Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[LuisDantas]

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.

How do you know they are popping into existence, or being created in any meaningful way? Just because they are infinite it does not follow that they have always been.

Edited to add: that they have NOT always been, I mean.

 

[idav]

How do you know they are popping into existence, or being created in any meaningful way? Just because they are infinite it does not follow that they have always been.

Edited to add: that they have NOT always been, I mean.

I was responding to someone saying universes popping into existence. In any meaningful way as in a way that deserves the god label, spawning of existence and/or universes is sufficient IMO.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This logic doesnt allow for there to be a source.

If logic doesn't allow for there to be a "source", then all the worse for a source. But logic doesn't rule this out; only an existent antecedent cause of existence, which is clearly contradictory.

A source will be illogical like "uncaused cause", thats what would make the source god.

An uncaused cause is not itself illogical. Non-existent existents are.

In any case, I can only surmise by your lack of response to the more salient point here that you realize you're facing an unfortunate dilemma, and one that is likely fatal; either posit a contradictory and incoherent god, which could not exist, or reconcile the contradiction but then posit something that is not a god.

 

[ArtieE]

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

You don't. The total energy of the universe is zero. No need to create zero. What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

 

[idav]

If logic doesn't allow for there to be a "source", then all the worse for a source. But logic doesn't rule this out; only an existent antecedent cause of existence, which is clearly contradictory.


An uncaused cause is not itself illogical. Non-existent existents are.

In any case, I can only surmise by your lack of response to the more salient point here that you realize you're facing an unfortunate dilemma, and one that is likely fatal; either posit a contradictory and incoherent god, which could not exist, or reconcile the contradiction but then posit something that is not a god.

Transcendence is having power from the outside. When you are what you are trying to transcend then there is no issue, you are already are and within, and the problem becomes moot. Immanence simply doesn't qualify.

4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.
transcendence - definition of transcendence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[idav]

You don't. The total energy of the universe is zero. No need to create zero. What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

Yes I see, a bunch of nothing around me....

 

[ArtieE]

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?

Eternal regression isn't an "answer" it's just the wrong way of thinking about time. Please start with this. Could an Infinite Series of Past Events

 

[ArtieE]

Yes I see, a bunch of nothing around me....

Yepp. To simplify: the total energy of the universe is zero. You simply only see the plus part of the equation, you can't "see" the gravitational field which is the negative part.

0=0
+5-5=0

The end result is still zero even though you can only see the +5 and not the -5.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Transcendence is having power from the outside. When you are what you are trying to transcend then there is no issue, you are already are and within, and the problem becomes moot. Immanence simply doesn't qualify.

This is basically the RF equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA I can't hear you!".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Let's try this again-

just answer this- did your god create/cause the universe/existence?

Just answer, yes or no.

 

[idav]

This is basically the RF equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA I can't hear you!".

Pot meet kettle. You can just ignore the definitions and conflate immanent panetheism with transcendent pantheism all you want. Doesn't make it right. Spinoza advocates transcendent pantheism. I advocate natural pantheism which I showed can be referred to "immanent pantheism", monism which is considered atheistic and was contrasted from transcendent pantheism.

 

[idav]

Let's try this again-



Just answer, yes or no.

That is about the only thing that would make something god. They have to be the source not necessarily a "cause" at least not in a volitional sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is about the only thing that would make something god. They have to be the source not necessarily a "cause" at least not in a volitional sense.

Isn't it more like that is the only attribute of a god concept that you would consider necessary? I'm fairly certain that this is not a particularly typical or universal conception of God.

 

[idav]

Isn't it more like that is the only attribute of a god concept that you would consider necessary?

Yes that is accurate.

I'm fairly certain that this is not a particularly typical or universal conception of God.

Yup, no doubt it isn't the typical omnipotent super omnibenevolent deity. As far as attributes are concerned, god doesn't have to be good or evil, just needs to be the reason for existence.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Pot meet kettle. You can just ignore the definitions and conflate immanent panetheism with transcendent pantheism all you want.

Yeah, never did that.

Doesn't make it right. Spinoza advocates transcendent pantheism. I advocate natural pantheism which I showed can be referred to "immanent pantheism", monism which is considered atheistic and was contrasted from transcendent pantheism.

That's great. You still have yet to address my point regarding the relation between immanence and transcendence for (any) god- which, as I've already pointed out, would not make any sense if I was conflating the two.

You can say "pot meet kettle", but there's only one of us who is ignoring what the other is saying and doing a broken record impression.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is about the only thing that would make something god. They have to be the source not necessarily a "cause" at least not in a volitional sense.

Ok. So let's take it from the top, step-by-step. But first, can you agree to something like these definitions?

transcendence: independent of/beyond the physical universe
immanence: manifesting/encompassing the physical universe

So God is immanent. Gotcha. But you say God also caused/created/is the source of the universe, which means that-

if God created the universe, then God was not immanent prior to the creation of the universe he is to be immanent in- thus, prior to creation, God transcends any universe. God becomes immanent only after creating the universe which he transcends; as I said, even when God is said to be immanent (as in this case), his immanence is nevertheless prior to and contingent upon his transcendence. I'm not sure there's any way out of this dilemma for you; either God created the universe and is thus necessarily transcendent, or God did not create the universe, and God is arguably not God.

And, once more, for emphasis-

... 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?

God is immanent. But God cannot be immanent without a universe to be immanent in, yes? Well, if God created/caused the universe, then there was an antecedent state to this creation event in which God was NOT immanent. No universe, no immanence, by definition, right? But then, if God created/caused the universe, that means that God existed prior to and independent of the universe. Well, but we have a word for that- do you remember what it is?

Transcendence.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Clearly, none of the above "conflates" or assumes that immanence and transcendence are synonymous. They clearly are not, and the argument becomes nonsense if they are. The argument is that immanence PLUS causing the universe ENTAILS transcendence.

 

[idav]

Ok. So let's take it from the top, step-by-step. But first, can you agree to something like these definitions?

transcendence: independent of/beyond the physical universe
immanence: manifesting/encompassing the physical universe

So God is immanent. Gotcha. But you say God also caused/created/is the source of the universe, which means that-



And, once more, for emphasis-



God is immanent. But God cannot be immanent without a universe to be immanent in, yes? Well, if God created/caused the universe, then there was an antecedent state to this creation event in which God was NOT immanent. No universe, no immanence, by definition, right? But then, if God created/caused the universe, that means that God existed prior to and independent of the universe. Well, but we have a word for that- do you remember what it is?

Transcendence.

Your speaking duality to a monist. There never is an independent. Whatever spark that ignited it all is creation itself, the spark is still there and holds matter together within the confines of spacetime.

 

[ArtieE]

Your speaking duality to a monist. There never is an independent. Whatever spark that ignited it all is creation itself, the spark is still there and holds matter together within the confines of spacetime.

So now your "god" is "electromagnetism", because electromagnetism is what holds matter together. What holds matter together Do you think electromagnetism is sentient or not? And can you tell us how this "spark" could exist in the first place if it hadn't created "creation" yet?

 

[idav]

So now your "god" is "electromagnetism", because electromagnetism is what holds matter together. What holds matter together Do you think electromagnetism is sentient or not? And can you tell us how this "spark" could exist in the first place if it hadn't created "creation" yet?

I think sensory is innate to existence. IOW all matter reacts to interaction with other matter.

Yeah I am not sure why something rather than nothing. IDK why this "spark" exists.

Edit: Why doesnt apply in this case and science cant tell us how.