The "Beyond God" questions

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

These are great thoughts.

But if we are to remove God from the chain of cause and effect, out of space and time, we also remove God's capacity to cause and effect anything in space and time.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

If God is outside of physical existence, physical existence must be inside God. Meaning physical existence is a constituent of God. They cannot be separated without taking physical existence outside of God, leading to too many paradoxes.

Mind-bender.

I didn't read every post in this thread, but I want to quote LesMisanthrope because I feel he is spot on with the direction this thread should be going in respect to the OP. I also want to comment that I recently had some thoughts very similar to the topic discussed in the OP and LesMisanthrope's posts. I ended up making a note of it on my facebook, so let me copy and paste some of that info for you all today. Be warned, it is fairly lengthy.

Would you say that God existed before space and time? Would you say that space and time existed before God?

If the former is true, God existed before the universe/space/time and he created it along with the Earth and so on, it suggests that he himself must have came into being spontaneously. Otherwise that means something existed prior to God. Regardless of how you feel from that point on, you have to agree that intelligence existed in Gods own mind before he even technically could have known it. Otherwise there is no sense that a being could be intelligent enough to create the universe if it had to create intelligence first. So since intelligence did exist before God himself knew it, what does that imply for the latter? It sure implies that space/time must have existed prior to God or else we see a paradox in which neither intelligence nor God could have properly manifested into 1 reality without both at the very least having existed simultaneously together before becoming a unified reality.

If that is all completely wrong and God existed before the universe and space/time as a whole...then what we know of as "reality" is no more than God simply thinking about a random idea, manifesting it in his mind and causing it to become said reality.

I for one will say that the universe (or possibly multiverse) as a whole existed well before any "God" could have manifested. However I will never deny the existence of a god or higher power, because I also believe the manifestation of one as divine and spiritual as "God" is within the realm of possibility. I would simply never believe every detail from sources that claim to know the "true" word of God or even the events that involved him. Want to know why? Because..

Like God must have done prior to creation, I can develop a universe in my mind right now and describe details to you. Technically you will imagine and feel everything i tell you, causing my universe become a reality (at least in your mind). Should we limit the wonders of creation, especially the creation of our known universe, to one established religion? No, because it's irrational. Every standard of spiritual or emotional belief was brought into fruition subconsciously/consciously by man before man even became aware he was man. This means that even if God were real in terms of the Bible, man didn't know about him for a very long time before God appeared before him. Which means there is absolutely no conceivable way man could comprehend the true existence of God, even if God spoke directly to him. Simply because God made man in his own image, yet man developed individually all over the Earth. If God could put his thoughts into words for any 1 person to understand, it would only be that 1 person who could understand the meaning of Gods words before becoming receptive to those words in the first place. It is impossible for God to contact any individual person and have them make sense of his words in a way that describes the origins of all mankind because every individual man/woman has a different way of receiving information in their brains. Even if God's words made sense to this individual, there is no possible way it could be accurately explained to the masses due to emotional and intellectual restrictions. Not to mention spoken languages back then were undeveloped, meaning the general parameters that a persons brain could even understand as a whole was far less than modern day brain comprehension.

The lesson here is that trying to understand the nature of God or his existence itself is what has caused uncertainty, death and destruction since the idea of a higher power first made its way into the human consciousness. We long for true understanding, yet we become defensive when our faith is challenged (typically by other faiths). Maybe having faith itself, is truth, no matter what the differences may be. Shouldn't that be enough?

reply to post by ExjKae

I disagreed with that comment from Le Misanthrope.
I pointed out that "inside" and "outside" were categories of the physical universe just like the others, and so using them about the relation between God and the world could be just as misleading as using the words like "beyond" and "before".

There is a non-sequitur at the beginning of your main argument.
There is no reason why the claim that God arose "spontaneously" should lead into the statement that Intelligence existed before God.
If God and Intelligence are the same thing, they would not have different origins.

The next part of your argument depends on the assumption that intelligence must dwell within time and space. Thence you argue that if Intelligence existed before God, time and space must have existed before God as well.
But if the Intelligence which is God does NOT need to dwell within time and space, that whole argument falls to the ground.

If your theory is based on the fact that human intelligence lives within time and space, then you may be making the mistake of using the word in two different ways in different parts of the argument.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by ExjKae

 

I pointed out that "inside" and "outside" were categories of the physical universe just like the others, and so using them about the relation between God and the world could be just as misleading as using the words like "beyond" and "before".

There is no inside or outside. There is this moment and it is totally complete. Then an idea says that you are separate from it and you feel scared and then try to protect yourself by going into time. You always project a past and future now - it then gives you the belief that you can do something. You project past and future and then fight the demons you create.

The next part of your argument depends on the assumption that intelligence must dwell within time and space. Thence you argue that if Intelligence existed before God, time and space must have existed before God as well.
But if the Intelligence which is God does NOT need to dwell within time and space, that whole argument falls to the ground.

Nothing can dwell in time and space - but the thoughts speak about another time and you 'think' you can dwell in time and space. You believe this always presently.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
There is a non-sequitur at the beginning of your main argument.
There is no reason why the claim that God arose "spontaneously" should lead into the statement that Intelligence existed before God.
If God and Intelligence are the same thing, they would not have different origins.

The next part of your argument depends on the assumption that intelligence must dwell within time and space. Thence you argue that if Intelligence existed before God, time and space must have existed before God as well.
But if the Intelligence which is God does NOT need to dwell within time and space, that whole argument falls to the ground.

If your theory is based on the fact that human intelligence lives within time and space, then you may be making the mistake of using the word in two different ways in different parts of the argument.

I'm not going to claim my sentence structure/word association is perfect, but I will try to reiterate for you.

What I meant is whether God exists above, beyond, outside, inside or wherever else...his ultimate level of intelligence is just. Meaning that he knew exactly what he was doing when he created the universe, and how to do it. He was not only intelligent enough to do so, but he was aware that he was doing it. This suggests that God is no different than the example I gave about me developing a universe in my own mind. I am intelligent enough to create all of the complexities of a practical universe with my imagination, based on knowledge of the reality I exist in, and manifest it into something that people in my universe will perceive as reality.

For any of that to make sense, you absolutely have to agree that intelligence itself existed prior to myself and God. Otherwise we're stuck with a situation where God or myself cannot possibly manifest our creation into reality without at the very least having existed along with intelligence simultaneously before becoming aware of it. Simply put, God could not have properly been aware of his creation without the existence of intelligence prior to his own existence. Unless you want to believe God was completely unaware of his creation, but I doubt that because it nullifies what the church teaches us of God.

Alternatively, if your statement is true, God/Intelligence are the same and both spontaneously manifested into 1 unified entity. Sure I can accept that at face value, but that begs the question, is it possible to exist prior to his creation of space and time?

First let's discuss Intelligence, what do we know about it? Intelligence is the progressive product of experiences in relation to ones awareness and emotional responses to those experiences (Man steps on cactus, man gets hurt, man no longer steps on cactus). Obviously the complexity of experiences/emotional responses that one as powerful as God can have are a bit too much to try and evaluate with words, but we can safely assume that those experiences must have taken time to accumulate into enough intelligence for him to be aware of creating space and time in our realm.

This kind of logical analysis requires the ability to perceive time and space as infinite, outside the bounds of time and space as we know it. Meaning it makes sense to you that it took God time to create the human perception of time. Now with that understanding, can God exist before space and time? Yeah no problem, however that doesn't mean it ends there. Based on this kind of thinking, space/time is infinite and God is finite.

The ultimate question here is..

Do you believe God is truly infinite?

Originally posted by ExjKae
First let's discuss Intelligence, what do we know about it? Intelligence is the progressive product of experiences in relation to ones awareness and emotional responses to those experiences (Man steps on cactus, man gets hurt, man no longer steps on cactus). Obviously the complexity of experiences/emotional responses that one as powerful as God can have are a bit too much to try and evaluate with words, but we can safely assume that those experiences must have taken time to accumulate into enough intelligence for him to be aware of creating space and time in our realm.

As I thought, your line of argument is based on the limitations of human intelligence.
It is human intelligence that develops from previous experience in time and space.

Your argument is;
a) Human intelligence develops in time and space.
b) But God's intelligence is like human intelligence.
c) Therefore God's intelligence develops in time and space.

The flaw in your argument is the middle stage.
If the self-awareness of God is NOT like human intelligence, there is no reason why this limitation should apply.

In effect, the word "intelligence" has got two different meanings, at two different stages of your argument, and that always leads to confused reasoning.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
As I thought, your line of argument is based on the limitations of human intelligence.
It is human intelligence that develops from previous experience in time and space.

Your argument is;
a) Human intelligence develops in time and space.
b) But God's intelligence is like human intelligence.
c) Therefore God's intelligence develops in time and space.

The flaw in your argument is the middle stage.
If the self-awareness of God is NOT like human intelligence, there is no reason why this limitation should apply.

In effect, the word "intelligence" has got two different meanings, at two different stages of your argument, and that always leads to confused reasoning.

I thank you for pointing out the flaw of my word association and I will make sure to correct that the next time I explain it.

I can agree that God's intelligence is not limited by the extent of human intelligence, but you have yet to explain why that makes my argument as a whole any less logically sound. If anything it only strengthens my argument about how intelligence, space and time must have existed prior to Gods own existence (even if his interpretation of those elements are vastly different than our own). I'm open to learning your logic behind this "argument" that God is infinite in every way beyond our human imagination.

You claim that your approach is to detach God from all conceivable human logic, but by design, are destroying the foundations for your own argument. How can God be detached from the bounds of our realities if it is unimaginable that he could even be so detached?

Maybe the truth is the exact opposite and he is attached to our reality, it's quite unimaginable how, but that's the basis for your argument right?

Originally posted by ExjKae
I can agree that God's intelligence is not limited by the extent of human intelligence, but you have yet to explain why that makes my argument as a whole any less logically sound.

I thought it was clear enough.
Your argument rested on the assumption that God's intelligence needs to develop in time and space.
But this assumption was based on an analogy with human intelligence, which does need to develop in time and space.
If this analogy does not apply, then your opening assumption (viz. that God's intelligence develops in time and space) has no basis.
If your opening assumption has no basis, then your argument falls down.

Originally posted by ExjKae

For any of that to make sense, you absolutely have to agree that intelligence itself existed prior to myself and God.

Then what created the intelligence? The Creator, because it is the source of all things. That intelligence you mentioned is either the Creator's Will, or is part of Its Will.
The complete relation between the Creator and Its Will is another matter.
-
The Creator made The Creator.
Any form of Its identity must come through the Creation, no matter "where" in the Creation (whether in our realm of Creation or beyond it). The identity manifests in the Creation, in a form understandable by those who may perceive It in the Creation, because of Creation's intelligent nature.

The Creator is the Ultimate Culmination of Its Own Form, so even if It is understood at some point "in the future", or even if the Creator deliberately reveals a personality of Itself (as accounts of communications would have it) there would still be far more to understand.
The only limit to Its Identity would be what we limit "understanding" to.
Note that "understanding" is a process of and in the Creation.

What we have in the circumstance of being unable to speak about the Creator, is knowledge of the mechanics/processes of the Creation; our tools, as far as we recognize them.
Though just because one can explain the mechanical nature of the Creation...doesn't mean that one knows the complete purpose of ithe 'Machine'
One can know and use this knowledge in whatever way the individual desires and perceives, but there is always more. Our limit is, again, what we will consider "understanding" to be.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by ExjKae
I can agree that God's intelligence is not limited by the extent of human intelligence, but you have yet to explain why that makes my argument as a whole any less logically sound.

I thought it was clear enough.
Your argument rested on the assumption that God's intelligence needs to develop in time and space.
But this assumption was based on an analogy with human intelligence, which does need to develop in time and space.
If this analogy does not apply, then your opening assumption (viz. that God's intelligence develops in time and space) has no basis.
If your opening assumption has no basis, then your argument falls down.

You clearly haven't read or understood half of what I spent time typing out for you and instead keep picking small pieces of it that you can use as a means to nullify my argument and validate your own. That being the case, you have nothing further to offer on this topic. Take care!

Originally posted by 1Learner

Originally posted by ExjKae

For any of that to make sense, you absolutely have to agree that intelligence itself existed prior to myself and God.

Then what created the intelligence? The Creator, because it is the source of all things. That intelligence you mentioned is either the Creator's Will, or is part of Its Will.
The complete relation between the Creator and Its Will is another matter.
-
The Creator made The Creator.
Any form of Its identity must come through the Creation, no matter "where" in the Creation (whether in our realm of Creation or beyond it). The identity manifests in the Creation, in a form understandable by those who may perceive It in the Creation, because of Creation's intelligent nature.

The Creator is the Ultimate Culmination of Its Own Form, so even if It is understood at some point "in the future", or even if the Creator deliberately reveals a personality of Itself (as accounts of communications would have it) there would still be far more to understand.
The only limit to Its Identity would be what we limit "understanding" to.
Note that "understanding" is a process of and in the Creation.

What we have in the circumstance of being unable to speak about the Creator, is knowledge of the mechanics/processes of the Creation; our tools, as far as we recognize them.
Though just because one can explain the mechanical nature of the Creation...doesn't mean that one knows the complete purpose of ithe 'Machine'
One can know and use this knowledge in whatever way the individual desires and perceives, but there is always more. Our limit is, again, what we will consider "understanding" to be.

Now this is a great analysis, thank you. Your iteration of the logic I provided in my original post is spot on and I only have a few minor comments to give you! =)

I understand your distinctions between the Creator and Creation fully. I don't claim anywhere that they are one and the same, in fact you and I have come to the same conclusion that the intelligence plays an important factor when discussing the two. Like you even said at the end of your comment, one can use knowledge in whatever way they like but there is always more.

All I have argued this whole time is that, while we're even bothering with this topic, we must consider the possibility that there is more beyond God himself. I am limited to using terms such as space, time and intelligence...but the core of my ultimate question remains the same despite those limitations I am bound to by my human intelligence.

Is God truly infinite? Is there more beyond God? Does he have a "Creator"?

We will never really know, but at the same time we cannot rule the possibilities!

Originally posted by ExjKae
You clearly haven't read or understood half of what I spent time typing out for you and instead keep picking small pieces of it that you can use as a means to nullify my argument and validate your own. That being the case, you have nothing further to offer on this topic.

I am not sure that you are capable of understanding that the main plank of your argument had been demolished.
Or perhaps you do, and are evading the point.

Of course your cheeky attempt to dismiss me from my own thread will be ignored.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

I could say the same to you for avoiding comments in my previous post that clearly calls the foundation of your argument into question as well. It was obvious on page 1 that your mind is made up about this topic and it is clear that your purpose at this point is to find people who agree with you and dismiss the rest. Things are not up to debate, you are not open minded on the subject, therefore I say again you have nothing further to offer on this topic. You've run out of points to make.

I'll even quote my previous post in case you missed.

Originally posted by ExjKae

You claim that your approach is to detach God from all conceivable human logic, but by design, are destroying the foundations for your own argument. How can God be detached from the bounds of our realities if it is unimaginable that he could even be so detached?

Maybe the truth is the exact opposite and he is attached to our reality, it's quite unimaginable how, but that's the basis for your argument right?

reply to post by ExjKae

It is sufficient that I have made the point that your argument was based on a false premise.
You can brush that aside, but the fact remains.

I was off-topic, arguing against the Creation Theory and sharing my idea on that subject.

If I am so perceptive then the topic of the thread is:
using the Creation Theory, the biblical premise, or the OP's "one-and-a-half-ism", is there anything that can be said about the Creator?
The OP's given approach is that 'God' is beyond the Creation, distinct from the Creation, so nothing should apply to the Creator.

Time and space are features of the Creation, as is cause-and-effect.
So, since the Creator is distinct from the Creation those and other features of the Creation are not valid if ever used to conclude something about the Creator.

We can know nothing of the Creator unless It personally downsizes (the wrong term perhaps) Its Being and communicates with us. If 'downsizes' is the wrong word, then let me say instead that It permeates this Creation thus letting all possibly perceivable features of the Creation apply to Itself.
From Its communication we come to know more of It. But then that seems like a contradiction if It is then given/giving descriptions understandable in the same terms of Creation which did not apply at first.
Wouldn't the attribution of "existing beyond" be contradicted then?
I disagree, considering the example that a 3-D object may still be "beyond" the 2-D world after it penetrates that world. Yet that is a concept of our world...We would only ever perceive 'God', given the same circumstance, using the worldly concepts that we know unless the communications reveal more.

Originally posted by 1Learner
Time and space are features of the Creation, as is cause-and-effect.
So, since the Creator is distinct from the Creation those and other features of the Creation are not valid if ever used to conclude something about the Creator.

My intention was actually slightly more limited.
You must have noticed that sceptics try to turn Creation theory into an infinite regression.
That is what they are doing when they argue that "If God made the world, then something must have made God".
So this thread was setting out to deal with that habit.
An alternative way of tackling the "infinite regression" idea.

As to what God be known about God; if we understand the Biblical God as one who communicates, who "reveals himself", we can take on board what he says about himself, if we observe due caution about taking the wording too literally.
E.g. theologians have understood from the early days of the church that God does not literally "sit" anywhere.

reply to post by ExjKae

Originally posted by ExjKae
Is God truly infinite?

Do we only/and can we only know of things which are finite (being in & giving them properties which make them explorable by our concepts of time/space, cause/effect)? If so, wouldn't something that Is beyond all of our knowledge be, then, beyond "finity"?

Originally posted by ExjKae
Is there more beyond God? Does he have a "Creator"?

If there was a creator of 'Him', then, wouldn't 'God's' creator have its own creator, and so on infinitely?
That is "infinite regression" as I've seen it called here.
The OP asserted that since time and space wouldn't apply to 'God' because they are features of the Creation, and 'God' is beyond the Creation (basing this on the 'biblical premise' in the original post), then neither would cause-and-effect.
So the Creator, ('God') would not be given a cause, such would not be accurate. One could give It a cause, but since causation doesn't apply to It...it wouldn't be true due to the properties attributed to 'God' for being distinct from Creation.

We could say 'God' has 'His' own creator, but technically they could both be the same entity, since cause/effect would not apply there; meaning, It would be Its own cause and effect while still bypassing our concepts mysteriously. That's what I think.

Originally posted by 1Learner
reply to post by ExjKae

 

Originally posted by ExjKae
Is God truly infinite?

Do we only/and can we only know of things which are finite (being in & giving them properties which make them explorable by our concepts of time/space, cause/effect)? If so, wouldn't something that Is beyond all of our knowledge be, then, beyond "finity"?

Yes, by that logic, infinity is beyond infinity which is beyond infinity. It never ends.

Originally posted by 1Learner

Originally posted by ExjKae
Is there more beyond God? Does he have a "Creator"?

If there was a creator of 'Him', then, wouldn't 'God's' creator have its own creator, and so on infinitely?
That is "infinite regression" as I've seen it called here.
The OP asserted that since time and space wouldn't apply to 'God' because they are features of the Creation, and 'God' is beyond the Creation (basing this on the 'biblical premise' in the original post), then neither would cause-and-effect.
So the Creator, ('God') would not be given a cause, such would not be accurate. One could give It a cause, but since causation doesn't apply to It...it wouldn't be true due to the properties attributed to 'God' for being distinct from Creation.

We could say 'God' has 'His' own creator, but technically they could both be the same entity, since cause/effect would not apply there; meaning, It would be Its own cause and effect while still bypassing our concepts mysteriously. That's what I think.

This is all under the assumption that the universe as we know it is in fact the "creation" of a "creator" to begin with, it could very well be that nothing was "created" in the sense that there was conscious design behind it. If you or anyone else go as far as saying God is not bound by the features of his creation, then you have to accept the possibility that God is the creation of something (or someone) who is not bound by God himself. If you don't want to accept it as a possibility so be it, but by doing so you are limiting yourself for the sake of challenging your own beliefs.

"Infinite regression" as you put it, is a hard concept to grasp because it's somewhat of a "leap of faith" to accept that the reality of existence has no end, even for God himself. Take for example your mind; you can imagine a world with people who have their own minds, and their minds imagine people with minds who imagine people with minds etc etc...it's infinite. Are you suggesting that because I am the creator of this reality in my mind that I am not bound to the same laws of my creation? Well maybe, it just depends on the reality of what I created (i never specified). Maybe God isn't bound by the laws of our universe, but if we are "created", then it is reasonable to believe that God himself was also created in some way beyond his understanding.

At this point, infinite regression is existence.

Originally posted by ExjKae
If you or anyone else go as far as saying God is not bound by the features of his creation, then you have to accept the possibility that God is the creation of something (or someone) who is not bound by God himself.

You speak of this as a possibility.
This thread is really addressing those who would make it a necessity, because that's what the facile "Who made God" argument is effectively claiming.
"The fact that we can say this is an argument against Creation teaching".
If it is accepted that the existence of a creator of God does not necessarily follow on from the claim that God is a Creator, then that will do (for anything else that is said about him, we can move on to his self-statements, and that becomes theology).

One thing I'm not understanding is this:
"The act of creation" fits into the category of cause-and-effect doesn't it?

The Creator being the cause, the Creation being the effect.

I believe that a contradiction exists in a premise which implies that 'God's' cause was to effect, or create Creation, while claiming that 'God' is distinct from Creation so to be beyond what is known in Creation; so, the Creator is beyond cause-and-effect and is thus imperceptible with the cause-and-effect concept.

You can't have 'God' take on inconceivable properties, due to His being apart from the Creation, and yet still have 'God' conceivable as 'God' - the one who created the Creation (and therefore created its own distinction)[- unless the distinction itself is inconceivable].

[T]he cause-and-effect property binding all things within Creation, plus God(as in the Monist viewpoint, by the way), is removed following the OP's approach, which also removes the possibility of "infinite regression"(when following the OP's approach, God can't have a cause, or its own creator), but then the distinction between Creator and Creation would have to be removed too. Wouldn't it? If not removed, then we can have time and space as well..."God" passing through those Creation-features, unbound to them. I'm confused now.
-
If it turns out that the aforementioned "distinction" is that which is inconceivable, then the unknown "point" which separates Creator from Creation is the real Creator, for this Point is the source of the two. It should not even be called "Point" but rather Creator.

Originally posted by 1Learner
If it turns out that the aforementioned "distinction" is that which is inconceivable, then the unknown "point" which separates Creator from Creation is the real Creator, for this Point is the source of the two. It should not even be called "Point" but rather Creator.

This moment is appearing to happen - it seems like it has been created but what is seeing the scene?
Can what is seeing this scene be separate from this seen image?

Is there a line or distinction between the seer and the seen or is the Father and son one?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by 1Learner
If it turns out that the aforementioned "distinction" is that which is inconceivable, then the unknown "point" which separates Creator from Creation is the real Creator, for this Point is the source of the two. It should not even be called "Point" but rather Creator.

This moment is appearing to happen - it seems like it has been created but what is seeing the scene?
Can what is seeing this scene be separate from this seen image?

Is there a line or distinction between the seer and the seen or is the Father and son one?

The answer is yes to all. There is a distinction between the seer and what is seen, however the situation itself allows for that to be a reality in the first place. If there was nothing to be seen, the seer would not see it. At the same time if the seer did not see it, nothing would have been seen.

This tells us that there are 3 aspects to reality. The observer, observed and reality in which the 2 can interact. So we have the creator, created and then what? What is the 3rd piece if, by the OP's argument, should not be conceivable to us? God (the creator) may not be bound by the laws of his creation, but he is however, bound by that missing 3rd piece. The canvas which makes reality a reality regardless of what is created and who it is created by.

What would you call it?