There are no "other" states just states of change. I'm not against god changing states, it would be infinite potential so change is inevitable.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Extremes of Atheism vs Theism
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you're not following me. I'm not claiming transcendence and immanence are synonymous. I'm saying that it is characteristic of gods that they are transcendent; so you say, "well, my god is immanent, not transcendent"- but if your god caused/created the universe/existence, then there was an antecedent state to this creation event in which god was NOT immanent, but transcended the universe he would eventually be immanent in. So immanence is contingent upon, or a function of, your god's transcendence.
Clearly immanence and transcendence do not mean the same thing. The point is that all gods, even immanent ones, are transcendent- but if they nevertheless are said to be causal agents, then they are incoherent. But if they are not causal agents, then in what sense are they god?
With that logic it would be impossible for us to exist.Clearly immanence and transcendence do not mean the same thing. The point is that all gods, even immanent ones, are transcendent- but if they nevertheless are said to be causal agents, then they are incoherent. But if they are not causal agents, then in what sense are they god?
Your still treating the words as synonymous. Immanent and a casual agent at the same time is not contradictory. You keep wanting to throw in transcendent but I don't because it is incoherent, any creator god is incoherent. With pantheism it isn't a creator god. Whatever uncaused existence deserves the label god, and it wouldn't be a creator god. Being immanent and a casual agent compliment each other rather nicely and whatever existed first would fall under both.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Um... Why?
Not at all. If I was, my previous post would be absolute nonsense.
Just answer this- did your god create/cause the universe/existence?
If yes, then-
enaidealukal said:
If no, then-
enaidealukal said:
This logic doesnt allow for there to be a source. A source will be illogical like "uncaused cause", thats what would make the source god. A natural existence capable of sentience because sensory is innate.
This really looks like an esthetical demand to me, as opposed to a logical one.
I figure something has to be the original source, the prime mover. Or if we are just our own source then we are our own god.
Existence has always existed and always been in motion. There can be no original source for existence simply because that source would also have had to exist. Unless you think the original source is non-existence, that is nothing.
I get the idea that the universe is eternal, sounds like a godlike attribute.
It is simply an attribute some people ascribe to some gods. And I didn't say "the universe", I said "existence". There is evidence that there might be an infinite number of universes. Big Bang breakthrough indicates infinite number of universes exist | Death and Taxes
That would point to a universe that was created. Besides an eternal existence is another way of saying it came from nothing.
I believe in you, but I do not actually agree.
There is no reason that I am aware of why existence can simply "be" and have "always been", with no source to speak of.
We humans are a bit predisposed to think in terms of sources, causes and origins. It does not necessarily follow that existence itself, or the universe, will conform to those expectations.
As for god, well, that is a word with so many different connotations, not too many of them mutually conciliable! You are of course free to think on those terms, but it may cause confusion to propose that such a self-supporting existence should be called god by someone else.
No it doesn't. It points to the existence of an infinite amount of universes, none of them "created". "An eternal existence" means that existence didn't "come from" anything of course, since it has always existed.
Right, I don't think existence will conform to our notions of cause and effect which is what leads us to believe something outside that box.
So infinite amount of universes just popping into existence, sounds like universes are always being created. If existence is "causing" these universes then its a creative force that people refer to as god.
Which box? Existence is simply cause and effect without the necessity of a "first" cause.
"Popping into existence", not "created". No sentient being is necessary to make them "pop into existence".
That's the point though, we are looking for the first, not the second or fourth. Some scientists say it is nothing becoming something which sounds to me like a creative force. How is it possible to get from anything minute to a ton of matter and energy, perhaps by some sort of replication process, something is needed that makes stuff come about. Something that just exists eternally is its own creative force.
Saying it is cause and effect would mean it would go backwards infinitely with a cause always having a prior cause but that sounds a bit absurd. We like our "cause and effect" box but something must be an exception, you really think eternal regression is the answer?
Okay, so one or the other?
They can't (as in Escher's picture) be both source and creation, with "god" as a superfluous term?