PDA

View Full Version : Technology and Theology: Technetheism


Paraxiom
July 25th, 2016, 05:48 PM
From a recent idea that's going around my mind now, here's a thread that will attempt at a good description of it. You all know of technology and its diverse forms, and you all know what theology generally is about, along with (hopefully) some different systems within it.

I'm fusing them into 'techne-theism' or just 'technetheism'*, an alternate view which is in opposition to theistic views of a god/gods being conscious, and their responsibility for the world we know of. I would say 'techno-theism', but because that is already occupied with a term that some of you may know, I'm making it a little different for lack of confusion.


*[The combination of 'techne', meaning literally from Greek "craftsmanship" (technology), and 'theism', here meaning a general idea system in theology.]

________________________________________________________________

Technology:

When we hear of technology, we usually think of electronic computer technology such as phones, laptops, TVs and so on. You may also think of large machinery and hardware tools as technology if you are more open to the definition. However, there is so much more to technology, for which I will give a crude-ish definition of what it means for something to be a tool, an object of technology, but with different terminology.

For (at least most) of our conscious experience, there is a certain set of desires/intentions to reach a different state of being than the one we are in, in that present moment. For example, we might want to get a cookie from the jar to eat, put a coat on to then go outside, pour some water into a cup for drinking, or start an essay with a pen and paper for practice for an upcoming exam. These are all examples of tools.

For all of the above, we have intentionally altered some feature of the physical realm such that we have an increased chance/ability to succeed in achieving that certain desire for that state of being. For the cookies, you placed it in the jar some time ago so that it would preserve its texture and tastiness for eating later, and for the coat it was to keep warmer and drier than the outdoor conditions you are to step into.

So, here is that crude-ish definition:

Technology: That of the physical realm which is manipulated with a certain intention, such that its altered form will increase the ability/chance for oneself to attain a certain desired state of being, and/or a certain process of change.

________________________________________________________________

Theology:

This I am approaching very specifically. One common argument for the existence of a God or Gods in religion (and also used in the more academic/'well-read' theology counterpart), is that something must have created the world we know, because of the sheer complexity, variety and magnitude of it. This is teleological.**

This is reasoned because more complex entities are comparatively rarer than simpler entities. The forms of life we see all around us are incredibly complex, and also have a great ability to resist dispersion into the environment through falling into disorder. Most of the world that we see is not living, by standards of common biological theory. Rocks, dead sticks, iron ingots, moons, and pencils disperse into the more disordered environment. However, even the universe at large is immense, with the estimated many billions of stars in our galaxy alone, with many times more planets and moons, each one made up of incredible numbers of atoms and varieties of substances made of atoms.

Because of the such self-sustaining and magnificently complex forms that we see, it appeals that some ultimate order must be 'fueling' all these ordered forms, something must have made it, or have made something else with foresight in seeing this as a result.

Why is this reasoned? Because we are always familiar with us making greater order out of lesser order, in all our technological practice. An analogy is drawn between us and our tools, and a god/gods/etc and its/etc creation that is this world.


**[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument ]

________________________________________________________________

Technetheism:

An issue arises if the god/etc being spoken of is absolute/'perfect'/good compared to us in every way (the 'Omni-God'), and is also conscious in the meaning of what we know consciousness as.

Every time we make something, it is technology being practiced. When our conscious focus is on that which we are making and/or using, it is of the intention/desire to see the technology fulfill its function. Our self is dependent on this occurring, we are effectively bound by the tool in the pursuit of that ultimately desired state of being. If we were free from the tool, it would make no difference to us if we had it or not, in setting to achieve that state of being.

Therefore, if we are to make an analogy between us making greater complexity and order out of the environment, and the God making the world out of absolute chaos with intention, then the necessary consequence of the maker being bound in some way by that which is made, results by logical implication.

With all the reasoning above, if a God intentionally made the world, then it is necessarily bound by making this world, in how the reasoning is made through analogy by technology - it only makes clear sense in a technological sense, and some freedom of the self is sacrificed through technology in order to better achieve a set goal.

All arguments seeing a God making the world, and yet also being absolute and such that the existence of the world makes absolutely no difference to it, and so on, are rejected by technetheism. The God must be in a relationship of need or preference with the world it has made, or something else that has the world having some technological value.


Here's my resulting definition of technetheism:

Technetheism: The set of theological views which believe in the lack of existence of an absolute and conscious / anthropomorphic God that made the world, through description of a technological analogy present, for a perceived necessary dependent / bound relationship between such a God and that which it has created.

[This is subject to change, but this is a good start.]


DISCLAIMER: Technetheism does not reject arguments for the existence of a God/gods/etc, that do not use the human-technology/god-world analogy, at least not intentionally. This can be talked about.
________________________________________________________________

Hope this all makes sense. I welcome debate! Living For Love Bleid PlasmaHam Mimikyu Judean Zealot Ghaem Reise and of course anyone else potentially interested.

Ghaem
July 25th, 2016, 07:51 PM
First of all, Paraxiom, nice work with making this thread.

This is a good argument about the consciousness of God, however since I do not completely get the end of your statements I make a guess to make sure I have gotten what you wanted to say:

According to what you said, if God (in my case) was conscious, it had an intention and for fulfilling that intention it NEEDED a tool and that tool is making the world, and in order to do this, there is a need of sacrifice of self freedom, and it also undermines its being perfect,am I getting it right?

Arkansasguy
July 25th, 2016, 11:49 PM
From a recent idea that's going around my mind now, here's a thread that will attempt at a good description of it. You all know of technology and its diverse forms, and you all know what theology generally is about, along with (hopefully) some different systems within it.

I'm fusing them into 'techne-theism' or just 'technetheism'*, an alternate view which is in opposition to theistic views of a god/gods being conscious, and their responsibility for the world we know of. I would say 'techno-theism', but because that is already occupied with a term that some of you may know, I'm making it a little different for lack of confusion.


[*The combination of 'techne', meaning literally from Greek "craftsmanship" (technology), and 'theism', here meaning a general idea system in theology.]

________________________________________________________________

Technology:

When we hear of technology, we usually think of electronic computer technology such as phones, laptops, TVs and so on. You may also think of large machinery and hardware tools as technology if you are more open to the definition. However, there is so much more to technology, for which I will give a crude-ish definition of what it means for something to be a tool, an object of technology, but with different terminology.

For (at least most) of our conscious experience, there is a certain set of desires/intentions to reach a different state of being than the one we are in, in that present moment. For example, we might want to get a cookie from the jar to eat, put a coat on to then go outside, pour some water into a cup for drinking, or start an essay with a pen and paper for practice for an upcoming exam. These are all examples of tools.

For all of the above, we have intentionally altered some feature of the physical realm such that we have an increased chance/ability to succeed in achieving that certain desire for that state of being. For the apple, you placed it in the jar some time ago so that it would preserve its texture and tastiness for eating later, and for the coat it was to keep warmer and drier than the outdoor conditions you are to step into.

So, here is that crude-ish definition:

Technology: That of the physical realm which is manipulated with a certain intention, such that its altered form will increase the ability/chance for oneself to attain a certain desired state of being, and/or a certain process of change.

________________________________________________________________

Theology:

This I am approaching very specifically. One common argument for the existence of a God or Gods in religion (and also used in the more academic/'well-read' theology counterpart), is that something must have created the world we know, because of the sheer complexity, variety and magnitude of it.

This is reasoned because more complex entities are comparatively rarer than simpler entities. The forms of life we see all around us are incredibly complex, and also have a great ability to resist dispersion into the environment through falling into disorder. Most of the world that we see is not living, by standards of common biological theory. Rocks, dead sticks, iron ingots, moons, and pencils disperse into the more disordered environment. However, even the universe at large is immense, with the estimated many billions of stars in our galaxy alone, with many times more planets and moons, each one made up of incredible numbers of atoms and varieties of substances made of atoms.

Because of the such self-sustaining and magnificently complex forms that we see, it appeals that some ultimate order must be 'fueling' all these ordered forms, something must have made it, or have made something else with foresight in seeing this as a result.

Why is this reasoned? Because we are always familiar with us making greater order out of lesser order, in all our technological practice. An analogy is drawn between us and our tools, and a god/gods/etc and its/etc creation that is this world.

________________________________________________________________

Technetheism:

An issue arises if the god/etc being spoken of is absolute/'perfect'/good compared to us in every way (the 'Omni-God'), and is also conscious in the meaning of what we know consciousness as.

Every time we make something, it is technology being practiced. When our conscious focus is on that which we are making and/or using, it is of the intention/desire to see the technology fulfill its function. Our self is dependent on this occurring, we are effectively bound by the tool in the pursuit of that ultimately desired state of being. If we were free from the tool, it would make no difference to us if we had it or not, in setting to achieve that state of being.

Therefore, if we are to make an analogy between us making greater complexity and order out of the environment, and the God making the world out of absolute chaos with intention, then the necessary consequence of the maker being bound in some way by that which is made, results by logical implication.

With all the reasoning above, if a God intentionally made the world, then it is necessarily bound by making this world, in how the reasoning is made through analogy by technology - it only makes clear sense in a technological sense, and some freedom of the self is sacrificed through technology in order to better achieve a set goal.

All arguments seeing a God making the world, and yet also being absolute and such that the existence of the world makes absolutely no difference to it, and so on, are rejected by technetheism. The God must be in a relationship of need or preference with the world it has made, or something else that has the world having some technological value.


Here's my resulting definition of technetheism:

Technetheism: The set of theological views which believe in the lack of existence of an absolute God that made the world, through argument of a perceived necessary technological relationship between a conscious God and that which it has created.

[This is subject to change, but this is a good start.]


DISCLAIMER: Technetheism does not reject arguments for the existence of a God/gods/etc, that do not use the human-technology/god-world analogy, at least not intentionally. This can be talked about.
________________________________________________________________

Hope this all makes sense. I welcome debate!

PlasmaHam Mimikyu Judean Zealot Ghaem Reise and of course anyone else potentially interested.

You're basically arguing for the position that there is in God an intrinsic necessity to create.

You don't substantiate this. You've simply assumed that God created in order to obtain some benefit, without arguing for this proposition at all.

Moreover, you're conflating conditional and absolute necessity. It's necessary for me to drive a car to get to school, but neither getting to school nor driving a car is intrinsically necessary by virtue of my nature.

Judean Zealot
July 26th, 2016, 12:36 AM
This I am approaching very specifically. One common argument for the existence of a God or Gods in religion (and also used in the more academic/'well-read' theology counterpart), is that something must have created the world we know, because of the sheer complexity, variety and magnitude of it.

Nope. In most of the scholastic authors (Maimonides and Aquinas being prime examples), "God-as-Being" (as opposed to the less integral and more doubtful aspect of "God-as-Creator") exists, and must exist, even if we presume the universe to be eternal. I do wish people would stop harping on about God being definitionally the Creator.

It is from this root that you proceed on to the primary error of your post: you see the idea of God as being comprised of two distinct qualities - Creation and Perfection, with the aspect of Creator apparently dominant. To you He is essentially a cosmic superman with 'omni' powers thrown in to boot.

That's not how the idea of God has been expounded this past millenium and a half (except by the evangelists, but of course they don't count in intellectual discussion). God is seen definitionally as the ground of all existence, and the creation story is merely an incidental addition to the general notion. Instead of viewing it all through the lens of "God is creator therefore he is omniscient" it ought to be viewed as "God is the ground of all existence and therefore must include all perfection which derives itself from Him". Thus the omnipotence of God is His most definitional aspect, and presuming His existence at all, it would be absurd to try and negate the omnipotence via some tertiary account of creation.

Additionally, your paradigm of God overlooks that when God (as defined above) "does" something, the necessity of the action cannot, in principle, be necessitated by a consideration external to Himself - if it would be He would no longer be the Ground of all existence and as such wouldn't be God, rather some very powerful contingency. As a result we must say that His actions arise from His very nature itself - that it is the nature of Perfection to do such and such. This brings your challenge to the same point as the "if God can't make a stone he can't lift he must not be omnipotent" fallacy; the fact that God is compelled by His own perfection to be perfect is not a weakness, it is the greatest possible strength.
Arkansasguy

Why do you have an issue with God being "constrained" by His perfection to do certain things?

Paraxiom
July 26th, 2016, 04:18 AM
First of all, nice work with making this thread.

Thank you.



This is a good argument about the consciousness of God, however since I do not completely get the end of your statements I make a guess to make sure I have gotten what you wanted to say:

According to what you said, if God (in my case) was conscious, it had an intention and for fulfilling that intention it NEEDED a tool and that tool is making the world, and in order to do this, there is a need of sacrifice of self freedom, and it also undermines its being perfect,am I getting it right?

If the conscious God had an intention to make the world, yes, that is one way of putting it how the technology analogy is drawn between humans-tools-environment and conscious God-world-chaos.


You're basically arguing for the position that there is in God an intrinsic necessity to create.

No, I am arguing that if there is an omnipotent/etc God and it is conscious, and it created the world, it necessarily has a technological relationship with the world it made, if we use the analogy of reasoning I spoke of.



You don't substantiate this. You've simply assumed that God created in order to obtain some benefit, without arguing for this proposition at all.

I'm not assuming anything. I am giving a descriptive account of one argument of God as existing, through creation of the world, not all arguments for the existence of a God/etc. I put the disclaimer there for a reason; this is not a universal attack at arguing for the existence of a God, but it is an opposition toward one set of arguments.

I argued for the proposition.



Moreover, you're conflating conditional and absolute necessity. It's necessary for me to drive a car to get to school, but neither getting to school nor driving a car is intrinsically necessary by virtue of my nature.

I don't get what you mean.

If there is a God who created the world, and it is conscious, then it necessarily has a technological relation of some sort to the world it created, if the analogy of God making the world out of chaos is made from humans making tools out of the environment.


Nope. In most of the scholastic authors (Maimonides and Aquinas being prime examples), "God-as-Being" (as opposed to the less integral and more doubtful aspect of "God-as-Creator") exists, and must exist, even if we presume the universe to be eternal. I do wish people would stop harping on about God being definitionally the Creator.

I am not harping on about God being definitionally a Creator. I am not presenting technetheism as an opponent to all arguments for God. Realise that I am taking a specific, not general, route and target here.

I (hopefully specifically enough) described technetheism though as an opponent for arguments for an omnipotent and conscious God, through it being responsible for the world, by the analogy between God and the world made out of chaos, and humans and tools out of the environment. It is relevant for teleological arguments.

I said that it is common in religions because, whatever about how different religions should be practiced, most people have a belief that God is human-like in some ways, including being conscious. I am mostly directing this opposition toward them, because the argument for God as creator of the magnificent world we know, is quite common within this.

I also said it is used in theology in the stricter sense, because I see it to be. Not the only kind of argument, but one kind of argument. An example is William Paley's watchmaker analogy.* I was not intending to focus on other arguments for God that do not include specifics of creation, to do so would need an expansion or modification of technetheism which I'm not motivated to to (perhaps yet).



It is from this root that you proceed on to the primary error of your post: you see the idea of God as being comprised of two distinct qualities - Creation and Perfection, with the aspect of Creator apparently dominant. To you He is essentially a cosmic superman with 'omni' powers thrown in to boot.

I see an idea of God as being of Creation and Perfection I suppose, yes, but through describing what I see many others believing in. I'm capable enough to consider other ideas of God, but I am talking about that one.



That's not how the idea of God has been expounded this past millenium and a half (except by the evangelists, but of course they don't count in intellectual discussion).

I don't think there is 'the idea of God', rather many ideas of God, though for sure many of them are closely related. I, again for clarity, am talking about only one.

The evangelicals can be a target here too for technetheism, by extension.



God is seen definitionally as the ground of all existence, and the creation story is merely an incidental addition to the general notion. Instead of viewing it all through the lens of "God is creator therefore he is omniscient" it ought to be viewed as "God is the ground of all existence and therefore must include all perfection which derives itself from Him". Thus the omnipotence of God is His most definitional aspect, and presuming His existence at all, it would be absurd to try and negate the omnipotence via some tertiary account of creation.

How do you see ideas of God to have come into humanity in the first place? This might become relevant.



Additionally, your paradigm of God overlooks that when God (as defined above) "does" something, the necessity of the action cannot, in principle, be necessitated by a consideration external to Himself - if it would be He would no longer be the Ground of all existence and as such wouldn't be God, rather some very powerful contingency. As a result we must say that His actions arise from His very nature itself - that it is the nature of Perfection to do such and such.

Not my paradigm, an observed paradigm that I am describing. This is important.

Do ideas of chaos come into your theological study and arguments?



This brings your challenge to the same point as the "if God can't make a stone he can't lift he must not be omnipotent" fallacy; the fact that God is compelled by His own perfection to be perfect is not a weakness, it is the greatest possible strength.


I'm not specifically talking about weakness or strengths, I am talking about inconsistencies in the argument for God I've been describing, through technology. Perhaps this follows on from this eventually, perhaps not, it is not my focus as such (but you can argue against this if you feel).

This is not a challenge for me. It is, however, a challenge for those who hold the described views that you misunderstand me to hold also.

*[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy for those interested. ]

Stronk Serb
July 26th, 2016, 05:14 AM
Is this sort of like the Machine Cult of Mars in the Warhammer 40k universe? A bunch of humans worshipping a deity known as the Omnissiah or the Machine God, believing all the contraptions they make are controlled by the Machine Spirit. They worship any tech and revel when they find superior technology and view technology as the extension of the Machine God's perfection.

Paraxiom
July 26th, 2016, 05:19 AM
Is this sort of like the Machine Cult of Mars in the Warhammer 40k universe? A bunch of humans worshipping a deity known as the Omnissiah or the Machine God, believing all the contraptions they make are controlled by the Machine Spirit. They worship any tech and revel when they find superior technology and view technology as the extension of the Machine God's perfection.

No, that is technotheism, which is why I call mine 'technetheism' to set it apart. Technotheism can be defined as worship of technology to the level of a god-form; technology is the best there is in the world we know, and we should strive to learn from it and recognise its life-giving capacity, and so on. Technotheism is quite interesting in itself though, a thread could be done on it sometime.

Technetheism is different, the definition near the bottom of my first post.

Ghaem
July 26th, 2016, 05:37 AM
Paraxiom, Well God has an intention of making the world, but you are confusing the fact that God is not in need of making at all.

Actually God itself is in Islamic Philosophy, as thinkers like Hussein Ibn Sina says, Vajeb al-Vojod which means "The thing which is necessary to exist". It means that even if God would not make this world, nothing would be decreased from its being the Absolute Being.

By making this world God has an intention for things which are made, specially living and intelligent beings which include Humans. But it does not mean that God needed to make humans.

Paraxiom
July 26th, 2016, 05:44 AM
Paraxiom, Well God has an intention of making the world, but you are confusing the fact that God is not in need of making at all.

Actually God itself is in Islamic Philosophy, as thinkers like Hussein Ibn Sina says, Vajeb al-Vojod which means "The thing which is necessary to exist". It means that even if God would not make this world, nothing would be decreased from its being the Absolute Being.

By making this world God has an intention for things which are made, specially living and intelligent beings which include Humans. But it does not mean that God needed to make humans.

I assume that the God you see is conscious and with intention to make the world, am I correct?

I am pointing out what I see as necessary in using the analogy of technology.

Us humans only make things with some intention in mind, it is for technological purpose. These things are more complex than the environment it is in, and they have set purpose behind their construction.

If this is being used as an analogy to say that the world must have a creator, because of observance its sheer complexity and presence of life with its certain set patterns, then you have to use the whole analogy, because it only works that way.

It does not make sense to me to use the analogy but then say that the God is absolutely independent of the world it made, because then retroactively working back, the analogy was really only made from humans constructing stuff out of the surrounding environment, but with these things making absolutely no difference to the humans who made them.

It doesn't make sense with the humans, and it similarly doesn't make sense with the God, through that half-analogy.

Ghaem
July 26th, 2016, 06:11 AM
I assume that the God you see is conscious and with intention to make the world, am I correct?

I am pointing out what I see as necessary in using the analogy of technology.

Us humans only make things with some intention in mind, it is for technological purpose. These things are more complex than the environment it is in, and they have set purpose behind their construction.

If this is being used as an analogy to say that the world must have a creator, because of observance its sheer complexity and presence of life with its certain set patterns, then you have to use the whole analogy, because it only works that way.

It does not make sense to me to use the analogy but then say that the God is absolutely independent of the world it made, because then retroactively working back, the analogy was really only made from humans constructing stuff out of the surrounding environment, but with these things making absolutely no difference to the humans who made them.

It doesn't make sense with the humans, and it similarly doesn't make sense with the God, through that half-analogy.

There is a big difference here however. We humans make tools and things for our own needs, not the tools' needs. But God makes worlds for the need of the world. The world needs to exist, and God is the ultimate existence. If the world wants to exist it needs the ultimate existence as its source of existence. Without it, it does not exist.

Let us just say that the difference between God and Us humans is this:

Our tools do not need us to make them, since they do not have any intentions themselves. We have intentions and need these tools to fulfil our intentions.

But for God, we humans have intentions to exist, and God is making us for our own intentions as it is the source of existence. What is our intention to exist? Eternal Happiness. God is not making us since it needs us, it makes us because it wants us to get to our own intention which is eternal happiness. That is the difference between the worshipping out of fear and love which we talked about before. God loves us, it wants us to be happy, so it makes us from the state of not existing to existence.

I do not know if you are understanding what I am saying, but I think Judean Zealot can explain better on this matter.

Paraxiom
July 26th, 2016, 06:32 AM
There is a big difference here however. We humans make tools and things for our own needs, not the tools' needs.

Yes, I agree. The tools are for us.



But God makes worlds for the need of the world. The world needs to exist, and God is the ultimate existence. If the world wants to exist it needs the ultimate existence as its source of existence. Without it, it does not exist.

I am not being blunt, only questioning some things (I'm not that nasty).

Why does the world need to exist?

How does the world have an ability to want anything?

If the world needs to exist, the God is bound to fulfill that action.



Our tools do not need us to make them, since they do not have any intentions themselves. We have intentions and need these tools to fulfil our intentions.

I agree.



But for God, we humans have intentions to exist, and God is making us for our own intentions as it is the source of existence. What is our intention to exist? Eternal Happiness.

(The part about Eternal Happiness is odd to say taking the content in that Syrian thread, but alright.)

I don't see us as having a want to exist, with God then fulfilling that want by bringing us into existence. It is the other way around, but by that I mean (let's presume) that God created us, and then we exhibit a want to keep on living, because that is part of our nature. Our want comes after our existence (our self existing), it doesn't make sense to have a want to exist when your self, or any aspect of your mind, is not even in existence 'yet'.



God is not making us since it needs us, it makes us because it wants us to get to our own intention which is eternal happiness. That is the difference between the worshipping out of fear and love which we talked about before. God loves us, it wants us to be happy, so it makes us from the state of not existing to existence.

If God wants something, then that means the absence of the world's (and our) existence would be less favourable to it. This is showing that the God you speak of, has at least some section of its consciousness, bound/occupied by intention to make the world and humans within it. God is therefore not absolutely free from it, if it were, then the existence of the world would make absolutely no difference to it. God is not free from the world. This is exactly my point.

Ghaem
July 26th, 2016, 06:56 AM
Yes, I agree. The tools are for us.




I am not being blunt, only questioning some things (I'm not that nasty).

Why does the world need to exist?

How does the world have an ability to want anything?

If the world needs to exist, the God is bound to fulfill that action.



God is not bound to fulfill that action, It is just kind to fulfill it for world.
World does not have any independent definition actually. By world we mostly mean living things, specially intelligent beings like humans.

The part about Eternal Happiness is odd to say taking the content in that Syrian thread, but alright

Eternal happiness in life and after life actually.


I don't see us as having a want to exist, with God then fulfilling that want by bringing us into existence. It is the other way around, but by that I mean (let's presume) that God created us, and then we exhibit a want to keep on living, because that is part of our nature. Our want comes after our existence (our self existing), it doesn't make sense to have a want to exist when your self, or any aspect of your mind, is not even in existence 'yet'

It does not make sense if you have a one-dimensional just Physical being worldview.

If I want to make it simple, it is like this:

You do not exist ----------> You only want to exist.
God gives you existence ---------> You will want to exist and not just exist but also be happy.

Let us say that God brings us from an state of non-existing into an state of existing, and when we are in an state of non-existing, we are in absolute suffering from being nothing and only want to exist. God will make us exist, then comes the rest. Why he does this? Well my simple explanation according to the things which I have learnt is that God simply loves us. It does not want us to suffer. Maybe that is its weak spot? It is a good weak spot anyway.


If God wants something, then that means the absence of the world's (and our) existence would be less favourable to it. This is showing that the God you speak of, has at least some section of its consciousness, bound/occupied by intention to make the world and humans within it. God is therefore not absolutely free from it, if it were, then the existence of the world would make absolutely no difference to it. God is not free from the world. This is exactly my point.

My explanation is that God does not need us. It wants us. It loves us. We are not its tools. We are its very goals.

Paraxiom
July 26th, 2016, 07:19 AM
God is not bound to fulfill that action, It is just kind to fulfill it for world.

When I mean that God is bound to fulfill the action, I don't mean that it cannot not fulfill the action, I should have been more clear. What I mean is that, if the world was not created, then the 'state of mind/consciousness' of God would be different, because it would 'perceive' a less favourable situation. It is in favour of the world existing. Therefore, the status of the world's existence is such that at least some of God's consciousness' state/content, is dependent on it.

If God was absolutely free of the world / not bound by it, then its state of consciousness would not be dependent at all by if the world existed or not.



World does not have any independent definition actually. By world we mostly mean living things, specially intelligent beings like humans.

The definition of 'world' is varied, yes. I suppose 'world' for me would be currently defined as that which is the set of all phenomenon that we perceive, and that of those phenomena that we think of.



Eternal happiness in life and after life actually.

Right.



It does not make sense if you have a one-dimensional just Physical being worldview.

The God I am talking about is not 'in' the dimensions that the physical world occupies, it's not 'physical' by meaning of it not occupying the dimensions that all we see to be physical, do.



You do not exist ----------> You only want to exist.

I see no reasoning that proves I had an intention to exist, before I existed. Leaving physicalism aside and all that, I see the self to be a form which arises from interactions within the brain - the self has to coincide with the brain, if I am to have definitive (or at least highly reliable through observation) proof of the self being a thing. 'Before' birth, there is no brain, and so there is no human self that can arise from the certain mental processes that coincide with that brain.

I can talk about after birth though, in that I don't see any observations showing babies and toddlers wanting to exist, because their self is not fully formed yet (as example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_stage ).



God gives you existence ---------> You will want to exist and not just exist but also be happy.

Let us say that God brings us from an state of non-existing into an state of existing, and when we are in an state of non-existing, we are in absolute suffering from being nothing and only want to exist.

I don't get what it is about 'being nothing' that is suffering. In addition, I'm wondering what the 'existence' actually means, other than that it seems to have the physical aspect absent.



God will make us exist, then comes the rest. Why he does this? Well my simple explanation according to the things which I have learnt is that God simply loves us. It does not want us to suffer. Maybe that is its weak spot? It is a good weak spot anyway.

Keeping it with the topic, this shows God to be in some state of dependence with the world.



My explanation is that God does not need us. It wants us. It loves us. We are not its tools. We are its very goals.

God does not need us for it to be itself, but it does need us for it to be in a better state of consciousness, of fulfilling a desire. God needs the world's creation to reach this state of being, this observation of humans existing and being happy (as you put it). This is what makes the world of technological value to God out of chaos, just like how tools are of technological value to humans out of the environment. God's state of consciousness/etc is dependent on the world's existence.

Ghaem
July 26th, 2016, 07:40 AM
When I mean that God is bound to fulfill the action, I don't mean that it cannot not fulfill the action, I should have been more clear. What I mean is that, if the world was not created, then the 'state of mind/consciousness' of God would be different, because it would 'perceive' a less favourable situation. It is in favour of the world existing. Therefore, the status of the world's existence is such that at least some of God's consciousness' state/content, is dependent on it.

If God was absolutely free of the world / not bound by it, then its state of consciousness would not be dependent at all by if the world existed or not.

As I said, God loves us. Maybe that is what it wants? Love? God loves us, it does not want us to suffer. It seems that before we existed, we were suffering from non-existence. We might not remember, but we were in suffering. You know actually there is a Sura in Quran which says :

"والعصر!ان الانسان لفی خسر!!"

Which means : "Swear to World! Humans are indeed in states of suffering and sadness!"

All I know is that we really wanted to exist. God made us exist. For what? Only because it loves us? It does not want us to suffer? Maybe love is God's weakness then? Its need?

Well I just know one thing if this is right. Even if God really needs love, it can get it from others too. God does not need my love, other can give it to it too. But I am damn sure I need to love God.


The God I am talking about is not 'in' the dimensions that the physical world occupies, it's not 'physical' by meaning of it not occupying the dimensions that all we see to be physical, do.

The concept of brain-dependent consciousness is physical.

I see no reasoning that proves I had an intention to exist, before I existed. Leaving physicalism aside and all that, I see the self to be a form which arises from interactions within the brain - the self has to coincide with the brain, if I am to have definitive (or at least highly reliable through observation) proof of the self being a thing. 'Before' birth, there is no brain, and so there is no human self that can arise from the certain mental processes that coincide with that brain.

I can talk about after birth though, in that I don't see any observations showing babies and toddlers wanting to exist, because their self is not fully formed yet (as example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_stage ).

It is all right if consciousness was a product of brain. It seems that it is not.
Brain is just a tool for enhancing consciousness.

I don't get what it is about 'being nothing' that is suffering. In addition, I'm wondering what the 'existence' actually means, other than that it seems to have the physical aspect absent.

Difficult subject. Three weeks rest please! (Joking)

But seriously, this is something which even philosophers do not get; Only mystics can understand it in some aspects.


Keeping it with the topic, this shows God to be in some state of dependence with the world.

Not with the world itself, but as I said it seems that this world was made so we could exist. And if accepting what I said, it makes sense that because God loves us, it does not want us to suffer.


God does not need us for it to be itself, but it does need us for it to be in a better state of consciousness, of fulfilling a desire. God needs the world's creation to reach this state of being, this observation of humans existing and being happy (as you put it). This is what makes the world of technological value to God out of chaos, just like how tools are of technological value to humans out of the environment. God's state of consciousness/etc is dependent on the world's existence.

As I said it loves us. Is it a need? Perhaps. Still it does not decrease anything from it perfections as the most perfect being that exists. More than any other existing thing.

Paraxiom
July 26th, 2016, 08:55 AM
As I said, God loves us. Maybe that is what it wants? Love? God loves us, it does not want us to suffer. It seems that before we existed, we were suffering from non-existence. We might not remember, but we were in suffering. You know actually there is a Sura in Quran which says :

"والعصر!ان الانسان لفی خسر!!"

Which means : "Swear to World! Humans are indeed in states of suffering and sadness!"

I cannot see an absence of a thing and it suffering, together. Is this absence of existence 'before' birth, or after, or both?



All I know is that we really wanted to exist. God made us exist. For what? Only because it loves us? It does not want us to suffer? Maybe love is God's weakness then? Its need?

Putting it this way, God is also dependent on the world and us, also.



Well I just know one thing if this is right. Even if God really needs love, it can get it from others too. God does not need my love, other can give it to it too. But I am damn sure I need to love God.

I'd prefer not to get into this if it isn't relevant to technetheism, but your extra input is appreciated anyway.



The concept of brain-dependent consciousness is physical.

There is more to the idea of 'physicality' than just consciousness-brain coincidence, though.



It is all right if consciousness was a product of brain. It seems that it is not.
Brain is just a tool for enhancing consciousness.

Perhaps the brain 'enchances' consciousness, but through (I speculate) adding memory to raw perceptual qualities. We are not human without any memory, nor are any of us even a self, so I don't see how wanting to live could happen, taking that wanting something means recalling memories of different objects and your self as a whole, and then connecting that with a comparatively large concept of existence, in the first place. Without any memory, I can't want anything to that level of complexity.



Difficult subject. Three weeks rest please! (Joking)

But seriously, this is something which even philosophers do not get; Only mystics can understand it in some aspects.

You mean something like divine knowledge?



Not with the world itself, but as I said it seems that this world was made so we could exist. And if accepting what I said, it makes sense that because God loves us, it does not want us to suffer.

I get the reasoning behind that argument, but without the "not with the world itself" part. This is why I have thought of technetheism so that it shows this sort of God to necessarily have a technological relation with that it has created. It is not absolutely free from it.

Do you understand my argument, and agree to it?


As I said it loves us. Is it a need? Perhaps. Still it does not decrease anything from it perfections as the most perfect being that exists. More than any other existing thing.


This is debatable for me, but off-topic, so I won't continue on that.

Reise
July 26th, 2016, 05:41 PM
It is all right if consciousness was a product of brain. It seems that it is not.

Huh, may I ask from where you got that?
I'm extremely curious to know from where you got that idea.

Anyways, I think it won't be a surprise for anyone if I say that I am on Tesla's side when it comes to life and humans. We are machines, extremely and beautifully complex machines, but still machines and one day I hope we find out 100% how we work (guess what, neurobiology was my second career choice).

I hope you'll excuse me because these days I got shit amounts of diverse works to do, not really present on VT so. And tired, very tired.
But basically you're saying that there is no point or meaning technologically in the creation of the Universe by God?

Arkansasguy
July 26th, 2016, 11:35 PM
Why do you have an issue with God being "constrained" by His perfection to do certain things?

I don't. I have an issue with God being required to create by intrinsic necessity, not with the notion of divine intrinsic necessity in general.

No, I am arguing that if there is an omnipotent/etc God and it is conscious, and it created the world, it necessarily has a technological relationship with the world it made, if we use the analogy of reasoning I spoke of.

Then you need to actually substantiate this argument.


I'm not assuming anything. I am giving a descriptive account of one argument of God as existing, through creation of the world, not all arguments for the existence of a God/etc. I put the disclaimer there for a reason; this is not a universal attack at arguing for the existence of a God, but it is an opposition toward one set of arguments.

I argued for the proposition.

who has made the argument that God needs the world.


I don't get what you mean.

I mean that you're conflating conditional necessity with intrinsic necessity.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 11:12 AM
Anyways, I think it won't be a surprise for anyone if I say that I am on Tesla's side when it comes to life and humans. We are machines, extremely and beautifully complex machines, but still machines and one day I hope we find out 100% how we work (guess what, neurobiology was my second career choice).

I've got this impression of your views in the past, it's nice we both see neurobiology as very interesting.


I hope you'll excuse me because these days I got shit amounts of diverse works to do, not really present on VT so. And tired, very tired.
But basically you're saying that there is no point or meaning technologically in the creation of the Universe by God?

No, I'm specifically saying that if we talk about the conscious/omni-God, it is not absolute or perfectly free / etc if it creates the world. Some say that the purpose (technologically in this view) for God to create the world, is so that God will be happy to see us humans existing and aiming for happiness too.

If God exists, and it created the world, it was a practice of technology and God is not absolute. Whatever can be speculated/argued for afterward, is entirely open within the frames here.


Don't worry about not replying much, this is only if you have time and are interested enough. Hope your work is not too hard.

________________

I don't. I have an issue with God being required to create by intrinsic necessity, not with the notion of divine intrinsic necessity in general.

You misunderstand me.

I am not arguing that God (the conscious 'omni'-God), by necessity, needs to create the world (or anything in general).

I am arguing that if God does create the world, then it necessarily is in a technological relation with it, with at least part of its consciousness' state being determined by the world's existence.

That is all that I mean.



Then you need to actually substantiate this argument.

I already did, but I'll lay it out again.

We humans make objects out the surrounding environment for some purpose, an intention. This is technological practice, by the definition I clearly stated in the first post (along with the rest of the argument I am about to continue repeating in shorter format).

Teleological arguments for the existence of God argue that because the world/environment as a whole is so complex/immense/etc, it appeals to understand it as far more likely or plainly rational to see the world as being created by an entity beyond it with some intention.

This reasoning is started through making an analogy between humans and their technology, and God and the world.

Humans, when making things, necessarily construct a more complex form out of the less complex environment, and this more complex form has an intention. This involves a section of the world. If something appears to be complex to a level comparable to that of human technology in all its forms, then it appeals to some reasoning that some conscious entity created it with intention.

This reasoning is magnified to be applied onto the entire world. Since the world is so complex, immense and beautiful and so on etc etc, it appeals to the same reasoning as before, that some conscious entity created it with intention. This entity must be beyond and 'greater' than the world, just like humans are such with their technology.

This entity is reasoned with properties that are in many common interpretations of a monotheistic God, the omnipotent+omniscient+absolute+perfect/etc and conscious God (and benevolent usually also, but irrelevant here).

With the reasoning I have explained above, if there is that God and it has created the world, then the God necessarily has some technological relationship with the world, just as humans do with their technology. As Ghaem saw it, God wanted humans to exist and be happy, so that is an example of a technological relationship.


Technology: That of the [physical realm]* which is manipulated with a certain intention, such that its altered form will increase the ability/chance for oneself to attain a certain desired state of being, and/or a certain process of change.

The square brackets with the * mean that the 'physical realm' is removed through the analogy when bridging the reasoning between human-environment and God-world, as the physical realm is only a subset of the world, and we're going 'beyond' it with God. You can use 'chaos' or "the waters of the deep" of whatever else similar in place of the 'physical realm', the analogy holds in full.

Otherwise, the analogy must be used in its entirety, not partially. The opposition I have argued with technetheism against the God we are talking about, and its absolute freedom from the world, is that both ideas cannot make sense together.

If God creates the world, it necessarily has a technological relation to it, because at least part of its consciousness' content (thoughts or whatever divine analogy thereof) is dependent on the state of the world's existence. If God wanted to create the world (and because it is said to be absolutely free in its choices and actions), then it prefers that the world is created, than if it isn't. It prefers the world to exist, and so even with just that, its thoughts/etc are determined by if it exists or not.

God is not absolutely free, because at least part of its consciousness is in a relationship of its content being dependent on the world's (and human's, if you want too) existence. The creation of the world changes God in some (crucially non-zero/non-nothing) way.

Therefore, if this God exists and it is responsible for the creation of the world, it is NOT absolute and free from the world, because it is in a technological relationship with the world.


You cannot use the analogy of creation and technology, and then say that God is absolute and perfect, because then it is absolutely free from the world and everything in it, which means that the world's status of existence, and the forms of existence in it, make absolutely no difference to God at all.

That analogy, when worked back to where it came from, shows it to be got only from saying how humans make stuff, but that that stuff makes absolutely no difference to humans at all. This makes no sense, and is an argument with a big hole in it, because it defeats the meaning of technology in the first place, which is where the entire analogy came from in the start. So, all of the analogy, or none of it. Otherwise, it doesn't work.


Is this sufficient of substance?



who has made the argument that God needs the world.


I'm not involving people who have made argument for God necessarily needing the world. I am only involving those people and arguments who see that God making the world, through what I have all said above.

I am not saying that God needs the world, I am saying that if God makes the world, or even just has an intention to do so, then at least part of it is occupied in doing so, which means it is not absolutely free from it, it is in a technological relationship with it.

The world makes no necessary difference to God's 'existence', but it does make a necessary difference to aspects of God's 'mind'/consciousness, if God intends to make the world, and/or actually makes the world.



I mean that you're conflating conditional necessity with intrinsic necessity.


I responded to you by not getting what you mean, and you then say the same thing as before:


Moreover, you're conflating conditional and absolute necessity.

I would greatly appreciate an expansive explanation.

________________


It is all right if consciousness was a product of brain. It seems that it is not.
Brain is just a tool for enhancing consciousness.


I've returned to reply to this again because I realised you have said the brain is a tool.

Leaving consciousness aside and the subject of whatever enhances it, I don't see the brain as a tool, by the definition of technology I have given, which is close to my general view too.

A tool is an entity of technology. The brain was not manipulated/modified by us out of the realm we are in, we 'happen' to already have it. Therefore it is not a tool to us, not technological to us.

Arkansasguy
July 27th, 2016, 12:35 PM
I am arguing that if God does create the world, then it necessarily is in a technological relation with it, with at least part of its consciousness' state being determined by the world's existence.

Okay, so you're arguing that because God is aware of the world, the world consequently has an effect on God (insofar as God's knowledge is an aspect of himself).

The problem with this argument is that you have the causal relations backwards. The world has absolutely no being without God, and God logically preexists the world. So God's knowledge of the world is the cause of the world's existence and characteristics, not vice versa.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 12:44 PM
Okay, so you're arguing that because God is aware of the world, the world consequently has an effect on God (insofar as God's knowledge is an aspect of himself).

God's awareness of the world is necessarily the same as some of God's 'being' being occupied with the awareness of the world, yes.



The problem with this argument is that you have the causal relations backwards. The world has absolutely no being without God, and God logically preexists the world. So God's knowledge of the world is the cause of the world's existence and characteristics, not vice versa.

There is no problem here.

The world's dependence on God is actually irrelevant here, I can leave it fully to you to say that the world is dependent on God and it doesn't make a difference.

If God preexists the world, that also does not matter. They are irrelevant.

I don't know what the vice versa you speak of, means.


If God 'exists', and it is aware of and created the world, then it is necessary that (putting it a different way this time) God's awareness/consciousness is focused on the world in some way. Even if I leave aside the status of the world's existence as determining partly God's 'state of mind', even the simple part that God intended to create the world (before the actual making of it) means that God was focused on that, part of God's mind is bound into that focus.

Bringing in that God created the world, the creation of the world (and, in addition (optionally) humans) brought some level of satisfaction to God (or whatever different way there is of saying that), so the status of the world's existence has made a difference to God's 'state of mind'.

God has been influenced by the world's creation. It cannot be absolutely free of that which it is influenced by.

Arkansasguy
July 27th, 2016, 01:24 PM
God's awareness of the world is necessarily the same as some of God's 'being' being occupied with the awareness of the world, yes.




There is no problem here.

The world's dependence on God is actually irrelevant here, I can leave it fully to you to say that the world is dependent on God and it doesn't make a difference.

If God preexists the world, that also does not matter. They are irrelevant.

I don't know what the vice versa you speak of, means.


If God 'exists', and it is aware of and created the world, then it is necessary that (putting it a different way this time) God's awareness/consciousness is focused on the world in some way. Even if I leave aside the status of the world's existence as determining partly God's 'state of mind', even the simple part that God intended to create the world (before the actual making of it) means that God was focused on that, part of God's mind is bound into that focus.

Bringing in that God created the world, the creation of the world (and, in addition (optionally) humans) brought some level of satisfaction to God (or whatever different way there is of saying that), so the status of the world's existence has made a difference to God's 'state of mind'.

God has been influenced by the world's creation. It cannot be absolutely free of that which it is influenced by.

You're not grasping the concept.

It's not:

God decided to create the world->God created the world->stuff happened in the world->God knew about stuff happening

It is:

God foreknew all possible things he could create, including all the possible contingencies which could arise under any circumstances->God chose, knowing fully everything that ever would happen or ever could happen, to create the world which now exists->God created the world->stuff happened in the world

By his very nature, God knows all possible contingencies whatsoever. He understood the world absolutely even "before" it was created. Just as he understands all other possible worlds he could have made but chose not to.

So again, the world does not have an effect on God. His knowledge of it causally preceded its creation. You could argue that the idea of the world has an effect on God, but that's not at all controversial as the idea of the world is an intrinsic part of his nature.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 01:41 PM
You're not grasping the concept.

It's not:

God decided to create the world->God created the world->stuff happened in the world->God knew about stuff happening

It is:

God foreknew all possible things he could create, including all the possible contingencies which could arise under any circumstances->God chose, knowing fully everything that ever would happen or ever could happen, to create the world which now exists->God created the world->stuff happened in the world

It is a paradox to say that God chose something, when it knew absolutely everything that would happen, including its choices.

A choice is meaningless if the result is known. There is no choice.

God cannot 'have' free will / freedom, and have no choice.

How does absolute freedom work with absolute determinacy?



By his very nature, God knows all possible contingencies whatsoever. He understood the world absolutely even "before" it was created. Just as he understands all other possible worlds he could have made but chose not to.

So again, the world does not have an effect on God. His knowledge of it causally preceded its creation. You could argue that the idea of the world has an effect on God, but that's not at all controversial as the idea of the world is an intrinsic part of his nature.

So are you saying that the world's creation has absolutely no effect on God whatsoever?

With what you have said, does 'creation of the world' mean anything at all?

Arkansasguy
July 27th, 2016, 03:06 PM
It is a paradox to say that God chose something, when it knew absolutely everything that would happen, including its choices.

A choice is meaningless if the result is known. There is no choice.

I am definitely going to freely choose to eat supper tonight. What a mystery.

How does absolute freedom work with absolute determinacy?

I'm not sure what precisely these terms mean, though I strongly suspect that I don't agree with either of them.

So are you saying that the world's creation has absolutely no effect on God whatsoever?

Correct.

With what you have said, does 'creation of the world' mean anything at all?

Certainly. It's when the world came into being.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 03:21 PM
I am definitely going to freely choose to eat supper tonight. What a mystery.

The mystery is that you don't know if you are going to have supper. You don't know what the exact position of every object will be, you do not know what exactly you will be eating, with all the proportions of nutrients, etc etc. You could die before supper, or a family member could die before that. A meteor could hit the house.

The point with this is that you are not absolutely certain of the future, but God apparently is.

Your choice is meaningful, it makes sense. It does not for God here.



I'm not sure what precisely these terms mean, though I strongly suspect that I don't agree with either of them.

If God is absolute and perfect, and unchanged by the world, it is absolutely free of the world. Absolute freedom here means that, whatever the state of the world, it makes absolutely no difference to God, God's state is entirely independent of the world.

You just talked about absolute determinacy, that everything is absolutely determined.

Do you know what these mean now, do you still not agree with them?
So you don't see God to have these qualities?



Correct.

See above.



Certainly. It's when the world came into being.

God knew 'when' it did, right?

Arkansasguy
July 27th, 2016, 03:30 PM
The mystery is that you don't know if you are going to have supper. You don't know what the exact position of every object will be, you do not know what exactly you will be eating, with all the proportions of nutrients, etc etc. You could die before supper, or a family member could die before that. A meteor could hit the house.

The point with this is that you are not absolutely certain of the future, but God apparently is.

Your choice is meaningful, it makes sense. It does not for God here.

I fail to see how absoluteness of certainty changes the situation wrt freedom.


If God is absolute and perfect, and unchanged by the world, it is absolutely free of the world. Absolute freedom here means that, whatever the state of the world, it makes absolutely no difference to God, God's state is entirely independent of the world.

You just talked about absolute determinacy, that everything is absolutely determined.

Do you know what these mean now, do you still not agree with them?
So you don't see God to have these qualities?

Ok. I agree that God is absolutely free from the world. I thought you meant something else.

I'm still not clear what you mean by absolute determinacy.

God knew 'when' it did, right?

Yes, but he knew that by way of foresight, not observation.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 03:57 PM
I fail to see how absoluteness of certainty changes the situation wrt freedom.

How do you define freedom here?



I'm still not clear what you mean by absolute determinacy.


God foreknew all possible things he could create, including all the possible contingencies which could arise under any circumstances->God chose, knowing fully everything that ever would happen or ever could happen, to create the world which now exists->God created the world->stuff happened in the world

By his very nature, God knows all possible contingencies whatsoever. He understood the world absolutely even "before" it was created. Just as he understands all other possible worlds he could have made but chose not to.

That everything is known.

If you mean that God only does not know what itself 'will' do, then clarify this point and I will further narrow down where I am opposing you. If not, then that point stands.



Yes, but he knew that by way of foresight, not observation.

Can God observe the world?

Arkansasguy
July 27th, 2016, 04:21 PM
How do you define freedom here?

Lack of external constraint.

That everything is known.

If you mean that God only does not know what itself 'will' do, then clarify this point and I will further narrow down where I am opposing you. If not, then that point stands.

God knows what actions he takes.

Keep in mind, God exists in Eternal Now. There was no time "before" God created it.


Can God observe the world?

God already knows everything, so he cannot acquire new knowledge by way of observation.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 04:29 PM
Lack of external constraint.

If the state of God's consciousness are constrained by necessity of being some ways due to the state of the world's existence and/or the existence of whatever is in the world.


You could argue that the idea of the world has an effect on God, but that's not at all controversial as the idea of the world is an intrinsic part of his nature.

It is an intrinsic part of its nature, and yet it keeps all of the 'omni' qualities and is conscious?



God knows what actions he takes.

It knows what it 'will' do?



Keep in mind, God exists in Eternal Now. There was no time "before" God created it.

God already knows everything, so he cannot acquire new knowledge by way of observation.

Then the view that God is conscious, is very problematic. With this, that it wanted anything, and chose anything, that it thought anything.

Arkansasguy
July 27th, 2016, 04:57 PM
If the state of God's consciousness are constrained by necessity of being some ways due to the state of the world's existence and/or the existence of whatever is in the world.

Given this understanding, I agree that God has absolute freedom, so defined.


It is an intrinsic part of its nature, and yet it keeps all of the 'omni' qualities and is conscious?

I worded that poorly. The knowledge of all possible contingencies (including everything in the actual world) is intrinsically part of God's nature.


It knows what it 'will' do?

There is not properly speaking a future tense in God.


Then the view that God is conscious, is very problematic. With this, that it wanted anything, and chose anything, that it thought anything.

Those statements are only rendered problematic when states in a past tense.

Judean Zealot
July 27th, 2016, 04:59 PM
Paraxiom

Sorry for barging in. Can you define what you mean by "consciousness" in relation to God? Everything I'm reading implies that you hold an anthromorphic idea God and his "attributes", but I would like to make sure.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 05:20 PM
Given this understanding, I agree that God has absolute freedom, so defined.

Then we are seeing the same definition of freedom, good.



I worded that poorly. The knowledge of all possible contingencies (including everything in the actual world) is intrinsically part of God's nature.

Alright then.



There is not properly speaking a future tense in God.

Those statements are only rendered problematic when states in a past tense.

I'll alter it then for sake of ease on your part.

Then the view that God is conscious, is very problematic. With this, that it wants anything, chooses anything, that it thinks of anything.

________________


Paraxiom

Sorry for barging in. Can you define what you mean by "consciousness" in relation to God? Everything I'm reading implies that you hold an anthromorphic idea God and his "attributes", but I would like to make sure.

You are not barging in, worry not. (I did invite you at the start)


Again, I do not hold this view.

In an unusual circumstance for me (relative to past ROTW activity), I am holding to describing the general anthropomorphic God view in a clear way, before I oppose it with technetheism. I want to preserve the target, basically.

When I mean consciousness here, I mean that which is responsible for the awareness God has of itself and the world, its knowledge of everything, and (optionally, but usually) its want to see humans exist and be happy, with being benevolent. The consciousness is seen as analogy to humans' consciousness, of mental quality and such.

That is of the anthropomorphic God, which technetheism is specifically opposing, through primarily arguing that God must have a technological relation to the world if a teleological argument is set for God's existence, through it being The Creator. Also, this God is not absolute.

Of the omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, consciousness, absolute and perfect 'nature' (and so on) of God, if it is responsible for creating the world (with the creation being of analogy through humans and their tech), I am arguing that at least one of those qualities necessarily has to go, if the anthropomorphic God view is to hold with stability at all.

(I realise that those sentences are long. I also realise I am repeating myself a lot, but I am alright with that at this stage.)

Judean Zealot
July 27th, 2016, 05:40 PM
When I mean consciousness here, I mean that which is responsible for the awareness God has of the itself and the world, its knowledge of everything, and (optionally, but usually) its want to see humans exist and be happy, with being benevolent. The consciousness is seen as analogy to humans' consciousness, of mental quality and such.

The problem I see is that despite your disavowal anthromorphism, elements of it still manage to slip under the radar. The conflation of Divine "knowledge" and our own limited form of knowledge is, so far as I'm aware, a misunderstanding of the Theistic tradition. You're losing sight of how radically divergent contingent and necessary being are. A necessary being cannot think of things, plan things, or desire things as we do. When we refer to those sorts of things we do so as an allegory to His interaction with the universe, itself a necessary emanation of His being. We are referring to the order of the universe as a manifestation of His absolute singularity.

You are correct that God does not have "consciousness", in the causal sense of the word. You're wrong though if you believe that what you're attempting to disprove is the traditional God of Abraham. You're challenging the god of Paley, who ultimately adds up to being a Hebraicised Zeus, but your entire construction falls short of the God of, say, Maimonides.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 06:02 PM
The problem I see is that despite your disavowal anthromorphism, elements of it still manage to slip under the radar. The conflation of Divine "knowledge" and our own limited form of knowledge is, so far as I'm aware, a misunderstanding of the Theistic tradition.

The target I am presenting is a common (or the most common) view of what God is, as an 'omni-' anthropomorphic God, by those adherent to the Abrahamic faiths (and perhaps other monotheistic views in general), or at least perceiving/identifying to be/as. I am talking about general populations. My experience in Catholic school has shown me this target view, as example, and I know that most people are not theologians.

I hope that you agree in this. If there is a problem here for me, then I have not described that target position enough. This target position is misunderstanding the theistic tradition, it can be argued.



You're losing sight of how radically divergent contingent and necessary being are. A necessary being cannot think of things, plan things, or desire things as we do.

Not me losing sight; and exactly.



When we refer to those sorts of things we do so as an allegory to His interaction with the universe, itself a necessary emanation of His being. We are referring to the order of the universe as a manifestation of His absolute singularity.

Technetheism is not targeting this. Views of manifestations of certain entities as necessarily from another entity (or 'entity'), is different from the view with the analogy of creating things in the technological meaning.



You are correct that God does not have "consciousness", in the causal sense of the word. You're wrong though if you believe that what you're attempting to disprove is the traditional God of Abraham. You're challenging the god of Paley, who ultimately adds up to being a Hebraicised Zeus, but your entire construction falls short of the God of, say, Maimonides.

I'm not attempting to disprove proper theological views on the Abrahamic God. I am attempting to disprove general misconceptions of it, through a different angle than most other oppositions I have seen, do.

A memory I have of time doing some neoplatonic christianity reading in spring, I once used the term 'godlet' for this God that many are misinterpreting as. If anything, I am redirecting people somewhere else, but mainly by just directing them off the thinking I was setting out as the target. Technetheism is not attempting to fully destroy the 'Godlet''s qualities as set in the target (it could happen, perhaps...), but it is aiming to show how at least one quality of it has to go, for any chance at the rest holding reasoning.


(I don't know of Maimonides, which I will look up out of interest.)

Judean Zealot
July 27th, 2016, 06:08 PM
Paraxiom

Good, I'm glad that's settled then. As far as your actual method goes, I can't say I know how binding your tech based paradigm is, so I won't comment.

I just point out how trivial Paley's god would actually be, that it still wouldn't provide a final cause, and that this god would be no more deserving of worship and adulation than a very clever man.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 06:11 PM
Good, I'm glad that's settled then. As far as your actual method goes, I can't say I know how binding your tech based paradigm is, so I won't comment.

That's good to hear.

By 'tech based paradigm', do you mean my definition of technology? Wondering.

I also am wondering if you disagree with Arkansasguy's position, because I am getting toward showing again why the view he is holding, does not work.

Judean Zealot
July 27th, 2016, 06:29 PM
That's good to hear.

By 'tech based paradigm', do you mean my definition of technology? Wondering.

I also am wondering if you disagree with Arkansasguy's position, because I am getting toward showing again why the view he is holding, does not work.

I refer both to your definition as well as the relation between will and action.

I disagree with his view that God makes "choices" using a free will.

Paraxiom
July 27th, 2016, 06:33 PM
I refer both to your definition as well as the relation between will and action.

Alright. If you disagree with either or both, you are welcome to engage in debate. Interaction of ideas is key sometimes.
(I am sleeping soon though, so I would respond later on, if you wish to do so.)

Either way it is satisfying to have you understand what I meant by technetheism overall.



I disagree with his view that God makes "choices" using a free will.

As do I.

Arkansasguy
July 27th, 2016, 07:55 PM
Then the view that God is conscious, is very problematic. With this, that it wants anything, chooses anything, that it thinks of anything.

Why is that problematic.

Paraxiom
July 28th, 2016, 09:55 AM
Why is that problematic.

God cannot have any aspect of thought or consciousness, if it experiences no time. You need to explain how its thought, ability of choice, and presence of desire, work with no time for it. All of those qualities require a 'stream' of consciousness, which makes no sense without time, without any 'stream' at all.

I also am wondering what your view is on prayer to God.

Arkansasguy
July 28th, 2016, 03:53 PM
God cannot have any aspect of thought or consciousness, if it experiences no time. You need to explain how its thought, ability of choice, and presence of desire, work with no time for it. All of those qualities require a 'stream' of consciousness, which makes no sense without time, without any 'stream' at all.

I also am wondering what your view is on prayer to God.

God thinks everything at once. No "stream" is required.

What about prayer?

Paraxiom
July 29th, 2016, 06:04 AM
God thinks everything at once. No "stream" is required.

Thinking needs a 'stream' to be thinking. Thinking is a mental process that occurs through the connection of many individual moments. As example, an argument comes in sections, with a beginning and end. A desire for a certain thing comes before (let's say) the desire if fulfilled by obtaining that thing. A process of thinking does not happen all in one instant/moment.

It makes no sense to say God is thinking everything at once, it is meaningless. There is no desire if the achievment is instantly eternally obtained 'already'. It's not one eternal static "BAM!" of thoughts and wants at once.

You can see God as eternal, but to see it being conscious and eternal, 'thinking everything at once', does not work.

My point arching through all of this, is that all the anthropomorphic qualities of God [also seen as infinite/absolute] as seen by the general population who have faith in it ("him" as you put it, which is a similar problem) cannot hold together by the reasoning I set in the technetheism.

At least one of the qualities has to go; God cannot both have human qualities, such as consciousness, and be infinite/absolute.



What about prayer?

What are valid forms of prayer to you? As example, is praying for forgiveness or help (among other things in a conversation-like format) valid?

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 02:07 PM
Thinking needs a 'stream' to be thinking. Thinking is a mental process that occurs through the connection of many individual moments. As example, an argument comes in sections, with a beginning and end. A desire for a certain thing comes before (let's say) the desire if fulfilled by obtaining that thing. A process of thinking does not happen all in one instant/moment.

It makes no sense to say God is thinking everything at once, it is meaningless. There is no desire if the achievment is instantly eternally obtained 'already'. It's not one eternal static "BAM!" of thoughts and wants at once.

You can see God as eternal, but to see it being conscious and eternal, 'thinking everything at once', does not work.

My point arching through all of this, is that all the anthropomorphic qualities of God [also seen as infinite/absolute] as seen by the general population who have faith in it ("him" as you put it, which is a similar problem) cannot hold together by the reasoning I set in the technetheism.

At least one of the qualities has to go; God cannot both have human qualities, such as consciousness, and be infinite/absolute.




What are valid forms of prayer to you? As example, is praying for forgiveness or help (among other things in a conversation-like format) valid?

You are the only one going on about God having human qualities. The point that I have Ben trying to get across, is that God does not have human qualities, his mode of intellection is completely different from ours.

Yes those are both valid forms of prayer.

Paraxiom
July 29th, 2016, 06:01 PM
You are the only one going on about God having human qualities.

I am going on about a God with human qualities, because I am (or was, if I realise correctly) seeing you as thinking that. I do not believe in this God with human qualities, and technetheism is specifically such as to argue against such a God's existence, if that God is also absolute/etc.



The point that I have Ben trying to get across, is that God does not have human qualities, his mode of intellection is completely different from ours.

Alright, so its consciousness is not like human consciousness. This 'consciousness' is absolute in nature for you, right?



Yes those are both valid forms of prayer.

Why so? Communication is implying that the God you are communicating to is on a comparable sentience level as you are, not of the other kind you are speaking about now. It does not make sense for a sentience of non-temporal nature, to be able to communicate to a sentience of a temporal nature, and vice-versa.

You see God to be absolute/infinite, correct?
Also, you see humans to be able to communicate to God and vice-verse, am I also right here?

Arkansasguy
July 29th, 2016, 06:37 PM
Alright, so its consciousness is not like human consciousness. This 'consciousness' is absolute in nature for you, right?

Correct.

Why so? Communication is implying that the God you are communicating to is on a comparable sentience level as you are, not of the other kind you are speaking about now. It does not make sense for a sentience of non-temporal nature, to be able to communicate to a sentience of a temporal nature, and vice-versa.

You see God to be absolute/infinite, correct?
Also, you see humans to be able to communicate to God and vice-verse, am I also right here?

When God communicates with humans, it's not in the sense that he replies to a stimuli (us talking to him) that he was surprised by. Rather God chooses to communicate at a certain time and place by an act of will which is itself eternal. He already knows what we're going to say.

PlasmaHam
July 30th, 2016, 09:35 PM
Rather God chooses to communicate at a certain time and place by an act of will which is itself eternal. He already knows what we're going to say.

That in part leads to a discussion on free will and how that works with God. Always been a puzzler for me. We have free will, but God knows what we are going to choose, does that mean we don't have free will. Philosophers and theologians go at it, because I have no idea.

Judean Zealot
July 30th, 2016, 09:54 PM
That in part leads to a discussion on free will and how that works with God. Always been a puzzler for me. We have free will, but God knows what we are going to choose, does that mean we don't have free will. Philosophers and theologians go at it, because I have no idea.

For anybody interested. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/)

Arkansasguy
July 30th, 2016, 10:35 PM
That in part leads to a discussion on free will and how that works with God. Always been a puzzler for me. We have free will, but God knows what we are going to choose, does that mean we don't have free will. Philosophers and theologians go at it, because I have no idea.

Honestly I've never gotten what the big deal is. That I know someone is going to do something, doesn't mean they aren't freely choosing it.

Judean Zealot
July 30th, 2016, 10:54 PM
Honestly I've never gotten what the big deal is. That I know someone is going to do something, doesn't mean they aren't freely choosing it.

Truth is a necessary condition for knowledge, so the truth value of the proposition "A will do X" must precede your knowledge.

Arkansasguy
July 31st, 2016, 01:06 AM
Truth is a necessary condition for knowledge, so the truth value of the proposition "A will do X" must precede your knowledge.

So the issue isn't God's foreknowledge, it's just the fact that you are in fact going to make certain choices in the future.

That I'm going to turn right has no bearing on my freedom in choosing to do so.

Judean Zealot
July 31st, 2016, 05:16 AM
So the issue isn't God's foreknowledge, it's just the fact that you are in fact going to make certain choices in the future.

That I'm going to turn right has no bearing on my freedom in choosing to do so.

Well yes, intuitively, but the question is how one avoids epistemic determinacy.

Paraxiom
August 3rd, 2016, 08:14 PM
When God communicates with humans, it's not in the sense that he replies to a stimuli (us talking to him) that he was surprised by. Rather God chooses to communicate at a certain time and place by an act of will which is itself eternal. He already knows what we're going to say.

If it 'already' knows what we are going to say, then it 'already' knows what it is going to say, which is looping back onto epistemic determinacy that Judean Zealot has mentioned. That is conflicting with my view on freedom - the God cannot be absolutely free if it is interacting with us and the world, no matter what abstraction of human mental qualities into infinite/absolute form is done in arguing what the nature of God is (itself problematic for me, as you know already).

If you are referring to the God as having feelings, then your explanation can only make sense through analogy, that God has a consciousness but of a form beyond ours, and we can only faintly attempt a comprehension of traces of it, if at all. Even if I grant that to you, the God is still not absolute / completely free, because it is interacting with the world, and some of God's essence is necessarily some ways because of conjunction with some parts of the world we know, namely its communication with us and the awareness/'desire' of the world.

The consciousness is necessarily bound to something, as it is conscious of something, even if we abstract to a magnitude practically/actually infinite to us. What is a consciousness if there is absolutely nothing 'in' it? How does that work?

My point continues to hold as before - presence of consciousness in, and some intention behind this world from, the God, means the God is not absolute/free.

Arkansasguy
August 3rd, 2016, 11:36 PM
If it 'already' knows what we are going to say, then it 'already' knows what it is going to say, which is looping back onto epistemic determinacy that Judean Zealot has mentioned. That is conflicting with my view on freedom - the God cannot be absolutely free if it is interacting with us and the world, no matter what abstraction of human mental qualities into infinite/absolute form is done in arguing what the nature of God is (itself problematic for me, as you know already).

If you are referring to the God as having feelings, then your explanation can only make sense through analogy, that God has a consciousness but of a form beyond ours, and we can only faintly attempt a comprehension of traces of it, if at all. Even if I grant that to you, the God is still not absolute / completely free, because it is interacting with the world, and some of God's essence is necessarily some ways because of conjunction with some parts of the world we know, namely its communication with us and the awareness/'desire' of the world.

The consciousness is necessarily bound to something, as it is conscious of something, even if we abstract to a magnitude practically/actually infinite to us. What is a consciousness if there is absolutely nothing 'in' it? How does that work?

My point continues to hold as before - presence of consciousness in, and some intention behind this world from, the God, means the God is not absolute/free.

You are continuing to use the term "absolute freedom" equivocally.

You earlier defined it as freedom from external necessity. God's knowledge is an innate quality. Thus it by definition doesn't impede freedom so defined.

Paraxiom
August 4th, 2016, 08:15 AM
You are continuing to use the term "absolute freedom" equivocally.

You earlier defined it as freedom from external necessity. God's knowledge is an innate quality. Thus it by definition doesn't impede freedom so defined.

Absolute freedom here means that, whatever the state of the world, it makes absolutely no difference to God, God's state is entirely independent of the world.


Absolute freedom of God relative to the world means that the 'state/form' of God's 'consciousness' is completely not in relation to the world in any way.

If God's knowledge of the world is an 'innate quality' of it, then it is innately bound to some relation with the world. Even if the world is not seen as external to God, but only 'within' it, then the state of the world is necessarily coincidental with the state of at least some of God (since world is a subset of God, as it were).

Sure, not all of God is in this relation with the world, but crucially some of it is, so God cannot be absolutely free of the world if any part of it is in a relation with it.

By analogy, even if I were to perceive stuff without any external source (hallucinations), these perceptions still coincide with the state of existence of part of my mind.

Arkansasguy
August 4th, 2016, 02:03 PM
Absolute freedom of God relative to the world means that the 'state/form' of God's 'consciousness' is completely not in relation to the world in any way.

If God's knowledge of the world is an 'innate quality' of it, then it is innately bound to some relation with the world. Even if the world is not seen as external to God, but only 'within' it, then the state of the world is necessarily coincidental with the state of at least some of God (since world is a subset of God, as it were).

Sure, not all of God is in this relation with the world, but crucially some of it is, so God cannot be absolutely free of the world if any part of it is in a relation with it.

By analogy, even if I were to perceive stuff without any external source (hallucinations), these perceptions still coincide with the state of existence of part of my mind.

By that definition, the very notion of "absolute freedom" is poppycock.

Paraxiom
August 4th, 2016, 05:17 PM
By that definition, the very notion of "absolute freedom" is poppycock.

Why is the notion nonsensical?

Suspending past views of the afterlife/god/etc, to die is to mean that oneself is absolutely free from the world, as your consciousness if occupied with absolutely nothing, because there is no consciousness.

You can have an absolutely free god, but it cannot be conscious in any way. It is not a being but transcendental to all of that, including total wiping away of any human mental qualities or analogies thereof.

Arkansasguy
August 4th, 2016, 06:57 PM
Why is the notion nonsensical?

Because nothing is absolutely unrelated to everything else.

Paraxiom
August 4th, 2016, 08:14 PM
Because nothing is absolutely unrelated to everything else.

I don't get what you mean.


Your God is:

Eternal / infinite / absolute

Conscious

Omnipotent

Omniscient

Omnibenevolent

Right?


EDIT: I'll try to wrap up my general argument relevant to this, so we'll both be happier with some potential closure.

Your God cannot be both absolute/eternal, and having any thought/desire to create the world/humans.

A desire or thought is a mental act for which the mind has its processes focused in some way onto a subject of thought.

Minimally, this subject is the focus of thought/desire where the thinking being here (God) is bound in a relationship with it. The thinking being cannot be absolute and also be related to the subject, no matter how 'small' this relation is.

If the God does proceed to create the world, then (with all I put out in argument) it is in a technological relationship with it. The God is not absolute if some part of its form's state is necessarily coincidental with the state of the world's existence. God prefers the world exists, and has its desire reached 'when' the world exists.

By the definition of freedom I used, God cannot be absolutely free from the world. It is in a bound relationship with it in some way.

If this God has a consciousness which is eternal, then communication between the God and humans (with their non-eternal consciousnesses) is meaningless. The God also cannot be said to desire or think anything when it perceives everything at once, no matter about communicating thoughts to humans, which would require that the God communicates in a way such that its thoughts are perceived as temporal (not instant/eternal) to humans.


Your God either is of a nature which resembles humans with desires/thoughts/communication, or it is absolute and whose existence/nature is entirely free from the world (which then necessarily implies that the God did not create the world, by the meaning of creation we have). Not both.

That's where I am at.


Judean Zealot

What are the general qualities of the Abrahamic God, as seen by theologians?

Arkansasguy
August 8th, 2016, 01:36 PM
I don't get what you mean.


Your God is:

Eternal / infinite / absolute

Conscious

Omnipotent

Omniscient

Omnibenevolent

Right?


EDIT: I'll try to wrap up my general argument relevant to this, so we'll both be happier with some potential closure.

Your God cannot be both absolute/eternal, and having any thought/desire to create the world/humans.

A desire or thought is a mental act for which the mind has its processes focused in some way onto a subject of thought.

Minimally, this subject is the focus of thought/desire where the thinking being here (God) is bound in a relationship with it. The thinking being cannot be absolute and also be related to the subject, no matter how 'small' this relation is.

If the God does proceed to create the world, then (with all I put out in argument) it is in a technological relationship with it. The God is not absolute if some part of its form's state is necessarily coincidental with the state of the world's existence. God prefers the world exists, and has its desire reached 'when' the world exists.

By the definition of freedom I used, God cannot be absolutely free from the world. It is in a bound relationship with it in some way.

If this God has a consciousness which is eternal, then communication between the God and humans (with their non-eternal consciousnesses) is meaningless. The God also cannot be said to desire or think anything when it perceives everything at once, no matter about communicating thoughts to humans, which would require that the God communicates in a way such that its thoughts are perceived as temporal (not instant/eternal) to humans.


Your God either is of a nature which resembles humans with desires/thoughts/communication, or it is absolute and whose existence/nature is entirely free from the world (which then necessarily implies that the God did not create the world, by the meaning of creation we have). Not both.

That's where I am at.


Judean Zealot

What are the general qualities of the Abrahamic God, as seen by theologians?

As I've said, God's relation with the world is that of cause to effect.

When I choose to hit send on this message, I am causing it to appear on the thread. That is a case of me affecting the forum, not vice versa. Now this is of course not true in an absolute sense, since I don't know the result for certain until I view the post in the thread (the Internet could stop working at my house, the site could crash, etc.). But in God's case, his knowledge is absolute and infallible. He already knew with total certainly everything that would happen in the world before he made it. So his creating it had zero effect on his state of being.

God communicates with man by causing us to perceive his messages at particular places and times, but He does this by an eternal act of his will, it's only temporal from our perspective.

Paraxiom
August 9th, 2016, 11:29 AM
As I've said, God's relation with the world is that of cause to effect.

When I choose to hit send on this message, I am causing it to appear on the thread.

You are, yes.



That is a case of me affecting the forum, not vice versa.

But it has affected you! You have observed the message appearing on the thread, it altered your mental content. Your mental content is part of you. Changing of mental content means changing of a part of you.

If you had not have sent the message, then your brain's/mind's state would be different, than if you did.

Saying that it did not effect you would mean that your mental content would not have changed in any way, by the sending of that message. This makes no sense if you are aware of the message sending. It only makes sense if you were not aware of the message or its sending, whatsoever. This is not the case.



Now this is of course not true in an absolute sense, since I don't know the result for certain until I view the post in the thread (the Internet could stop working at my house, the site could crash, etc.). But in God's case, his knowledge is absolute and infallible. He already knew with total certainly everything that would happen in the world before he made it. So his creating it had zero effect on his state of being.

God communicates with man by causing us to perceive his messages at particular places and times, but He does this by an eternal act of his will, it's only temporal from our perspective.

Saying that the world's creation has zero effect on its state of being cannot make sense when you also say it has a desire/will to create the world, even if you say it is eternal (and leaving out the other issues that that eternal state brings).

If it is eternal, it's not a case of cause-effect, yes. Instead, it is a case of certain states of the world's existence (and its features within) necessarily coinciding with certain states of God's being. My definition of freedom makes sense even if you take time out of this situation and call the situation eternal.

As something else, would you agree that your view of God shows God to not perceive/have any potentiality at all, as everything is eternally in actuality to it?

This also goes with my question clarifying if you see absolutely nothing to be external to God, that it is meaningless to say that there is anything external to it. Am I correct?

Arkansasguy
August 9th, 2016, 01:44 PM
You are, yes.




But it has affected you! You have observed the message appearing on the thread, it altered your mental content. Your mental content is part of you. Changing of mental content means changing of a part of you.

If you had not have sent the message, then your brain's/mind's state would be different, than if you did.

Saying that it did not effect you would mean that your mental content would not have changed in any way, by the sending of that message. This makes no sense if you are aware of the message sending. It only makes sense if you were not aware of the message or its sending, whatsoever. This is not the case.




Saying that the world's creation has zero effect on its state of being cannot make sense when you also say it has a desire/will to create the world, even if you say it is eternal (and leaving out the other issues that that eternal state brings).

If it is eternal, it's not a case of cause-effect, yes. Instead, it is a case of certain states of the world's existence (and its features within) necessarily coinciding with certain states of God's being. My definition of freedom makes sense even if you take time out of this situation and call the situation eternal.

As something else, would you agree that your view of God shows God to not perceive/have any potentiality at all, as everything is eternally in actuality to it?

This also goes with my question clarifying if you see absolutely nothing to be external to God, that it is meaningless to say that there is anything external to it. Am I correct?

The difference between me posting the message and God creating the world is that I don't have absolutely certain knowledge that the message will post. God does have absolute certainty about everything, without any amount of ignorance whatsoever. There's no change in what he knows because it's not possible for him to learn anything, because there's literally nothing whatsoever that he doesn't know.

Yes, God is in a state of pure actuality, with no potentiality whatsoever.

Paraxiom
August 10th, 2016, 05:34 PM
The difference between me posting the message and God creating the world is that I don't have absolutely certain knowledge that the message will post.

You have said though that God is eternal, so there is no future to it. It doesn't make sense that it is eternal but also creates a thing. As an extra point here, the creation is meaningless to it.

If I appear to be taking different angles at counter-arguing your point, it's because my argument is seeing so many areas of your point that I can oppose.

Do you accept my argument that you are affected by what you create?



God does have absolute certainty about everything, without any amount of ignorance whatsoever. There's no change in what he knows because it's not possible for him to learn anything, because there's literally nothing whatsoever that he doesn't know.

Even if we remove time and ignorance, I can say (as always) that certain aspects of God's form/existence are necessarily in conjunction with certain aspects of the world's form/existence. My definition of freedom (absolute in this case of eternal and absolutely free God) here does not need to refer to time:

Absolute freedom here means that, whatever the state of the world, it makes absolutely no difference to God, God's state is entirely independent of the world.


Time is not mentioned. Certain differences within/of some/all of God's form are necessarily in conjunction with certain differences within/of the world's form. If God were free from the world, then there would be no conjunctions between any certain aspects of God, and any certain aspects of the world.

Difference is to 'the eternal' as change is to time. If there is no time and there is just eternal-ness, then there is just difference. It doesn't matter as it is all the same to the definition of freedom, when there is change and/or difference.



Yes, God is in a state of pure actuality, with no potentiality whatsoever.

Alright.

Is there anything external to God?

Bleid
August 20th, 2016, 08:50 PM
The difference between me posting the message and God creating the world is that I don't have absolutely certain knowledge that the message will post. God does have absolute certainty about everything, without any amount of ignorance whatsoever. There's no change in what he knows because it's not possible for him to learn anything, because there's literally nothing whatsoever that he doesn't know.

Yes, God is in a state of pure actuality, with no potentiality whatsoever.

Does God know how to learn?

Arkansasguy
August 21st, 2016, 01:15 PM
Does God know how to learn?

What does this even mean?

God knows absolutely everything. "God learning" isn't a rationally coherent phrase. It's just words mindlessly jumbled together.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 02:38 PM
What does this even mean?

God knows absolutely everything. "God learning" isn't a rationally coherent phrase. It's just words mindlessly jumbled together.

It seemed rationally coherent enough of an idea for you to talk about it not being possible for him to learn, earlier.

There's no change in what he knows because it's not possible for him to learn anything,

So I was just curious, does he know how to learn, even though it is impossible for him to do?
(ignoring the suspicious situation of something being impossible for an omnipotent being to accomplish)

Arkansasguy
August 21st, 2016, 03:38 PM
It seemed rationally coherent enough of an idea for you to talk about it not being possible for him to learn, earlier.



So I was just curious, does he know how to learn, even though it is impossible for him to do?
(ignoring the suspicious situation of something being impossible for an omnipotent being to accomplish)

Just to be clear, when you ask "does God know how to learn", what specifically are you referring to by the verb "learn".

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 05:22 PM
Just to be clear, when you ask "does God know how to learn", what specifically are you referring to by the verb "learn".

Of course.

To know (how to learn) would be to know (how to go about acquiring knowledge).

I assume it wouldn't be possible for God to know this, since he cannot learn, but I was curious what your thoughts were, since that would perplex me.

Arkansasguy
August 21st, 2016, 07:11 PM
Of course.

To know (how to learn) would be to know (how to go about acquiring knowledge).

I assume it wouldn't be possible for God to know this, since he cannot learn, but I was curious what your thoughts were, since that would perplex me.

God knows how creatures learn.

"God learning" isn't a successful referrant to anything, as it's a direct logical contradiction. By definition, God knows absolutely everything comprehensively. A being with absolute knowledge gaining knowledge is a contradiction of terms.

So this question is equivalent to "could God make 2+2=5" type questions. It's nonsense.

Bleid
August 21st, 2016, 07:23 PM
God knows how creatures learn.

"God learning" isn't a successful referrant to anything, as it's a direct logical contradiction. By definition, God knows absolutely everything comprehensively. A being with absolute knowledge gaining knowledge is a contradiction of terms.

So this question is equivalent to "could God make 2+2=5" type questions. It's nonsense.

I see. I like that example, though. God could not make 2 + 2 = 5?

Arkansasguy
August 22nd, 2016, 09:18 AM
I see. I like that example, though. God could not make 2 + 2 = 5?

No, as "God making 2+2=5" isn't actually a hypothetical situation. It's just a stronger of words attached together.

To put in another way, two and two added together are necessarily not equal to five. God can cause any contingency to be or not, but certain facts are true or false by intrinsic necessity.

Bleid
August 22nd, 2016, 07:12 PM
No, as "God making 2+2=5" isn't actually a hypothetical situation. It's just a stronger of words attached together.

To put in another way, two and two added together are necessarily not equal to five. God can cause any contingency to be or not, but certain facts are true or false by intrinsic necessity.

I see. It's becoming clearer.

The certain facts that are true or false by intrinsic necessity - would it be fair to say these are the same sorts of facts that David Hume called relations of ideas? That is, facts by a matter of logical necessity as opposed to facts based on the state of the world?

Arkansasguy
August 22nd, 2016, 08:00 PM
I see. It's becoming clearer.

The certain facts that are true or false by intrinsic necessity - would it be fair to say these are the same sorts of facts that David Hume called relations of ideas? That is, facts by a matter of logical necessity as opposed to facts based on the state of the world?

Yes. That would be correct.

Bleid
August 23rd, 2016, 08:51 PM
Yes. That would be correct.

I'm trying to reconcile these ideas in my mind, but this keeps nagging at me.

Would this mean that God is constrained by these relations of ideas? Is God not able to modify them at all or go beyond them in any way?

Arkansasguy
August 23rd, 2016, 10:24 PM
I'm trying to reconcile these ideas in my mind, but this keeps nagging at me.

Would this mean that God is constrained by these relations of ideas? Is God not able to modify them at all or go beyond them in any way?

Um, no. Necessary facts not being true isn't a valid hypothetical referencing some coherent scenario, it's just words strung together.

Bleid
August 23rd, 2016, 10:29 PM
Um, no. Necessary facts not being true isn't a valid hypothetical referencing some coherent scenario, it's just words strung together.

But what exactly is it that determines that they are necessary facts? Is it God, or something else?

Arkansasguy
August 24th, 2016, 09:07 AM
But what exactly is it that determines that they are necessary facts? Is it God, or something else?

Things that are necessarily true simply are true. Because they are non-contingent, they don't need a cause.

You seem to be suffering from voluntarism.

Bleid
August 25th, 2016, 12:34 AM
Things that are necessarily true simply are true. Because they are non-contingent, they don't need a cause.

I follow this reasoning, but what I ask more specifically is, what exactly makes a fact non-contingent?

For example, take the law of identity. This law presumably did not get deemed true by God's actions, so was it always present alongside God, before he/she/it even put anything into existence?

You seem to be suffering from voluntarism.

Perhaps.

Arkansasguy
August 25th, 2016, 02:47 PM
I follow this reasoning, but what I ask more specifically is, what exactly makes a fact non-contingent?

For example, take the law of identity. This law presumably did not get deemed true by God's actions, so was it always present alongside God, before he/she/it even put anything into existence?



Perhaps.

Things are non-contingent because they are logically necessary.

Things like the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and so forth don't "exist" in the same sense that God (or you, or I, or phones) exists. They aren't beings in need of creation, not are they mere qualities of beings (e.g. the law of gravitation).

Bleid
August 25th, 2016, 04:35 PM
Things are non-contingent because they are logically necessary.

Things like the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and so forth don't "exist" in the same sense that God (or you, or I, or phones) exists. They aren't beings in need of creation, not are they mere qualities of beings (e.g. the law of gravitation).

In what way then could they be said to "exist" in relation to God? Since, God clearly needs to obey these logical necessities from what we've discussed, so it would seem that logical necessities precede God's ability - that is, God's acts are confined to what is possible by logical necessity.

Arkansasguy
August 25th, 2016, 05:06 PM
In what way then could they be said to "exist" in relation to God? Since, God clearly needs to obey these logical necessities from what we've discussed, so it would seem that logical necessities precede God's ability - that is, God's acts are confined to what is possible by logical necessity.

Logical necessity does precede God's freely chosen acts. Yes.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 08:23 PM
What does this even mean?

God knows absolutely everything. "God learning" isn't a rationally coherent phrase. It's just words mindlessly jumbled together.

Human consciousness necessarily learns. If your God cannot learn, than it is not of human consciousness at the least, and the whole desire issue comes up again.


Things that are necessarily true simply are true. Because they are non-contingent, they don't need a cause.


So you are saying that all necessary entities are 'exempt' from causality, as it were, right?


In what way then could they be said to "exist" in relation to God? Since, God clearly needs to obey these logical necessities from what we've discussed, so it would seem that logical necessities precede God's ability - that is, God's acts are confined to what is possible by logical necessity.

Good point - I wasn't intending to bring in logical forms and such myself.


Logical necessity does precede God's freely chosen acts. Yes.

Does God know about logical necessity?

Arkansasguy
August 26th, 2016, 08:29 PM
Human consciousness necessarily learns. If your God cannot learn, than it is not of human consciousness at the least, and the whole desire issue comes up again.

No one has said that God has human consciousness. You are arguing with yourself.

So you are saying that all necessary entities are 'exempt' from causality, as it were, right?

Logical necessity isn't a matter of causality because such things simply are so.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 09:23 PM
No one has said that God has human consciousness. You are arguing with yourself.

Apologies for presuming this God has a consciousness similar to a human, if that is not what you see.

That said, this God has desire, knowledge, and benevolence, spoken about in such a way that only humans have all abilities with their consciousnesses.

You see humans created in God's image, am I correct?

If so, humans have the qualities of desire, knowledge and benevolence from God, yes? What else have they from God?



Logical necessity isn't a matter of causality because such things simply are so.

Agreed. Can I then connect your God's qualities with that of logical necessity?


In what way then could they be said to "exist" in relation to God? Since, God clearly needs to obey these logical necessities from what we've discussed, so it would seem that logical necessities precede God's ability - that is, God's acts are confined to what is possible by logical necessity.

Arkansasguy

I'll take this opportunity to bring back up a question I had on if the world manifests the same to God, as does all the possible worlds that God only 'thought' about but did not create.

What is it about the world's creation that sets it apart from all the possibilities, if both actuality and possibility are equally manifest to God's omniscience? (Suspending my problem with the view of God being atemporally conscious, of course.)

Arkansasguy
August 29th, 2016, 11:12 AM
I'll take this opportunity to bring back up a question I had on if the world manifests the same to God, as does all the possible worlds that God only 'thought' about but did not create.

What is it about the world's creation that sets it apart from all the possibilities, if both actuality and possibility are equally manifest to God's omniscience? (Suspending my problem with the view of God being atemporally conscious, of course.)

The difference is that we actually exist. Unactualized hypotheticals do not exist in themselves, but only in the mind of God. We exist both in ourselves and in God's mind.

Paraxiom
August 30th, 2016, 10:05 PM
The difference is that we actually exist. Unactualized hypotheticals do not exist in themselves, but only in the mind of God. We exist both in ourselves and in God's mind.

But what is it about these 'actual' entities of our world that makes them so, setting them apart from hypothetical ones, if both are equally present in God's mind?

If (by me speculating) you mean that actuality is that which is both perceived by humans and God, then does that mean that the world is only partially actual, everything not perceived by both humans and God only being hypothetical?

Arkansasguy
August 30th, 2016, 11:19 PM
But what is it about these 'actual' entities of our world that makes them so, setting them apart from hypothetical ones, if both are equally present in God's mind?

If (by me speculating) you mean that actuality is that which is both perceived by humans and God, then does that mean that the world is only partially actual, everything not perceived by both humans and God only being hypothetical?

I mean that actuality is that which really exists. Obviously this does not mean that only things perceived by humans are real. To be actual is to have substantial existence.

I'm not really sure how to further reduce the concept. Actuality shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

Paraxiom
September 1st, 2016, 11:09 PM
I mean that actuality is that which really exists. Obviously this does not mean that only things perceived by humans are real. To be actual is to have substantial existence.

But what is it that makes this world actually exist, be of substantial existence?

Is our world in the mind of God in some unique way, or something else?



I'm not really sure how to further reduce the concept. Actuality shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

It's no explanation to say "X actually exists / has substantial existence, because X actually exists / has substantial existence". All that's going on here is a loop.

Arkansasguy
September 2nd, 2016, 01:18 AM
But what is it that makes this world actually exist, be of substantial existence?

Is our world in the mind of God in some unique way, or something else?

The actual world exists in the mind of God, and in itself. That is what makes it actual.

It's no explanation to say "X actually exists / has substantial existence, because X actually exists / has substantial existence". All that's going on here is a loop.

At a certain point, concepts become irreducibly simple. The difference between reality and fiction is one that children grasp intuitively, only adults who've been taught anti-realist philosophies need it explained to them.

Paraxiom
September 2nd, 2016, 06:55 PM
The actual world exists in the mind of God, and in itself. That is what makes it actual.

So the actual world is in some way 'knowable to itself' where the potential worlds are not, in a general way aside from consciousnesses within the worlds?



At a certain point, concepts become irreducibly simple. The difference between reality and fiction is one that children grasp intuitively, only adults who've been taught anti-realist philosophies need it explained to them.

The 'real / (e.g.) fictional' distinction you speak of is hardly an intuitive idea, but rather a powerful idea in its ease of explanation and prevalence across people. Children learn of the idea quite early on; it is not intuitive because Santa Claus etc wouldn't stay around for long if at all, otherwise.

I'd consider myself someone who's unlearning the real/fictional distinction idea at least in some ways. It doesn't mean at all that I lose ability to comprehend the idea, it means that I need to think of it more consciously than in the past when it was ingrained more subconsciously.

Anyhow this is off-topic to the discussion itself on the God here.