Concerning David Quinn's "Ultimate Reality"

[Cold Cave]

Thanks for the clear and direct responses David, I appreciate it. I will take to more reflection and reading on such matters for now.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

If we are talking in terms of you and me and him, there is no being 'higher' than you.

You'll notice, if you look closely, every idea you put forth regarding a God or creator or whatever, is some imagined bullshit.


Escaping the bullshit, existence remains. aka "I let go of all that...and here I am"

[Cold Cave]

Thanks Seeker!

definitely some timeless wisdom there, and so few words too! some fucking lazer beams of truth coming from you!

you are a valued asset to this forum.

Thanks AGAIN!!!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

My timeless wisdom was that your creator idea is bullshit, don't get all defensive and deflect with sarcasm.

[Cold Cave]

Seeker how am I supposed to take you seriously? You come in dropping the forums popular opinion one liners like a muppet with no regard to addressing any of my questions or being part of a conversation. You act like a troll and I will treat you like one.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Not sure what seriousness has to do with anything.

Was just pointing out, there is no being 'higher' than you, recognizing that will no doubt dispel any ideas you have of a creator. It was clear from your writing you are still thinking in terms of external and internal, 'beyond physical matter' and so forth. The void that is referred to is nothing more than a reference to your own existence as you know it. (The essential nature of things). Hope that extra input clears the one liner up.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks Seeker!

definitely some timeless wisdom there, and so few words too! some fucking lazer beams of truth coming from you!

you are a valued asset to this forum.

Thanks AGAIN!!!

Cold Case, you behave here unmistakably like some old cynical regular of the forum. What's your deal really?

[Cold Cave]

"old cynical regular" was exactly what i was going for, thanks for noticing.

my deal? I'm not really sure what my deal is. just trying to wrap my head around some of these concepts. I'm a self educated thinker, of what I'm sure most of you would consider low grade, and like most low grade thinkers I get defensive when talked down to.

I don't really feel an emotional attachment to my dualistic mindset. I believe it's a intellectual attachment. I believe it's more logical. However, I value truth above all else, and am not afraid to seek it out in strange and unassuming places. I believe there is a lot of truth to certain concepts that are hovering among this network of websites, so that is why I am here asking questions.

At the moment I feel like there is some elusive fallacy on the premise of DQ's "ultimate reality" I just can't put my finger on. I work full time and will admit I haven't had a chance to spend much time reading/thinking about this. I promise I wont come back and flood the forum with my stupid questions until I do.


"What strange simplification and falsification mankind lives in! One can never cease to marvel once one has acquired eyes for this marvel! How we have made everything around us bright and free and easy and simple! How we have known how to bestow on our senses a passport to everything superficial, on our thoughts a divine desire for wonton gamboling and false conclusions! - how we have from the very beginning understood how to retain our ignorance so as to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, frivolity, impetuosity, bravery, cheerfulness of life, so as to enjoy life! And only on this now firm and granite basis of ignorance has knowledge hitherto been able to rise up, the will to knowledge on the basis of a far more powerful will, the will to non-knowledge, to the uncertain, to the untrue."
Nietzsche

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I get defensive when talked down to.

At least being able to recognize that is a sure sign of growing attention and wisdom.

Will probably take a while before that stops, no doubt you'll go through a stage in which you think you're there but are just putting it on, until eventually you're there.

[Russell Parr]

At the moment I feel like there is some elusive fallacy on the premise of DQ's "ultimate reality" I just can't put my finger on. I work full time and will admit I haven't had a chance to spend much time reading/thinking about this. I promise I wont come back and flood the forum with my stupid questions until I do.

Keep at it, don't worry yourself with the bulk of nonsense you find around here. While here I spend most of my time just lurking as well. You're asking good questions, in my opinion.

[Cold Cave]

Ok, so after reading a few threads, I think I understand the concept of Ultimate Reality.

Basically put, it is the idea that everything is connected by an infinite causal chain, and therefore nothing exists independently of anything else. There is no beginning and no end, and of course no need for ego as there is no free will.

I definitely see the logic, and even beauty to it.

In many ways it almost seems like a mirror image to what I had already believed about the universe as a theist. Except instead of causation being simply a cold, driving force, I attributed consciousness to it. I understand this can be seen as a delusion, that there is no logical reason to want create this image. I see that the desire to create this image can easily be motivated by fear, fear of death, fear of being alone. I see how it can be used by political agendas to control the populace. I see that some people cannot believe that a conscious/good God would cause evil/pain. I even see that out of all the "holy books" that claim to be from God, there are inconsistencies, and contradictions.

Yet in the face of these emotional arguments, and how harmful this image can be in the wrong hands, I simply cannot make myself discount that it is a possible reality. The idea that there can be no conscious God, because causation would extent past him is ignoring the simple fact that just like infinite causation, God is infinite. How can one infinity extend past the other?


"to choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation"
life of pi , Yann Martel

[Russell Parr]

Yet in the face of these emotional arguments, and how harmful this image can be in the wrong hands, I simply cannot make myself discount that it is a possible reality. The idea that there can be no conscious God, because causation would extent past him is ignoring the simple fact that just like infinite causation, God is infinite. How can one infinity extend past the other?

Causation is not a thing, it is a description of the most fundamental process of reality, of which all things obey. Whenever you demarcate a part of reality, be it God or your toaster, it follows that that thing has causes, and cannot exist on it's on accord in reality.

Your troubles, as it is with most others, is understanding how consciousness fits into all this. Demarcation is a phenomena which resides within the realm of consciousness, and beyond this realm (the rest of reality) is simply formless. We know this because our own demarcations are illusory, simply appearances of the moment. Therefore to attribute form of any kind to reality in any ultimate sense is delusional.

[David Quinn]

Yet in the face of these emotional arguments, and how harmful this image can be in the wrong hands, I simply cannot make myself discount that it is a possible reality. The idea that there can be no conscious God, because causation would extent past him is ignoring the simple fact that just like infinite causation, God is infinite. How can one infinity extend past the other?

They can't, obviously. There can only be one Infinite (i.e. one ALL) by definition.

Two points:

- Consciousness is a process, and thus like all processes it is ultimately composed of cause and effect. In other words, consciousness can never be anything more than a subset of causality.

- Infinite consciousness is a contradiction in terms, like infinite banana or infinite happiness. If we were to somehow extend a banana so that it subsumes everything, such that there was absolutely nothing else left but the banana, then the banana would cease to be. It would no longer have any identity, existence or meaning as a banana.

So if a conscious God-like being were to exist, it would necessarily fall short of being infinite. It would have a similar status to us (as finite conscious beings), only larger.

It is all very well to conceive of an infinite conscious God in the imagination. That's easy. Anyone can do that. Even children can do it. But if such a conception doesn't even pass the most basic of logical tests, then what good is it? More worryingly, such ego-alluring conceptions only serve to distract people from the true nature of God which is all around them.

You used the word "beauty" to describe cause and effect, which is good as it suggests that some part of you does have a sense of what God is really all about. However, I don't like the phrase "cold, driving force". That tells me you are not yet fully understanding it - not intimately - due to some mental resistance on your part.

Cause and effect is not some kind of brute force which acts upon passive objects that are distinct from it. You have to get rid of that idea completely. You have to see that objects themselves are also comprised of cause and effect, which means that nothing is ever being forced or driven. And that includes you as well. Every part of you is comprised of cause and effect - that is to say, every part of you is comprised of God. There is nothing cold about God.

[Cold Cave]

"They can't, obviously. There can only be one Infinite (i.e. one ALL) by definition. "

found an interesting video about different forms of infinity in mathematics I thought you might find interesting and philosophically applicable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0

"Infinite consciousness is a contradiction in terms, like infinite banana or infinite happiness. If we were to somehow extend a banana so that it subsumes everything, such that there was absolutely nothing else left but the banana, then the banana would cease to be. It would no longer have any identity, existence or meaning as a banana."

Infinite banana, yes, is a contradiction in terms...but if there truly was an infinite God, then any consciousness belonging to this God would be beyond any stipulations of human reasoning. Since an infinite God would possess infinite other qualities and abilities beyond consciousness, this God could diminish, or extrapolate this consciousness at will. it could be consuming/upholding all things, yet be hidden. In short it could be infinite, yet maintain an identity. To deny God of this would be to deny it's infinity.

To think about cause and effect in the godless sense to me is quite frightening. To give yourself over to such uncertainty, to the great chasm of godless infinity......in the wise words of Clay Davis "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeit..."

[Russell Parr]

Infinite banana, yes, is a contradiction in terms...but if there truly was an infinite God, then any consciousness belonging to this God would be beyond any stipulations of human reasoning. Since an infinite God would possess infinite other qualities and abilities beyond consciousness, this God could diminish, or extrapolate this consciousness at will.

How would God be able to perform or will anything afterward without consciousness?

it could be consuming/upholding all things, yet be hidden. In short it could be infinite, yet maintain an identity. To deny God of this would be to deny it's infinity.

It's easy to deny the infinity of a God, because calling something with finite attributes "infinite" is contradictory. The infinitude of Reality, on the other hand, is much more reasonable and understandable.

To think about cause and effect in the godless sense to me is quite frightening. To give yourself over to such uncertainty, to the great chasm of godless infinity......in the wise words of Clay Davis "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeit..."

And yet we're here, questioning it. Are you really going to base your conclusion of whether God exists on your own fear?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If we were to somehow extend a banana so that it subsumes everything, such that there was absolutely nothing else left but the banana, then the banana would cease to be.

Actually, there would be nothing but banana. That would simply be nonsensical by our current definition of "banana." I agree with your point about the "conscious God" concept though.

if there truly was an infinite God, then any consciousness belonging to this God would be beyond any stipulations of human reasoning. Since an infinite God would possess infinite other qualities and abilities beyond consciousness, this God could diminish, or extrapolate this consciousness at will. it could be consuming/upholding all things, yet be hidden. In short it could be infinite, yet maintain an identity. To deny God of this would be to deny it's infinity.

If we define God as the Infinite, then God would include both consciousness and unconsciousness. God would not be able to "extrapolate this consciousness at will" however, because to say God is doing this, then God would have to have will in the state of unconsciousness, which is a contradiction. Besides, it sinks "God" into a duality, and God, by definition of the Infinite, can not be a duality.

The poetically stated "God's will" is causality, and that is melded throughout the Infinite. Consciousness and unconsciousness are both caused, but not extrapolated.

It's easy to deny the infinity of a God, because calling something with finite attributes "infinite" is contradictory. The infinitude of Reality, on the other hand, is much more reasonable and understandable.

To deny the infinity of something with finite attributes is logical, but I see nothing wrong with using the term "God" to describe Reality or the Infinite. Saying "Reality" or "the Infinite" is more definitive and does not foster confusion, but that does not make using the term "God" wrong either when people understand what you mean by "God" or when trying to make a more salient point with someone who is either unready or unable to sink deeper into the poetry of the term "God."

[Russell Parr]

Actually, there would be nothing but banana. That would simply be nonsensical by our current definition of "banana."

Actually, if there was nothing but banana, then there would be no definition of "banana."

To deny the infinity of something with finite attributes is logical, but I see nothing wrong with using the term "God" to describe Reality or the Infinite. Saying "Reality" or "the Infinite" is more definitive and does not foster confusion, but that does not make using the term "God" wrong either when people understand what you mean by "God" or when trying to make a more salient point with someone who is either unready or unable to sink deeper into the poetry of the term "God."

Agreed. Of course, there's nothing wrong with using the alternative, personal creator definition if it suits the context of the conversation, either.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What do you believe that God is Russell?

[Russell Parr]

I'm perfectly fine with God meaning Nature or the Infinite. But I've no qualms using the standard modern definition in discussions about beliefs with others.