Thread: God - Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

See my former post about the word "eternity".

Timelessness is ONE of the ways to use the word, only one.

But that is not important, eternity is equally as invalid as infinity, I am talking about real systems.

Beginning is required or one will end up in stupid illogical circles.

I direct you and Taosaur to this chapter in the book trilogy "My Big TOE".

Page 123: http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

See also page 279 about infinity and how it relates to reality. Though some concepts/terms are unknown to you when the book is not read in order.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

Happy reading, you won't regret it!

If you find the reading slightly interesting I advise you strongly to read the trilogy for free or buy the books.

Your "real systems" are confined to finite, particular phenomena, all of which arise interdependently and in concert from the ground of being, which is truly infinite and truly eternal. While one can trace patterns as far through existence as one can contrive to see, those causal networks only have actual existence in the present: Now is the only place that anything has existence because Now is all that exists, with nothing outside of it. There is ultimately no beginning to the interdependent co-arising because it is constant. This eternity is what we're discussing here.

Here's my summary of a relevant Buddhist teaching, the Four Dharma Worlds, derived mostly from Alan Watts' Religion of No Religion:

Spoiler for 4 dharma worlds:

1. ji--the world of particulars, the material, the practical

Close observation of this world reveals the relationships among particulars and the insubstantiality of the material, yielding:

2. ri--the world of unity, the universal, the spiritual, the eternal, the 'secret meaning' behind the material.

This view gives rise to the question, "What good is it?" How to reconcile it with ji? Hence:

3. ri ji muge--Between the spiritual and the material, no obstruction. You have access to both and can see particulars through the unity and vice versa.

This view has great 'special effects' and unlike straight ri, you can function in the world of particulars, but there is a more subtle and complete view:

4. ji ji muge--Between particular and particular, no obstruction. The "spiritual" as something distinct from the material is absent entirely. The interpenetration of all things is seen in every instance.

Interesting...

Taosaur, what do you think of my answers (to your questions)? Do you see what I'm saying and do you think there's better a way around this obstacle you pointed out? I thought I'd have to mention God to re-contextualize old beliefs, but I guess I could have listed many names from many different cultures also. E.g. The Supreme Reality, Mind, etc.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Your "real systems" are confined to finite, particular phenomena, all of which arise interdependently and in concert from the ground of being, which is truly infinite and truly eternal. While one can trace patterns as far through existence as one can contrive to see, those causal networks only have actual existence in the present: Now is the only place that anything has existence because Now is all that exists, with nothing outside of it. There is ultimately no beginning to the interdependent co-arising because it is constant. This eternity is what we're discussing here.

First this nut needs to be cracked.

There are real systems and there are not-real systems.

Real systems are finite, infinite and eternal systems are thus not real.

Simply, AUM does not need to be infinite, the concept of infinity itself brings so many logical inconsistencies which includes infinite processes that requires infinite time and energy.

AUM or reality is relatively and apparently infinite , that is sufficient. Infinity in this view is a metaphor and not a mathematical abstraction.



Read "Infinity Gets Too Big for Real Britches", but I understand that if you want a more clear perception of the words one needs to read from the beginning of the trilogy.

I quote from "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism"

"The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong."

The scientific model is very comprehensive, it has to be, and without the whole picture any text read separately will contain some missing holes, that is why I strongly urge to the read the whole, and get a bigger picture. It will make sense as it is written to a westerners logical and rational mind.

Originally Posted by Quoted by Specialis Sapientia

"The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong."

It seems that this supports the view that Taosaur is advocating. If we postulate the existence of some causal system external to our own from which the 'illusion' of the mystical is evaporated, then how is the beginning of that causal system explained? Surely it too is mystical until one creates a yet larger causal network that itself is either infinite (hence mystical by the authors definition) or itself has the same mystical beginning. Does the author address this somewhere?

My opinion is that postulating the existence of a larger causual network as the author that you are linking to seems to be postulating is every bit as mystical as any of the other options.

Please understand that I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool reductionist but it seems that any way that we try to deny the existence of the mystical leads to contradiction. That is something of a problem for the programme of complete scientific understanding as advertised, is it not?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It seems that this supports the view that Taosaur is advocating. If we postulate the existence of some causal system external to our own from which the 'illusion' of the mystical is evaporated, then how is the beginning of that causal system explained? Surely it too is mystical until one creates a yet larger causal network that itself is either infinite (hence mystical by the authors definition) or itself has the same mystical beginning. Does the author address this somewhere?

My opinion is that postulating the existence of a larger causual network as the author that you are linking to seems to be postulating is every bit as mystical as any of the other options.

Please understand that I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool reductionist but it seems that any way that we try to deny the existence of the mystical leads to contradiction. That is something of a problem for the programme of complete scientific understanding as advertised, is it not?

It is to an extent explained in the chapter "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism", read it, it is only 3 pages.

The rest is explained throughout the trilogy, but I think your question is explained adequately in the link.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

It is to an extent explained in the chapter "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism", read it, it is only 3 pages.

The rest is explained throughout the trilogy, but I think your question is explained adequately in the link.

I did read it. It seems that you're going to have to explain to me how he avoids either:

a) an infinite regress of extended causal systems each of which has a beginning that appears mystical from within it until we move to the next level up.
b) an extended causal system which is infinite.

If he does not avoid one of those, I wonder how he claims that that is any less mystical than the beginning of our own causal system when viewed from within it.

My point is that dismissing the mystical as the lack of a potentially complete and logical understanding is just as mystical as anything else.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I did read it. It seems that you're going to have to explain to me how he avoids either:

a) an infinite regress of extended causal systems each of which has a beginning that appears mystical from within it until we move to the next level up.
b) an extended causal system which is infinite.

If he does not avoid one of those, I wonder how he claims that that is any less mystical than the beginning of our own causal system when viewed from within it.

My point is that dismissing the mystical as the lack of a potentially complete and logical understanding is just as mystical as anything else.

Okay, I try to make it a "a or b".



A) Must everything has a cause?

If no - We invoke to mystical beginnings.
If yes - The beginning is a logical impossibility. There can by definition be no beginning if everything must have a cause.

Statement: By the logic of causality beginnings are illogical. The logic of causality requires (because we do exist) the initial existence from which we are derived to erupt spontaneously from nothing. Clearly, the notion of objective causality must violate its own logic in order to get started.

B) There is no beginning, existence is somehow infinite and perpetual.

Statement: This assertion comes from nowhere and goes nowhere. The unbounded mysticism offers no possibility of answers or clues. Beginning with a premise that our ignorance of beginnings is total and perpetual is not particularly clever way to begin an analysis of beginnings. Easy perhaps, but not useful. This logical alternative provides trivial solution that leaves no foundation upon which to build reality.

Conclusion: Thus the logical result of invoking an objective causality is a mystical beginning. Likewise, the logical result of denying an objective causality (our beginning began without prior cause) is also a mystical beginning.

Further explanation:

• Causality is system specific.
  
• The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong.
  
• Thus our beginning, from the point of view of our objective causality, must be indefinable, or equivalently, mystical.

Implications:

• The subject of the creation of our reality is unknowable, thus the use of the word mystical.
  
• Once we realize the causal logic that gives us science also limits our understanding of the Larger reality (and its beginning), we are free to begin exploring the larger truth.
  
• Without this realization our perception and capacity to understand is trapped in a conceptual prison (a belief trap) of our own making.
  
• The erroneous belief in a universal causality (opposed to local causality) is repetitively used to to make those who dare rationally tackle the questions of beginnings appear to be ignorant and incorrect.
  
• The repeatedly asked question "What was before that?" inevitably must end with a confusion of complete ignorance existing at the foundation of an otherwise rational discourse.
  
• Our physical space-time causality is local and does not apply to "what was before that" - otherwise we would either be stuck with no beginning, or we would spontaneously popped out of nothing. Either of those alternatives lead to mystical beliefs that are not scientifically or logically productive. Neither makes good sense nor provides with the rational foundation from which to build a scientific Big Picture Theory of Everything.

• Our begging appears beginnings appear mystical to us because of the limitations of our logic and because of the limitations that our belief-based perspectives impose on our mind.
  
• If you raise science, vision and understanding to the next higher level of causality - to the supersystem that contains PMR (Physical-Matter-Reality) as a subsystem - the ever-present mysticism will recede to the outer edges of your newly acquired knowledge.

And the most important:

"By the time you reach the end of this trilogy, the veil of mysticism will be logically removed from our beginnings and you will clearly understand the roots of existence and how and why those roots came into being."

I hope this dissection helps you understand it. I must express that it would be more valuable for anyone to read the whole, as the understanding will deepen.

"The whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts" may apply here

I think I need a break now after typing all that by hand.

Any response from Really, Taosaur and Philosopherstoned?