I can understand & agree with that argument --- and the perceived need for it --- except for the "completely" specification. There have been several proposals, as a substitute for ex nihilo creation, that a pre-existing god, in order to create our physical world, converted all or some portion of his own eternal divine substance into the mundane matter of our temporal universe*1. Spinoza, by contrast, postulated that the substance of our world is, and always has been, the substance of god*2. In the 17th century though, he was not aware of the unprecedented-sudden-emergence (Big Bang) theory, so did not have to explain how the transformation ex nihilo or ex deus could occur.D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe. — spirit-salamander
But the Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom, that both Energy and Natural Law, existed prior to the creation event. — Gnomon
Does any of that techno-theorizing make sense to you? — Gnomon
This statement resonates with my thinking (unlike the rest of your demonstration) as the point of departure of my own speculative (Spinozist sub specie durationis) pandeism:B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible. — spirit-salamander
I think it's nonsensical. Just substitute "pants" for "parts" ...What do you think of the “God has parts – God has no parts” discussion in the philosophy of religion? — spirit-salamander
That goes without saying. Philosophers & Cosmologists don't "prove" anything, they merely argue for for their own mental model. In the book I'm currently reading --- Fire in the Mind, by George Johnson (1995) --- a cautionary insight may be relevant here : "When we look upon the grand architectures of cosmology and particle physics with the advantage of hindsight, developments take on an illusory sense of inevitability". So, we need to be aware of our own "filters" that channel everything we see. Despite the pitfalls, we are motivated by the implicit god gap in our scientific models, to speculate for provenance beyond the reach of empirical proving. " the cosmological model we have constructed has become so firmly lodged in the brain that mere humans can be heard to speculate confidently about the very origin of the universe. What caused the big bang? That is where science once left off and religion began".(Aside from the fact that it is probably philosophically and empirically impossible to prove an absolute temporal beginning of the world.) — spirit-salamander
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Is that a Katie Mack notion? Are the Laws themselves "distorted" (quantum fluctuations?) or is our view of them warped by preconceptions? Some Cosmologists seem to assume that natural laws were "engraved in stone", so to speak, prior to the Big Bang. Others guess that physical laws develop along with physical evolution. If Natural Laws are inconstant though, then our scientific speculations are shooting at a moving target.But were energy as well as natural laws not rather completely distorted before the creation event? — spirit-salamander
No, I did not intend to imply that the Ground of Being is a composite entity. Instead, the Source of our space-time world is assumed to be a non-physical infinite Whole, which is not diminished by spawning space-time parts. A Whole, by definition, can have parts (holons), which may have subordinate parts of their own. But the First Cause of our own ever-changing part is pictured as the ultimate Whole : the infinite power to create finite things. Not a thing among things, but the essence of beingness; a Qualia, not a Quanta. {see Gestalt God below}To some extent, I can understand that. In the philosophy of religion, it is often discussed whether God, as the source of all being, has parts or not. Your remarks seem to imply that there are parts. — spirit-salamander
A god injured by exercising his own creative power reminds me of the old riddle : "could God create a rock to big for God to pick-up?"; thereby suffering a divine hernia. That notion is skeptical of the possibility of Omnipotence. The implication is that God is a physical being with physical limitations. To me, that sounds like a mythical humanoid god (e.g Thor), which is not what I have in mind as the Prime Mover of the Big Bang. {see Creation vs Conversion below} :smile:So at creation, parts would have to be converted, which could cause the injury problem mentioned in my original post. God would somehow suffer an injury. What is your assessment of this? — spirit-salamander
Philosophers & Cosmologists don't "prove" anything, they merely argue for for their own mental model. — Gnomon
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. — Gnomon
No, I did not intend to imply that the Ground of Being is a composite entity. Instead, the Source of our space-time world is assumed to be a non-physical infinite Whole, which is not diminished by spawning space-time parts. — Gnomon
the infinite power to create finite things. — Gnomon
a Qualia, not a Quanta — Gnomon
EnFormAction transforms inexhaustible Potential (cosmic energy) into Actual physical things — Gnomon
The power-to-enform does not involve a physical transmutation of one material thing into another physical thing (e.g. lead into gold). — Gnomon
B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible. — spirit-salamander
To me, that sounds like a mythical humanoid god (e.g Thor), which is not what I have in mind as the Prime Mover of the Big Bang. — Gnomon
Hypothetically, that might be possible. But I'm not aware of any human enterprise that is "contradiction-free" or "all-encompassing". That would seem to require Omniscience.Every theory that has even a single contradiction in it would be disproved, and the contradiction-free and most all-encompassing one would be the proven one.. . . . a proof is not theoretically impossible — spirit-salamander
That was not what I meant. Instead, the Energy & Laws of our world are defined by the limitations of Space-Time. But the eternal Potential for those specific causes & rules could be adapted to the design requirements of any of a zillion worlds*1. Some scientist have postulated that the laws of physics have evolved along with the matter it governs. I find that hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible.I had understood you to mean that energy and law of nature before creation were identical to energy and law of nature after creation. In other words, that the pre-existent energy and natural law remains unchanged in the post-existence. — spirit-salamander
I have no reliable information about pre-existence. So anything I might imagine could be "warped" by my own pre-conceptions. But I still don't grasp what you are trying to imply about an imaginary deity that existed eternally, and that, for no apparent reason, decided to create a world-simulation to play around with. Are you saying that the creator of an imperfect word, must be insane? So his idea of energy & laws would be warped like a fun-house mirror? :joke:What I wanted to say is that I thought that everything that pre-exists is infinitely warped and thus has no identity with what is understood to be energy and natural law after creation. Does what I'm saying make sense? It could be that I have simply misunderstood you. — spirit-salamander
That may be the key difference between our god-models. In my view, the physical world is indeed made of malleable Matter, but the meta-physical world-maker consists only of immaterial Information (power to enform, to create). So, my personal creation myth says that the Programmer converted some of Her ideas (mental essence) into a real world (material stuff). Hence, Mind was transformed into Matter*2. In other words, Aristotelian universal Substance (abstract form ; essence) was converted into particular Substance (matter). You can measure a "little" piece of Matter (Quanta), but Abstract Form is an integrated holistic mental concept, of which you can't measure just one part. That's the idea behind Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory. :nerd:The ground of all being would thus be completely rounded, so to speak. This ground would be absolutely homogeneous as if flawlessly and seamlessly made from one piece. Why should the spawning of space-time parts not diminish it? “Diminish” would actually be an understatement in this case. It would have to be “destroy”, considering that to create would be to use God's “material”, as quoted in the original post. If you take a little of this “material”, you ultimately take all of it. — spirit-salamander
Obviously, we are thinking of "wholes" & "parts" in a different sense : Quantitative vs Qualitative. A physical Whole System does indeed contain many parts*3. But my meta-physical (conceptual) Wholeness is an indivisible Singularity*4. :wink:The only solution I can see would be to say that the ground of all being has an infinite number of parts (the parts don't have to be on a par, they could be in a hierarchical order). . . . . In fact, those who assume God without parts say that God with parts could be something like Thor. — spirit-salamander
So, my personal creation myth says that the Programmer converted some of Her ideas (mental essence) into a real world (material stuff). Hence, Mind was transformed into Matter — Gnomon
Yes. Here's an excerpt from my thesis glossary :Would it be fair to describe your construction or model as panentheism? If so, I would get the point. For my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test. — spirit-salamander
Coincidentally, I just read an article in the Feb/Mar 2023 issue of Philosophy Now magazine. It is addressed to "fundamentalist Atheists" who argue against fundamentalist Monotheism. It, somewhat satirically, presents alternatives to the Good God model of the Bible. My own god-posit is mostly an explanation for the god-gap in the Big Bang creation story. BB does not begin at the beginning, but assumes the prior existence of Creative Power and Directional Rules for evolution. So, like a Cosmologist, I reasoned backward from current conditions to see if there were any clues to the how & why of sudden emergence from Erewhon (nowhere).my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test. — spirit-salamander
Finally confessing your own "Enformer" god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Good for you, sir. :clap: :smirk:My own god-posit is mostly an explanation for the god-gap in the Big Bang creation story. BB does not begin at the beginning, but assumes the prior existence of Creative Power and Directional Rules for evolution. So, like a Cosmologist, I reasoned backward from current conditions to see if there were any clues to the how & why of sudden emergence from Erewhon (nowhere).
I still saw a philosophical necessity for a Creation Myth to explain why there is something instead of nothing. — Gnomon
B 1. Creation from nothing is impossible. — spirit-salamander
He produces from His Own eternal nature — spirit-salamander
A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago. — spirit-salamander
B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible. — spirit-salamander
I would argue that it is simply impossible for us to conceive. The universe need not conform to our limited understanding. — Fooloso4
A clumsy side step dance attempting to avoid the problem of ex nihilo nihil fit — Fooloso4
a questionable interpretation of Genesis 1.1. — Fooloso4
What knowledge do you have of a transcendent substance and what it is capable of? — Fooloso4
To create literally out of nothing is logically impossible because “nothing” is the absence of anything that has any trace of “being”. — spirit-salamander
Do you agree or disagree with ex nihilo nihil fit? — spirit-salamander
If not, what are the basic thinking rules you follow when you philosophize?
This misses my earlier point:
— spirit-salamander
The universe need not conform to our limited understanding. — Fooloso4
What clumsy side step dance? I don't understand what you mean. — spirit-salamander
I am not trying to interpret Genesis. — spirit-salamander
You should rather stick to the mere structure of argumentation. — spirit-salamander
What knowledge do you have of a transcendent substance and what it is capable of?
— Fooloso4
If ... — spirit-salamander
It is, I would argue, at least prima facie intuitively plausible. — spirit-salamander
If you don't believe in a theistic god — spirit-salamander
It is not a question of what I believe but of whether you accomplished what you set out to do in the title of the OP. You did not. — Fooloso4
To the contrary, I explicitly stated that my non-theist god-quest was provoked by the god-gap problem in Big Bang cosmology*1. My Enformer or Programmer is indeed a gap-filler or law-giver. It's similar to Plato's "Logos", except that his was based on the notion of Logical Necessity, not an origin-theory gap. It also plays the role of Aristotle's "Prime Mover", as an alternative to eternal regression of causation. The ancient Greek origin story was rather abstract, suggesting that our orderly world emerged from an eternal state of Chaos. Basically, I was philosophically motivated by the realization that the Big Bang theory --- and it's subsequent gap-fillers --- did not explain the existence/origin of our evolving world*2.I am glad to see evidence that his reason does compel him to label his enformer, as a god of the gaps posit, and I also applaud him for that with NO MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. I am sure you mean your :clap: in the same way. — universeness
A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.
A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin. — spirit-salamander
You seem to assume that a finite past entails the universe having been caused. Actually, a finite past entails an initial state of affairs, and this implies it is logically impossible for it to have been caused (there's no time prior to an initial point of time). — Relativist
Why is that not enough in your view? — spirit-salamander
A likely point of attack would be C1 and C2. The idea of simplicity. It does not follow from the idea of simplicity that God cannot create out of himself without becoming other than himself. — Fooloso4
“There’s an objection—I’ll call it the ‘Injury Problem’—that I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the x’s are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the x’s, then God loses whatever functions or features the x’s conferred on God. And this would make God worse off or lessened. For instance, if Michelangelo created the statue of David not out of a block of marble but out of the flesh and bone in his right foot, Michelangelo would no longer be able to walk as he once did. It would seem that something just as injurious to God would take place if He were to create out of Himself. Perhaps we could reply that God creates out of parts that don’t really contribute to God’s properties or functions. But this response seems unappealing and ad hoc, for why did God have those parts in the first place and in what sense are they really parts of Him if they don’t really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himself—replace those parts from which He created the universe with new parts. But the problem (and the injury) would just be pushed back to where those parts were taken from.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo) — spirit-salamander
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.