For x to create y, x must precede y in existence.
— Agent Smith
This is true only if "x creates" presupposes that "x" is already "in existence" and ontically separate from "y".

If x creates x, x must exist before x exists.
Causa sui – "x creates x" – merely denotes "x" is not the effect of any external causes (i.e. random) and that it's only "x"'s continuity, or perdurance, which "x creates". — 180 Proof

Yes, time to bounce something off you and those interested.

What's the difference betwixt self-caused and uncaused?

Sorry, I don't see your point, if there is one to begin with.

Religion is strong testimony that people look at life/existence as a gamble: The expected value if the entry fee is a finite life and if the gain is eternal happiness is off the charts. They say one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Scale up the number of birds in the bush and suddenly, the bird in the hand is not quite as satisfying as the million in the bush.

What's the difference betwixt self-caused and uncaused? — Agent Smith

Both are random – using physical analogues, IME, the latter is ephemeral (e.g. fluctuations) and the former perdurant (e.g. vacuum).

Also: :roll:

I guess I just find it difficult to accept that an adult - especially one who has obviously spent some time thinking about these things - can believe in such a petty, cruel god that Pascal’s wager seems reasonable. Don’t you realize that Pascal’s wager suggests that most humans are morally superior to God? Think about it : Eternal torment just for not swallowing the party line. Kind of negates free will, don’t ya think?

Pascal’s wager posits a ridiculous Santa-god. Actually an evil Santa-god, because worse than Santa, The god of Pascal’s wager doesn’t just give toys to the “good” girls and boys (eternal bliss for believers), but takes the toys away from the “bad” ones (eternal torment for the non-believers).

Why does God care whether we believe or not? Shouldn’t God be bigger than all that? Doesn’t God have anything better to do?

And you are still dodging my original question : How can we have a relationship with an entity that essentially doesn’t exist (not in our universe anyway)?

How can we have a relationship with an entity that essentially doesn’t exist (not in our universe anyway)? — Real Gone Cat

How can you have a relationship with your dead grandmother? The fact that the named entity does not presently exist in your universe does not deny your relationship with that thing. It only means that you have to expand you concept of what "relationship" means, to include other things. This is the nature of the cause/effect relationship. By the time that the effect exists in the universe, the cause no longer exists in the universe.

The relationship with you grandmother already existed. The same cannot be said about god. The relationship with god doesnt have a previous existence upon which to base it like dear old grandma does. Thats the key, that you cannot have a relationship with something that never existed in the first place.

How can you have a relationship with your dead grandmother?

I can't. She's dead. And thanks for reminding me. Now I have to relive that trauma.

Haha. Not really. She was an abusive alcoholic. Good riddance, you old crone.

The initial claim was, "God created the universe but is not part of it." You may or may not agree (it wasn't your claim). My question then was : If God is not a part of our universe, then God does not exist for us. So why can't we just ignore God?

Possible answers may include : God somehow enters the universe at a later date. Or, God left clues as to what was expected of us at the moment of creation. Or, God is watching us like some cosmic Santa Claus, just waiting for some doubt to creep in. Or, something else. But its not up to me to fill in the blanks. It's not my claim either.

But just to be clear, whatever answer is given, it needs to be supported. This is a philosophy forum, not a theology forum.

And the question of why-can't-we-just-ignore-God raises another question : Why does God care? Apparently, there is some danger of God getting into a snit and dropping this poor unbeliever into a lake of fire for all eternity (Agent Smith keeps throwing Pascal's wager at me). Would you do that? I know I wouldn't do it to anyone else. Nor do either of us (I presume) require worship or evidence-free belief in the existence of our persons. So you and I must be morally (or at least, emotionally) superior to God!

Pascals wager is a trolls device, asking people to accept a bargain while assuming bargains don't lead to Hell

Let's leave God aside. I don't want this topic to become yet another religious war on God's existence nor I want to explain universe by some sort of deity. ;)

Shall we just use 'X' instead?

God is ineffable. — Tom Storm

"X is ineffable". How were you able to assign a predicate "ineffable" to X if you assume that X is ineffable?

Ok, we might say that if X is actually ineffable then by saying "X is ineffable" we are not talking about X, but, let's say, about a conception or an image (or our own fantasy if you wish) of X. Let's call that conception/image/fantasy/thought a fantasy-X. So we are saying something about fantasy-X and therefore fantasy-X is not ineffable. But if we are having in mind fantasy-X as we say X then to say "X is ineffable" is the same as to say that "fantasy-X is ineffable" which is not true.

But I must admit that I haven't properly separated predicates "incomprehensible" and "ineffable". Let's allow X to be comprehensible but ineffable. Then someone can actually think about X. We shall even allow to name that X. So someone can have X in mind and even say 'X' (as long as 'X' remains just a name and is not used as or accompanied by a predicate).
Even if this is the case, how can someone use predicate "ineffable" to an ineffable X? Once again, X is not ineffable if someone can at least say that "X is ineffable". So it seems to me that If X is truly ineffable then we even lack a proper predicate to name X's "ineffableness".

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (L. W., Tractatus §7). Or should we say in this case - "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one always remains silent".

How could your finite mind truly grasp the infinite love of the Creator? Impossible.

I can formally manipulate 'infinity' mathematically all day long. But truly wrap my head around it? Impossible. Poor analogy, but still...

The relationship with you grandmother already existed. The same cannot be said about god. The relationship with god doesnt have a previous existence upon which to base it like dear old grandma does. Thats the key, that you cannot have a relationship with something that never existed in the first place. — DingoJones

I don't see the basis for your claim. If God is the creator, then God had real existence, prior to your existence, just like your grandmother had real existence prior to your existence.

If God is not a part of our universe, then God does not exist for us. So why can't we just ignore God? — Real Gone Cat

You could ignore God if you want, just like you can ignore the fact that you had a grandmother. But if you want to understand the reality of your existence, then if God is real, understanding that there is a God is essential to understanding that reality, regardless of whether God is here now. Just like your grandmother who is no longer existing, you can ignore the reality that you had a grandmother, but this is not conducive toward understanding the reality of your existence.

I don't see the basis for your claim. If God is the creator, then God had real existence, prior to your existence, just like your grandmother had real existence prior to your existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, “if”. You would have to show the previous existence of god or a creator. Not so with dear grandma, whose previous existence is not in question.
Since you havent shown god to have previous existence then its fallacious to use this grandma analogy to make your point/case.

You could ignore God if you want, just like you can ignore the fact that you had a grandmother. But if you want to understand the reality of your existence, then if God is real, understanding that there is a God is essential to understanding that reality, regardless of whether God is here now. Just like your grandmother who is no longer existing, you can ignore the reality that you had a grandmother, but this is not conducive toward understanding the reality of your existence.

But I've met my grandmother, so it's hard to ignore the fact of her existence. Agent Smith makes the claim that God is not in this universe. So his God is not real. His God is speculation, nothing more. And if you agree with him (a position you dance around and don't seem to commit to), then I guess God can be anything you want.

How is a made-up God essential to understanding reality? Even if you need God to be your Prime Mover, a god-that-is-not-present adds nothing to the understanding of reality. Only things in the universe can give us information about the universe.

"X is ineffable". How were you able to assign a predicate "ineffable" to X if you assume that X is ineffable? — Zebeden

It's simple really. We do it all the time - we look at nature and find the impact it has on us ineffable. As soon as you try to use words to describe it you are reduced to cliché and banality. Even Wittgenstein (when discussing morality) said “There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.” (TLP 6.522)

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (L. W., Tractatus §7). Or should we say in this case - "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one always remains silent". — Zebeden

Wittgenstein said a lot of things and I don't think he is widely recognised as resolving the question of God.

Journal entry (11 June 1916), p. 72e and 73e 1910s, Notebooks 1914-1916
Contexte: What do I know about God and the purpose of life? I know that this world exists. That I am placed in it like my eye in its visual field. That something about it is problematic, which we call its meaning. This meaning does not lie in it but outside of it. That life is the world. That my will penetrates the world. That my will is good or evil. Therefore that good and evil are somehow connected with the meaning of the world. The meaning of life, i. e. the meaning of the world, we can call God. And connect with this the comparison of God to a father. To pray is to think about the meaning of life./quote]

For x to create y, x must precede y in existence.
If x creates x, x must exist before x exists. :chin: — Agent Smith

I hear ya, I hear ya. Butt!! In Hindi, the Hindu religion, the main gud inspired his parents to move to some city or area where they should give birth to him.

This Hindi Gud certainly existed before he himself existed.

If he can do it, any other Gud can do it.

What's the difference betwixt self-caused and uncaused?
— Agent Smith
Both are random – using physical analogues, IME, the latter is ephemeral (e.g. fluctuations) and the former perdurant (e.g. vacuum).

Also: ↪180 Proof — 180 Proof

I'm sorry I don't follow. It's alright, I'm not running for president (I don't have to know everything! :wink: )

As for Pascal's wager being a false dichotomy, how?

Pascals wager is a trolls device, asking people to accept a bargain while assuming bargains don't lead to Hell — Gregory

I see wagers/gambles as an adult's game (risky, dangerous) and I'm sure God wants us to treat him as a mature person would.

Vide supra (my reply to Gregory)

As for how we might have a relationship with a being (God) who's not of this universe, causally of course. God can intervene/interfere (your choice) in/with our lives. If He is what people say He is that is and so necessarily we must placate Him/win his favor. Too He decides our fate post-death.

God(s), then, doesn't (don't) make sense i.e. to answer the OP, God is incomprehensible. It's got to do with His/their omnipontence - the ability to do anything (they so wish).

As for Pascal's wager being a false dichotomy, how? — Agent Smith

There isn't any factual information or evidence (contra Christian dogma used to frame (force) the "Wager") which establishes any g/G or "afterlife" whatsoever and, therefore, the assumptions at work (simply put) are more than Pascal's two:

1. if bG, then "heaven" (?)
2. if ~bG, then "hell" (?)
3. if bG, then death
4. if ~bG, then death

So (simply put again) whether or not "there is" a g/G (btw, which g/G?) and whether or not "there is" an afterlife, "hell" is less likely (1 out of 4); therefore, all one can do rationally is live one's life doing one's best (i.e. following e.g. Hillel the Elder's maxim "What you find hateful (harmful), do not do to anyone" with as much courage & integrity (i.e. aretē) as possible). Pascal's "Christian faith" adds nothing to – first, do no harm; etc – "good works" (pace Pascal).

Other defects in "Pascal's Wager":
https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/05/06/the-flaws-of-pascals-wager/

Nice! :clap:

A more precise consideration of "Pascal's Wager" itself:

1. if G, if bG, then "heaven"; if G, if ~bG, then "hell";
ergo bG (theism)
2. if ~G, if bG, then death; if ~G, if ~bG, then death;
ergo ~bG (atheism)
3. If G, if bG, then death; if G, if ~bG, then death;
ergo ~bG (deism)

And just for shitz-n-giggles:

4. if G, if bG, then "hell"; if G, if ~bG, then "heaven";
ergo ~bG (gnosticism)

Etcetera.

Hmm…you applaud 180’s take down of Pascal’s wager…

So all this time your insistence on the validity of Pascal’s wager has been a sham? Just toying with the rubes. Well I guess I’ve been clowned.

I had been wondering why anyone over the age of 15 believed in that nonsense. Now I see it was all a joke.

Hmm…you applaud 180’s take down of Pascal’s wager… — Real Gone Cat

180 Proof offers a different perspective. The :clap: was for that.

validity of Pascal’s wager — Real Gone Cat

It is valid if, for example,there were only one religion. That's understood.

nonsense — Real Gone Cat

Read Blaise Pascal's biography. In a nutshell, Pascal was a genius!

Pascal was a genius! — Agent Smith

Yeah, and like that Biblical-alchemist Sir Isaac Newton (an even greater genius!), it just goes to show how scientific-mathematical reasoning has to be completely compartmentalized in order to function from (i.e. quarantined from being contaminated by) religious faith. To wit:

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. — Freddy Zarathustra

Sure, “if”. You would have to show the previous existence of god or a creator. Not so with dear grandma, whose previous existence is not in question.
Since you havent shown god to have previous existence then its fallacious to use this grandma analogy to make your point/case. — DingoJones

I was going on Real Gone's interpretation of what you said, that God is outside the universe. Under that proposal there is no question as to whether God is real or not, it is stated that God is outside the universe. The existence of God is taken for granted, but Real Gone could not understand how a person could have a relationship with something outside the universe. So I explained how a cause is outside the universe by the time the effect occurs.

But I've met my grandmother, so it's hard to ignore the fact of her existence. Agent Smith makes the claim that God is not in this universe. So his God is not real. His God is speculation, nothing more. And if you agree with him (a position you dance around and don't seem to commit to), then I guess God can be anything you want. — Real Gone Cat

The point of the example is that the premise "X is not in this universe" does not lead to the conclusion "X is not real". You've met your grandmother, so you know she's real, yet she's outside this universe, being no longer in existence. Agent Smith's assumption that since God is not in this universe, God is therefore pure speculation, is unjustified. Therefore I clearly do not agree with Agent Smith.

How is a made-up God essential to understanding reality? Even if you need God to be your Prime Mover, a god-that-is-not-present adds nothing to the understanding of reality. Only things in the universe can give us information about the universe. — Real Gone Cat

So this question, and the conclusion are completely wrong. That God is not in the universe does not necessitate the conclusion that God is "made-up". And, we can learn stuff from things which are outside the universe, as I explained. A cause, being prior to its effect, is always outside the universe by the time the effect occurs, and the effect is always outside the universe when the cause occurs. So knowing the relationship between things within the universe, and things outside the universe is a very important part of understanding the universe.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. — 180 Proof

:up:

To be fair though, we have more experience with religion than science, the former being somewhat of a neglected wife and the latter a brand-new mistress. What if, down the line, after about 2k years, our mistress, science, starts to show us her dark side so to speak? Would we go running back to religion? Science has already begun to let us down: global warming is a case in point.

Anyway, I'm going to stick with science...till the bitter end, come hell or high water! Some of us are probably saying exactly the same thing about religion. Time, like always, will tell!

To be fair though, we have more experience with religion than science, the former being somewhat of a neglected wife[mother's tit] and the latter a brand-new mistress[dominatrix's whip]. — Agent Smith

Moreso, I think: religion seems to me more like early childhood (nursery, fairytales, kindergarden) and science like late adolescence (sex, cars, junior college) – the latter never completely outgrows the developmental vestiges (defects, biases) of the former.

It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe; neither is God something concrete in our cosmos, and nor do any abstractions thereof apply to him. Put simply, there's nothing in our universe, physical/mental, that we can use as a starting point in grasping what God is. Re: apophatic theology (via negativa). — Agent Smith

The rub in this lies in philosophy's need to, possess the world, so to speak. The essence of apophatic thinking lies here: "God" (if we have to think like this) is an actuality that cannot be "said"; but many things are actualities, like this sore ankle or this amazing work by Brahms. So if we want to understand the ineffability of God, we should first look (as we should have done in the beginning) at the ineffability of perfectly accessible actualities. Here, philosophy looks for the Real to step forward AS a concept (just as with God) and it does not do this. A pen is a pen, but the reality of the pen doesn't work like this.

this is the beginning of the philosophical "apophatic" work, for it is the apophatic approach to give analysis to something and abstract from what is there, dismiss all that is NOT what you are looking for, and discover what is remaining.

This is phenomenology.

Moreso, I think: religion seems to me more like early childhood (nursery, fairytales, kindergarden) and science like late adolescence (sex, cars, junior college) – the latter never completely outgrows the developmental vestiges (defects, biases) of the former. — 180 Proof

But this is all just psychoanalytic that doesn't even qualify as philosophy. Fails to look at what underlies all of this. Prior to being a fantasy of childhood, there is the analysis of what is there is out of which fantasies are fashioned.

Sorry, I don't see the "psychoanalytic" relevance to my post of your (non-philosophical) "projection".

Sorry, I don't see the "psychoanalytic" relevance to my post of your (non-philosophical) "projection". — 180 Proof

I don't see the talk about unsublimated early childhood fairytales having anything to do with a philosophical analysis of religion and God. There may be some truth in it, but truth lies everywhere. If you think religion boils down to just as you put it, then you haven't really encountered the core meaning of religion.