Chaos, Randomness and Calculability - Why we are a necessary part of creation

reply to post by Chillimac


Whew! You postulate this in a way that appeals to my own mind, friend. I became aware quite awhile ago that the reality we all live in is a software based program that is run for our benefit. The film "The Matrix" is not so far off on this idea. The computers that run the programs are very old, and are of a crystalline construction, and I strongly believe that sinister forces are controlling the programs. The program is self learning, it can take your thoughts and actions and blend them in with the program.

We, Humanity, are basically two distinct beings. One is a created biological suit that can breathe oxygen and digest Earth food. It has interfaces for sight, hearing, speech, the feeling of touch, and smell. In the head of this being a force of energy is inserted, together they make a human being with a connection to the the energy stream we call human conciousness. We are connected already, but we are blind to that, just as we are blind to a lot of other things in life on Earth. When a human being is born, and comes into this world, this energy, this soul is inserted, and the being becomes alive, in a basic Earth sense of the word, anyway.

That being said, TPTB, in collusion with the forces of control I spoke about, are trying, with a great deal of success, to separate our inner being from our carbon based body. the do this with religion, pop culture, advertising, sound, and video. You are taught from childhood that there is a God somewhere that made you, and all of this, and that He is watching every step you take, and planning a horrible torture and place for you if you do not follow this dogma. Everything is found "out there" in space, in Heaven, and thought never go to what resides within. What resides within is a most powerful Spirit Being that can do anything at all. You are kept from this knowledge for obvious reasoning, for if you knew, this world would have become chaos a very long time ago. We have to be kept in the dark, I think all will agree. If we ever become AWARE....look out universe!

We are all Creators in out own right, people, it even says it in the Holy Book now, doesn't it?
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
(1 Corinthians 3 King James Version)

Our willpower....our volition, or our resolve...will, is the most important area of all our internal make-up because what we choose, moment by moment, determines whose life will be lived in our souls, either that which we call God or our own. A human's soul reincarnates into the same species over many lives in order to learn lessons and advance spiritually, so that spiritual progress can be made in a positive way. Negatives always exist, and only by being positive can we ever escape from this electronic/magnetic created prison we all are forced to live in and participate in. There are many off world Spirits here too, to help things along, to uplift the human race to a level they have not achieved in many years, to God/Goddess like status. As Chief Seattle said; "We do not own the Earth, we are part of it." These wise people understood that what we take or use, we must return in kind...to maintain balance and equilibrium of the planet. Clearly, modern man with all his applied learning and technology has forgotten this. Subsequently, we currently face ecological disaster and eventual extinction because of our hunger for power, oil and a few pieces of gold or plutonium.

One last thought. when we think of Holy, Divine Spirit, God, Goddess, Satan, Jesus...we have to think of these as simply an avatar used to describe that which we cannot understand. Go and look in the mirror. What do you see, really see? Go here please and read the poem with an open heart.

I'm Starting With The Man In
The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change
His Ways
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
(If You Wanna Make The
World A Better Place)
Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change
(Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change)

Do you see it now?

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by Astyanax
The concept of the demiurge was Platonic in origin. Gnostic adoption and elaboration came later. Your concept of God fits the Platonic demiurgos perfectly.

Not without an awful lot of incorrect inference on your part, sorry. I do not believe in a power above God, I do not believe in the division of Arche/Logos/Harmonia, and I do not accept that God is a "bumbler" who has mucked it all up.

I infer nothing of the sort. You are mistaken about the nature of the Platonic demiurge.

Timaeus continues with an explanation of the creation of the universe, which he ascribes to the handiwork of a divine Craftsman. (This) demiurge, being good, wanted there to be more good in the world. For Plato, the demiurge lacked the supernatural ability to create ex nihilo or out of nothing. The demiurge was able to only organize the "ananke" (αναγκη) or necessity. The demiurge is said to bring order out of chaos by imitating an unchanging and eternal model (paradigm). The ananke was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony. This is a major point of contrast between Plato's explanation of the origin of the world and the Bible account of creation (in its twelfth-century interpretation) in which God created from nothing and was the only eternal being.

(Later in history the term "demiurge" became a term of vilification by Gnostics who purported that the demiurge was a fallen and ignorant god creating a flawed universe, but this was not how Plato was using the term.) Source

If you want to read it in Plato's own words, here's the whole of the Timaeus.

I suspect that I'm a bit more of an authority on what I believe than you are.

Hmm. See above.

(Early Christians) had sorted out (world domination) in the time of Paul and John.

Really? I wonder what a certain Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus would have made of that remark.

[edit on 20/8/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax

This is a major point of contrast between Plato's explanation of the origin of the world and the Bible account of creation (in its twelfth-century interpretation) in which God created from nothing and was the only eternal being.

I believe that God created reality out of nothing, and that he's the only eternal being. Not sure where you're getting that I think differently, but that's what I believe, and sorry if I misled you.

I suspect that I'm a bit more of an authority on what I believe than you are.

Hmm. See above.

Indeed, see above, lol. You may fancy yourself an authority on Plato, but I am not Plato.

(Early Christians) had sorted out (world domination) in the time of Paul and John.

Really? I wonder what a certain Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus would have made of that remark.

Nero? Who cares? My comment was a somewhat sarcastic reply to your implication that the refutation of the Gnostics was driven by an expectation that the Church would rule the world. I'd guess that Paul and John would be warning against the Gnostics in their epistles because it was teaching that was contrary to their faith, not because of a long term political plan.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by adjensen]

Well, first you said

Originally posted by adjensen
I view omnipotence as being understood with reference to God's relationship with our reality, but not understood for his relationship to his reality... If omnipotence in the two realities is not consistent, God can do whatever he wants within our reality, but cannot do everything outside of this reality.

and then you said

Originally posted by adjensen
I believe that God created reality out of nothing, and that he's the only eternal being.

Surely you can see those statements don't add up? If God exists in a reality outside ours (which is another Christian blasphemy, I believe), and if He is not omnipotent in that reality, then Who created that reality? And Who is omnipotent in it? Did God Himself create a reality in which His hands are tied? Or are you, ultimately, an atheist too?

If you take this position, your God is a demiurge. Sorry, but there it is.

If, on the other hand, you believe God created reality out of nothing and He's the only eternal being, we again have to deal with the omnipotence/free will paradox you sought to eliminate with that 'outside of this reality' stuff.

My comment was a somewhat sarcastic reply to your implication that the refutation of the Gnostics was driven by an expectation that the Church would rule the world.

Not the Gnostics. Pardon me; I was assuming you possess historical knowledge of a rather esoteric variety. Gibbon was chiefly interested in the religious controversies of the fourth century, the age of Constantine, which led to the edicts of the Council of Nicaea and codified what Christians--though perhaps not you*--believe. This was after the Edict of Tolerance, when Christians realized they had a fighting chance of becoming the majority religion of the Roman Empire. So those Arians, Athanasians, Montanists, Monophysites and all the rest were playing for big stakes.

This was not the case when Irenaeus was inveighing against the Gnostics two hundred years earlier. At that point the Church Fathers were still writing begging letters to the Roman Emperors, pleading with them to persecute the followers of the blasphemers in the church across the street and leave their own congregants alone.


* 'Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible' The Nicene Creed

Originally posted by Astyanax
Well, first you said

Originally posted by adjensen
I view omnipotence as being understood with reference to God's relationship with our reality, but not understood for his relationship to his reality... If omnipotence in the two realities is not consistent, God can do whatever he wants within our reality, but cannot do everything outside of this reality.

and then you said

Originally posted by adjensen
I believe that God created reality out of nothing, and that he's the only eternal being.

Surely you can see those statements don't add up? If God exists in a reality outside ours (which is another Christian blasphemy, I believe), and if He is not omnipotent in that reality, then Who created that reality? And Who is omnipotent in it? Did God Himself create a reality in which His hands are tied? Or are you, ultimately, an atheist too?

Now you're just not making any sense, sorry.

God obviously exists in a timeless reality outside of ours. We do not know the nature of that reality, hence my statement that we do not know the nature of omnipotence in that reality. Didn't say that he didn't have it, just said that he may not, or it may be something that isn't the same thing as what we consider omnipotence to be. Regardless, an alternative explanation of "he lets it run so that we can experience it" is just as workable. Settle on that if you need to.

No one created that reality. No one created God. He has always existed, outside of time, outside of our natural existence. You may be confusing "reality" for "container", which is not the case.

Believing that God exists external to the Universe is far from a heresy, it's a given. Saying that God exists solely in this Universe would be more heretical, I think.

The demiurge requires that I believe that there are multiple Gods, and I do not believe that. To be an atheist requires I believe in no God, and I do not believe that. As before, you may make all the claims that you like, but you are wrong.

It has been my experience that angry and irrational atheists such as yourself often do, in fact, have a belief in God tucked away, they just don't like the idea. Claiming things about me which are not true may serve to personally validate your disdain for God, but they have no impact on me, and an unbiased observer (the only sort you might bring to your way of thinking) can clearly see that you are casting an unfounded aspersion to further whatever cause you think you're making the case for.

Originally posted by adjensen
Now you're just not making any sense, sorry.

You're not stupid, so I'm afraid I must conclude that you are just pretending not to understand. The rest of your post, which is nothing but hopeless wriggling, bears out this assumption.

God obviously exists in a timeless reality outside of ours.

Another blasphemy. To Christians, only God is eternal. Remember the scripture? 'Heaven shall pass away.'

Didn't say that he didn't have it, just said that he may not.

We have already established that if God is omnipotent there is no free will, which negates your original proposition. No might or may about it.

Something that isn't the same thing as what we consider omnipotence to be.

Oh, yes? There are different things that can be considered omnipotent, are there? What happens when two omnipotent entities meet? Or when a putatively omnipotent being is forced to submit to necessity?

:shk: Hopeless...

Regardless, an alternative explanation of "he lets it run so that we can experience it" is just as workable. Settle on that if you need to.

It is an alternative, but not the one you've been pushing. And it is just as meaningless as the other, I'm afraid. Have a little think and you'll see it.

No one created that reality. No one created God. He has always existed, outside of time, outside of our natural existence.

This cannot be if He is subject to necessity.

You may be confusing "reality" for "container", which is not the case.

Be so good as to explain the difference, then. I'm all ears.

Believing that God exists external to the Universe is far from a heresy, it's a given. Saying that God exists solely in this Universe would be more heretical, I think.

It isn't a heresy, it's an impossibility. The universe is all that exists. But you didn't say 'universe' earlier, you said 'reality'. That is heresy: to believe that God exists in a separate reality, which would make him inaccessible to Man. It is a Gnostic heresy, by the the way; you clearly have a natural bent for Gnosticism.

The demiurge requires that I believe that there are multiple Gods...

You persist in this misapprehension despite my efforts to educate you. Again, since you are clearly not stupid, I must conclude that you are merely pretending not to understand.

To be an atheist requires I believe in no God, and I do not believe that.

If you admit that your God is subject to necessity--and that is already on record in this thread, deny it how you will--then either your God is subordinate to a higher God, or he is merely a being with what humans think of as godlike powers, one that has evolved naturally in a Godless universe. Those are your choices. I grow tired of repeating the obvioius.

It has been my experience that angry and irrational atheists such as yourself...

Angry and irrational? It is to yourself you refer, good sir, not to me.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by adjensen
God obviously exists in a timeless reality outside of ours.

Another blasphemy. To Christians, only God is eternal. Remember the scripture? 'Heaven shall pass away.'

Timeless reality == Eternity

Timeless reality != "Box that God is in"

What is the nature of eternity? I have no idea, but that is external to us, outside of time. It is not our reality. God can obviously interact with our reality, but he is beyond it.

Didn't say that he didn't have it, just said that he may not.

We have already established that if God is omnipotent there is no free will, which negates your original proposition. No might or may about it.

We most certainly did not. What does omnipotence have to do with free will? Omniscience would seem to suggest predetermination, and the loss of free will, but I don't believe that, and I think that it comes out of this inability to comprehend eternity that people side with it.

Regardless, an alternative explanation of "he lets it run so that we can experience it" is just as workable. Settle on that if you need to.

It is an alternative, but not the one you've been pushing. And it is just as meaningless as the other, I'm afraid. Have a little think and you'll see it.

How about, rather than dismissing it with the offhand declaration that everyone else should see why, you let us know why it's meaningless?

No one created that reality. No one created God. He has always existed, outside of time, outside of our natural existence.

This cannot be if He is subject to necessity.

How? Please explain "he is subject to necessity" and how it affects this.

The demiurge requires that I believe that there are multiple Gods...

You persist in this misapprehension despite my efforts to educate you. Again, since you are clearly not stupid, I must conclude that you are merely pretending not to understand.

I am not much of an authority on Plato or the demiurge ideal, and you have yet to show me anything at all that indicates I believe in such a thing, so you either don't understand it, or you're not the educator that you think you are.

From the wikipedia page (I know, not the world's greatest source, but, whatever. As I'm not particularly interested in this, so I'm not going much further than that):

The first and highest aspect of God is described by Plato as the One, the source, or the Monad. This is the Good above the Demiurge, and manifests through the work of the Demiurge.

That, by my reading, says "multiple god," if your claim is that the Christian God is the demiurge.

To satisfy whatever goal you might have, you are welcome to claim anything that you like about what I believe in, but I do not believe in this, the readings that I have done in Gnosticism tell me that I do not believe in that, and the core of my faith remains "Love God, love everyone else, accept Christ's sacrifice" and when things arise that are in conflict with it, as your claim that I believe in this demiurge does, I defer to my faith, rather than doctrine or theology.

Originally posted by adjensen
Timeless reality==Eternity

Timeless reality != "Box that God is in"

No can do. Only God is eternal. Christian doctrinal view here.

What is the nature of eternity? I have no idea, but that is external to us, outside of time. It is not our reality. God can obviously interact with our reality, but he is beyond it.

Theologically speaking, eternity is only an attribute of God.

What does omnipotence have to do with free will?

Already explained in this post.

Rather than dismissing it with the offhand declaration that everyone else should see, (can) you let us know why it's meaningless?

I didn't say everyone else could see it. What I said was have a little think, because it takes a little thought.

Please explain "he is subject to necessity" and how it affects this.

Please see this post. Yes, it's one of yours.

You have yet to show me anything at all that indicates I believe in (a demiurge), so you either don't understand it, or you're not the educator that you think you are.

I grow tired of repeating myself. Your God is a slave to Necessity. Therefore He must be a demiurge, or there is no God and your deity is merely an advanced but not divine being. Since you protest that you are not an atheist, then it is a demiurge you believe in. Either that or repudiate free will. Those are your only choices. When all the dust has settled, they are everybody's only choices.

The first and highest aspect of God is described by Plato as the One, the source, or the Monad. This is the Good above the Demiurge, and manifests through the work of the Demiurge.

That, by my reading, says "multiple god,"

No, it doesn't. Once again, I invite you to have a little think. Discover what it is you really believe.

The core of my faith remains "Love God, love everyone else, accept Christ's sacrifice" and when things arise that are in conflict with it, as your claim that I believe in this demiurge does, I defer to my faith, rather than doctrine or theology.

And there we have it: Q.E.D. You have proved my contention that no rational statement can be made about God.

Thank you for a stimulating and well-fought argument.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I grow tired of repeating myself. Your God is a slave to Necessity. Therefore He must be a demiurge, or there is no God and your deity is merely an advanced but not divine being. Since you protest that you are not an atheist, then it is a demiurge you believe in. Either that or repudiate free will. Those are your only choices. When all the dust has settled, they are everybody's only choices.

Since you do continue to repeat yourself, rather than explain what you mean, I'm left to sort it out myself. By "Your God is a slave to Necessity", do you simply mean that God has to exist, that he is forced to exist? That he cannot be omnipotent because he is an absolute necessity? The Catholics would seem to agree that he's necessary:

It is from the real existence of contingent beings that we arrive at the notion and prove the existence of a necessary being-one that produces them but is not produced, one whose existence is its own essence and nature, that is at the same time eternal, all-perfect, infinite, viz., God (see CONTINGENCY). And so in relation to existence, God alone is absolutely necessary, all others are contingent.

( from www.newadvent.org... )

Given that the heresy of your demiurge came from the Catholic Church, I would assume that you might find more enlightenment arguing with them about it, and that the response you would get would be similar to mine -- you're applying some sort of divinity to a condition, when the lack of the condition would simply result in a logical impossibility.

God exists because God exists.

When the dust settles, the Christian believes that there are only two options -- to accept God or to reject him. The truth will bear out who is right, and who is wrong. I really don't care what label you wish to arbitrarily apply to my faith, or how you rationalize your disbelief, as it doesn't impact the absolute truth, and my choice.

We'll both know, at some point, whether we made a good choice or a bad choice (well, one of the limitations of the atheist is that he never has the opportunity of knowing that he is right, but until you are proven wrong, you're welcome to assert that you are not.) If you find yourself on the wrong side of that, you are welcome to argue these issues and disprove the existence of God at that time.

As far as I am concerned, the argument is over. This post is merely to clarify.

Originally posted by adjensen
By "Your God is a slave to Necessity", do you simply mean that God has to exist, that he is forced to exist? That he cannot be omnipotent because he is an absolute necessity?

No, I mean simply what you said:

In short, I view omnipotence as being understood with reference to God's relationship with our reality, but not understood for his relationship to his reality. It might be the same thing, but I suspect that it is not... (and) if omnipotence in the two realities is not consistent, God can do whatever he wants within our reality, but cannot do everything outside of this reality.

Your post

Do you see? You, yourself, stated that God is not omnipotent. You did it after I pointed out that divine omnipotence (which obviously includes omniscience as a necessary condition) eliminates the possibility of free will in the universe.

Edited to add: just to spell things out to the letter, that which is not omnipotent is, obviously, a slave to necessity.

If your Christian God is a slave to necessity, i.e. not omnipotent, He is merely a being with extraordinary powers--effectively a demiurge.

Given that the heresy of your demiurge came from the Catholic Church...

It did not. Read the relevant history, please.

I hope that makes my meaning clear; frankly, I don't see how it can be made any clearer. Any more of this nonsense and I'll be striking you off my Respected Foes list for being unworthy of my respect.

[edit on 26/8/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Do you see? You, yourself, stated that God is not omnipotent. You did it after I pointed out that divine omnipotence (which obviously includes omniscience as a necessary condition) eliminates the possibility of free will in the universe.

Yes, I do see that now, thank you for clarifying. My statement was a speculation in regards to the logical impossibility of the original argument, while it would have been sufficient to simply point out the impossibility. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

I still differ on the issue of free will, but, as we've both said, that's for another time.