There has always been something and nothing. (Democritus) — 180 Proof

:up: Nothing doesn't need an explanation and it's as simple as simple can get (?) i.e. Nothing is/has to be the simplest. Ergo, I posit that the explanatory chain (sequence of answers to why? questions) will terminate on Nothing. In fact that's what Jack Cummins' query boils down to.

If so, it follows that consciousness was present at the most fundamental level, since structure was plainly created. — Pop

I'm going to second that because what's a brain? Information storage cum processing device. With respect to the former function, there really is no difference between it and the universe itself (the non-conscious part) being a storage device of sorts. As for the latter, do you think the universe is processing information?

Are we not part of the universe?

:point:



The Twelve Men of Gotham (England)

On a certain day there were twelve men of Gotham that went to fish, and some stood on dry land; and in going home one said to the other, "We have ventured wonderfully in wading. I pray God that none of us come home and be drowned."

"Nay, marry," said one to the other, "let us see that; for there did twelve of us come out." Then they counted themselves, and every one counted eleven.

Said one to the other, "There is one of us drowned." They went back to the brook where they had been fishing, and sought up and down for him that was wanting, making great lamentation. A courtier, coming by, asked what it was they sought for, and why they were sorrowful.

"Oh," said they, "this day we went to fish in the brook; twelve of us came out together, and one is drowned."

Said the courtier, "Count how many there be of you."

One of them said, "Eleven," and he did not count himself.

"Well," said the courtier, "what will you give me, and I will find the twelfth man?"

"Sir," said they, "all the money we have got."

"Give me the money," said the courtier, and began with the first, and gave him a stroke over the shoulders with his whip, which made him groan, saying, "Here is one," and so served them all, and they all groaned at the matter. When he came to the last, he paid him well, saying, "Here is the twelfth man."

"God's blessing on your heart," said they, "for thus finding our dear brother!"

It only implies that we've reached the limit of "explanation" so far, whether it's "the simplest" (which we're never certain of) or not. — 180 Proof

Food for thought:

1. Something OR Nothing

2. If Something then explanation needed(why is there something rather than nothing? @Jack Cummins Naughty! Very Naughty!)

3. If Nothing then explanation not needed (there's literally nothing to explain)

The question: Can the origins of Something be traced back ultimately to Nothing?

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit — Parmenides

Creatio Ex Nihilo — Theophilus Of Antioch

Śūnyatā

Chaos (Cosmogony)

:chin:

So you're saying, in effect, that 'the simplest explanation explains nothing at all' – like g/G? — 180 Proof

I'm not saying anything that hasn't been assumed in the way we "explain" stuff. A certain thing/phenomenon is deemed explained if it's reduced to something simpler. Thus, the simple explains the complex. Staying on course implies that once we arrive at the simplest, there's no need for further explanation. Right?

It appears that we need to appreciate the difference between us, mere mortals, and God, a perfect being. The gap between humans and God is HUGE and that's an understatement. Even if God makes mistakes, for us they wouldn't be mistakes.

He's such a genius that even his bad ideas are good ideas

I have an 10 year old nephew (K), 2011 model, who does (some) things backwards. His father shared an incident involving a guitar. The chords are easier when you use the nut for reference. K, on the other hand, memorized the chords using the fret abutting the sound hole. His father was unhappy - he probably thought K was a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I, perhaps not too bright myself, found this amazing. It's like doing a handstand - the world appears upside-down. The million dollar question is, is the world upside-down/right-side-up? Are we thinking/speaking/doing the right things or are we doing exactly what we're not supposed to be thinking/speaking/doing?

Higher reality!

What agency would allow or disallow opinions and enforce their ruling? — jgill

Hopefully none! I don't advocate regulation on opinions. I quite enjoy the subjective nature of opinions - not always though but on the whole, the benefits outweigh the costs. As I meant, each muscial instrument has something unique to offer when used to play a certain musical piece - that's something worth a thumbs-up! No?

Mind and body age differently. They ain't always in sync. That's what IQ measures I suppose, (mental age)/(Body's age) * 100, if memory serves.

This squares with what I've always suspected for a long - the human mind and the human body are out of phase.

Why?

Our minds have invented/discovered morality, a corollary of which is we shouldn't kill animals but our bodies are built for carnivory (look up vermiform appendix). In other words, the human race, taken as a whole, has an IQ that's off the charts. The human mind's age > The human body's age. We're all superintelligent folks!

Of course it all depends on, in this case, whether carnivory is/was a "smart" move or not. If it was/is then, the opposite is true. Our primitive minds are stuck in the moral dimension while our bodies have advanced to consume meat, a wise move given how food is priority no. 1 . Ergo, The human mind's age < The human body's age i.e. we're a race of idiots!

CAR-b-ON dioxide is the culprit.

You trace the idea of causes back to a 'wall', but what lies behind the wall? I am speaking about origins, but also what lies behind mind and matter. I am question veneers, causation, what lies behind the paradox of mind and matter, and I am not really looking for a textbook or Wikipedia explanation. I believe that it is so much more complex, but I do believe that it is the subject matter of philosophy, even though I know that many detest the idea of mystery. — Jack Cummins

@180 Proof

Here's an interesting thought.

Physicalism: Mind -> Biology [Mind is explained by biology where "->" means "explaine by"]

If so,

Mind -> Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics -> Math -> Mind


This gums up the works:

Existence -> Physics -> Math -> Mind -> Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics :brow: :chin:

TheMadFool :chin: — 180 Proof

I only meant that the chain of explanations (answers to why? queries) has to terminate at some point. The usual way explanations proceed is the complex is rendered in terms of the simple [biology, for example, is explained in terms of chemistry & physics] but that implies the simpler things get, the less the need for an explanation. Ergo, the series of explanations will eventually lead back to the simplest, which for the reason stated above (bolded), will need no explanation. This simplest, whatever it is, in some circles known as God.

Ah, but points are defined. — tim wood

It's likely that I'm wrong about points and geometry but that doesn't invalidate the "point" I was making viz. deconstructing objects systematically can't be done indefinitely (infinite regress) - the process will have to terminate on a certain geometric object and whatever that happens to be, it'll be undefined.

What is the definition of a point?

There is no "existence room" where are kept the existences, where one might go to find the one needed, but rather the circumstance, the existence itself, dictates what it must be — tim wood

Sorry, I didn't get that.

I HATE THIS!!!

That is a fact. THIS IS TERRIBLE!!! is an opinion. The distinction is mere pedantry in my op- ah fuck it. — Kenosha Kid

You have your opinions, others will have theirs. That's a fact. Whether people should be allowed to have opinions is a different issue - it begs for facts about opinions. Being what we are, full of opinions, we will opine on this issue as well. That's s a fact. Ergo, the fact is people will have opinions.

Are all these opinions facts?

No, in classical logic (categorical, sentential, predicate logics).

Yes, in paraconsistent logic and dialetheism.

Okay, so no need to answer my question above -- apparently it wasn't a joke.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh? Guess we can tell those idiots who've studied this carefully all their lives that they're wasting their time -- some guy on the Internet has figured it out from perusing the literature and using his keen philosophical powers. — Xtrix

:rofl: I was only trying to explore alternative pathways to how global warming could eventually pan out. Cooling seemed plausible.

I don't know anything about physics. Nothing I've said here pertains to the physical universe.

— fishfry

2. If infinite energy is applied on an object, that object will attain light speed.

There's no such thing as "infinite energy" as far as contemporary physics is concerned, nor is it sensible that an object could attain light speed by any means at all.

Sorry can't be of any assistance here, this is speculative physics and seems to contradict known physics

Too bad. Thanks for replying though.

It matters what kind of molecules the stuff in the atmosphere is made of. They don't all have the same effect on light coming in and energy radiating out. Some reflect light coming in, like volcanic ash, some trap infrared energy bouncing back from the earth, like greenhouse gasses...

The difference in distance between the earth and Venus matters, but doesn't account for the almost 500 degrees Celsius difference. — ChatteringMonkey

Volcanic ash cloud -> Cold (1815 - 1816)
Overcast skies -> Cold

:chin:

I watched a very interesting video on Geometry - the basics, nothing fancy - and it "begins" in media res, exactly the situation we're in. So, the author of the video goes on to explain triangles, parallelograms, and other geometrtic shapes for an hour or so. Then she does something I now find amazing - she slowly deconstructs the shapes she discussed previously: triangles -> lines -> points and drops the bomb, points are undefined.

Quite possibly, the same may apply to us, our world. It's explanatory history (why?), if I may call it that, maybe traceable back from how it is now to how it was and then on to even more remote causes (answers to why?) but at some point we'll hit a wall - that wall is known by many names one of them being God!. In Geometry God is a point; like how the point is undefined, God needs no further explanation; like points are the building blocks of all geometrical shapes - from simple lines to extremely complex geometries - God too is the very foundation of all there was, is, will be! :chin:

This is a non sequitur, volcanic ash is volcanic ash and not clouds and a lot of greenhouse gasses. — ChatteringMonkey

Ash/clouds, the effect is the same - no sunshine! Venus is closer to the sun by the way, that must surely mean something.

Anyway, read up on some science TheMadFool, you seem to be missing the basics.[/quote]

Good advice. Thanks a million!

Greenhouse gasses trap heat, and causes global warming. This is well documented, from the geological record, and follows from the physics of how light and heat radiation interacts with greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

As for the cloud scenario, Venus is covered in a thick blanket of clouds... should be freezing cold over there then, right? — ChatteringMonkey

That's a non sequitur - Venus is Venus, Earth is Earth. Also, look up Year Without A Summer - volcanic ash clouds over the entire earth caused global temperatures to nosedive to winter levels. Global "warming" is going to blot out the sun with clouds at an even grander scale. Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen.

Extreme weather in the form of cold, for a month, 'globally' probably is very unlikely in a global warming scenario. — ChatteringMonkey

How do you know that? A lot of that liquid water, a predicted outcome of global warming, means more clouds, more clouds means less sun, less sun means (more) cooling. As a case in point, it's early July, peak summer, where I am and I picked up a cool idiom a coupla months ago - "it'll be a cold day in July when x happens" - and it feels like mid-September, coldish. Who's to blame? Thick cloud cover over the week with mild rain. Global warming is going to, heat up the oceans, and all that water will eventually end up as a vast blanket of clouds covering the skies from pole to pole. No prizes for guessing what happens next.

No it couldn't lead to global cooling — ChatteringMonkey

Why not? All climate-change-is-real believers (what do you call 'em?) talk about is extreme weather. Ergo, if it snowed heavily (6 - 10 ft) all day for a month (that would be weather) all over the earth, it would be because of global warming but such an event will cause long-term global cooling, no? Ice, snow, cools, right?

what is art?” [...] “what is good art?” — Pfhorrest

It's all got to do with vagueness. The boundary between art and not-art is fuzzy and it's a Herculean task to tell the difference. Good art, on the other hand, is further away from the grey area mentioned above and identifying it as art is easy peasy. Thus, art and good art are conflated.

Same goes for so-called manliness, men and women overlap in terms of certain qualities creating a no man's land between them populated by masculine females and feminine males. A man/woman who's farther away from this intersection will be considered a good man/a good woman or simply a man/woman - you know what happens to those in the twilight zone!

Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming. — ChatteringMonkey

I was talking about the climate, not the weather - global cooling in the form of worldwide snow, freezing temperatures in (say) the Sahara, and so on. Remember climate change is about extremes - that cuts both ways (h9t or cold). Ergo, global warming can lead to global cooling. Paradox or climate change is a hoax, a well-orchestrated one.

I used to go by Functionalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/), and then Epiphenomenalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/). — Corvus

I'll read those links if I can. :up:

That's either very depressed and self deprecating or you meant symmetric? — fdrake

Yeah! Thanks for letting me know. I owe you one. G'day!

I have a simple question to ask. First off the climate change/global warming claims need to be made clear. I recently had a conversation with my brother-in-law and I made a comment about a recent heat-wave and that global warming really is true; he was kind enough to correct me - global warming doesn't necessarily imply heat, it could also manifest as unusual cold weather.

I thought nothing of it until now.

My question: So, those who claim that global warming/climate change is a fact are claiming if it suddenly starts snowing all over the world, temperatures drop below freezing, rivers and lakes in the tropics freeze over, it's all caused by global "warming"? :chin:

I supplied the relevant Wiki links. — fishfry

I'm glad to know there's still hope for Wikipedia!

I want to bounce something off of you.

Scenario A (This universe):

1. Speed limit: 186000 miles per second (light speed)

2. If infinite energy is applied on an object, that object will attain light speed.

Scenario B (Another universe)

3. Speed limit: None! Go as fast as you can.

4. If infinite energy is poured into an object, that object will attain infinite speed

Basically, in terms of energy (infinite energy in both cases), there's no difference between light speed (this universe/scenario A) and infinite speed (another universe/scenario B).

Light speed then is an actual infinity. It's completed (1860000 miles per second) and it's equivalent to infinity (another universe/scenario B)

As a side note a speed limit (light speed, 186000 miles per second in this universe) violates the law of conservation of energy. What's happening to the energy I'm exerting on an object if its speed doesn't change proportionately?

Fact is to Opinion as Pitch is to Timbre

The first six questions are all about power - "Can God...?" The 7th and last question is about goodness. Could the two be related? Let's find out.

First off, all-powerful is a divine trait. It literally means the answer to all questions that go "Can God...?" is, luckily/not, "yes"!

The most common way of arguing for the nonexistence of God is to show that God entails a contradiction (e.g. the stone paradox or omniscience-free will paradox, even the so-called problem of evil and others). However being all-powerful has its perks - God enjoys immunity from the laws of logic.

That means God is a being (concept?) that's, literally, beyond the scope of logic. The preceding sentence (in italics) and this very statement, for the reason that I'm being logical, is too N/A (not applicable) to God defined as, among other things, omnipotent. The Zen concept of Mu seems to capture the state of my mind in re God as something not bound by logic. Mind you, I'm not claiming God is illogical; all I can say is that there's a very thin line between madness -illogical - and genius - (hyper) logical.

Just a few days ago, I discovered an interesting statement that produces the same effect (Mu) as God's omnipotence and it's a statement about logic. Coincidence? I don't know, you decide. This statement is: There are no good justifications = J. J is, in layman's terms, basically asserting logic is no good. We instinctively demand for justification for J but look at what J's saying - there are no good justifications - which, just like how omnipotence took God out of the domain of logic, does the exact same thing to J. In being ex-logical (outside of logic), J = God. Noteworthy is that just like an omnipotent God, J too entails a contradiction the instant we apply logic to it.

Where were we? There are no good justifications = God in the sense both are ex-logical and in that both imply contradictions are true. I wonder if God can exist in a paraconsistent logic or a dialetheism setting?, but that's another story. Viewing this equality in the simplest way possible, God is nothing more than a call to faith. Forget evidence, justification, logic, proof, they're all pissing into the wind (pointless). It's fides, fides and more fides.

Let's examine the other side to this story - there are good justifications = T. Again we're driven by habit/nature to justify T. Yet, to justify T is to presuppose T and we end up going round in a circle - not good, not good at all. Makes me we wonder why people find merry-go-rounds so enjoyable, so much so that they're willing to part with their hard-earned money just to do nothing (circling back to where they started). I digress, back to the main issue - T can't be justified for to do so is to commit the circulus in probando fallacy. Thus, logic which T is about has to be taken on faith.

A coherent picture now emerges. J = God = faith. Faith in what? Well, going by how enamored we are of logic, and given logic is unjustified, it seems we have faith in reason - a paradox in its own right. It's like the joke about a father who tells his son, "don't trust anyone." Should the son trust the father/not? The father means well for his son and that's precisely the moral of the story. You can trust a person who tells you not to trust anyone! :chin:

How does all what I said hang togther? Is it coherent? Does it make sense?

Let's go over what I said. God = there are no good justifications = faith (ultimately). Who's worthy of our faith? Reason for the "reason" that you can trust a person who tells you not to trust anyone. Reason reveals its own fatal flaw. "What a noble creature reason is", is one response; another would be, "how stupid reason is to let everyone know its weakness" The first is the heart talking, the second is what the brain would say. A lot more can be said but just make a note of the fact that, sometimes, not all the time, to be noble is to be foolish, goodness is just another name for idiocy. Adam, Eve, the garden of Eden, the apple, the snake, you see where this is going, don't you?

In essence, God is faith looking for something worthy of it. Reason by publicly declaring nothing is worthy of faith including itself then, paradoxically, becomes deserving of faith. A match made in "heaven" if you ask me.

You can't argue against God because if there's no faith (God), reason (arguments) has no leg to stand on. In other words, trying to justify the nonexistence of God (faith) is to blow the lid off reason's Achilles' heel.

Faith in the Faithless. God in the Godless.

Not necessarily, and if time really were cyclical that would be a problem for life just as much as heat death would be, because there was a time when there was no life in the universe, so cycling back around to that would imply the death of all the life that currently exists. — Pfhorrest

In "linear" universe, the heat death would mean the end of life for all eternity. Not so in a "cyclical" universe which basically presses the reset button and gives life a fresh start. Think of this difference as being similar to that between sleep (continuity) and death (no continuity) - interestingly, if God (super AI) can/has somehow leave/left clues as to how much progress was made in controlling/reversing entropy or even how to halt it (your thoughts precisely) so that life can continue without having to go back to square one each time the universe undergoes heat death, a "cyclical" universe would be exactly like sleep.

Well, "Banno says so" is an excellent justification. — Banno

Banno says so is an excellent justification because Banno says so.

Logic says so is an excellent justification because Logic says so.

Circulus in probando.

Heraclitus syndrome (misanthropy: man "hating" man): it is that which it condemns.

Cool post, thanks.

In the Antichrist, N treats a god as a sign of how people see themselves.

The issue about the weak is like:. two kids are playing in a playground, being watched by parents.

Both kids fall and stub their knees. One mom doesn't respond, so the kid gets up after crying for a while and moves on. The other mom exclaims and runs over to comfort her child.

N would say the second child has become the victim of pity. Instead of seeing injury and pain as part of life, he picks up on his mother's angst and comes to fear and condemn injury. — frank

That means, our esteemed Buddhist brothers and...er...sisters have got the wrong end of the stick for the past 2 millennia. That means, not only did someone 2000 years ago get it wrong, that someone's son, grandson, great grandson,...,present descendants who are Buddhists have all been living a lie. Someone should tell them!

On a more serious note, speaking for myself that is, Nietzsche's views seem rather computerish it feels too rational.

My logic is undeniable. — V.I.K.I (I, Robot)

In other words, a top of the line AI would've said the same thing Nietzsche said almost a century or so ago. I'm not certain though it sure feels that way.

I may be off-topic here but revisiting Buddhism - Nietzsche, I heard had a bone to pick with the deceased Gautama Buddha. Nothing unusual since the Buddha was, I fear, obsessing over suffering. Your tale of the mother, child, and pain fits like a glove with Siddhartha's own life if Buddhist history is even half-true. The mother's role though was played by the father, Suddhodhana if memory serves. In Nietzsche's eyes then Gautama Buddha was a sad figure - he was indeed truly suffering but not because, as he thought, life is suffering but simply due to the fact that his father was a Nietzschean fool who induced allodynia & hyperalgesia in the young impressionable prince. A case of the blind leading the blind! "Cura te ipsum" is probably the phrase Nietzsche would've chosen for The Enlightened One.

That said, I still feel Nietzsche is just a tad bit too similar to a machine than a human. We might have to, intriguingly, consider him a rogue AI like V.I.K.I in the movie I, Robot. Odd that! The AI takeover of the world seems to be well in progress instead of being, as believed, some time in the coming centuries. Just saying. Grain of sodium chloride recommended. I'm not sure anyway. G'day!

fundamental asymmetry to consciousness — Jack Cummins

There are two, how shall I put it?, levels of symmetry. One is qualitative symmetry such as hot - cold, good - bad, up - down and so on. Asymmetry ain't possible at this level.

Then there's quantitative symmetry - the flux that occurs between hot and cold, between good and bad, so on and so forth. This is where all the action takes place and ergo, being inherently fluid, asymmetry is not only possible but also as real as real can get. However, the asymmetry initiates processes directed towards the attainment of even quantitative symmetry. That's how the cookie crumbles, Jack, truth-seeker!

I think so. — Bartricks

First, God made woman then God made man. Hell, everyone makes mistakes! — A feminist with an amazing sense of humor

He was a man of principle, this man. His principle was there are no principles.

The rule (aka law) can be there are no rules (laws). The Paradox of Rules (Laws). The Law Of The Jungle! Deathmatch! Free-For-All! No-Holds-Barred! You get the idea.

In chaos, anything and everything is possible, that includes order, another name for law/rule.

Chaos is indistinguishable from Order. :point: The Problem Of Induction; so-called pseudo-randomness.

Zizek actually improved the accuracy of the 'quote' - "If there is a god then anything is permitted." — Tom Storm

Then, I'm not wrong! :sweat:

Thanks for your extremely interesting reply. — Jack Cummins

Quid pro quo. I'm glad you find it interesting. You've given me quite a few insights, Jack, truth-seeker.

The left side is the hidden, more dangerous knowledge of the esoteric, which has been regarded as 'evil' by many, and often referred to as the occult'. — Jack Cummins

TheMadFool makes a mental note of this comment for later reference.

My own views of what seems to be like an old abandoned road (the occult) once the sleek new, modern highway gets done (mainstream views) is that it was, literally and figuratively, executed for "good" reasons. Much of the "knowledge" that was painstakingly gathered by practitioners (of the occult) was systematically destroyed by largely religious institutions as they deemed it heretical or some other transgression (pact with the Devil).

People who were party to the extermination of an entire way of life (occultism) thought they were doing the "right" thing. If you try hard enough I'm fairly confident that the old road can still be found, repaired, and made "good" enough to take traffic. I don't advise it though. It has danger written all over it - death maybe the least of our concerns, if you know what I mean. :grimace: :worry:

Left/Right, doesn't matter as such but once one of them predominates, complications arise - I'm talking about right/left handedness which I suppose serves as the most obvious marker of hemisphere dominance.

We could say that the world is a right-handed world - lefties had very little role in how it's turned out since they're in the minority, their unique contributions are diluted and/or overriden - and so, while the good there is in this world can be chalked up to right-handedness, the blame for all the evil in it too falls on right-handers.

This contradicts the age-old belief that lefties and evil go hand in hand. The word "sinister" means both evilish and left proving my point. However, right-handers, well-known for their logic should at some point come to the realization that there are so few left-handed folks around that the evil in the world couldn't possibly be their doing. Evil should've been wiped off the face of the earth going by the small and dwindling number of left-handers. I'm surprised that righties still harbor suspicion against lefties given what I said. It should be the other way round. Why so few lefties? Why so few no dodos? Dodos were hunted to extinction. Need I say more?

Of course someone might object to this by saying that the evil extant in this world began in the minds of left-handers and righties have been, ever since, trying to eliminate it - the abolition of evil being a work in progress, perhaps to be achieved once the last left-hander is dead and buried, a couple of centuries or even millenia being necessary before faer lingering evil also finally dies. Good then, it's suggested, will finally prevail on earth.

Granted evil has its roots in the left-handed, why does it persist then if not that it finds the perfect conditions to thrive in the minds of righties. In other words, the received wisdom that the left and right hemispheres complement each other if taken to its logical condition implicates both lefties and righties - both are culpable, the right brain (lefties) as the founder (of evil) and the left brain (righties) as the faithful follower (of evil) [Master-Slave]. The right hemisphere (lefties), imaginative (so they say), must've wondered, "What if? Just what if we take a stone and hit someone over the head with it?" The left hemisphere (righties), logical (so they say) must've immediately replied, "You know what? That's a great idea!" Deadly duo! Double trouble! Twin threats! The two, together, terror!

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours — Stephen Roberts?

:fire: :fire: :fire:

Not to split hairs but the reasons for dismissing the other gods may not suffice to dismiss the one God we're in a tizzy about. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

God's defined as, inter alia, omnipotent which basically means fae can defy logic. Thus, in the context of your argument, God both can make mistakes and not make them. Both are true but more importantly no amount of reasoning, done in even the most rigorous of ways, can aid us in understanding God.

This reminds me of an argument I made earlier based on Dostoevsky's quote,

If there is no God, everything is permitted. — Dostoevsky

There's one other object that has a similar effect viz. a logical contradiction per ex falso quodlibet. My initial thoughts were that the state there is no God(Dostoevsky) is indistinguishable from a contradiction. That's the only explanation for everything is permitted.

It fascinates me to no end that there is God also entails contradictions as via omnipontence.

Dostoevsky then is faced with the following puzzle,

1. There is God or there is no God
2. If there is God, everything is permitted (omnipotence)
3. If there is no God, everything is permitted (Dostoevsky)
4. Everything is permitted or everything is permitted (1, 2, 3 CD)
Ergo,
5. Everything is permitted (4 Taut)

Another point worth mentioning is the notion of a Theory Of Everything (TOE). If God's definition allows a contradiction and a contradiction entails anything and everything, God is a TOE as God explains everything.

Look to the future for higher human/alien beings, for that's where greater complexity lies. Look not to the past of the simpler and simpler—that is the wrong direction—the wrongest even. — PoeticUniverse

I had similar thoughts a couple of years ago. It all depends on the so-called Technological Singularity. I envision that to be a point wherefrom intelligence increase exponentially. Humans create AI smarter than humans, call this AI A; A creates B, smarter than A; B creates C, smarter than B; so on and so forth...this process, seemingly having no limit but even if that's the case, either the chain of creation (smart->smarter...ad infinitum) or "that than which nothing greater can be conceieved" (St. Anselm) will be God (super AI)

Suppose now that a dying universe (Heat Death Of The Universe) is problem no. 1 for life. God (super AI) would "solve" it. One solution is to reverse the entropy to lower levels or to zero if that's possible. That would mean a Cyclical Universe. If so, God (super AI) in the future (God will exist) is the same as God (super AI) in the past (God existed) and, more interestingly, in the present (God exists).