Who is God?

[ProfessorDavey]

So what if it is? How does that affect contingency?Or the moment by moment dependence of something fundamental?

It affects contingency hugely - if time actually runs in the reverse direction to the way we perceive, arguably we reverse contingency so X being contingent on Y (which may require Y to be present before X exists) becomes Y being contingent on X (as how could X be contingent on something that didn't actually exist).

But of course you've completely failed to make a cogent base argument on contingency and your assertion (unevidenced) that there must be 'the necessary entity' that sits outside of the notion of contingency. Once you consider that time may not be linear and continuous and the notion of networks your assertions rather crumble to dust.

[Outrider]

I think somebody has floated the idea that there is no such thing as contingency. Difficult to see how that doesn't undercut science and methodological naturalism

Which in anyone were ideologically rather than pragmatically invested in it would be an issue. People use science and methodological naturalism because it's effective - if you want to replace it, you just need evidence of efficacy. Come up with a better methodology, and we'll run with it.

O.

[Free Willy]

Which in anyone were ideologically rather than pragmatically invested in it would be an issue. People use science and methodological naturalism because it's effective - if you want to replace it, you just need evidence of efficacy. Come up with a better methodology, and we'll run with it.

O.

In the light of your new found dodge of the static universe(from what perspective,?), How then without suggesting cause or effect, is science "effective".

Are you suggesting that motion, energy transfer and change are illusions?

I'm happy to run with science too, methodological naturalism is fine, philosophical naturalism and scientism, not so.

[Alan Burns]

I am God

Okay! okay! would you settle for God like

Gonnagle

PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.

Well said, and welcome back.   

We are indeed made in God's image, and to get to know God we need to look more into our own spiritual self rather than the ultimately meaningless "cause and effect" scenario observed in the material world.

[Free Willy]

Well said, and welcome back.   

We are indeed made in God's image, and to get to know God we need to look more into our own spiritual self rather than the ultimately meaningless "cause and effect" scenario observed in the material world.

I agree that there is no way mere intellectual assent of Aquinas's arguments from contingency constitute a personal Christianity.
However, it doesn't harm to pitch it in imv.

[Outrider]

In the light of your new found dodge of the static universe(from what perspective,?), How then without suggesting cause or effect, is science "effective".

How long does it take you to fail to read every message just enough to misrepresent what people have said, so consistently?

I wasn't promoting the static universe model - you asked what would something look like that bypassed cause and effect and I suggested two models that would do that. When I report Biblical claims i'm not advocating for the Bible, I'm stating what a position that's sometimes held is.

O.

[torridon]

I am God

Okay! okay! would you settle for God like

Gonnagle

PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.

   Welcome back Gonnagle

[torridon]

In all cultures God has been stated as being within ourselves. We however have a natural tendency to look outwards. The images that people worship are of cultural origin.

So I guess what you are saying is that the idea of 'God being within ourselves' is also of cultural origin. That's probably somewhat true.

[Sriram]

I am God

Okay! okay! would you settle for God like

Gonnagle

PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.

Not entirely wrong actually!

In Hindu philosophy there is a statement from the Upanishads that is regarded as the Ultimate Truth.....'Aham Brahmasmi' or 'I am Brahman'.  This is to imply that our innermost consciousness (not the ego consciousness) is the fundamental Ultimate Reality. 

This is similar to the statement from the bible ...'The Kingdom of God is within you'.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

I may be picking your old brain a little now that I have returned to this wonderful forum, in my little walk in the wilderness I have discovered the joys of Meditation, so in reading your post you may be the very man with any tips/advice on the subject, but be gentle with me, the best I can say about Meditation ( so far ) is that it has brought a smile back to the Gonnagles face, a serene smile, a gentle smile

Anyway a thank you to the posters who have welcomed me back, on with the good fight, giving those devil worshipping atheists a jolly good thrashing ( although I think some of them may enjoy that sort of thing )

Gonnagle.

[God]

I am God

Okay! okay! would you settle for God like

Gonnagle

PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.

No, I'm God and so's my wife.

[Sriram]

Dear Sriram,

I may be picking your old brain a little now that I have returned to this wonderful forum, in my little walk in the wilderness I have discovered the joys of Meditation, so in reading your post you may be the very man with any tips/advice on the subject, but be gentle with me, the best I can say about Meditation ( so far ) is that it has brought a smile back to the Gonnagles face, a serene smile, a gentle smile

Anyway a thank you to the posters who have welcomed me back, on with the good fight, giving those devil worshipping atheists a jolly good thrashing ( although I think some of them may enjoy that sort of thing )

Gonnagle.

Will be happy to discuss anything on the subject Gonnagle, based on what little I know...
 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

What little do you know? I practice a very basic form myself ( Buddha approved ) Anapanasati, it was recommended to me, basically for beginners, anyway maybe a topic for another thread, it is a huge subject, I especially love all the science that has sprung up around it.

Gonnagle.

[Sriram]

Dear Sriram,

What little do you know? I practice a very basic form myself ( Buddha approved ) Anapanasati, it was recommended to me, basically for beginners, anyway maybe a topic for another thread, it is a huge subject, I especially love all the science that has sprung up around it.

Gonnagle.

The little I know is something I have learned over a lifetime.  Not easy to enumerate or explain. 

Yes....Mindful breathing in one of the techniques that are very useful in mind control.  I do that too.

Mind control is the basis of spiritual development. We then realize that we are not the body or the mind but something beyond. This realization is the essence of spirituality. It starts with wanting to know God but leads to Self realization.

[Alan Burns]

The little I know is something I have learned over a lifetime.  Not easy to enumerate or explain. 

Yes....Mindful breathing in one of the techniques that are very useful in mind control.  I do that too.

Mind control is the basis of spiritual development. We then realize that we are not the body or the mind but something beyond. This realization is the essence of spirituality. It starts with wanting to know God but leads to Self realization.

Our power to consciously meditate is certainly a reality which can bring us closer to God.
I find it hard to believe that a number of our non believer friends posting on the "Searching for God" thread claim that we can have no conscious control over our thoughts, (which is the inevitable conclusion derived from the materialistic scenario of physically determined cause and effect.)

[Gonnagle]

Dear Mr Burns,

Well that settles it, a new thread awaits, Meditation. But which category should we place it in. So many kinds of Meditation, Zen, Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, I don't think it should be placed on any religious threads. To big a subject, and I personally like the science behind the study of the topic.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Mr Burns,

Well that settles it, a new thread awaits, Meditation. But which category should we place it in. So many kinds of Meditation, Zen, Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, I don't think it should be placed on any religious threads. To big a subject, and I personally like the science behind the study of the topic.

Gonnagle.

I now have Roy Castle singing in my head Meditation is what you need

https://youtu.be/GilqqHC0SQ8?si=v-uVFyvPBLO-xjVa

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

If you wannabe a record breaker yeeeeaaahh, showing your age old son

Gonnagle.

[Sassy]

No, I'm God and so's my wife.

Without Truth the bizarre becomes the ridiculous.

[Outrider]

Without Truth the bizarre becomes the ridiculous.

Whereas with 'The Truth'^TM the bizarre and the ridiculous become doctrine.

O.

[Stranger]

Our power to consciously meditate is certainly a reality which can bring us closer to God.

Or show us why the idea is without basis.

I find it hard to believe that a number of our non believer friends posting on the "Searching for God" thread claim that we can have no conscious control over our thoughts, (which is the inevitable conclusion derived from the materialistic scenario of physically determined cause and effect.)

'Conscious control over our thoughts' is at beat ambiguous and at worst absurd, and the reason has nothing at all to you with physical cause and effect.

It seems you still haven't woken up to the fact that the role of consciousness is logically unconnected with free will and the reason that your favourite kind of 'free will' is impossible has nothing to do with being physical.   

[Alan Burns]

Or show us why the idea is without basis.

'Conscious control over our thoughts' is at beat ambiguous and at worst absurd, and the reason has nothing at all to you with physical cause and effect.

It seems you still haven't woken up to the fact that the role of consciousness is logically unconnected with free will and the reason that your favourite kind of 'free will' is impossible has nothing to do with being physical.   

If you rely entirely on what can be perceived by your physical senses you are bound to conclude that past events must define the future, even if you can't fully understand how things happen.  The reason is that whatever gets perceived has already happened.  We can only examine the past.  The present is elusive.  It is a fact that quantum behaviour can have no discernible cause, but that does not mean that such behaviour is random - if it were we would not exist because molecular stability relies of specific quantum events to occur at specific times.  The logic you use to conclude that free will is an impossibility is flawed because it is derived from a time dependent version of determinism in which everything will be an inevitable consequence of what has already occurred.  You ignore or dismiss the power of the present in which your conscious awareness exists.  We cannot examine our conscious awareness because it only exists in the present - it defines the present.  And it gives us the power to exert control over what we do, think or say.

[Outrider]

The logic you use to conclude that free will is an impossibility is flawed because it is derived from a time dependent version of determinism in which everything will be an inevitable consequence of what has already occurred.

If effect does not follow cause, logic is irrelevant, but notwithstanding that, our will is time dependent, even if the reality in which we exist isn't. It proceeds from the past to the present - that's what makes the present as vague as you allege, incorrectly*. As such, our will cannot be free of the past, it's a product of the past, as much as the rest of us.

You ignore or dismiss the power of the present in which your conscious awareness exists.

The present is not 'vague' - our knowledge of it is imperfect, and limited in scope but that's a facet of us, not of reality.

We cannot examine our conscious awareness because it only exists in the present - it defines the present.

No, I was conscious yesterday, too.

And it gives us the power to exert control over what we do, think or say.

And the limitations of that power are defined what it shaped it yesterday, and all the yesterdays before it. If that's not what defines our will, then we are functionally random and that's not compatible with any definition of 'will' that makes sense.

O.

[Alan Burns]

No, I was conscious yesterday, too.

Your memory of it exists in the present - by exerting your will to recollect it.

And the limitations of that power are defined what it shaped it yesterday, and all the yesterdays before it. If that's not what defines our will, then we are functionally random and that's not compatible with any definition of 'will' that makes sense.

You imply that whatever you do must be entirely defined by the past - as you would expect in any man made creation such as a robot.

But your memory of the past exists in your present state of conscious awareness, and as such it can influence but not dictate how you should react.  Your will is ultimately defined by you - not by past events over which you have no conscious control.  But what comprises "You"?

[Outrider]

Your memory of it exists in the present - by exerting your will to recollect it.

That I have memory is evidence that I was conscious yesterday to form those memories. Sometimes my memory is an act of will, sometimes the act of will is not sufficient and the memory doesn't come, sometimes the memory comes unbidden.

You imply that whatever you do must be entirely defined by the past - as you would expect in any man made creation such as a robot.

I'd say I'm more than merely implying it, that's outright my position - we appear to be a construction entirely of past events, nothing else makes sense.

But your memory of the past exists in your present state of conscious awareness, and as such it can influence but not dictate how you should react.

But my reasoning is also shaped by my past - experience and inherited conditions - and influenced by the current state of hormones and nutrition and gut bacterial feedback and innumerable other systemic effects. If those various balances are not determining my response, what is? Anything that you suggest that is not based upon prior events - either an inherent trait, or a learned trait - is not will, it's random, because it's BY DEFINITION independent of the situation.

Your will is ultimately defined by you - not by past events over which you have no conscious control.  But what comprises "You"?

Past events. I am the sum of my history. My will is ultimately defined by 'me', yes, but I am ultimately defined what came before; I'm just along for the ride.

O.