₦airaland Forum

On your point of the first cause possessing non-properties, insofar as these non-properties cohere with the traditional idea of God and inform us of the feasibility of a first cause who is the greatest conceivable being it matters little what we know specifically. We know enough to agree that it is necessary for such a being to exist. At this point, we are on the cusp of religion itself rather than metaphysics.

I guess that your problem with theism is lack of certainty. You agree with basic theistic principles. I’ll just say that there is little we are completely sure of and that we can get a clearer picture if we take the leap of faith into religion proper rather than battle over philosophical details.

I think we’ve covered all the bases. Good luck to you.

Wilgrea7:
Now, If you've noticed, by my analogy, I've almost seemed to imply that multiple creators would mean each individual one was not powerful enough to create the universe all by itself. And yes, that is exactly the example I'm giving.

This is interesting theological speculation. It would make for an entertaining novel. I’ll add that while it is sound, we have no need for that hypothesis. You agree that these beings cannot have equal power, but that one must be greater than the rest. In that case, we agree on that. I also agree that it would be possible for several beings of different levels of power could predate the universe. My problem with that formula is that it is unnecessary rather than wrong. It doesn’t even invalidate theism. Let me ask you this, the being with power of magnitude 9 could simply create a sub-universe alone. One that pales in comparison to this one. At the very least we are left speculating on minor details despite agreeing on the bigger picture.

Wilgrea7:
You could have 2 generations of creators, or 3, or 10, where a God creates another God, and the line goes down to the 10th, or even 50th generation. Infinite regress is avoided, but it still doesn't show that the one who created us has to be the ultimate "first cause".

Once again, you’ve conceded to theism and are focused on details. You must be a new atheist. You agree on the ultimate first cause and if we presuppose theism there are arguments as to why the first cause would necessarily be more powerful than others, and that morality would come from Him and given personal agency, it must be His will to allow the lesser gods to do whatever they wish. I don’t claim to be sure about these details but I don’t want to focus on speculation. I feel we’ve come to agree on the broader points and that’s enough. Like I said before we should only focus on details when we’ve come to agree on the bigger issues. I suppose that’s a topic for later.

Wilgrea7:
Here's where I think we disagree. When you talk of God being immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, you refer to these as properties of God. And I disagree. I said these things are not properties. They are non-properties. I gave the example of the room and everything else outside the room.

Your insistence on these features as non properties baffles me. You are needlessly trying to estrange negative adjectives from their associated part of speech. It is common knowledge that to be cold connotes a lack of heat, to be slow demands that one lack speed just as light necessarily precludes the presence of darkness. Does this mean that cold is in fact not a property, or that sickness is not a state. I understand that this is not your main point so I’ll focus on addressing that now that I’ve touched this. However the distinction I’ve made here is important as I’ll reference it again. In plain terms all properties are negative properties. A theist could refute your argument by pointing out that we are in fact non-immaterial, non-timeless and non-spaceless. This is foundational if we are to understand one another.

Wilgrea7:
Based on our position in the universe, from our perspective, space, time and matter began at the big bang. Anything existing outside of it would be described as non-space (spaceless), non-time (timeless) and non-matter (immaterial). These are not words that describe what something is. They are words that describe what something ISN'T.

On the contrary, doing so would definitely give you a definition of what that thing is. In this case, you mention that God is immaterial, atemporal and spaceless and state only lines later that to be those things is to not be something else. While you are correct logically, your fixation on inconsequential semantics distracts you from seeing the bigger picture and has, in fact, derailed the argument. God is certain things that are not other things, just as everything is something that isn’t something else. We can know ourselves by knowing that we are not immortal, that we are not perfect, that we are not immaterial, omnipotent, atemporal, omniscient, eternally happy, ever-young etc. That those are things we are not doesn’t mean that they tell us nothing about ourselves, because on the contrary they do. You can demonstrate this to yourself by fully describing anything and making the adjectives negative.

I also don’t find your room analogy particularly apt. It seems to be an attempt at faulty equivocation. There is little need to use new terms when the ones available are sound. We shall continue to discuss in terms of the universe. I’ve already addressed the point it makes but thought this important to point out.

Wilgrea7:
Also, just as you can have 2 non-chairs, like a palm tree, and an ant-hill, both of which would be described as non-chairs from the perspective of the room. Similarly, you can have multiple spaceless, timeless and immaterial beings. Because these are not properties, they are non-properties.

This last point is entirely welcome in theism. We believe and endorse the existence of several spaceless, atemporal, immaterial beings. We just call them spirits.

I’ll conclude with a point of my own. The existence of God (singular and capitalized) is philosophically infallible from where I stand. I’d much rather intelligent people such as yourself debated whether to attend mass or Salvation ministries than fight something minds finer than ours have failed to resist. This is just my personal opinion but it would be more productive to dig deeper into more serious concerns with the Christian faith than spend time on easy pickings like this for sport.

On the topic of the necessity of omnipotence for God, I should point out that omnipotence doesn’t mean infinite power, it denotes being all powerful or the most powerful. Hence, only one being can be omnipotent. Suggesting otherwise would require the impossibility of conflict among these all powerful beings, something that smacks suspiciously of trinity (or other form of divine oneness) if these beings are gods in the theistic sense (meaning they have personal agency). This is enough reason why the world couldn’t have been created by several gods concurrently, because this would require that some of them be lesser gods or godlings which I’ve already addressed.

Further, when it comes to the existence of several gods in succession, this reminds me of a notion I had as a child, a notion shared by the ancient Gnostic sect. It entails that God was created by another God and so on. The problem with this formulation is that infinity is a mathematical idea that doesn’t exist in reality. There can be no infinite succession of anything because infinity is impossible. Imagine a stick with one (or worse, no) ends to get an idea of infinity in real life. Thus a never ending chain of gods must ironically terminate at one god. While we have no reason to believe such it doesn’t invalidate theism in the least.

I’ll let you respond.

Wilgrea7:
Ok... Now to iron out the issue of the big bang.

I do not see how a God creating THIS universe, means the God itself could not have been created. The problem I see with people claiming that whatever caused the big bang had to have certain properties, like spacelessness, timelessness, immaterial and so on, is that they are based on claims about something we have absolutely no idea about.

No one knows what happened outside, the big bang. We don't have the slightest clue.

Sure, our universe and everything within it, which we can observe started then, but what lay outside then is something we don't just know. Space is not just an empty void. It is a thing that can actually stretch and squeeze. And the nature of what exists outside it, or if anything exists outside it at all, is simply something we don't know at the moment.

Imagine you as a very powerful human creates a world, made of sand. Everything in the world, is sand-based. Same with the organisms there. Let's also say it is impossible for the organism to ever see outside the sand-based universe you created. To it, everything sand-based is matter. Let's also say that from the organism's perspective, sand was created at something similar to the big bang, which was the origin of it's world.

The organism could of course say that you, the creator, were immaterial. But all that would mean, is that you are not sand-based. I don't know if I'm making much sense.

From our perspective, everything began 14 billion years ago. Space, which we know, and matter, and energy which we can observe. We also have no access to things happening outside or before the big bang, so we say the big bang is the beginning of time, matter and space. For us, sure. But when talking about a being that exists outside of these things, saying the being is immaterial, and spaceless and timeless really has little meaning.

To me, It's a fancy way of saying "whatever caused the big bang, would not have properties based on the observed effects of the big bang." which of course I can agree with to an extent. Immaterial, timeless and spaceless are not properties. There are non-properties.

It's like saying non-blue, or non-yellow. Non-blue is not a specific color. It is a term used to describe something that is simply not blue. Immaterial is not an attribute, It is a word used to describe things not made of what we understand to be matter. But what that thing is really made of, we don't know. All we know, is that it is NOT made of the matter we know.

God.. How do I put this. We are trying to describe a being, which exists outside all we know, based on what we know. It's like someone being in a room, who has never left or ever seen outside the room, trying to describe the things outside the room based on the things he sees in the room.

You can describe things outside the room as non-chairs, non-tables and non-ceiling fans for example. And while you wouldn't be wrong, you wouldn't be describing anything specific either. You'd just be describing things outside the room, as things not in the room.

I noticed you used the terms “our universe” and “this universe”. Ideas like that exist solely in fiction. There cannot be more than one universe. Multiple universes would constitute one universe, because definitionally universe means one. The totality of physical existence is the universe. This includes time, space, matter and energy.

Other than that I find we agree on God’s properties with respect to the universe. You restate that God is timeless and immaterial and transcends space and change the context to a room rather than the universe which is everything that exists (for instance comparing sand to matter which is anything that has mass and occupies space). If you keep the universe as the context you’ll find we agree entirely.

Wilgrea7:
This is something you, or anyone has failed to prove to me. Most of my discussions with you theists involves me assuming that if a creator exists, it is a singular one. I won't try to debate the existence of God here. So once again, for the sake of this thread, I will assume a single creator deity exists.



Awww... thank you. It still doesn't make it any less true. Claims made are always made on behalf of the gods, not directly by the gods.



Ok??



Resounding enough of what? Of who? Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Ra, the flying spaghetti monster, Brahma, or the other several thousand gods? Or the one who decided not to interfere with humans, and because of which, we don't know it? Which one??

I'll take a stab at answering why there can only be one God. You mentioned that you were once a Christian, so it is surprising that you haven't come across the relevant theological literature on the topic. Christianity is perhaps the most metaphysically sound religion, even more so than the other Abrahamic faiths. I believe the reason for it's soundness is due to its truth. I will also point out that I'm new to Nairaland and that I do not hope to change your beliefs on something as important as religion because, while I try to keep an open mind, I'm sure no one could change mine. It is an idealistic fantasy to assume that one can convince another about things this important after a few minutes of discussion.

That said, if we presuppose the existence of deity, there can only be one because that one would necessarily be omnipotent. Let's start with some physical background: about 13.8 billion years ago the universe started with the Big Bang; the event before which they were no events as that was the beginning of space-time. Big Bang cosmology is unanimously attested in the scientific community, so it may surprise you that it was a Catholic priest who first posited the idea. The Big Bang is of theological significance because it confirms an important theistic principle, something along the lines of: "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". I anticipate that you might ask, "who created God?", which is farcical because God wasn't created. It is philosophically sound to not be created if you didn't begin and are in fact eternal/timeless. To create everything (uni- in universe stands for one and the universe is the perfect unity of all space, time, matter and energy constructs) would require an immense amount of power; one greater than any power in the resulting universe.

A being capable of such would be omnipotent. Omnipotence requires divinity to be singular or we'd end up with an unstoppable force vs immovable object scenario. This is why any idea of gods having families often includes an elder god, such as Zeus in the Hellenistic faith. Because omnipotence must take a singular object. On the traditional view of deity it is a misnomer to refer to this lesser gods as gods at all, because they lack any god-like qualities whatsoever. They are neither omniscient, omnipotent, or omni-anything. These godlings are sometimes as human as you and I as in the case of Osiris, an Egyptian lesser god. Their lack of certain features disqualifies them from the philosophical designation "God", regardless of whether they exist or not (many Christians hold that such beings do exist but are classified in angelology/demonology of some sort). The Greeks themselves discriminated among their gods and demeaned the oldest of them by calling them titans.

While this post isn't intended to address the main point, I'll add that the Christian God did in fact prove that He is this "greatest conceivable being" I've just written about by becoming part of history in an event called the incarnation. Christians believe that at some point 2,000 years ago God became flesh and blood in a verifiable historical event. The argument at this point should concern the validity of the life of Christ and His resurrection (which would prove His divinity).