The Creator

[fireof god98]

i always thought of god was not in any genus even the genus of being. god is not a thing or a individual. rather god is the act to be itself.

 

[Received]

It would require at least one infinity to be timeless.

Infinite regress is no more a problem of infinites than timelessness.

Infinity is singular, and agreed it results chronologically in timelessness. But infinite regresses are multiple. God isn't multiple; he's singular.

 

[variant]

Infinity is singular, and agreed it results chronologically in timelessness. But infinite regresses are multiple.

Only the first cause would need to be infinite so there is no difference here between physical and God based timelessness they all require infinity.

Infinite regress would just be an odd extra requirement by the argument on physical things, although, as I said, it requires an infinity.

God isn't multiple; he's singular.

Unsupported. Once you assert the nature of "God" you've gone beyond the scope of this argument.

You can use Occam's razor here if you like to reduce the number of actors, but the ideal number is 0.

 

[variant]

Why not? It would explain exactly why our universe is finely tuned for life without resorting to rolling the Multiversal dice of fortunate surroundings.

I think we have different ideas about the term explain.

 

[Received]

Only the first cause would need to be infinite so there is no difference here between physical and God based timelessness they all require infinity.

Infinite regress would just be an odd extra requirement by the argument on physical things, although, as I said, it requires an infinity.

The physical is a collection of causes, therefore an infinite regress with the physical is a collection of infinite causes. God is not divisible into causes; he's singular. You know, I'm not divisible into a collection of causes either; my self is a singularity based in a collection of elements but not causes.

So again, there's a difference here: God is singular, therefore the problem of the infinite regress doesn't apply to him, only the universe.

Unsupported. Once you assert the nature of "God" you've gone beyond the scope of this argument.

You can use Occam's razor here if you like to reduce the number of actors, but the ideal number is 0.

In which case you should say "unsupportable" or "incommensurate with support," not "unsupported". You can't have it both ways.

And this is a metaphysical discussion, and the nature of God isn't some random metaphysical possibility you get by hitting an area on a dartboard. There are metaphysical constraints with God like there are physical constraints with us.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I think we have different ideas about the term explain.

Here's how I'm using it: The shape of standing wave forms can be explained by the shape of the container they stand up in. Strike a square container of water, get a square wave form.

If you have a constantly vibrating sphere universal boundary with a real matter point in the center, I would expect the universal standing wave building block to be spherical with a much smaller nucleus point. The ubiquitous atom.

 

[variant]

The physical is a collection of causes, therefore an infinite regress with the physical is a collection of infinite causes. God is not divisible into causes; he's singular. You know, I'm not divisible into a collection of causes either; my self is a singularity based in a collection of elements but not causes.

So again, there's a difference here: God is singular, therefore the problem of the infinite regress doesn't apply to him, only the universe.

The distinction here is a blatant assertion.

You don't know enough about any possible God (and how they would work) to say how they fit together or how many pieces they require, much less to say that they exist as a unity, nor do you know enough about a physical beginning of the universe to assert that it exists as a non-unity.

This makes your distinction for differentiation here just a byproduct of your bias.

In which case you should say "unsupportable" or "incommensurate with support," not "unsupported". You can't have it both ways.

Unsupported means not supported by your argument.

Unsupportable would rule out any and all arguments, which I am not doing.

You have not yet attempted to show that God must exist as a unity, and in this argument you can't do so by saying it must be the creator of the universe as THAT is what you are trying to show, so I am skeptical.

And this is a metaphysical discussion, and the nature of God isn't some random metaphysical possibility you get by hitting an area on a dartboard. There are metaphysical constraints with God like there are physical constraints with us.

Maybe there are, the question is, how do we know what those are?

 

[single eye]

Yes, the universe needs a creator and so did that creator. Why, because the creator of the universe is malevolent and therefore, not the First Cause. The only theist to express this position in writing, as far as I know, is the Apostle John in The Apocryphon of John. Since the AOJ destroys all traditional christian doctrine most people ignore it. This is a ginormous mistake.

 

[Received]

The distinction here is a blatant assertion.

You don't know enough about any possible God (and how they would work) to say how they fit together or how many pieces they require, much less to say that they exist as a unity, nor do you know enough about a physical beginning of the universe to assert that it exists as a non-unity.

This makes your distinction for differentiation here just a byproduct of your bias.

Yes, I do know enough about deities, speaking metaphysically. That's because physical stuff has multiple causes, and epiphenomenal and spiritual stuff doesn't have multiple causes. You say "blatant assertion" like I'm just picking it from the sky. But the fact is that if God had multiple causes inherent to him, this would assume he has a cause as well. Which opens up the door for multiple creators. Which makes you beg the question. Oh, and is also avoiding my conclusion with the infinite regress problem. And what the heck does it even *mean* for God to have multiple causes? You haven't defined that, and are blaming me just for jiving with common sense.

Unsupported means not supported by your argument.

Unsupportable would rule out any and all arguments, which I am not doing.

That's exactly what you're doing, when you say: Once you assert the nature of "God" you've gone beyond the scope of this argument.

You have not yet attempted to show that God must exist as a unity, and in this argument you can't do so by saying it must be the creator of the universe as THAT is what you are trying to show, so I am skeptical.

That's because anything with consciousness exists as a unity. I exist as a unity. Or anything abstract exists as a unity. Numbers exist as a unity. God is conscious but without the physical stuff (by definition), which means he's pure abstraction, like numbers. Unity city. Also see the stuff above.

Maybe there are, the question is, how do we know what those are?

By reasoning from these constraints.

 

[variant]

Yes, I do know enough about deities, speaking metaphysically.

Ok.

That's because physical stuff has multiple causes, and epiphenomenal and spiritual stuff doesn't have multiple causes.

What is epiphenomenal stuff? Byproduct is the direct translation of ephiphenomonon.

Why can't there be a physical unity? A singularity? Did you skip the step where you explained this?

You say "blatant assertion" like I'm just picking it from the sky. But the fact is that if God had multiple causes inherent to him, this would assume he has a cause as well. Which opens up the door for multiple creators. Which makes you beg the question.

The question is already begged if you define God as being singular because he can't start the universe if he isn't, and then say the universe was started by God because God is singular.

Multiple creators aren't begged here either as 0 creators is a possibility with a caused God.

Oh, and is also avoiding my conclusion with the infinite regress problem. And what the heck does it even *mean* for God to have multiple causes? You haven't defined that, and are blaming me just for jiving with common sense.

Common sense? We are talking about something that has practically no basis in our experience.

You neglect the possibility that God can exist and be caused.

I know it wouldn't occur to you, but something we would still call God can definitely exist and not be the creator of the universe.

That's exactly what you're doing, when you say: Once you assert the nature of "God" you've gone beyond the scope of this argument.

I'm saying that an exacting definition of God is not supported by THIS argument.

You would require some other argument.

That's because anything with consciousness exists as a unity. I exist as a unity.

Dubious.

You do? What about your physical body is it unified? Does this mean that physical things can't cause consciousnesses?

You would have to extrapolate further.

Or anything abstract exists as a unity. Numbers exist as a unity. God is conscious but without the physical stuff (by definition), which means he's pure abstraction, like numbers. Unity city. Also see the stuff above.

God is pure abstraction? Abstraction has substance? This gets better and better.

I turn over one assumption and find a better and bigger one underneath.

The universe was caused by an abstraction. Pure abstractions can cause physical events. Interesting idea.

By reasoning from these constraints.

We would know what the constraints are by reasoning from them? Really?

I have sincere doubt that our metaphysics agree.

I think abstractions don't exist independently of minds and I don't think minds exist independently of bodies, so obviously I don't think God exists because it is some independent pure abstraction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So the universe eternally existed?

Depends on your perspective.