opening.
It would help all of the you here, to know who you are, and have a clear understanding of where you came from, your impulses, desires, expectations, dreams, your thoughts...you will operate with fear if you feel removed from your source of strength. You were never meant to go it alone, and in truth, you are never alone. But you cannot know yourself, if you are separate from the energy within you, and try to live day to day with no footing. I suggest you re-read the following several times, print it, and keep it. An intuitive understanding will help to ground you. Know, what you are about to read is needed, some have asked for it, and if it clicks within you, mark this moment in your life. For the anxious, know there is no anxiety within, anxiety is without. You will soon understand. I hope to shatter your old, outdated concepts that hinder your growth. In a very real sense you ask "where is God to help me with my troubles, my pain, and hurts"?
Love is all there is, in the greatest sense, and so this is given to you - out of that desire
I want you to feel God and in so doing, experience your own power, your connectedness, worth, in the following. You are deserving of all that you desire, your wishes, dreams...open your hearts and read on:
For this is God's story, experience it:
If you prefer, you can call the supreme psychic gestalt God, but you should not attempt to objectify him.
What you call God is the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.
He is not one individual, but an energy gestalt. He is a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever expanding consciousness, that creates simultaneous and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence and eternal validity.
Its energy is so unbelievable that is does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, fields and systems, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls.
Dimly remembered through what you would call history, there was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known. All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. All That Is had to learn this lesson, and could not be taught. From this agony, creativity was originally drawn, and its reflection is still seen. All That Is retains the memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus toward renewed creativity. Desire, wish and expectation, therefore, rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within the dreams of All That Is, potential beings had consciousness before any beginning as you know it.
In Its massive imagination, It understood that the cosmic multiplication of consciousness could not occur within that framework. Actuality was necessary if these probabilities were to be given birth. All That Is saw an infinity of probable, conscious individuals. These probable individual selves found themselves alive within a God's dream and they clamored to be released into actuality. All That Is yearned to release them and sought within itself for the means to do so.
Finally, with love and longing It let go of that portion of itself, and they were free.
The psychic energy exploded in a flash of creation.
All That Is loves all that It has created down to the least, for It realizes the dearness and uniqueness of each consciousness which has been wrest from such a state of agony. It is triumphant and joyful at each development taken by each consciousness, and It revels and takes joy in the slightest creative act of each of Its issues.
All individuals remember their source, and now dream of All That Is as It once dreamed of them. And they yearn toward that immense source... and yearn to give it actuality through their own creations.
Now in the same way do you give freedom to the personality fragments within your own dreams and for the same reason. And you create for the same reason, and within each of you is the memory of primal agony-- that urge to create and free all probable consciousness into actuality.
The connections between you and All That Is can never be severed, and Its awareness is so delicate and focused that its attention is indeed directed with a prime creator's love to each consciousness.
All That Is knows no other. It does not know whether or not other psychic gestalts like Itself may exist. It is constantly searching.
All portions of All That Is are constantly changing. All That Is is constantly seeking to know Itself, for seeking itself is a creative activity and the core of all action.
You, as a consciousness, seek to know yourself and become aware of yourself as a distinct individual portion of All That Is. You automatically draw on the overall energy of All That Is, since your existence is dependent upon it.
The portion of All That Is that is aware of itself as you, that is focused within your existence, can be called upon for help when necessary. This portion of All That Is looks out for your interests and may be called upon in a personal manner. A psychic gestalt may seem impersonal to you, but its energy forms your person
Rest your weary nerves, dear ones.
backdoc
09-27-2014, 07:21 PM
Im suffering, your circular logic , or the poor attempt to confuse people is obvious ............you are lost. Please find a forum where your depravity is welcomed ,and leave these poor people alone
Im-Suffering
09-28-2014, 07:55 AM
Im suffering, your circular logic , or the poor attempt to confuse people is obvious ............you are lost. Please find a forum where your depravity is welcomed ,and leave these poor people alone
My critics, when I do have one, are of the harshest kind, as we have seen here, they come out of the woodwork. It shows how good intent, in his case, (to be helpful to others) can distort and become destructive. Disrupting my thread and my message. This individual desires to save others from me, when in truth it is he himself that he feels needs 'saving', and he projects that onto others. Powerless to be of help in a constructive way, and to even find a way out of his own predicament, he lashes out in anger, and hate. Which works against himself, and is a cause in itself of great anxiety and personal harm. All of this he does not even recognize in himself. A good lesson for all to see this, and of course understand it.
In a world of opposites, so to speak, my loving post is here met by its antithesis, and by a few others in this thread as well. You dear reader, will also encounter critique's as you live your life. Let this be a lesson to you, to go on, not in fear but in courage, to be who you are and fulfill your creative desires.
What this author (quoted above) is trying to say, ie "circular logic" that I have no proof in my conclusions, that my theory is meant to distort or mislead.
He suggests I find a forum where depravity is welcome, according to its definition, which i provide here, I don't believe it's ever 'welcome'. He is suggesting my post is wicked or evil, or even corrupt.
What a man speaketh about another, he believes himself to be.
From vocabulary.com and Miriam Webster:
Depravity goes beyond mere bad behavior — it is a total lack of morals, values, and even regard for other living things, like the depravity of a serial killer.
You can see the verb deprave in depravity. To deprave is to make something bad, often to the point of moral corruption, like the parental fear that a bad influence will deprave their good kids. So, depravity is behavior that is morally corrupt or otherwise deemed wicked.
backdoc
09-28-2014, 04:14 PM
You've proved my point.....................
Why are we poor people?
Im suffering, your circular logic , or the poor attempt to confuse people is obvious ............you are lost. Please find a forum where your depravity is welcomed ,and leave these poor people alone
backdoc
09-30-2014, 07:43 AM
Hi Joe, "poor people" was a poor choice of words on my part, what i meant more correctly is :those of us struggling with anxiety/depression and the challenges that go along with it. I enjoyed your thesis /philosophical breakdown regarding God ( did my graduate work in philosophy).....yes i was overly harsh regarding im suffering but i still maintain that he is Disingenuous , sorry if i offended you Joe
What do you think of my essay? Makes philosophical sense?
Thanks.
Hi Joe, "poor people" was a poor choice of words on my part, what i meant more correctly is :those of us struggling with anxiety/depression and the challenges that go along with it. I enjoyed your thesis /philosophical breakdown regarding God ( did my graduate work in philosophy).....yes i was overly harsh regarding im suffering but i still maintain that he is Disingenuous , sorry if i offended you Joe
Dahila
09-30-2014, 08:42 PM
I think backdoc mean the vulnerable people
1Bluerose68
10-04-2014, 03:52 PM
Who IS normal Anyhow? The Rightous Brother's??? Just be yourself, and be your best, and accept who you are for being you. Not everyone is like everyone and if they try then they are probly trying too hard. "I'm OK, and You're OK."
1Bluerose68
10-04-2014, 03:54 PM
Wow, have you got, "The gift of gab?" or what???
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.