God is simple, not complex

[Shad]

Authentic Jewish source material in English does not exist. Authors write for Jews, not the general public. Oddly I did find an old print on Amazon. But that's not going to help you much.

Nonsense. If you view is part of mainstream Judaism then a source will be available in English

I am not referencing principals, I am referencing process.

You have not mentioned a single one as of yet. As I said you could be confused regarding the argument, you may not know the counters. Likewise I do not know if you are confused or not since you didn't present a method, you just claimed there was one.

Please explain to me how the initial singularity came into existence (or if you lean towards brane cosmology, the fist bulk) without resorting to "we don't understand that yet".

You want an answer nobody knows nor can even show they know. You are demanding an answer rather than a "I do not know" due to your religion making assertions you accept as answers based on zero evidence. I have no idea, but then no one does. You presented a loaded question, nothing more.

I could easily produce a typical answer theists use. The singularity always was. The expansion from a singularity into the universe we know is within it's "nature". I turn my assertions into "brute facts" without cause.

 

[Tumah]

Nonsense. If you view is part of mainstream Judaism then a source will be available in English

I bow to your knowledge of Jewish literature.

You have not mentioned a single one as of yet.

That's right. Does that mean it doesn't exist?

You want an answer nobody knows nor can even show they know. You are demanding an answer rather than a "I do not know" due to your religion making assertions you accept as answers based on zero evidence. I have no idea, but then no one does. You presented a loaded question, nothing more.

No. That's not it all. Rather I am saying, just because a religious person may not understand how some aspect of their religion works, does not by extension mean that there is no explanation for it, whether it is known or unknown.[/quote]

I could easily produce a typical answer theists use. The singularity always was. The expansion from a singularity into the universe we know is within it's "nature". I turn my assertions into "brute facts" without cause.

Technically, you'd be correct since time only began at the point of the initial singularity.

 

[Shad]

I bow to your knowledge of Jewish literature.

No you bow to how academia and religious studies work in a word dominated by English as a communication medium. Mainstream views will be available in English

That's right. Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Depends on, as I said, if it actually explains the mechanics or just tosses of principles and attributes as brute facts without cause such as "in God's nature" God's Will", etc.

No. That's not it all. Rather I am saying, just because a religious person may not understand how some aspect of their religion works, does not by extension mean that there is no explanation for it, whether it is known or unknown.

On the other hand just because people invoke principles and attributes does not mean it explains anything. Nor does mentioning abstracts such as perfection make it a reality.

Technically, you'd be correct since time only began at the point of the initial singularity.

Which is an major issue for both sides of the argument.

 

[Parsimony]

You have a basic misunderstanding about God's knowledge.

God does not possess his knowledge of diverse things through the reception of multiple intelligible species or forms in his intellect, but, rather, has this vast knowledge of things in knowing his own essence as imitable. (source: pg. 165, "God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness" by James E. Dolezal)

I'm not quite sure I understand what that means, but what I get from it is that everything in this Universe is an imitation of His essence. If that's so, then His essence is complex because it would require there to be a representation of everything in this Universe in Himself. At the very least, He would contain multiple concepts, multiple ideas.

 

[Tumah]

No you bow to how academia and religious studies work in a word dominated by English as a communication medium. Mainstream views will be available in English

Not everything is written for everyone.

Depends on, as I said, if it actually explains the mechanics or just tosses of principles and attributes as brute facts without cause such as "in God's nature" God's Will", etc.

Like, the "nature of the strong force", the "nature of the electromagnetic force", etc. Got it.

On the other hand just because people invoke principles and attributes does not mean it explains anything. Nor does mentioning abstracts such as perfection make it a reality.

So you can do it and they can't. Got it.

Which is an major issue for both sides of the argument.

Ok

 

[Koldo]

I'll poke in here briefly, because it actually bothers me that other theists are bothered by comparing gods to "fictional" entities.

The child isn't going to see a distinction, at least initially. They don't learn that until they get older. Then, they are taught by society to create their wall between "real" and "not real" in a particular way though their culture. Even though both God and Santa are otherworldly, they accept one of those otherworldly things and reject the other. Personally, I think this makes no sense at all. I call both real - both entities that clearly exist in the otherworlds and have a powerful influence on the apparent world - and be done with it.

Where the difference lies to me is how humans relate to that otherworldly entity. When they label something as a "god" that indicates a particular kind of regard and relationship above and beyond what people would have for the entity called Santa. "God" is sacred and worthy of worship, but Santa is not. In many respects, to ask the difference is like asking "what's the difference between a person's coworker and their wife/husband?" It's the relationship you have.

If I may, I dare say my relationship with Santa was much better than my relationship with God.

 

[allfoak]

I'm still slightly confused "What is God?" To you?

Was this asked of me?

 

[prometheus11]

I'll poke in here briefly, because it actually bothers me that other theists are bothered by comparing gods to "fictional" entities.

The child isn't going to see a distinction, at least initially. They don't learn that until they get older. Then, they are taught by society to create their wall between "real" and "not real" in a particular way though their culture. Even though both God and Santa are otherworldly, they accept one of those otherworldly things and reject the other. Personally, I think this makes no sense at all. I call both real - both entities that clearly exist in the otherworlds and have a powerful influence on the apparent world - and be done with it.

Where the difference lies to me is how humans relate to that otherworldly entity. When they label something as a "god" that indicates a particular kind of regard and relationship above and beyond what people would have for the entity called Santa. "God" is sacred and worthy of worship, but Santa is not. In many respects, to ask the difference is like asking "what's the difference between a person's coworker and their wife/husband?" It's the relationship you have.

The reason Santa and God are compared is because neither can be shown to be anything other than imaginary. That one child may be brought up to believe she has a "deep, abiding, overarching relationship" with Santa, and another is brought up to believe she has a "deep, abiding, overarching relationship" with God merely points to the behavior of the child's formative culture.

Santa, Nessie, Leprechauns, and God all have the same degree of demonstrability; they are all undetectable except by imagination. Perhaps one or two or all exist, but currently they all have the same amount of demonstrable proof: none.

Imaginary relationships can be fostered with any imaginary being. All it takes is authority figures pretending that the relationship is real.

 

[Quintessence]

If I may, I dare say my relationship with Santa was much better than my relationship with God.

For some people, it is. It's not uncommon for people to have more reverential or positive relationships with things they don't call their gods. From my perspective, those things we hold in high regard are as "gods" whether we stick that word to them or not. The word isn't important. It ends up becoming this silly game of "is it culturally or socially acceptable for me to call this thing a god?" The relationship is important, not the label. Seems to me the reverence children have for Santa easily outstrips that they have for the Biblical god. Honestly, seems to me the reverence many adults have for things they don't call their god just in general is... well... it makes me confused about what they label their gods, to be honest. Their gods seem to be an afterthought, which to me is like calling a casual acquaintance your spouse or something.

 

[Quintessence]

The reason Santa and God are compared is because neither can be shown to be anything other than imaginary.

...

Santa, Nessie, Leprechauns, and God all have the same degree of demonstrability; they are all undetectable except by imagination. Perhaps one or two or all exist, but currently they all have the same amount of demonstrable proof: none.

I don't agree, even as someone who doesn't worship God or honor Santa. Though I suspect you're taking a literalist approach, instead of as these things were intended.

 

[prometheus11]

Care to elaborate? Are you saying there's more proof for one or two of those? Which one(s)?

As I said, the reason those concepts are compared is because of where they exist (in the imagination) AND because they are all equally provable.

To insert beliefs about the strengths of imaginary relationships has to be inserted. Then, it's about relationships with imaginary beings, not the level of demonstrability.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I may, I think Quintessence is saying that proof of literal existence is pointless, as is literal existence itself, when it comes to deities.

Whatever leads one into reverence and religious inspiration is fair game to be considered a god as she understands it (or so it seems to me anyway).

So yes, it is indeed all in the relationship.

 

[prometheus11]

Perhaps he is saying that. I don't know. Certainly if he disagrees on the level of proof, as his reply indicated, and can show that one or two of those beings are real by proof, he will become the most famous person on earth and will become a household name in coming weeks and months.

But you are certainly correct about the construction of holiness. We make holy anything/any being we revere as holy...imaginary or real.

 

[Quintessence]

If I may, I think Quintessence is saying that proof of literal existence is pointless, as is literal existence itself, when it comes to deities.

Kind of. There were to streams of thought that went into that statement.

The first is that what constitutes "proof" is often unclear and a matter of debate to begin with. As an objective standard is not possible, we're pretty much left with "based on what I consider to be acceptable proof, this is what is the case to me."

The second relates to what you say here. It is simply understood that things like God (as in the one-god) and various otherworldly entities aren't directly part of the apparent world; looking for certain types of "proof" where it is impossible by nature is just silly.

There are also gods that are not otherworldly, and even the staunchest opponent can't reasonably deny the proofs for, even if by "proof" they really mean "empirical evidence that has gone through scientific peer review." What they can reasonably deny is sticking the label "god" on it.

It's probably worth noting that I don't bisect reality into categories of "real vs imaginary." Imaginary is a component of reality to me... it's just an otherworldly component. It gets complicated to describe this stuff to those who don't share the view... pardon if none of this makes sense. That's normal.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, the true trouble comes when people expect others to make concessions to their own conceptions of deities.

 

[prometheus11]

Thanks, Quint. I understand completely. As Luis states above, the problem is "when people expect others to makes concessions to their own conceptions of deities."

I actually agree, as well, and not just because disagreement with you is unwise because of technical concerns but because I actually agree.

I do think it's necessary to point out parallels in types of relationships and associated beliefs. A relationship with ghost of Elvis may be more important, beneficial, right, and "real" than a believers relationship with his God. And neither can demonstrate any objective proof exists for their chosen relationship/belief.

I think that is what needs to be expressed. And no believer of God or elvis's ghost need pretend he has anything over any other such relationship with a non demonstrable entity.

Do you, Quint, think relationships can/should be "ranked?" As in relationships with people whose existence is obvious and relationships with leprechauns or Elvis's ghost? Or world you consider all relationships equally valid whether it is with a lifelong, living friend standing in front of you or with an invisible fairy godmother?

 

[Quintessence]

Expecting concessions seems to be something characteristic of particular religions that, for better or worse, happen to numerically dominate the globe right now. The exclusivist religions have been moving more towards inclusivist and pluralist attitudes, but there's still a good chunk of the global population that is "my way or the highway" sort of mentality. Oh well. Humans do what humans do... just chuckle and move on.

As for ranking relationships... it's a complicated question and different people and cultures go about that in different ways. Certainly we can say that not all relationships are the same, but thinking of it in a hierarchical fashion is... well, it's not really my thing at least. It's certainly popular to do that in my culture, though. For me it is more of a time invested aspect. What is it that you really devote your time and energy to? Those are one's gods, spoken or unspoken. It's why I sometimes flippantly remark that the "true god" of the American people is the Spirit of Money given how much time and devotion we spend trying to obtain this thing called "money."

It's worth nothing that it is taboo in our culture to prioritize otherworldly relations over those of the apparent world. So much so that it can be characterized as a mental illness in certain situations. When one spends a lot of time doing journeywork (fancy name for "using your imagination" I guess), there's a balance to be struck between the joyful play and being grounded in the apparent world. It can become addictive like most things, I guess.

 

[prometheus11]

This dynamic reminds me of the movie Lars and the Real Girl.

I don't think I can accept imaginary relationships with imaginary beings (beings that can't be proven as more than imaginary) as equally valid as real relationships with non imaginary beings.

If the relationship is with an imaginary character, isn't it just self-referential? Isn't the lunatic's marriage with Elvis's ghost just a relationship with herself?

 

[FearGod]

No, I do not find it at all likely that there was some intelligence that decided to create existence.

The other option is a coincidence, do you think accidents and randomness is the cause of this universe.
What makes you to believe that it doesn't need a planner and a designer.

 

[FearGod]

If you feel that way, it must be because you are using a rather faulty understanding of "God".

"God did it" is at the end of the day just an invitation not to attempt to understand things.

I can't in good faith approve of calling that an answer to the supposed mystery of the origin of existence. That would be lying.

Still you can find out and think of how God did it, so your excuse is a meaningless one.