Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God as Nature; or, Why I'm a Pantheist Now

ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 7:37:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 6:14:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, how do you worship the universe?

Andromeda, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:13:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 7:37:28 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/13/2015 6:14:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, how do you worship the universe?

Andromeda, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
...

Hey, that's playing favourites. Andromeda was always a precocious child.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:10:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pantheism is a step in the right direction.

The next step is understanding the difference between what is created and The Uncreated.

Pantheism is the logical conclusion of God from a materialist perspective.

Matter, however, is creation. You've got to take into account the tool that you are using to measure! These are things that only exist in relation to other things.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 4:12:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

Well, at the risk of being accused of being a nit-picker, your description of your belief system--as well as your reasons for believing as you do--actually better describe those of somebody who subscribes to "PanthENeism" rather than Pantheism.

Because I consider myself a Pantheist. But I do not go so far as it as you do with the "God" aspect. When I say that "my God is nature" I am referring to the fact I feel my most Spiritual when immersed in Nature. A part of a larger whole. And the "god" I mention would by a fully Deist, no Theist variety. Just as when Einstein (an Atheist) claimed that "God does not play dice with the Universe."

Hope this helps.

http://www.pantheism.net...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 5:15:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being.

Really? Apply that principle to any cartoon character. They obviously do not exist in reality. What restricts them from being real? What causes them to remain fantasy characters?

This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

Fictional characters obviously affect reality. They have a certain entertainment value and can also be used as a tool to teach lessons, morals and principles of life.
Are fictional characters self negating? Do they contradict themselves?

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

If you wish to reduce all things to the same substance, I think calling it energy would be more practical and comprehensible than calling it God.
God is merely a personification of all energy and all existence.

Having a healthy respect and appreciation for energy and all the powers that be, does not require anyone to worship the "forces"
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:41:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

Hey Shab, it's good to see you in the Religion section. Do you care if I ask you a few questions?

Would you consider this God to have intelligence and knowledge, or is the knowledge that mankind possesses the Mind of the Universe? The first would obviously be panentheism, but if the second is true, how did the Universe know how to follow the Laws of Physics? Or do you have a completely different idea of how intelligence came into being? Thank you my friend and God bless you.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:47:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 6:14:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, how do you worship the universe?

The daily sacrifice of atheists to reality.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:48:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 4:12:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.


Well, at the risk of being accused of being a nit-picker, your description of your belief system--as well as your reasons for believing as you do--actually better describe those of somebody who subscribes to "PanthENeism" rather than Pantheism.

Because I consider myself a Pantheist. But I do not go so far as it as you do with the "God" aspect. When I say that "my God is nature" I am referring to the fact I feel my most Spiritual when immersed in Nature. A part of a larger whole. And the "god" I mention would by a fully Deist, no Theist variety. Just as when Einstein (an Atheist) claimed that "God does not play dice with the Universe."

Hope this helps.


http://www.pantheism.net...

Why would you consider me to be a panentheist? I don't believe that any part of God transcends reality and I don't see how my arguments lead to that conclusion.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:55:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 5:15:58 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being.

Really? Apply that principle to any cartoon character. They obviously do not exist in reality. What restricts them from being real? What causes them to remain fantasy characters?
Are you saying that there are no such restrictions? If so, how can you explain their nonexistence? The very fact that they don't exist shows that there is some reason for their nonexistence.
This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

Fictional characters obviously affect reality. They have a certain entertainment value and can also be used as a tool to teach lessons, morals and principles of life.
The idea of a fictional character =/= a fictional character in the flesh.
Are fictional characters self negating? Do they contradict themselves?
They're not self-negating - they're negated by the actual state of things.
A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

If you wish to reduce all things to the same substance, I think calling it energy would be more practical and comprehensible than calling it God.
God is merely a personification of all energy and all existence.
You could potentially do that, sure (I'm not well-versed enough in physics to debate the plausibility of energy as all that exists), but I don't see how it's more fitting to call the universe energy than it is to call it God.
Having a healthy respect and appreciation for energy and all the powers that be, does not require anyone to worship the "forces"

I never said anything about worship.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:57:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:41:55 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

Hey Shab, it's good to see you in the Religion section. Do you care if I ask you a few questions?

Would you consider this God to have intelligence and knowledge, or is the knowledge that mankind possesses the Mind of the Universe? The first would obviously be panentheism, but if the second is true, how did the Universe know how to follow the Laws of Physics? Or do you have a completely different idea of how intelligence came into being? Thank you my friend and God bless you.

Knowledge as in self-contained knowledge, apart from reality/things that can think within reality? No, I don't see any reason to say that God has any.

The Universe follows the laws of physics because the alternative would be contradictory - I can't say *why* except for the fact that the laws of physics do exist and as such could not have been otherwise.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:11:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:55:01 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/13/2015 5:15:58 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being.

Really? Apply that principle to any cartoon character. They obviously do not exist in reality. What restricts them from being real? What causes them to remain fantasy characters?
Are you saying that there are no such restrictions? If so, how can you explain their nonexistence? The very fact that they don't exist shows that there is some reason for their nonexistence.

What reason do you suggest for the non existence of fairies?
I suggest the reason fictional characters don't exist in reality is due to the fact that they are imaginary and there is no way humans can cause them to come alive in reality. The best humans can do is create an artificial reality for their imaginary characters and bring them to "life" through various art forms.

This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

Fictional characters obviously affect reality. They have a certain entertainment value and can also be used as a tool to teach lessons, morals and principles of life.
The idea of a fictional character =/= a fictional character in the flesh.

Many people are fictional characters. They are not real. They pretend to be something they are not.

Are fictional characters self negating? Do they contradict themselves?
They're not self-negating - they're negated by the actual state of things.

Which is?

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

If you wish to reduce all things to the same substance, I think calling it energy would be more practical and comprehensible than calling it God.
God is merely a personification of all energy and all existence.

You could potentially do that, sure (I'm not well-versed enough in physics to debate the plausibility of energy as all that exists), but I don't see how it's more fitting to call the universe energy than it is to call it God.

Exactly. It's just a label after all. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The label makes no difference to the essence of the existing thing.

Having a healthy respect and appreciation for energy and all the powers that be, does not require anyone to worship the "forces"

I never said anything about worship.

I mentioned it for the benefit of those who want to believe that some people worship the universe or talk to it like talking to some supernatural idol.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:37:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:57:11 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:41:55 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

Hey Shab, it's good to see you in the Religion section. Do you care if I ask you a few questions?

Would you consider this God to have intelligence and knowledge, or is the knowledge that mankind possesses the Mind of the Universe? The first would obviously be panentheism, but if the second is true, how did the Universe know how to follow the Laws of Physics? Or do you have a completely different idea of how intelligence came into being? Thank you my friend and God bless you.

Knowledge as in self-contained knowledge, apart from reality/things that can think within reality? No, I don't see any reason to say that God has any.

The Universe follows the laws of physics because the alternative would be contradictory - I can't say *why* except for the fact that the laws of physics do exist and as such could not have been otherwise.

The Laws of Physics are interesting to me, because not only is it impossible to answer "why" they behave the way they do, we also do not know "how" they behave the way they do. Take Gravity for instance. How is it that Gravity should consistently behave the same way throughout the Universe? If I were to take two planets of equal size, how is it that Gravity "knows" (for lack of a better word) to behave exactly the same way for both planets?

Or what are we to think about Water? How is it that one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms should consistently merge together to form a water molecule? And how is it possible that water is consistently necessary for intelligent Life? There is no intelligence in water, nor is there Life. Yet, it makes up the biological structure of every living creature.

Of course we can ask, how did God do it? Or we can go even deeper and ask, why did God do it, and why did He choose to do it this way? The answer to these questions are for Him alone to know, but I do believe that every person that has ever lived will be taught these things by our Father. He will make known all things, and deliver us from this vain and meaningless Life.

This is just a hope that I have, and perhaps it's a pipe-dream, but it gives me joy and leaves me contempt with whatsoever should happen. Why does my mind respond so peacefully to these things? Maybe I have a psychological disorder, but then again, do not all of us? Do any of us know anything? We just wake up one day in this huge Universe with no knowledge of anything, and then grow up to ask these wonderful questions. Why?

Thank you my friend.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:07:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:47:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/13/2015 6:14:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, how do you worship the universe?

The daily sacrifice of atheists to reality.

I'm not sure what that means but I assume it is a joke?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:15:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At best, the argument establishes that some omnipresent identity exists. The identity need not possess infinite qualities in order to ensure that nothing escapes its grasp. Rather, the identity just has to be defined such it is totally comprehensive, so that whatever does exist is included in it (the word "reality" is obviously a suitable candidate).

The problem with the notion of an infinite substance is that no matter how hard it tries, it cannot meaningfully subsume all possible states of affairs. Decisions have to be made, because some events are just mutually exclusive with other ones. Moreover, there are definitions of reality which amount to "Not belonging to an infinite substance", which an infinite substance cannot include.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:17:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:15:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At best, the argument establishes that some omnipresent identity exists. The identity need not possess infinite qualities in order to ensure that nothing escapes its grasp. Rather, the identity just has to be defined such it is totally comprehensive, so that whatever does exist is included in it (the word "reality" is obviously a suitable candidate).

The problem with the notion of an infinite substance is that no matter how hard it tries, it cannot meaningfully subsume all possible states of affairs. Decisions have to be made, because some events are just mutually exclusive with other ones. Moreover, there are definitions of reality which amount to "Not belonging to an infinite substance", which an infinite substance cannot include.

Events = modifications of substance. An infinite substance doesn't mean that all things possible exist.

Given the necessity of such a substance, those definitions of reality are negated at their root - there's no problem with that.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:19:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:07:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:47:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/13/2015 6:14:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, how do you worship the universe?

The daily sacrifice of atheists to reality.

I'm not sure what that means but I assume it is a joke?

Not all theists are crackpots dee-em.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:19:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

So God came into being with the Big Bang?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:20:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:19:42 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

So God came into being with the Big Bang?

The universe (and therefore God, or vice versa) is eternal, so no.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:21:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:07:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:47:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/13/2015 6:14:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, how do you worship the universe?

The daily sacrifice of atheists to reality.

I'm not sure what that means but I assume it is a joke?

I'm totally serious - do you want to see the altar upon which I slaughter the heretics?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:21:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:17:19 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:15:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At best, the argument establishes that some omnipresent identity exists. The identity need not possess infinite qualities in order to ensure that nothing escapes its grasp. Rather, the identity just has to be defined such it is totally comprehensive, so that whatever does exist is included in it (the word "reality" is obviously a suitable candidate).


Please address this.

The problem with the notion of an infinite substance is that no matter how hard it tries, it cannot meaningfully subsume all possible states of affairs. Decisions have to be made, because some events are just mutually exclusive with other ones. Moreover, there are definitions of reality which amount to "Not belonging to an infinite substance", which an infinite substance cannot include.

Events = modifications of substance. An infinite substance doesn't mean that all things possible exist.

So then does an infinite substance just mean "a medium in which all possible things are possible"? I don't see how that wouldn't be true of any substance.


Given the necessity of such a substance, those definitions of reality are negated at their root - there's no problem with that.

You would need to show that without reference to your argument (otherwise, your argument is circular). I.e., "My argument is consistent because it is right".
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:24:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:21:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:07:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:47:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/13/2015 6:14:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
So, how do you worship the universe?

The daily sacrifice of atheists to reality.

I'm not sure what that means but I assume it is a joke?

I'm totally serious - do you want to see the altar upon which I slaughter the heretics?

Well, in that case, I'm on board. The universe is god. Long may she live.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:24:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:20:35 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:19:42 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

So God came into being with the Big Bang?

The universe (and therefore God, or vice versa) is eternal, so no.

And yet it seems to be on course for eternal expansion and dissipation. Additionally, it appears that there is a t=0.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:25:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:24:41 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:20:35 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:19:42 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

So God came into being with the Big Bang?

The universe (and therefore God, or vice versa) is eternal, so no.

And yet it seems to be on course for eternal expansion and dissipation. Additionally, it appears that there is a t=0.

Both are logically impossible, given that the universe encompasses all that exists - there's no possible outside cause for its nonexistence.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:28:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:25:39 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:24:41 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:20:35 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:19:42 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

So God came into being with the Big Bang?

The universe (and therefore God, or vice versa) is eternal, so no.

And yet it seems to be on course for eternal expansion and dissipation. Additionally, it appears that there is a t=0.

Both are logically impossible, given that the universe encompasses all that exists - there's no possible outside cause for its nonexistence.

The first point is an assumption that the second point derives its validity from.

How do you square this theory with the Big Bang and the accelerating expansion of the universe?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:29:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:21:58 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:17:19 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:15:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At best, the argument establishes that some omnipresent identity exists. The identity need not possess infinite qualities in order to ensure that nothing escapes its grasp. Rather, the identity just has to be defined such it is totally comprehensive, so that whatever does exist is included in it (the word "reality" is obviously a suitable candidate).


Please address this.
You never justified it... If this substance is finite, then there could always be *something* apart from it - ergo there could potentially be a cause outside of itself to prevent its existence. As such, the only logically necessary substance is one which doesn't allow any other substance to exist - i.e. a substance with infinite attributes.

The problem with the notion of an infinite substance is that no matter how hard it tries, it cannot meaningfully subsume all possible states of affairs. Decisions have to be made, because some events are just mutually exclusive with other ones. Moreover, there are definitions of reality which amount to "Not belonging to an infinite substance", which an infinite substance cannot include.

Events = modifications of substance. An infinite substance doesn't mean that all things possible exist.

So then does an infinite substance just mean "a medium in which all possible things are possible"? I don't see how that wouldn't be true of any substance.
Isn't that kind of the point? Since all substances would be infinite, and since you cannot distinguish between two substances with the same qualities, there would be but one infinite substance - exactly my conclusion.

Given the necessity of such a substance, those definitions of reality are negated at their root - there's no problem with that.

You would need to show that without reference to your argument (otherwise, your argument is circular). I.e., "My argument is consistent because it is right".

It's tautologically true and derived directly from the axioms of existence. Therefore, it cannot not be - and by extension nothing that causes it to not be cannot itself be.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:28:28 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:25:39 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:24:41 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:20:35 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:19:42 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

So God came into being with the Big Bang?

The universe (and therefore God, or vice versa) is eternal, so no.

And yet it seems to be on course for eternal expansion and dissipation. Additionally, it appears that there is a t=0.

Both are logically impossible, given that the universe encompasses all that exists - there's no possible outside cause for its nonexistence.

The first point is an assumption that the second point derives its validity from.
Yes? I don't see a problem with that, considering that it's an assumption proven by definition.
How do you square this theory with the Big Bang and the accelerating expansion of the universe?

I'm not a scientist, so I don't have to. I can only say that the scientific explanation *cannot* be certain things, namely that the universe had a beginning or will have an end.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:34:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:31:59 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:28:28 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:25:39 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:24:41 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:20:35 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:19:42 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/13/2015 3:32:04 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
For something not to exist, there must be some cause or reason for its nonexistence - there must be some reason for why it's restricted from being. This cause must come from outside of the thing in question, for a self-negating thing would have nothing preventing it from existing before it actually does exist, as the cause for its nonexistence wouldn't actualize and be able to affect reality until the thing itself exists, leading to a contradiction.

A substance which has infinite attributes would logically subsume all other possible substances - in order to distinguish another substance from it would require the other substance to have qualities not existent in the infinite substance, for two substances with the same qualities are, on the whole, the same, and, since no such substance, viz. a substance which has qualities not represented in the substance with infinite attributes, is imaginable, there is no possible source for the cause of the nonexistence of the infinite substance.

The conclusion, then, is that there is but one substance, and that this substance, which I identify as God, has infinite attributes, and, since all existing things must relate to substance, all existents are merely extensions of this substance - therefore, nature and the universe are indistinguishable from God.

So God came into being with the Big Bang?

The universe (and therefore God, or vice versa) is eternal, so no.

And yet it seems to be on course for eternal expansion and dissipation. Additionally, it appears that there is a t=0.

Both are logically impossible, given that the universe encompasses all that exists - there's no possible outside cause for its nonexistence.

The first point is an assumption that the second point derives its validity from.
Yes? I don't see a problem with that, considering that it's an assumption proven by definition.
How do you square this theory with the Big Bang and the accelerating expansion of the universe?

I'm not a scientist, so I don't have to. I can only say that the scientific explanation *cannot* be certain things, namely that the universe had a beginning or will have an end.

Well... I'd look into that if I were you.

Have a good night Mr. Burrito!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 10:09:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 2:29:06 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:21:58 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:17:19 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/14/2015 2:15:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At best, the argument establishes that some omnipresent identity exists. The identity need not possess infinite qualities in order to ensure that nothing escapes its grasp. Rather, the identity just has to be defined such it is totally comprehensive, so that whatever does exist is included in it (the word "reality" is obviously a suitable candidate).


Please address this.
You never justified it... If this substance is finite, then there could always be *something* apart from it - ergo there could potentially be a cause outside of itself to prevent its existence. As such, the only logically necessary substance is one which doesn't allow any other substance to exist - i.e. a substance with infinite attributes.


Explain why comprehensitivity can only be effected by exhaustive realization of potential. This would only be true in cases where the identity did not *know* what exists, and so must "hedge its bets", so to speak. If the identity coincides with reality, then obviously it doesn't have to embody all possible states of affairs in order to encompass all things.

The problem with the notion of an infinite substance is that no matter how hard it tries, it cannot meaningfully subsume all possible states of affairs. Decisions have to be made, because some events are just mutually exclusive with other ones. Moreover, there are definitions of reality which amount to "Not belonging to an infinite substance", which an infinite substance cannot include.

Events = modifications of substance. An infinite substance doesn't mean that all things possible exist.

So then does an infinite substance just mean "a medium in which all possible things are possible"? I don't see how that wouldn't be true of any substance.
Isn't that kind of the point? Since all substances would be infinite, and since you cannot distinguish between two substances with the same qualities, there would be but one infinite substance - exactly my conclusion.

It's a trivial fact which even atheists would accept.


Given the necessity of such a substance, those definitions of reality are negated at their root - there's no problem with that.

You would need to show that without reference to your argument (otherwise, your argument is circular). I.e., "My argument is consistent because it is right".

It's tautologically true and derived directly from the axioms of existence. Therefore, it cannot not be - and by extension nothing that causes it to not be cannot itself be.