Kevin's Watch

While surfing the web, I recently came upon an interesting webpage where the author discussed his own beliefs, and in particular had a section dedicated to reasonings behind several points of faith, such as God's non-interference in the world, and so on. Due to the length of the page, I cannot paste it here, but I have a link:

Click Here

The website also offered another path to the same conclusions using feeling, but this one seems more intriguing and might be more interesting to discuss among ourselves, especially since it might be marginally more acceptable as discussion material by those who do not believe in religion or God.

Interesting. Me, I'm essentially an existentialist myself. And many of those concepts still hold true in the absence of a reason.

--A

I find the reasoning behind God's lack of interference in the world very intriguing, as is the one about punishment. Some of those things resonate with other readings of mine.

I certainly saw parallels with some of the things you've said before. But in seeking to avoid the existentialist answer, the reasoning must per force make certain assumptions about the nature of god.

It could be read as an "after the fact" type of justification, working backwards from a desired conclusion.

Regardless however, it is intriguing.

--A

Heh, I'll stay OUT of this one................

Avatar wrote:I certainly saw parallels with some of the things you've said before. But in seeking to avoid the existentialist answer, the reasoning must per force make certain assumptions about the nature of god.

It could be read as an "after the fact" type of justification, working backwards from a desired conclusion.

Regardless however, it is intriguing.

As far as I understand, the author isn't avoiding the existentialist answer, as much as dismissing it as irrelevant in the discussion: he acknowledges its existence, but since he is discussing the reasoning for the existence of God, he simply says something along the lines of:

"there are two answers, answer 1 and answer 2; if answer 1 is correct, then everything else I'm writing is useless, so you might as well stop here. If answer 2 is correct, then read on."

At least, that's what I understood.

No, fair enough, but what I mean is that he's looking for a reasoning which doesn't lead to the existentialist answer. He certainly acknowledges it, and I'll agree that for his purposes, its useless.

But that's the point...it's only a useless answer in terms of his purposes. Many things his reasoning touches on, such as the question of "good" and "evil" and the sanctioning thereof by god, are indicative of the existential answer I think.

But he's quite clear that he wants an alternative.

--A

I'm lost right off the bat...

Suppose there is a creator that is not all powerful and not all knowledgeable. If so, a question that can be asked is "where did this creator (with it's obvious limits) come from?" And like us, either this creator evolved, or some other creator must have created this intermediate. And if the creator's creator has limits then they also must have evolved, or another must have created them.... and so on, until we encounter "the Creator with no limits".

If I'm understanding even this much, he is saying there could be an "intermediate" creator - one who is capable of creating all this - but that this creator cannot have been uncreated. But an all-powerful and all-knowledgeable creator can be uncreated. I don't understand the reasoning behind that assumption. I understand the idea of ignoring such a creator if there must be a Creator. May as well discuss the top of the chain. But why must there be an omni- at the top?

I see him saying that any intermediate creator must have been created, if things are created at all.

As for why there must be an omni-creator if the other creators are created, it's because otherwise there would simply be an unending chain (if you want your answer to be that there is an uncreated being) of creators, stretching back infinitely...which doesn't make much sense.

That's how I see it anyway.

--A

Avatar wrote:As for why there must be an omni-creator if the other creators are created,

That's not what I mean. What I don't understand is, if there is a non-omni creator, why must it have been created? Why is it not possible that that creator is the uncreated thing? I quite agree that something was uncreated. It could not be otherwise. Until I'm convinced otherwise, I'll assume it's the universe. But, if the uncreated thing is a creator, why must it be omnipotent and omniscient?

Ah, I see what you're saying. No, I have no idea.

--A

Because a Creator who is not omnipotent and omniscient is both flawed and limited, and therefore it is possible to theorize that something larger must have created him. From a slightly different point of view, imagine that (as Tolkien once proposed) whenever you create a fictional world for your stories, you are actually performing an act of sub-creation - giving "existence" to that world. The people from that world might start interrogating themselves on where they come from, and they might posit the existence of a "creator" who gave them life. That would be you. But if the creator is limited, then he cannot be uncreated - because if there are limits, it means that something must have established them. So, from their point of view, you either are perfect and omnipotent, or you are yourself the product of another Creator's creation.

It's all a matter of limits, in short: limits exist because something imposes them on us, so if you accept the idea of a Creator, then if there are limits to what he can do, there must be something that placed those limits there. If that something is "natural" and doesn't have a consciousness (i.e. nature, the universe, etc.) then the Creator simply "evolved", the universe has a "natural" source and you might compare the Creator to a highly evolved civilization or lifeform. In this kind of theory, the universe itself was not created, but just formed without any divine or supernatural intervention. On the other hand, if whatever places the limits on this "Creator" DOES have a consciousness, then it fits the prerequisites for a more powerful Creator who created and limited the "secondary Creator". And if this more powerful Creator ALSO has limits, you can go on following this theory until eventually you come to one of two conclusions:

1) The universe itself formed without purpose or in any case out of no conscious act; or,

2) The universe was created by a "Prime Mover", a Creator without limits (therefore, omnipotent and omniscient).

Since the discussion which I linked above follows the line of reasoning in which there is a ultimate Creator, it is obvious that it embraces conclusion #2.

By the way, the idea that at the top of the chain must be a perfect, omnipotent, uncreated Creator was also theorized by a medieval philosopher, a Saint, I don't remember which one at the moment (although the name St. Augustine comes to mind), so it's nothing new.

Ah! Thank you! I understand now.

Not that I buy it, mind you. I see no reason to believe that limits must have been intentionally imposed. Our ability to theorize that something with limits was intentionally created by something without limits (or with fewer limits) is not evidence that something with limits was intentionally created by something without limits (or with fewer limits).

Basically, I think he is being disingenuous. He says that he is presenting different possibilities, but only wishes to discuss one in particular. That's all well and good. Someone else can make a site about another possibility if they want, but this is his site, and he can examine whatever he wants.

However, I believe what he's really doing is trying to disprove those other possibilities, or at least make them appear so unlikely that they aren't worth spending any time considering. And he is doing so by making up "facts":

If the top most creator evolved and does not grow, or grows slower then we do, then we (the species) have the potential to eventually surpass this creator.

How has that fact been established? I can only see two ways that we could make such a statement:
1) We know the creator's limits, and we know the upper limit to the potential of human evolution. And, if the creator is growing, we know its rate of growth, and that, in the long run, ours is greater.

2) We know that there isn't an upper limit to the potential of human evolution, and, whether or not the creator is growing, we are growing faster.

Multiple distinct purposes for the universe (that do not collapse to a single purpose) imply multiple states at the conclusion of the universe with energy and knowledge split across multiple domains.

Who says there will be a conclusion of the universe? It is what he believed going into this, and is the starting point of his "logic." If there is an infinite Creator, how can the author presume to know that the Creator considers a perfect creation to be something that ends? Maybe yes, maybe no. Basing your logic on your assumption that you know an infinite Creator's mind is likely to lead you astray. (It also seems a bit arrogant, but that's another story.)

Excellent post Fist. That's what I meant about arguing from his conclusions.

And I agree that limits aren't necessarily imposed...they can be inherent too, and they're malleable to an extent.

--A