God - Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

I'm sure if we better understood these terms, we'd better understand God in concept. I thought I'd bring this together to simplify those arguments against God, which usually miss out important points.

First, let's look at the prefix "Omni-"

Omni - Generally means "In all ways" or "infinite in nature."

Therefore:

Omni-potence - All Power; Unlimited and Absolute. Self-destruction is impossible, by nature.

Omni-present - All Places and everywhere present; Unlimited and beyond Space and Time. Everywhere and nowhere are identical.

Omni-science - All knowledge; arises from both Omnipotence and Omnipresence. Intrinsic knowledge by infinite potential and Self-Existence.

The conclusions:

Everything is God; nothing is outside of God - that which is All Reality and Existence; infinite potentiality and beyond space and time. This means God is Eternally not subject to a location; cannot be a "dude" who waits around and neither does He posses any human characteristics, names or emotions.

He cannot be destroyed or Create non-existence because of what He Is. If the "God is invincible and so must destroy himself" and "God is infinite and therefore must be finite" arguments were true, they should simultaneously be false to maintain consistency, which is even more nonsensical. Such arguments of God's limitations (fail to) refute God with illogical premises and have no valid foundation, often ignoring the non-dualistic paradigm.

Isn't it obvious why science would fail to "prove" God? Can any argument truly refute Reality itself, without fail?

Why did you start another thread on this? Don't you think we have beaten it into the ground enough in the other three threads?

Here we go. :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Omni - Generally means "In all ways" or "infinite in nature."

Therefore:

Omni-potence - All Power; Unlimited and Absolute.

---

That is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Self-destruction is impossible, by nature.

---

That is a limit, and therefore out of the scope of the definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

He cannot

---

No matter what action you mention after those words, you give an attribute that does not apply to an omnipotent being. There is no "cannot" with an infinitely powerful being. It is a direct, blatant, obvious contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If the "God is invincible and so must destroy himself" and "God is infinite and therefore must be finite" arguments were true

---

Strawman arguments. Nobody here has claimed either of those.

I said he could destroy himself and that he is supposed to be infinite, which would make him unlimited. You are giving him finite qualities. I'm not. I am, however, saying the fictitious character does not actually exist.

If you disagree, please explain in detail why, while addressing the points I made!

I just did. Open your eyes. Be honest.

I'll respond to what little you have elaborated on. You'll still probably have to go over what you've said. UM, you don't have to respond to this thread if it bothers you. Don't come here if you're going to beat a dead horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a limit, and therefore out of the scope of the definition.

---

Not within Omnipotence. If nothing is outside the Absolute Reality, then there is no possibility for it to be limited; no way for it to be destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No matter what action you mention after those words, you give an attribute that does not apply to an omnipotent being. There is no "cannot" with an infinitely powerful being. It is a direct, blatant, obvious contradiction.

---

Neither does anything apply to "He can". Mind the linguistic limitation, if it is confusing. With the three main terms applied, God doesn't do anything and doesn't not do anything. It is also beyond both is and is not. In saying "He cannot be destroyed" simply affirms His invincibility. Tell me what would a Being like God "do"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Strawman arguments. Nobody here has claimed either of those.

I said he could destroy himself and that he is supposed to be infinite, which would make him unlimited. You are giving him finite qualities. I'm not. I am, however, saying the fictitious character does not actually exist.

---

Those arguments have been elsewhere, and they are absurd. You actually just argued that God's Omnipotence doesn't exist because of itself.

God's omnipotence would be analogous to the omnipotence of a processor that
governs the workings of a virtual world. The processor is 'aware' of all that
happens in the program, for it must be in order for those things of the program
to occur.

Comments, questions, concerns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Not within Omnipotence. If nothing is outside the Absolute Reality, then there is no possibility for it to be limited; no way for it to be destroyed.

---

You made the point that he is LIMITED from being able to destory himself. Did you not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Neither does anything apply to "He can".

---

He is unable to do anything at all? WTF????? That is the opposite of being omnipotent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

God doesn't do anything and doesn't not do anything.

---

:| Om, uh, uhhhh.

Didn't you accuse me of being illogical in another thread? The most basic ability to reason would show you the contradiction in your above statement.

Okay, I am officially through debating you on this. You are either a troll or in need of psychiatric hospitalization, and this is about the fourth thread on this topic I have debated you in in the past eight days. You are just too far beyond reason on this issue. Good luck.

An omnipotent being would be able to destroy itself. It would see suicide as a challenge, and kill itself to prove it could do anything. We are god's debris people, he is slowly rebuilding himself through consciousness and evolution!

Okay man, I made a thread on this called "Could God create a rock so big..."

And another thread called "A clearer explanation of salvation"

In about four days, a war was raging. In the end, one of the threads was locked. Both sides had made strong points, and the argument remained unresolved. (Only in the thread. Personally, most everybody else believed that they had the answer) I think that's the way it's gonna remain, and I don't think another one of these threads is a good idea.:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Everything is God; nothing is outside of God - that which is All Reality and Existence; infinite potentiality and beyond space and time. This means God is Eternally not subject to a location; cannot be a "dude" who waits around and neither does He posses any human characteristics, names or emotions.

---

As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty much the only sane way of talking about god. I've never run across a good definition that doesn't pretty much boil down to this.

Isn't this just about semantics? It always was. God I hate these arguments...

It is just about semantics which is what makes it good ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader

God's omnipotence would be analogous to the omnipotence of a processor that
governs the workings of a virtual world. The processor is 'aware' of all that
happens in the program, for it must be in order for those things of the program
to occur.

Comments, questions, concerns?

---

:banana: Woohoo! Good to see some positive understanding! Yeah that's a pretty good analogy, but I'd say that it is analogous to the hardware processor. I also guess what you've said would closer fit Omniscience, as it is All-Knowing. It is Omnipresent in the sense that it's beyond the program parameters/limitations yet watching over them as the hardware, and Omnipotent in the sense that it is the Absolute (the hardware cannot be programed to die, nor programed to live; I.e. beyond programs/software, yet within them). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You made the point that he is LIMITED from being able to destory himself. Did you not?

---

Where? On the contrary, you said God is limited from being unlimited. I don't see the point. Seriously, is there such thing as "infinity" in your world? :P What about "Absolute?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He is unable to do anything at all? WTF????? That is the opposite of being omnipotent.

---

It is not actually about whether He "can" or "cannot", but that it's just a matter of paradigm. Reconsidering the three terms, God influences All Creation as a consequence of God, not a consequence of actions. Yet, actions are not excluded. They are just one and the same. Actions are dualistic; "doing" and "doer," for example. But not in the case of God - Creation=Creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

:| Om, uh, uhhhh.

Didn't you accuse me of being illogical in another thread? The most basic ability to reason would show you the contradiction in your above statement.

---

An example is that God is beyond "doingness," if you consider the three terms. There's no contradiction, because again, it's nondualistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Okay, I am officially through debating you on this. You are either a troll or in need of psychiatric hospitalization, and this is about the fourth thread on this topic I have debated you in in the past eight days. You are just too far beyond reason on this issue. Good luck.

---

No big deal. I didn't make this thread for you alone, but anyone who finds God-concepts difficult to understand. Perhaps I made it more difficult for some, or less for others, but whatever. I think this thread is much more direct yet controversial to popular belief, but perhaps more controversial to atheists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Okay man, I made a thread on this called "Could God create a rock so big..."

And another thread called "A clearer explanation of salvation"

In about four days, a war was raging. In the end, one of the threads was locked. Both sides had made strong points, and the argument remained unresolved. (Only in the thread. Personally, most everybody else believed that they had the answer) I think that's the way it's gonna remain, and I don't think another one of these threads is a good idea.:eek:

---

It wasn't much of a war, I'd say about 50% of it was just game-playing and poking fun. All I'm interested in is getting to the core of the issue. When it comes down to it, I'm just trying to make things clearer. But perhaps, it is just hypocrisy, who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty much the only sane way of talking about god. I've never run across a good definition that doesn't pretty much boil down to this.

---

That's good to know really, glad it helps. This is the kind of information that is stripped of dogma and religious error, so it's more likely to be clear. Even still, most atheists probably dislike it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Isn't this just about semantics? It always was. God I hate these arguments...

---

Anything to contribute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I'm sure if we better understood these terms, we'd better understand God in concept. I thought I'd bring this together to simplify those arguments against God, which usually miss out important points.

First, let's look at the prefix "Omni-"

Omni - Generally means "In all ways" or "infinite in nature."

Therefore:

Omni-potence - All Power; Unlimited and Absolute. Self-destruction is impossible, by nature.

Omni-present - All Places and everywhere present; Unlimited and beyond Space and Time. Everywhere and nowhere are identical.

Omni-science - All knowledge; arises from both Omnipotence and Omnipresence. Intrinsic knowledge by infinite potential and Self-Existence.

The conclusions:

Everything is God; nothing is outside of God - that which is All Reality and Existence; infinite potentiality and beyond space and time. This means God is Eternally not subject to a location; cannot be a "dude" who waits around and neither does He posses any human characteristics, names or emotions.

He cannot be destroyed or Create non-existence because of what He Is. If the "God is invincible and so must destroy himself" and "God is infinite and therefore must be finite" arguments were true, they should simultaneously be false to maintain consistency, which is even more nonsensical. Such arguments of God's limitations (fail to) refute God with illogical premises and have no valid foundation, often ignoring the non-dualistic paradigm.

Isn't it obvious why science would fail to "prove" God? Can any argument truly refute Reality itself, without fail?

---

Put this way, I can affirm that you're talking about a real aspect of Being (or rather, talking about all of Being in an accurate manner), but why then personify it as "God" and "He"? This approach to God itself refutes the notion of God as an entity: the character in the storybooks of the monotheistic religions. This God created the world only in the sense that a tree creates leaves, not as a potter shapes clay.

Why draw a face on the universe? Why not just let it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Put this way, I can affirm that you're talking about a real aspect of Being (or rather, talking about all of Being in an accurate manner), but why then personify it as "God" and "He"? This approach to God itself refutes the notion of God as an entity: the character in the storybooks of the monotheistic religions. This God created the world only in the sense that a tree creates leaves, not as a potter shapes clay.

Why draw a face on the universe? Why not just let it be?

---

I see what you're saying. I've called it "God" to relate it to, yet re-contextualize the old notions of God: the ones that have been criticized and passed off as nonsense; those that have created a bad image of God, whether it'd be that He'd punish humans or that He is a "sky daddy."

Even so, the personification on its own is just a language ideal, because to most people spiritual reality is hard enough to conceptualize. But "God the Father", for example, is symbolic and can help. The fact is, God is another name for Divine Reality. After saying that God and Reality are the same (which they are), but concluding that therefore the term "God" is irrelevant and "just Reality is enough" (materialism, most often), is just a naivete. Reality is exactly that, but God refers to Divine Reality. Both essentially the same, it's just that one is considered normal to human experience, whereas the other is extraordinary. I'd agree that Divine Reality is Nameless, but for the purposes of discussion, "God" is convenient to an extent.

Infinity does not exist in any real system.

The word "Apparent infinity" is more fitting to reality.

"Apparently" to many that pill is hard to swallow for many people, but sorry, your "god" is not infinite :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Infinity does not exist in any real system.

The word "Apparent infinity" is more fitting to reality.

"Apparently" to many that pill is hard to swallow for many people, but sorry, your "god" is not infinite :)

---

Explain. What about the Absolute Reality? The nonlinear domain? Eternity? Existence?

"Apparent infinity" doesn't even apply here, since it is the infinite Reality that is obstructed by perception (not the reverse).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Explain. What about the Absolute Reality? The nonlinear domain? Eternity? Existence?

"Apparent infinity" doesn't even apply here, since it is the infinite Reality that is obstructed by perception (not the reverse).

---

Can you elaborate on "Absolute Reality" and especially "nonlinear domain", if you by that mean a reality without space-time it is still not infinite.

Eternity is just as infinity.

Eternity can we translate to a potential infinity in time (Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been). It is impossible to know at any level whether existence will continue for an eternity, therefore it is not valid to say existence goes on in eternity, as many believe.

My main point is, reality (maybe your "absolute reality"?) is not infinite, but by human comprehension infinity is a describable word for what appears to be infinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Eternity can we translate to a potential infinity in time (Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been). It is impossible to know at any level whether existence will continue for an eternity, therefore it is not valid to say existence goes on in eternity, as many believe.

---

Eternity is not a limitless amount of time--that usage is a bastardization deriving from a failure to grasp the concept. Eternity is outside or beyond time, the dualistic opposite of linear time. It is beginningless as well as endless. It is the fixed background against which time moves, the still pool upon which our reality reflects. Taken differently, eternity is the view on reality from which everything is accomplished and nothing changes, from which what we take for change is merely a reflection of the perpetual state of being. This ground of being is what the OP is calling God, and I am questioning the need to personify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I see what you're saying. I've called it "God" to relate it to, yet re-contextualize the old notions of God: the ones that have been criticized and passed off as nonsense; those that have created a bad image of God, whether it'd be that He'd punish humans or that He is a "sky daddy."

Even so, the personification on its own is just a language ideal, because to most people spiritual reality is hard enough to conceptualize. But "God the Father", for example, is symbolic and can help. The fact is, God is another name for Divine Reality. After saying that God and Reality are the same (which they are), but concluding that therefore the term "God" is irrelevant and "just Reality is enough" (materialism, most often), is just a naivete. Reality is exactly that, but God refers to Divine Reality. Both essentially the same, it's just that one is considered normal to human experience, whereas the other is extraordinary. I'd agree that Divine Reality is Nameless, but for the purposes of discussion, "God" is convenient to an extent.

---

You and I can find common ground philosophically, but an awful lot of God-worshipers are big on exclusivity. Isn't the character God in their stories a little difficult to reconcile with your Divine Reality? Doesn't the God concept, the personification of the eternal, obstruct the Grand Unity at least as often as it points the way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Eternity is not a limitless amount of time--that usage is a bastardization deriving from a failure to grasp the concept. Eternity is outside or beyond time, the dualistic opposite of linear time. It is beginningless as well as endless. It is the fixed background against which time moves, the still pool upon which our reality reflects. Taken differently, eternity is the view on reality from which everything is accomplished and nothing changes, from which what we take for change is merely a reflection of the perpetual state of being. This ground of being is what the OP is calling God, and I am questioning the need to personify.

---

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

I don't understand (Well, I do) why so many people personify their "god", it is truly as humans make "god" in theirs image instead of the opposite, as they claim!

I hate to use the word god, it is so vague and the interpretation of the word is very subjective, and when the vast majority of humans use the word god it is a personified god, which don't exist as they think.

Well, AUM (Absolute Unbounded Manifold) is not a person. I think the need to personify such thing is partly because of the the heart-warming fuzzy feeling and partly because of the parental role it provides (psychological) and more.

Read this on the different infinities:

"Potential infinity - refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end. For instance, the sequence of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
gets higher and higher, but it has no end; it never gets to infinity. Infinity is just an indication of a direction -- it's "somewhere off in the distance." Chasing this kind of infinity is like chasing a rainbow or trying to sail to the edge of the world -- you may think you see it in the distance, but when you get to where you thought it was, you see it is still further away. Geometrically, imagine an infinitely long straight line; then "infinity" is off at the "end" of the line. Analogous procedures are given by limits In calculus, whether they use infinity or not. For example, limx to 0 (sin x)/x = 1. This means that when we choose values of x that are closer and closer to zero, but never quite equal to zero, then (sin x)/x gets closer and closer to one.

Completed infinity, or actual infinity, is an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done. For instance, let's put braces around that sequence mentioned earlier: { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }
With this notation, we are indicating the set of all positive integers. This is just one object, a set. But that set has infinitely many members. By that I don't mean that it has a large finite number of members and it keeps getting more members. Rather, I mean that it already has infinitely many members.
We can also indicate the completed infinity geometrically. For instance, the below shows a one-to-one correspondence between points on an infinitely long line and points on a semicircle. There are no points for plus or minus infinity on the line, but it is natural to attach those "numbers" to the endpoints of the semicircle.

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~sche.../completed.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

---

I noted it as a false assumption underlying the failure to grasp eternity in the context of this discussion--perhaps I should have addressed it at greater length than simply pointing out that eternity is beginningless.

"Beginning" is a narrative contrivance: a literary device, a fiction. Existence only has a beginning if you're telling a story about it. There is no actual point where events are cleanly severed from their causes so that they may 'begin,' even if it is often convenient to speak as if it were so. The ordered march of events we perceive is a manifestation of the eternal; there is only one Now, which always has been and always will be.

It's always doing this: us, all of it.

Spoiler for heaven:

There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, and so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly
The same.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be so much fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I noted it as a false assumption underlying the failure to grasp eternity in the context of this discussion--perhaps I should have addressed it at greater length than simply pointing out that eternity is beginningless.

"Beginning" is a narrative contrivance: a literary device, a fiction. Existence only has a beginning if you're telling a story about it. There is no actual point where events are cleanly severed from their causes so that they may 'begin,' even if it is often convenient to speak as if it were so. The ordered march of events we perceive is a manifestation of the eternal; there is only one Now, which always has been and always will be.

It's always doing this: us, all of it.

---

Well, eternity has more than one meaning:

1. (uncountable) Existence without end, infinite time.
2. (countable) A period of time which extends infinitely far into the future.
3. (metaphysical) The remainder of time that elapses after death.
4. (informal, hyperbolic) A comparatively long time.

And some use the word for timelessness.

The beginning is not at all fiction, but it requires a lengthy layout to explain it probably.

But again, from a human perspective it might be easier to grasp an existence without beginning. The concepts we are talking about are so blurred to us that much of what we are saying is the same, but from different perspectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Can you elaborate on "Absolute Reality" and especially "nonlinear domain", if you by that mean a reality without space-time it is still not infinite.

---

The nonlinear domain is the field that prevails beyond the linear world, so it is infinite in the sense that it is beyond space and time. The term is often used characteristic to the nature of consciousness and could be said to be the domain of quantum mechanics and infinite potentiality.

The Absolute is what prevails beyond all limitations as the very context and totality of Reality itself. It is infinite because it is all there is, because nothing is outside of itself, and that it is immeasurable, timeless and invincible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

My main point is, reality (maybe your "absolute reality"?) is not infinite, but by human comprehension infinity is a describable word for what appears to be infinity.

---

Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rather, I think it is more of a reason to say it is existence itself - that which cannot be proven, and even the "proving" itself denotes a linear construct and a misunderstanding of paradigm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You and I can find common ground philosophically, but an awful lot of God-worshipers are big on exclusivity. Isn't the character God in their stories a little difficult to reconcile with your Divine Reality?

---

The difficulty would be different for everyone. But yes, I see your point. Really, what should I do? Should I not point out that this is all equivalent to God anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Doesn't the God concept, the personification of the eternal, obstruct the Grand Unity at least as often as it points the way?

---

Yes, but that is just because it is a concept. All concepts I see as a limitation. This one however, like most other spiritual philosophy helps weaken other concepts, and those that otherwise would have been misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

---

As Taosaur said, eternity is not the potential infinity of time but merely the context of time. It is a misconception to say that eternity will never be known if it is not endured, yet eternity is not endurable because it is outside of time. What is timeless has no beginning or end.

Who marked the beginning of existence? Beginnings and endings are arbitrary, along with the entire timeline itself. There is nothing but Reality, and so there is no starting or stopping it. If there is only existence, there always has been and forever shall be. Who would be there to mark the beginning, and how would it arise out of non-existence? The simplicity of it all is shrouded in a forest of concepts.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Well, that is what it means in this discussion. That which is eternal is outside of time and therefore it is timeless. There's no need to ignore that, and the context in which we're speaking grants its validity. However many definitions there are is irrelevant when there is one already defined and suited for this discussion. I'm sure many would already agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

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.

---

Why is a beginning required - is it just for the sake of the intellect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

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.

---

It's interesting but from what I've read of it, it doesn't really resolve anything. Why does Thomas identify that a causal system is limited, yet that there still must be a beginning? The only things that can begin are those in a causal system - but even that has no actual existence. An "event" is also arbitrary. Reality is not an event because it is timeless, causeless and all-encompassing (See OP). What is nondual and Absolute has nothing outside of itself and so there is no way for it to magically "begin", but rather, it is the context in which all beginnings and endings can even be perceived at all.

As for the "infinity" argument, I'm still not convinced. You're never going to be able to "prove" or "demonstrate" infinity with finite, logical or linear terms. Infinity is what is beyond these, and beyond the comprehension thereof.

When someone speaks of the infinite Reality, they're talking about something that is far beyond all limitation, comprehension and dualistic conceptualization. It is still known and understood, but not by the mind. The mind asks that it must be evident, but it already is. :D

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

I'm mulling it over. I'll be back to to you.

Good :)

First, in response to 'lly, whose name I shall henceforth abbreviate to distinguish from the adverb: your answers were satisfactory :) I'm personally ambivalent about the God concept, being acutely aware of the negative outcomes of viewing the source of being outside of time as an entity of absolute authority--THE LORD, who does things like write books and blow up cities. I do, however, recognize the broad accessibility imbued by personification, and the effectiveness of the Christ sacrifice in convincing people to "lay down [their] burdens," "love thy neighbor" and come to some peace in life. From my perspective as a reluctant Universalist, all systems of practice/belief have their strengths and weaknesses; the weaknesses of God-worship just happen to be the most threatening to my nation, humanity, and life on earth at present, which affects my cost/benefit analysis ;)

Specialis, Campbell's Big TOE looks interesting, but also familiar. It appears to be a more recent iteration of the pseudo-scientific, New Age cosmologies that came out of the '70s Transcendental Meditation movement: see Stalking the Wild Pendulum and The Holographic Universe. I'm not writing it off--those are both great books! As Campbell himself states in his Introduction, however, "the model of reality is not the same as the reality itself" (actually, he states it in bold and asks the reader to repeat it three times).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

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.

---

We agree on a lot here: causality is local, and a more complete understanding of the dimensionality and behavior of our 'universe' would almost certainly reveal supersystems in which we are embedded--we have already discovered subsystems with their own peculiar causalities. Your analysis, however, still begs PhilosopherStoned's question.

In what sense are these supersystems and subsystems not infinite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

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.

---

Again, you simply don't seem to know what we're talking about when we discuss the all-encompassing, boundless, infinite, eternal aspect of existence. It's neither mystical nor "comes from nowhere," but arises naturally from an understanding that all boundaries are artificial, including the boundaries between each of us as an object/entity and the air, the sun, or the kitchen table, as well as the boundaries between past and present, causes and effects. This understanding is at once counter-intuitive, defying the conceptual construct we take for reality, and self-evident: whatever we take for a thing unto itself, an object, is in fact interpenetrating, exchanging substance with, and mutually co-defining everything in its surroundings. We're all somewhat aware of the material exchange, but close examination of time, cause and effect reveals the same interdependence and interpenetration.

Ultimately, the interpenetration is total; there is no clear line in time or space beyond which we can say that you, or a moon rock, or the Magellan Clouds have no further influence, nor a boundary within which to declare "Everything in here is me!" (or moon rock, or Magellan Clouds). All that is, has been, and will be, and all of the potentialities, are literally, viscerally One. Like your "actual infinity," it is one set encompassing all possibilities, and our situation as one specific realization by no means precludes recognizing, abiding in, and identifying with the whole; indeed, doing so seems necessary to our species, if only temporarily and at some remove by means of ritual, metaphor and dance, and for those seeking closer affinity with the eternal, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of disciplines for achieving it.

Nicely said, Taosaur. ;)

Specialis, I have to reject it from what I have read so far but I am going to get the book and spend some time with it. I am interested in extended causal systems but this way of doing it doesn't seem to make anything anymore clear than it is already.

Ultimately, I do think that science is going to have to come to terms with the 'beginning' but I think that it is going to have to do this by realizing the continual beginning and not some abstract extended causality network that exists only to give cause to some concrete, distant beginning. By which I mean that said theory is going to have to have time and space as emergent properties. An extended causality network may be the way to go but I think that a non-causal network may be more to the point. There has been some effort to do this with 'spin networks'. They can get space as it is formulated in general relativity but not time. Go figure. Guess it's not the right formalism or they haven't figured it out how to properly apply it yet.

In his series of lectures, Joseph Campbell describes a native american group of tribes that had no nouns in their language. It wasn't "a" rabbit, it was "being a rabbit". While it is easy for many strictly scientific people to dismiss this as bizarre, I think that there is something profound to it. Existence is a verb first and a property second.

QFT gets at this by considering all states (irrespective of causal logic) to already be present in the 'vacuum state'. I think that that is the way to go. What is lacking is an explanation of why only those states that adhere to roughly causal logic actually seem to get noticed.

A lot of the mystery of how 'something came from nothing' is at least partly resolved by the observation that there isn't much of a difference between nothing and everything. They're both equally meaningless terms.

Of course the above is poorly organised 'word salad' and itself only 'pushes infinity away' but I like it. And maybe one day, someone will be able to wrap some math around it.

I'm pretty sure this has already been stated somewhere here but I haven't read. No time lately!! So forgive me if I am rehashing things that have already been said well. I will try to say them differently.

*****
God has infinite power to affect the world we experience. This is because the world we experience is an emanation of him.

In the perceived world of duality (matter and emptiness), anything can be changed. But God is singularity, one. There is neither matter nor emptiness within him. In the oneness, there is no changing or influencing to be done. There is only being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

I'm pretty sure this has already been stated somewhere here but I haven't read. No time lately!! So forgive me if I am rehashing things that have already been said well. I will try to say them differently.

*****
God has infinite power to affect the world we experience. This is because the world we experience is an emanation of him.

In the perceived world of duality (matter and emptiness), anything can be changed. But God is singularity, one. There is neither matter nor emptiness within him. In the oneness, there is no changing or influencing to be done. There is only being.

---

Yeah I think that's a pretty good analogy. If nothing is outside of God, then everything arises out of Him, yes. In Oneness there is both thing(s) and nothing (form and formlessness), but I guess it could collapse into a greater Reality that is much harder to conceptualize.