Did God make the rules?

[Meow Mix]

How do you measure an event in a space time continuum? Where does it begin, where does it end? What makes it, eventful. "Necessity and contingency" are arbitrary assessments.

I don't think we're on the same page of what necessity and contingency mean. Necessity and contingency don't necessarily have anything to do with spacetime. For instance, if A > B and B > C then A > C is necessarily true: this fact has nothing to do with spacetime coordinates.

 

[thedope]

I don't think we're on the same page of what necessity and contingency mean. Necessity and contingency don't necessarily have anything to do with spacetime. For instance, if A > B and B > C then A > C is necessarily true: this fact has nothing to do with spacetime coordinates.

I think we are. Your theorem describes the rightful conclusion of deductive reasoning but there is no necessity for reason. Quite the contrary, the unreasoned has quite the influence over a great many. Reality always presents itself but can remain unrecognized.

 

[Wessexman]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction... it's a little off topic but would you mind expounding a little on that just for entertainment? I don't know what it means for me to be reason and you to be intellect, or what a Platonic "eye of the heart" means.

In essence it is an immediate, direct knowledge which more is like sight than reason, whereby there is a union between knowing and being and in a sense one partakes in consciousness itself. Meister Eckhart put it this way:

"The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love."

C.S Lewis also describes it nicely:

"We are enjoying intellectus when we "just see" a self-evident truth; we are exercising ratio when we proceed step by step to prove a truth that is not self-evident. A cognitive life in which all truth can be simply "seen" would be the life of an intelligetia, an angel. A life of unmitigated ratio where nothing was simply "seen" and all had to be proved, would presumably be impossible; for nothing can be proved if nothing is self-evident. Man's mental life is spent laboriously connecting those frequent, but momentary, flashes of intelligentia that constitute intellectus."

The Intellect was primary in the ancient wisdom tradition of Parmenides, Pythagoras and the Platonists which stretched back to Greek mystery cults and to Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia and I'd say ultimately the primordial nature of man. It was dominant too in much medieval philosophy and much of the philosophy of the East. The primary or total reliance of reason only reared its head in some later Graeo-Roman philosophy and then again with the later Scholastics and then triumphed in the West in the 17th and 18th centuries with the rise of modern "philosophy".

Something can be consistent but unjustified, though. If my water doesn't flow in the winter it's consistent to say demons are stealing the water -- but certainly not rational without justification. My argument can't be trumped by showing the mere logical possibility of something; the objection must be justified. The objection can't be raised without justification in this scenario, nor can this particular objection you're raising even be believed without justification.



No, as is clearly stated in the opening of the OP my argument is against a specific concept of theism and that if you don't share the premises of the theism being attacked then the argument doesn't apply.

It is true that identity as I've defined it and justified it is efficacious without assuming a God-aspect as you are supposing. My argument follows.

If it's asserted that identity has a God-aspect itself (rather, is an aspect of God) then such a statement desperately requires justification to be argued or believed; especially considering it ostensibly works fine without dragging a God-aspect into it.

So, not to sound like a broken record but I will be frank: this is the third time I've asked. Can you justify the assertion that identity is part of God?

If yes, let's hear it.

If no, you have no business asserting it and particularly believing it (in order to dismiss my argument), if you value being rational.

I'm unsure then what is special about your argument? You then seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to basically state the standard atheist position that the theist hasn't proved that God exists. I suppose you may have made some theists think more deeply about these concepts but on the other hand your misuse of reason may also have led some astray.

 

[Meow Mix]

In essence it is an immediate, direct knowledge which more is like sight than reason, whereby there is a union between knowing and being and in a sense one partakes in consciousness itself. Meister Eckhart put it this way:

"The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love."

C.S Lewis also describes it nicely:

"We are enjoying intellectus when we "just see" a self-evident truth; we are exercising ratio when we proceed step by step to prove a truth that is not self-evident. A cognitive life in which all truth can be simply "seen" would be the life of an intelligetia, an angel. A life of unmitigated ratio where nothing was simply "seen" and all had to be proved, would presumably be impossible; for nothing can be proved if nothing is self-evident. Man's mental life is spent laboriously connecting those frequent, but momentary, flashes of intelligentia that constitute intellectus."

The Intellect was primary in the ancient wisdom tradition of Parmenides, Pythagoras and the Platonists which stretched back to Greek mystery cults and to Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia and I'd say ultimately the primordial nature of man. It was dominant too in much medieval philosophy and much of the philosophy of the East. The primary or total reliance of reason only reared its head in some later Graeo-Roman philosophy and then again with the later Scholastics and then triumphed in the West in the 17th and 18th centuries with the rise of modern "philosophy".

Thanks for the clarification, though I feel the need to raise a point here.

Ancient philosophy, modern philosophy: these are irrelevant. What's demonstrably true is demonstrably true regardless of the timeframe; ideas stand or fall on their own. My arguments stand or fall regardless of whether they're based on Aristotle or Robonomicon 2039. It's apparent that you have a dislike for "modern philosophy," but can you back that dislike up with reasoning?

I'm unsure then what is special about your argument? You then seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to basically state the standard atheist position that the theist hasn't proved that God exists. I suppose you may have made some theists think more deeply about these concepts but on the other hand your misuse of reason may also have led some astray.

I have taken a particular set of premises that many theists I've personally discussed with tend to possess. If you don't share those premises then the argument wasn't geared towards you, as I declared openly in the OP.

Any objection is usually geared towards a particular paradigm; and my argument was more forceful than a general atheistic "justify it!" sense. I only had to play the "justify it!" card when you raised an objection to my argument that wasn't itself justified, when my argument was wholly justified given the premises and furthermore justified in how I was describing the efficacy of identity without the requirement of gods.

Thus, I feel my argument was meaningful and distinct from a "justify it!" argument because it took some of my personal experiences and debunked them, indeed.

You believe or at least argue for a god-concept not covered by the premises in my argument; thus making it not apply to your conception. However we've now entered into your territory where you assert that identity has an extra attribute than is readily apparent in it. That's why the "justify it!" card has been dropped.

In fact, it's been dropped three times now without a response, so I'm dropping it a fourth time because I'm truly curious now: can you justify the notion that identity is an aspect of God?

I genuinely want to know. I sincerely want to know why you raise the point, because if you believe it and can't justify it, I furthermore want to know why you would readily hold an unjustified belief (by definition, irrationally) and why you would attempt to use an unjustified belief as an objection to a justified argument?

 

[Wessexman]

Thanks for the clarification, though I feel the need to raise a point here.

Ancient philosophy, modern philosophy: these are irrelevant. What's demonstrably true is demonstrably true regardless of the timeframe; ideas stand or fall on their own. My arguments stand or fall regardless of whether they're based on Aristotle or Robonomicon 2039. It's apparent that you have a dislike for "modern philosophy," but can you back that dislike up with reasoning?

Surely you can see some of the reasons for that dislike in what I just posted. Modern "philosophy" relies on reason almost completely or, because rationalism is ultimately self-destructive, it has to resort to infra-rational processes. Whereas ancient, or probably better called traditional, philosophy tends to keep reason in its place by subjecting it to Intellect.

I have taken a particular set of premises that many theists I've personally discussed with tend to possess. If you don't share those premises then the argument wasn't geared towards you, as I declared openly in the OP.

Any objection is usually geared towards a particular paradigm; and my argument was more forceful than a general atheistic "justify it!" sense. I only had to play the "justify it!" card when you raised an objection to my argument that wasn't itself justified, when my argument was wholly justified given the premises and furthermore justified in how I was describing the efficacy of identity without the requirement of gods.

Thus, I feel my argument was meaningful and distinct from a "justify it!" argument because it took some of my personal experiences and debunked them, indeed.

You believe or at least argue for a god-concept not covered by the premises in my argument; thus making it not apply to your conception. However we've now entered into your territory where you assert that identity has an extra attribute than is readily apparent in it. That's why the "justify it!" card has been dropped.

In fact, it's been dropped three times now without a response, so I'm dropping it a fourth time because I'm truly curious now: can you justify the notion that identity is an aspect of God?

I genuinely want to know. I sincerely want to know why you raise the point, because if you believe it and can't justify it, I furthermore want to know why you would readily hold an unjustified belief (by definition, irrationally) and why you would attempt to use an unjustified belief as an objection to a justified argument?

Okay you've lost me now. In no way did your argument show God to be necessarily contingent or caused or conditioned by anything outside himself, so in what sense is it an argument that debunks theism?

 

[Meow Mix]

Okay you've lost me now. In no way did your argument show God to be necessarily contingent or caused or conditioned by anything outside himself, so in what sense is it an argument that debunks theism?

There are infinite beliefs that fall under the category theism, infinity of them are possibly true and infinity of them are definitely false (like the belief that God is a married bachelor or a square-circle).

My argument was specifically aimed at those who I've personally dealt with that believe an omnipotent/omniscient being exists separately from the universe (they do not believe as you have suggested that God "is" or "is a part of" everything) and that God creates all non-God and has control over all non-God. My argument shows that such a conception is false, since the premises of that God do not allow such a God to create or control identity and therefore the initial premises are false.

Any argument, especially objecting arguments, target specific premises. If those premises aren't believed by someone then they are unphased by the argument. Since your premises don't match those targeted by my argument, it wasn't aimed at you.

However you've opened a whole new can of worms by asserting things about identity that I'm curious about; I've asked you directly several times to justify them but you've for whatever reason not bothered to either justify it or even declare that you will not be justifying it despite my earnest requests for clarification on the issue due to my genuine curiosity.

I really am curious; I'm not trying to antagonize or anything. I haven't seen you on the boards before but you're a very engaging partner for a discussion and I value our continued friendship if you're willing to see it that way with me. I really want to know IF you can justify your assertion that identity is a part of God, and if not why you would assert it. I'm not joking or being facetious or anything, I don't know how else to express that I really want to know the answer to those questions.

 

[Wessexman]

Okay now I do sort of see you have an argument. It is not against theism per se but against a particular view of theism that absolutely separates God's creation from God. You are correct that such a view would be flawed because there would be something outside God and the Universe which constrains them both.

When it comes to justification I'm simply not wanting to try and prove God's existence in this thread. I will say that a proof, in the sense of discursive thought and reason, is relative by its very nature. An absolute proof would be identical to thing one is trying to prove. A proof though does partake of what it is trying to prove, it is a matter though of having the capacity and sensitivity, Intellectually speaking, to grasp the proof. In essence one does not prove God, he sees God. That doesn't mean I shy away from rational proofs, it just means I understand their limitations and place. As Frithjof Schuon put it:

http://www.studiesincomparativereli...imacy_of_Intellection-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx

The proof of the pure logician is on the whole based upon a starting point that is “contrary to nature”—if man is viewed in his primordial and normative integrity—namely an ignorance and a doubt which, precisely, are not normal to man as such; the argumentation of the pure metaphysician on the contrary—even if he happens to employ the language of the logician as a dialectical stratagem—is founded, not upon doubt, but upon analogy and, more profoundly, upon identity both intellectual and existential. If, analogically speaking, Reality is the geometric point, the knowledge that we have of it corresponds either to the concentric circles or to the radii which are both centrifugal and centripetal, for on the one hand Truth emanates from the Real, and on the other hand Knowledge extends to the Real. The point, the circle, the radius, and also the spiral: these are the graphic symbols of Knowledge, whatever be the symbol—or relation—that predominates according to the aspect considered.

 

[Meow Mix]

When it comes to justification I'm simply not wanting to try and prove God's existence in this thread.

However, that's not explicitely what we're talking about though... we're talking about the assertion that identity has anything to do with God. I want to know where that assertion comes from. I can understand that when it comes to alleged necessary beings things start interconnecting, and that discussing why identity is related to God intrinsically would be identical to an argument for God's existence, perhaps. But if that isn't necessarily true I want to know why identity would be necessarily tied into God.

This may be our first time meeting, but I would please like you to consider the fact that I've spent since... I think it says February 2010 or some such on my join date... requesting justification for theism. Is theism rational? Why believe any theism? Recently you've made me ask "what does identity have to do with God intrinsically?"

You said you don't want to get into it on this thread but I can't help but reduce myself to begging. I've asked and asked for justification and gotten nothing through my whole life since I was in my early teens when I was starting to abandon theism. I wanted it to be true but I couldn't justify it; I had no rational reason to believe it.

If you're aware of such a justification and just "don't want to get into it" here, can I beg you to change your mind? I may only be 26 but to me this is a lifelong search. I haven't found justification for theism yet; I've admittedly abandoned sincere hope for it but that itch in the back of my skull drives me to keep looking for it so that I might be justified in believing what I was brought up to believe.

Under what circumstances would you want to talk about justification for identity being intrinsically part of god, or justification for theism in general? These concepts are close to my heart and purpose for being in these sorts of debates at all in the first place. You're knowledgeable of ancient philosophies, clearly of some things I haven't read. What would motivate you to get into justifying theism or this claim of identity being a part of God? Why should we *****-foot around when these two claims/beliefs that are at the root of all possible atheism/theism debates are at our doorstep?

Either theism is justified or it isn't; either theists are justified in objecting to atheists or they aren't. We can cut to the root of the whole thing by just looking at who's justified or not!

I will say that a proof, in the sense of discursive thought and reason, is relative by its very nature. An absolute proof would be identical to thing one is trying to prove. A proof though does partake of what it is trying to prove, it is a matter though of having the capacity and sensitivity, Intellectually speaking, to grasp the proof. In essence one does not prove God, he sees God. That doesn't mean I shy away from rational proofs, it just means I understand their limitations and place. As Frithjof Schuon put it:

"The Primacy of Intellection" by Frithjof Schuon

The proof of the pure logician is on the whole based upon a starting point that is “contrary to nature”—if man is viewed in his primordial and normative integrity—namely an ignorance and a doubt which, precisely, are not normal to man as such; the argumentation of the pure metaphysician on the contrary—even if he happens to employ the language of the logician as a dialectical stratagem—is founded, not upon doubt, but upon analogy and, more profoundly, upon identity both intellectual and existential. If, analogically speaking, Reality is the geometric point, the knowledge that we have of it corresponds either to the concentric circles or to the radii which are both centrifugal and centripetal, for on the one hand Truth emanates from the Real, and on the other hand Knowledge extends to the Real. The point, the circle, the radius, and also the spiral: these are the graphic symbols of Knowledge, whatever be the symbol—or relation—that predominates according to the aspect considered.

This is based on the opening of the argument:

It has been said that the proof of an affirmation is incumbent upon him who enunciates the thesis, not upon him who rejects it; but this is a perfectly arbitrary opinion, for if someone owes us a proof for a positive affirmation, he equally owes us one for a negative affirmation; it is not the positive character of the affirmation, it is the absoluteness of its character that obliges us to prove it, whether its content is positive or negative. There is no need to prove an inexistence that one supposes, but one is obliged to prove an inexistence that one affirms. It is true that those who deny the supernatural do not lack arguments which in their eyes are proofs of their opinion, but nonetheless they imagine that their opinion is a natural axiom that needs no demonstration; this is rationalist juridicism, not pure logic.

But atheists aren't necessarily "rejecting" or arguing "inexistence." They are neutral skeptics in my case and in many other cases (though assuredly "strong" atheists do exist). I agree that negative arguments have an onus of proof just as much as positive arguments, but I am neither in general; except for concepts which are internally or externally contradictory.

When discussing with me, the onus of proof still falls squarely on the theist (though I would ask the same of a general strong atheist, assuredly).

 

[Wessexman]

However, that's not explicitely what we're talking about though... we're talking about the assertion that identity has anything to do with God. I want to know where that assertion comes from. I can understand that when it comes to alleged necessary beings things start interconnecting, and that discussing why identity is related to God intrinsically would be identical to an argument for God's existence, perhaps. But if that isn't necessarily true I want to know why identity would be necessarily tied into God.

This may be our first time meeting, but I would please like you to consider the fact that I've spent since... I think it says February 2010 or some such on my join date... requesting justification for theism. Is theism rational? Why believe any theism? Recently you've made me ask "what does identity have to do with God intrinsically?"

You said you don't want to get into it on this thread but I can't help but reduce myself to begging. I've asked and asked for justification and gotten nothing through my whole life since I was in my early teens when I was starting to abandon theism. I wanted it to be true but I couldn't justify it; I had no rational reason to believe it.

If you're aware of such a justification and just "don't want to get into it" here, can I beg you to change your mind? I may only be 26 but to me this is a lifelong search. I haven't found justification for theism yet; I've admittedly abandoned sincere hope for it but that itch in the back of my skull drives me to keep looking for it so that I might be justified in believing what I was brought up to believe.

Under what circumstances would you want to talk about justification for identity being intrinsically part of god, or justification for theism in general? These concepts are close to my heart and purpose for being in these sorts of debates at all in the first place. You're knowledgeable of ancient philosophies, clearly of some things I haven't read. What would motivate you to get into justifying theism or this claim of identity being a part of God? Why should we *****-foot around when these two claims/beliefs that are at the root of all possible atheism/theism debates are at our doorstep?

Either theism is justified or it isn't; either theists are justified in objecting to atheists or they aren't. We can cut to the root of the whole thing by just looking at who's justified or not!

Theistic metaphysics holds that there would then be two "beings" or things with existence, "God" and the "law of identity". So that there would be a common reality between them and in actual fact it would be this reality which is the absolute. On one level there is no difference between this position and someone who claims the universe and its laws are all there is. They still have to define the relationship between these laws and what exists. So it is therefore logically fine to say that the "law of identity" is a part of God, always remembering that terms like "law" and "part", which are here given a very human perspective, mean very much more from an absolute perspective. It was never part of our argument though for me to prove that this is in reality so, that God exists in this sense rather than it is not illogical for him do so, if that is what you are suggesting.

But atheists aren't necessarily "rejecting" or arguing "inexistence." They are neutral skeptics in my case and in many other cases (though assuredly "strong" atheists do exist). I agree that negative arguments have an onus of proof just as much as positive arguments, but I am neither in general; except for concepts which are internally or externally contradictory.

When discussing with me, the onus of proof still falls squarely on the theist (though I would ask the same of a general strong atheist, assuredly).

This of course though assumes in advance though a sort naturalness for the doubting/naturalistic/materialist position. In terms of discursive argument one must always affirm and therefore justify that position.

 

[Midnight Pete]

What rules are we talking about here?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If fundamentist Xtians believe in his rules then why did he leave us with no alternative to break them with the sin of incest in the second generation down from Adam and Eve?

 

[PolyHedral]

Here:
No, it wouldn't still be inconsistent if it were consistent. As soon as consistency is the case (which is always) then it is also necessarily the case that ¬inconsistency. So "since it is still inconsistent" is false, because it wouldn't be.

This is only true if the excluded middle applies. A inconsistent universe rejects the excluded middile, and so can be both consistent and inconsistent simultaneously.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Meow mix is it possible for god and identity to have simply existed simultaneously for eternity?
It seems no one can stump your argument for identity, so how about we simply equate identity as an attribute of the infinite and not something that trumps or precedes the infinite. Which isn't possible to do anyways, to precede the infinite.

 

[thedope]

The whole defines the parts but the part does not define the whole. "I am" is the surname we inherit in creation.

 

[PolyHedral]

Meow mix is it possible for god and identity to have simply existed simultaneously for eternity?
It seems no one can stump your argument for identity, so how about we simply equate identity as an attribute of the infinite and not something that trumps or precedes the infinite. Which isn't possible to do anyways, to precede the infinite.

Because identity is not an attribute of anything, and a prerequisite of everything (coherent).

 

[Meow Mix]

Theistic metaphysics holds that there would then be two "beings" or things with existence, "God" and the "law of identity". So that there would be a common reality between them and in actual fact it would be this reality which is the absolute. On one level there is no difference between this position and someone who claims the universe and its laws are all there is. They still have to define the relationship between these laws and what exists. So it is therefore logically fine to say that the "law of identity" is a part of God

788888888888888884 (My cat said hello there)

No, you haven't shown that's the case. You've shown two distinct things existing; one being contingent on the other. Go back to there being "two beings with existence:" God and identity. Let's examine their relationships:

God exemplifies identity demonstrably.

Identity does not exemplify "God" demonstrably, or otherwise display any a priori relation at all to God other than God being bound to it.

One is contingent on the other, exactly as I have been saying: God is contingent on identity, even if God is ontologically necessary Himself. God still can't create identity and still can't control identity; God is subject to identity. You haven't made your case yet.

, always remembering that terms like "law" and "part", which are here given a very human perspective, mean very much more from an absolute perspective. It was never part of our argument though for me to prove that this is in reality so, that God exists in this sense rather than it is not illogical for him do so, if that is what you are suggesting.

It becomes your duty to prove it if you assert that identity has anything to do with God enough to warrant statements like "identity is God" or "identity is part of God." Those statements require justification, which hasn't been given.

This of course though assumes in advance though a sort naturalness for the doubting/naturalistic/materialist position. In terms of discursive argument one must always affirm and therefore justify that position.

Neutral skepticism is indeed the natural/default position. I never said anything about naturalism or materialism. For the record, I'm not a materialist. I don't know what "naturalism" is supposed to mean in fact -- as opposed to what? I don't think the word "supernatural" is a meaningful term, but that's an argument for another thread.

As of this point, you still haven't justified these assertions about identity's relationship with God somehow being more special than identity's relationship with contingent beings. God clearly exemplifies identity (is subject to it) but nothing has been demonstrated to make identity dependent on God in any sense; even if God is necessarily existent (which I doubt).

Why the hesitance to justify? I don't understand. I don't object to arguments and then refuse to justify my objections; that seems so counterproductive to me.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is only true if the excluded middle applies. A inconsistent universe rejects the excluded middile, and so can be both consistent and inconsistent simultaneously.

Remember that attempting to doubt it is self-refuting, so we're again just going deeper into this argument purely for fun. I would be fully justified in treating your sentence as though you just asked me this:

A sdlgkjsdougsl glkdjds the sdlgkjdslkgds, and so can be asdoiglsekt.

I would be completely justified in just answering your question with "What? That was a bunch of gibberish." We get this illusion that we're talking about something because the words we're stringing together individually mean something, so we think we can ask questions about them, but really we're just asking "Is it possible that sldkgjdlsgkds?"

That being said, let's move on for fun's sake.

Alright. You say that it can be inconsistent and consistent at the same time. However if it's consistent at the same time, then that very consistency brings the law of excluded middle into effect, and the inconsistency ceases to exist.

Saying "inconsistent universe and consistent at the same time" is the same as saying "Not excluded middle and excluded middle at the same time." But see? Since excluded middle is there "at the same time," then the first part of the sentence becomes false by that very excluded middle existing.

 

[PolyHedral]

But because we are also ignoring the excluded middle, this is not a problem. Actually, this becomes somewhat (!) clearer in formal logic.

Our premise is that the universe is not consistent: (Pv~P) { In English: There's some statement P such that both P and its negation, ~P, are true.}
From the logic on this page, we can arrive at arbitrary statement: Q
However, if we make statement Q more specific, we can say Q=~(P=P), thus "proving" the law of identity false.
We could also substitute Q=~(Pv~P)
Aha, you say, contradiction! And you'd be right ...except our premise is (Pv~P). Substituting, we get:
((Pv~P)v~(Pv~P))
Thus, we have proven that in an inconsistent universe, the excluded middle does and does not apply.

However, those of us who are not logicians will be glad to know that the concept of truth handed in its resignation some time ago. An inconsistent universe is in no way coherent, but could theoretically exist.

 

[thedope]

God exemplifies identity demonstrably.

Identity does not exemplify "God" demonstrably, or otherwise display any a priori relation at all to God other than God being bound to it.

One is contingent on the other, exactly as I have been saying: God is contingent on identity, even if God is ontologically necessary Himself. God still can't create identity and still can't control identity; God is subject to identity. You haven't made your case yet.

As of this point, you still haven't justified these assertions about identity's relationship with God somehow being more special than identity's relationship with contingent beings. God clearly exemplifies identity (is subject to it) but nothing has been demonstrated to make identity dependent on God in any sense; even if God is necessarily existent (which I doubt).

It appears to me you are switching the order of synonymous terms and saying the one that appears first in a sentence is responsible for the other.
To name the animals is our talent, but my name was given to me.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow mix is it possible for god and identity to have simply existed simultaneously for eternity?
It seems no one can stump your argument for identity, so how about we simply equate identity as an attribute of the infinite and not something that trumps or precedes the infinite. Which isn't possible to do anyways, to precede the infinite.

Yes it is possible for god and identity to have existed simultaneously for eternity; though God would still be contingent on it. As I've been discussing with one of the other responders, necessity/contingency isn't equivalent to cause/effect.