God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[Sapius]

David Quinn wrote:In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence

If “it” is indeed “beyond” all created existences, then why is it not beyond all responsibilities as well? Isn’t the idea ‘responsibility’ itself causally created? If causality is fully responsible, then what exactly would causality be beyond than just that idea created BY causality itself? What exactly has an individual discovered or understood if it is indeed causality that is fully responsible in any which case? Any and all varying and opposing individual ‘intentions/thoughts/understandings’ are then nullified of any relative or comparative values or responsibilities, if that which is “partially” responsible is not also mentioned, and that being the THINGS involved, without which, causality couldn’t be “beyond” in any way.

I think as long as we think of ‘causality’ as being beyond or responsible for anything, we are automatically making it a thing (which I'm told that "it" isn't) that stands apart from what things already are, and that seems absurd.

(Edit: Same time posts…)

Now I am going to seemingly backtrack from what I wrote above. At root, there is no mechanism of casuality, nor is it strictly accurate to think of it as a principle. It is a description, rather, of how things naturally transform into other things.

So on what exactly does then ‘responsibility’ fall on?

[David Quinn]

David Quinn wrote:In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence

If “it” is indeed “beyond” all created existences, then why is it not beyond all responsibilities as well? Isn’t the idea ‘responsibility’ itself causally created? If causality is fully responsible, then what exactly would causality be beyond than just that idea created BY causality itself? What exactly has an individual discovered or understood if it is indeed causality that is fully responsible in any which case? Any and all varying and opposing individual ‘intentions/thoughts/understandings’ are then nullified of any relative or comparative values or responsibilities, if that which is “partially” responsible is not also mentioned, and that being the THINGS involved, without which, causality couldn’t be “beyond” in any way.

I think as long as we think of ‘causality’ as being beyond or responsible for anything, we are automatically making it a thing (which I'm told that "it" isn't) that stands apart from what things already are, and that seems absurd.

That would be absurd, yes. Causality isn't beyond all things in a physical sense. It isn't a thing that underlies all other things. It is simply the manner by which things transform into other things. It never assumes the form of a thing itself, and yet all things are created through its workings.

Now I am going to seemingly backtrack from what I wrote above. At root, there is no mechanism of casuality, nor is it strictly accurate to think of it as a principle. It is a description, rather, of how things naturally transform into other things.

So on what exactly does then ‘responsibility’ fall on?

The causal process, which stretches back forever. In other words, nothing.

Nothing is ultimately responsible for what happens.

-

[David Quinn]

David : The question is, does such a conception actually refer to a reality in the physical world? Or alternatively, does our mental concept of a vacuum involve a contradiction in terms?

S: it might help if you could tell me if the ‘physical world’ is a contrived mental construct or not?

D: It is a contrived mental construct, but because we directly experience what this concept points to during each moment of the day, it differs from the vacuum-concept.

You mean points to something empirical? May be It could differ, but does direct experience automatically make the ‘physical world’ more credible than a contriver mental construct?

It is more credible in that our experience of what we call the "physical world" cannot be refuted.

Well, I could point to the Magdeburg hemispheres experiment then.

Nothing in that experiment indicates that a perfect vacuum is created. At best, all it indicates is that a partial vacuum is created via the removal of air molecules.

In the case of a vacuum, we don't know if we ever experience it in the physical world or that it even exists.

As far as a vacuum goes, what exactly would there be to experience, except experience its effects? If direct experience is what you place your faith in, then I might have to build a big enough vacuum cleaner to fit a person.

What you say here of vacuums is true of all phenomena in the world. We only ever experience the objects of the world through their effects.

That we have experiences at all cannot be refuted. That a portion of these experiences involve what we call the "physical world" also cannot be refuted. That a few of these experiences involve a perfect vacuum cannot be determined.

Show me causality then. What exactly are you going to point to?

First, I would point to the logic of causality. Then, once you understand the logic and have allowed it to wipe away all of your delusions concerning the nature of existence, you will be able to see it in all of your experiences.

In other words, I would point to your mind which does the experiencing and urge you to clear that up.

Show me time then.

Later.

Show me gravity then. Show me electromagnetism then. (I’m sure the more learned could point to other similar things as well)

Are you talking about the observed effects of what we call "gravity" or "electromagnetism"? Or about what science currently theorizes about them?

We do define vacuum, don’t we? Same status as mathematical points you say… how do you think planes and ships navigate and reach their intended destinations if those abstractions were without a referent?

While a mathematical point has no physical referent in the sense that there can be no entity with zero dimensions existing in the physical world, it can be used loosely to represent a place or location. That is, by contradicting its own definition.

For example, we can use mathematical points to measure the distance between London and Rome, even though neither city is an entity with zero dimensions.

To put it another way, the "physical world" is a label we give to a particular set of experiences, while the "vacuum" is a label we give to something which hasn't been experienced (as far as we know) and which may never be experienced.

So that makes it the same as ‘emptiness’ then, which is logically “there”, but which may never be experienced, so what crime did ‘vacuum’ commit?

"Emptiness" is a label given to the true nature of the world, which is experienced by those who have removed all of their delusions and are able to perceive the world without any mental distortion.

By contrast, a vacuum is a possible phenomenon within the world. If it exists, its true nature would be emptiness as well, the same emptiness which comprises all things.

Further more, could there not be another reason than some 'out of logical necessity'? That being that you trust your eyes, and that direct experience of scattered things are added up as a contrived mental construct... result... totality.

Ah! You can't even actually point to totality either, which you cliam EXISTS beyond the mere concept. What exactly are you going to point to? The ALL? So how exactly does one come up with the ALL would be the question? And how exactly does one directly experience THAT?

You are going the wrong way about it if you think that perceiving the ALL involves adding things up to form a totality. Rather, it involves understanding the logic of the All, discerning how it necessarily exists, and observing how it is impossible for anything to be apart from it.

-

[divine focus]

I have to agree with Robert's first impression that a vacuum would have to be everything in order to exist. If it were only to be a specific region of space, what in that space could cause all energy to vacate (before it immediately returned)?

When a couple move all the furniture out and create an empty room, does the empty room become everything that exists?

If the room were truly empty of all energy, no space would exist as well. If no space exists, and space exists, no-space must be the backdrop of space.

There is a problem with basing cause and effect on something other than energy. What exactly is it (for example, the vacuum) that is causing anything?

It is the things and processes that already exist which do the causing. For example, a vacuum in one moment of time is caused, in part at least, by the vacuum which existed a moment before.

Does causation only happen now? Can something in the past cause something in the future, and can something in the future cause something even further into the future? Or does causation happen only when the things are present?

It must be energy to exist (energy etymology: "operation, activity" in Greek).

Energy becomes a meaningless term if everything is deemed to be energy, with nothing else to contrast it. It degenerates into being a synonym for the Totality itself. In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence.

-

What is non-energy?

[Blair]

Does causation only happen now? Can something in the past cause something in the future, and can something in the future cause something even further into the future? Or does causation happen only when the things are present?

Seriously, are you just asking this for effect, to be cute, or are you really that obtuse?

I assume you are familiar with A=A, all the answers are contained there, in that simple equation.

[David Quinn]

When a couple move all the furniture out and create an empty room, does the empty room become everything that exists?

If the room were truly empty of all energy, no space would exist as well. If no space exists, and space exists, no-space must be the backdrop of space.

That means you regard space to be a form of energy too. You would have to elucidate the reasons for thinking this.

There is a problem with basing cause and effect on something other than energy. What exactly is it (for example, the vacuum) that is causing anything?

It is the things and processes that already exist which do the causing. For example, a vacuum in one moment of time is caused, in part at least, by the vacuum which existed a moment before.

Does causation only happen now? Can something in the past cause something in the future, and can something in the future cause something even further into the future? Or does causation happen only when the things are present?

Only existing things can produce effects. So it is a case of causality always happening now, producing effects which shape the future.

Having said that, a thing in the distant past can have an effect on what is happening now, but only through the medium of what exists now. For example, the behaviour of weather patterns is shaped, in part, by the properties of atoms, such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc, which were initially formed in the Big Bang and the inside of ancient stars. The impact of those ancient processes is still being felt today, but only because those types of atoms are still existing now.

Every existing thing is a legacy from the past, and this legacy, which exists now as the currently existing thing, has a say in what happens in the future.

Energy becomes a meaningless term if everything is deemed to be energy, with nothing else to contrast it. It degenerates into being a synonym for the Totality itself. In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence.

What is non-energy?

Define what energy is and you will have your answer.

-

[divine focus]

Does causation only happen now? Can something in the past cause something in the future, and can something in the future cause something even further into the future? Or does causation happen only when the things are present?

Seriously, are you just asking this for effect, to be cute, or are you really that obtuse?

I assume you are familiar with A=A, all the answers are contained there, in that simple equation.

I have no clue what A=A means besides the obvious, or what it's purpose could be. Help me out. (No links, please.)

David,

If the room were truly empty of all energy, no space would exist as well. If no space exists, and space exists, no-space must be the backdrop of space.

That means you regard space to be a form of energy too. You would have to elucidate the reasons for thinking this.

It can be warped by matter (supposedly), and it is expanding (it is substantial). Also, there is energy not attributable to virtual particles.

Does causation only happen now? Can something in the past cause something in the future, and can something in the future cause something even further into the future? Or does causation happen only when the things are present?

Only existing things can produce effects. So it is a case of causality always happening now, producing effects which shape the future.

Having said that, a thing in the distant past can have an effect on what is happening now, but only through the medium of what exists now. For example, the behaviour of weather patterns is shaped, in part, by the properties of atoms, such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc, which were initially formed in the Big Bang and the inside of ancient stars. The impact of those ancient processes is still being felt today, but only because those types of atoms are still existing now.

Every existing thing is a legacy from the past, and this legacy, which exists now as the currently existing thing, has a say in what happens in the future.

I like this.

Energy becomes a meaningless term if everything is deemed to be energy, with nothing else to contrast it. It degenerates into being a synonym for the Totality itself. In order to understand the causal principle fully, you have to be able to see how it is beyond energy and non-energy, indeed beyond all created existences, even while being fully responsible for their existence.

What is non-energy?

Define what energy is and you will have your answer.

-

Energy is any activity (or interactivity). All activity consists of smaller activities, which consist of smaller activities. Non-energy must be non-activity. What in 'Totality' can consist of no activity and still exist (action)? Non-energy must not be.

[David Quinn]

If the room were truly empty of all energy, no space would exist as well. If no space exists, and space exists, no-space must be the backdrop of space.

That means you regard space to be a form of energy too. You would have to elucidate the reasons for thinking this.

It can be warped by matter (supposedly), and it is expanding (it is substantial).

We can still think of space, in these circumstances, as being the passive recipient of external energy forces - e.g. matter/gravity causing space to curve. No?

Also, there is energy not attributable to virtual particles.

Too speculative for my liking.

What is non-energy?

Define what energy is and you will have your answer.

Energy is any activity (or interactivity). All activity consists of smaller activities, which consist of smaller activities. Non-energy must be non-activity. What in 'Totality' can consist of no activity and still exist (action)? Non-energy must not be.

In a sense, what you say here is absolutely correct. Even a stationary object here on earth is whizzing through space via the earth's rotations and orbital movements around the sun and so on. Strictly speaking, nothing is ever stationary.

On the other hand, the only way we can discern this fact is by imagining a backdrop of stationary space in which all these things move. Whether this stationary backdrop exists as a physical phenomenon, or purely as a mental construct, it is part of the causal web. It could thus be thought of as a region of non-energy that has been causally created.

What do you think?

-

[divine focus]

It can be warped by matter (supposedly), and it is expanding (it is substantial).

We can still think of space, in these circumstances, as being the passive recipient of external energy forces - e.g. matter/gravity causing space to curve. No?

We could, yes. If it is a recipient, it needs to be 'something' to be acted on. What can move or change if it is not some 'thing'?

Also, there is energy not attributable to virtual particles.

Too speculative for my liking.

It is that, but few facts exist in this area (scientifically-speaking).

Energy is any activity (or interactivity). All activity consists of smaller activities, which consist of smaller activities. Non-energy must be non-activity. What in 'Totality' can consist of no activity and still exist (action)? 'Non-energy' must not be.

In a sense, what you say here is absolutely correct. Even a stationary object here on earth is whizzing through space via the earth's rotations and orbital movements around the sun and so on. Strictly speaking, nothing is ever stationary.

On the other hand, the only way we can discern this fact is by imagining a backdrop of stationary space in which all these things move. Whether this stationary backdrop exists as a physical phenomenon, or purely as a mental construct, it is part of the causal web. It could thus be thought of as a region of non-energy that has been causally created.

Created from what, though? Was energy there before the creation of it? Or was there no energy or non-energy?

The model itself doesn't matter, only its effectiveness and usability (utility).

Really, it's all subjective. Space is the perception of certain energy configurations.

[divine focus]

Does causation only happen now? Can something in the past cause something in the future, and can something in the future cause something even further into the future? Or does causation happen only when the things are present?

Seriously, are you just asking this for effect, to be cute, or are you really that obtuse?

I assume you are familiar with A=A, all the answers are contained there, in that simple equation.

I have no clue what A=A means besides the obvious, or what it's purpose could be. Help me out. (No links, please.)

Prince, does I=me in your view? This is the only thing I can see A=A meaning so that it should be stated outside of mathematics (or computer language).

If this is the case, have you arrived at where you want to be? Is there possibility of future advancement, or are you at your final state?

[Malik]

The word God is the name tag for the source, but G,o,d, isn't God. God has is-ness.

[Robert]

So in short, it is important to be able to see the "sameness" of causality in all situations, as well as its infinite variety. That is, to be able to see it as both a timeless logical principle and as a pointer to the endlessly diverse processes all around us - and further, to be able to fuse these two apparent opposites into a single coherent understanding.

Causality isn't beyond all things in a physical sense. It isn't a thing that underlies all other things. It is simply the manner by which things transform into other things. It never assumes the form of a thing itself, and yet all things are created through its workings.

The causal process, which stretches back forever. In other words, nothing.

Nothing is ultimately responsible for what happens.

Whilst I can understand your explanations of causality and see the logic in them, I still have this nagging question asking that old chesnut "but why is there something rather than nothing?" when it's ultimately nothing that is responsible for that something?

To recognise the nature and process of causality as being an abstract concept, a non-existent thing, and yet the manner by which we are what we are is a beautifully simple and elegant vision of reality that is somehow still unsatisfactory, still incomplete, still leaving me with questions...

Is that my own ego talking? Is this where the 'leap of faith' kicks in, where I let go of my concept of self and bathe fully in the waters of the Infinite?

[BMcGilly07]

Whilst I can understand your explanations of causality and see the logic in them, I still have this nagging question asking that old chesnut "but why is there something rather than nothing?" when it's ultimately nothing that is responsible for that something?

David answers this in his book, "Wisdom of the Infinite", Chapter One:

A far more pertinent question, perhaps, is the question of why there is a process of causation in the first place and not nothing at all. In other words, why is there "something" rather than nothing? This is an important question to resolve because it goes to the very heart of understanding Reality itself.

In answering this, I must point again to the fact that the process of cause and effect is not a created thing, but the very principle behind all created things. This needs some qualification, however. Even though I use the word "principle", it should not be taken to mean that causation is a physical principle of some kind, or even a spiritual one. In fact, in a certain sense, it does not really exist at all. It isn't a manifested entity which exists above or behind the realm of created things. In the end, created things are all that exists - there is nothing else apart from them, nothing beyond them.

The "principle of causation", then, is merely a figure of speech. It is a description of how created things change into other created things. It is a conceptual construct which points to the fact that objects arise out of what is already there in the world. It asserts that a thing is created out of necessity from the circumstances which are present and that it is impossible for anything else to be created in its place. It also points to the truth that things have no beginning or end, and thus points to the essential "oneness" of Reality.

Given this, the question of why there is causation rather than nothing at all is a meaningless one. Even the state of nothingness is itself a created thing, a product of causation. It can only occur in a region where things are entirely absent - that is, when the causal circumstances are ripe. Moreover, when one analyses it further, one finds that it is nothing more than a mental construct. Nothingness only comes into being when consciousness conceives of it - or more accurately, when consciousness conceives of things being absent. As such, a state of total nothingness, in which nothing exists at all, is logically impossible. At the very least, it would need the existence of consciousness to think it into being.

[David Quinn]

Whilst I can understand your explanations of causality and see the logic in them, I still have this nagging question asking that old chesnut "but why is there something rather than nothing?" when it's ultimately nothing that is responsible for that something?

To recognise the nature and process of causality as being an abstract concept, a non-existent thing, and yet the manner by which we are what we are is a beautifully simple and elegant vision of reality that is somehow still unsatisfactory, still incomplete, still leaving me with questions...

Is that my own ego talking? Is this where the 'leap of faith' kicks in, where I let go of my concept of self and bathe fully in the waters of the Infinite?

It is your ego talking, at root, but it would be better to resolve it through understanding than through a "leap of faith".

You need to examine the question more thoroughly and tease out the underlying assumptions. It is these assumptions which create the issue out of thin air, one that the ego is quick to grasp in its attempts to keep the mind within the realm of duality.

For example, why do you believe that "something", if indeed there is "something", is somehow in need of more explanation than "nothing"? What is it about "nothing" that makes it seem more self-explanatory than "something"?

-

[Robert]

For example, why do you believe that "something", if indeed there is "something", is somehow in need of more explanation than "nothing"? What is it about "nothing" that makes it seem more self-explanatory than "something"?

I suppose it seems that 'nothing' is more self explanatory simply because we are 'something'. Since we can reason about what isn't us, we can say that we are not a river or a cloud for example, but we are something else. But I also realise that through the illusory nature of things, we can simultaneously reason that we are also connected to a river or cloud, that all of these connections of 'somethings' are boundless and (apparently) infinite. I understand this boundless infinite relation of 'somethings' to be the Totality, the "oneness".

Yet, since this "oneness" doesn't have any competiton - there is not, by definition, another "oneness" lurking somewhere, Totality is singular in nature - 'nothing' must be a concept that can only refer to the absence of 'some things' within the Totality, but not of the All itself. We couldn't say that the All is absent, since this conception is logically impossible (at least one mind has to conceive of the idea, thereby negating the whole proposition). And so, since this All exists not in comparison to another All, is it logically correct to say it is in fact no thing? That it's beyond thingness?

Is this what you're referring to when you speak of 'the Totality as being beyond existence and non-existence' ? Being at once something and nothing?

[brokenhead]

You need to examine the question more thoroughly and tease out the underlying assumptions. It is these assumptions which create the issue out of thin air, one that the ego is quick to grasp in its attempts to keep the mind within the realm of duality.

It isn't a manifested entity which exists above or behind the realm of created things. In the end, created things are all that exists - there is nothing else apart from them, nothing beyond them.

It is your ego talking, at root, but it would be better to resolve it through understanding than through a "leap of faith".

Why is there something instead of nothing is therefore the question your ego creates out of thin air. Created things are all that exist. We know who or what created duality. What created the things? David doesn't want you to ask that because his comprehension of the answers is absent. A leap of faith is not a substitute for understanding, he is correct there. But David confuses acceptance with understanding, I'm afraid. He does not recognize his own limitations. He is the King in his castle, the head of the banquet. A leap of faith, if it is coupled with due mistrust of petty kings, can lead to understanding. David is still Caesar, so give him his due. Reserve for God that which is God's. For your own sake, do please understand the difference.

[Robert]

brokenhead, I've noticed you don't miss a chance to take a potshot at David on these forums.
I can only conclude this is your ego talking.

Don't worry about me, I'll be fine.

[David Quinn]

Why is there something instead of nothing is therefore the question your ego creates out of thin air.

Yes, it arises out of a misunderstanding of what Nature is - namely, that it is an object of some kind.

When we ask why a particular object exists, such as a piece of rubbish on the floor, the answer ultimately lies in its causes. But Nature doesn't have any causes, by definition. And so the question of why Nature exists is meaningless. There is no possible answer.

The question is wrongly framed, built out of this misunderstanding. It is like asking, "Why is red?" It is an incoherent question and therefore unanswerable.

In Buddhism, Nature is referred to as being "unborn". There was never a time when Nature was born. It isn't a thing that has come into existence. "It is unborn and therefore ever-living", as Lao Tzu said.

When you understand this, the whole issue is completely and utterly resolved. In the most intellectually satisfactory manner.

-

[David Quinn]

For example, why do you believe that "something", if indeed there is "something", is somehow in need of more explanation than "nothing"? What is it about "nothing" that makes it seem more self-explanatory than "something"?

I suppose it seems that 'nothing' is more self explanatory simply because we are 'something'. Since we can reason about what isn't us, we can say that we are not a river or a cloud for example, but we are something else. But I also realise that through the illusory nature of things, we can simultaneously reason that we are also connected to a river or cloud, that all of these connections of 'somethings' are boundless and (apparently) infinite. I understand this boundless infinite relation of 'somethings' to be the Totality, the "oneness".

Yet, since this "oneness" doesn't have any competiton - there is not, by definition, another "oneness" lurking somewhere, Totality is singular in nature - 'nothing' must be a concept that can only refer to the absence of 'some things' within the Totality, but not of the All itself. We couldn't say that the All is absent, since this conception is logically impossible (at least one mind has to conceive of the idea, thereby negating the whole proposition). And so, since this All exists not in comparison to another All, is it logically correct to say it is in fact no thing? That it's beyond thingness?

Is this what you're referring to when you speak of 'the Totality as being beyond existence and non-existence' ? Being at once something and nothing?

Well, more accurately, it is neither something nor nothing. It is not complete nothingness, but neither does it reach the level of an existing thing. It resides in its own special category.

But yes, you're on the right track in considering the implications of what being the ALL means. If it were possible that there was something other than the ALL, then we would have a basis for asking where the ALL came from and why it was produced. But, of course, no such possibility exists.

-

[Lunar]

I'd rather not stand and watch some far out loser talking to me in a monotone voice about some bullshit that takes God very lightly. First of all, God does exist in all of us. WTF you think he created us for? Anyhow. If God be for us who can be against us?

[Dan Rowden]

What is God?

[David Quinn]

God is the force that ejected Lunar because he was spamming the board.

-

[brokenhead]

brokenhead, I've noticed you don't miss a chance to take a potshot at David on these forums.
I can only conclude this is your ego talking.

Don't worry about me, I'll be fine.

Robert
The potshot taking is mutual, I assure you. And it was David who set the precedent.

You will note that any such activity of mine at GF is in response to the same.

Why is it my ego talking when I respond to Quinn, but not Quinn's ego talking when he assumes a superior position to anyone else, which he does far more often than I do.

You have to understand the history of our exchanges. David is the one who declared he was a king at the banquet and considers others mere peasants groveling for crumbs outside the gates.

Do not let him bamboozle you. I have had pets as enlightened as he is.

I do not claim enlightenment for myself, and I am damn sure not going to concede it to David Quinn.

You would do better to address you inquiries to Dan or Kevin. Quinn reminds me of a snakeoil salesman, a man behind the curtain of a great Oz head hovering above smoke and mirrors.

[David Quinn]

You have to understand the history of our exchanges. David is the one who declared he was a king at the banquet and considers others mere peasants groveling for crumbs outside the gates.

Anyone can be a king at the banquet. Nothing is stopping them, except their own attachment to remaining a peasant.

"It is the mind that binds and it is the mind that liberates. I am the child of the Lord, the son of the king of kings; who can possibly bind me? " - Ramakrishna

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Anyone can be a king at the banquet. Nothing is stopping them, except their own attachment to remaining a peasant.

"Your Majesty, I had no idea the crown fell on my head. You believe me, don't you?" -Mad Hatter