There Can Be Only One

[analog57]

[1.] A true absolute cannot be contingent.

[2.] In a coherent[and cohesively connected] universe of absolutes, there can be only one true non-contingent absolute. All other principles[abstract and physical] in the coherent universe, are contingent. For example, the term "absolute truth" would be contingent on the law of excluded middle, which is itself contingent on the law of identity, which must be contingent on an even more fundamental level - of truth.

[3.] The non-contingent absolute is necessarily the basis, and the standard for a structured hierarchy of inter-related contingent principles.

[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser. Contingent existence can only come from a greater non-contingent existence. Therefore the one true absolute is necessarily greater than the contingent-coherent universe.

[5.] Complexity, including "intelligence of the mind" is a contingent property of existence.

[6.]The emergence of a contingent intelligence can only come from a greater non-contingent intelligence.

[7.] For all intents and purposes, the greater intelligence is a God-like entity.

[sevens]

I agree with you there.

[LooF]

[5.] Complexity, including "intelligence of the mind" is a contingent property of existence.


so even this God-like entity is contingent property of existance?

[analog57]

[5.] Complexity, including "intelligence of the mind" is a contingent property of existence.


so even this God-like entity is contingent property of existance?

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity.

[BrianT]

[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser.

This seems vague to me. What about Buddha coming from his parents, or Jesus from Mary and Joseph, or any "great" person coming from his or her parents? Or is this not the domain of discourse or the definition of "come from"?

Also, consider emergent properties.

[unknown]

Buddha , jesus , muhammed all prophets are con artists. All of them evil. Anyone try to help anyone is evil.

You can't help others with words. Its a evil act to power over you.

You all humans are dumb baboons.

Ask questions, It slows time. That is a start.

peace
unknown

[BrianT]

Buddha , jesus , muhammed all prophets are con artists. All of them evil. Anyone try to help anyone is evil.

LOL

You can't help others with words. Its a evil act to power over you.

Only people can help themselves, but words can teach someone how to do this. This has nothing to do with my post, anyway, which was about so-called great children coming from not-as-great parents. You are free to use any examples of this you like, doesn't have to be dogmatic. I'm sure there's at least some one you can think of who is greater than their parents, if not yourself.

You all humans are dumb baboons.

LOL. Compared to a Type 3 civilization, or to God, we are pretty freaking dumb.

[analog57]

[1.] A true absolute cannot be contingent.

[2.] In a coherent[and cohesively connected] universe of ostensible absolutes, there can be only one truly non-contingent absolute. All other principles[abstract and physical] in the coherent universe, are contingent.

[3.] The non-contingent absolute is necessarily the basis, and the standard for a structured hierarchy of inter-related contingent principles.

[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser. Contingent existence can only come from a greater non-contingent existence. Therefore the one true absolute is necessarily greater than the contingent-coherent universe.

[5.] Human Intelligence is a contingent property of existence.

[6.]The emergence of a contingent intelligence can only come from a greater non-contingent intelligence.

[7.] For all intents and purposes, the greater intelligence is a God-like entity.

[GrimNexus]

analog you said:
"[7.] For all intents and purposes, the greater intelligence is a God-like entity."

"It" is most certainly not an "entity" of any kind. For if "It" were to be an Actual Entity, then that would make "It" something "It" is not. "Entity" and "Not Entity"
This "non-contingent" intelligence you speak of has utterly No Seperation, no "other", or "larger than", and therefore cannot be an "Entity".

[David Quinn]

In my view, Analog makes his error in step [4], where he assumes that greater cannot come from lesser. This is just another one of his made-up assumptions that he likes to use to prove the existence of his God. It's another case of garbage in, garbage out.

Evolutionary theory more than adequately explains how greater complexity/order can emerge out of a lesser version. But I suppose if you are a fundamentalist God-believer, evolutionary theory has to be rejected forthwith as a matter of course.

If greater cannot come from lesser, then how does genius emerge?

-

[GrimNexus]

There is error in Number 4 because there is neither "greater" or "lesser".
All that Analog has postulated is based on number 7, that the "greatest" is still some sort of "entity"; thereby laying supposed basis that "greater" or "lesser" can be measured in some way.

[David Quinn]

True. An "entity" can only exist in contrast to what is not it, which automatically makes it less than the Totality and disqualifies it from being the greatest.

The Totality is necessarily the greatest as it incorporates everything else into its own body. Not that it really has a body, of course.

-

[GrimNexus]

nicely put

[freelight]

[1.] A true absolute cannot be contingent.

[2.] In a coherent[and cohesively connected] universe of ostensible absolutes, there can be only one truly non-contingent absolute. All other principles[abstract and physical] in the coherent universe, are contingent.

[3.] The non-contingent absolute is necessarily the basis, and the standard for a structured hierarchy of inter-related contingent principles.

[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser. Contingent existence can only come from a greater non-contingent existence. Therefore the one true absolute is necessarily greater than the contingent-coherent universe.

[5.] Human Intelligence is a contingent property of existence.

[6.]The emergence of a contingent intelligence can only come from a greater non-contingent intelligence.

[7.] For all intents and purposes, the greater intelligence is a God-like entity.

Greetings all,

(newbie here, first post)

I do like some of these points, which naturally leads us to consider 'God' as the non-contingent. I think your definition of 'entity' in this case[#7] may be more flexible than what some of the other posters have inferred, so you may want to qualify such in the light of some of the responses. (this reminds me of how John 4:24 is translated in the KJV Bible - "God is 'a' Spirit' - if we conclude this rendering it would appear that God is a Spirit unlike and/or amidst other spirits, as an 'entity' perhaps. If however we translate it as "God is Spirit" - we can conclude more that God is a Universal, All-pervading, all-inclusive spiritual reality/presence filling or constituting the totality of Existence or all that is Real).

I have been exploring concepts of the Absolute and am glad I found this forum - one of the things that always seem to be in flux as comparitive perspectives within the whole of Reality is the 'absolute' and the 'relative' - some systems maintain that both exist in their own domains within the Whole - some of the Absolute Truth schools are extreme it seems as positing that only the Absolute exists and there are no relatives! (God being the only Presence/Power...the All, the ONE, the totality of Existence, etc.)- but these are all a matter of dimensions and/or beyond dimension relative to the Infinite.

I've called this study 'theontology' (the science of the Being/existence of Deity) - I also engage in theology forums and see that most are entrenched in traditional beliefs/thoughts about 'God'/Reality/Truth...and cannot accept the teaching that God is All or All that IS - but I may be digressing. Looking forward to share more - already from some reads of the threads,...some of the posters are most profound!



paul

[Blair]

You sound like a Tool with an agenda.

Words are cheap. Especially flowery ones that are couched in words like "digressing".

[zarathustra]

As humanity launches into this new century, it is becoming clear that abstract theologial thinking as an end in itself should be regarded more as a hobby for those who are still a little dazed by the exhaust fumes the old god left behind, when he finally left us and went sailing off into infinity...good fucking riddens!

all that aside, ONE, two, three ( + > the law of numbers < ) and so on are all 'inventions'....based on an error: that there are identical things ( when in fact nothing is identical to anything else )...I mean there are things but no 'thing'. the assumption of plurality always presupposed the existance of 'something' that occurs more than once - but this is wrong: what we have done is to simply 'fabricate' things which do not exist. Our sensations of space and time are also false, for when they are tested consistently they lead to logical contradictions. the understanding does not 'draw' its laws from nature it 'prescribes' them...this is wholly true with regard to the concept of nature which we are obligated to attach to Nature: nature = world as idea - which is an error...to a world which is not our 'idea' numbers are wholly inapplicable.

call it ONE or a BILLION...this sort of thinking is 'fun' it also, when devorced from metaphysical gargar, can be quite useful, practically speaking. with god out of the way, the purpose of philosophy should be to determine the 'value' of its investigations and conclusions and how they can best serve humanity (up to now the reverse has been true) otherwise, philosophy has no real purpose anymore...

[zarathustra]

prince, very funny ha! ha! ha! I like that ' a tool with an agenda...yeah...

[Jason]

all that aside, ONE, two, three ( + > the law of numbers < ) and so on are all 'inventions'....based on an error: that there are identical things ( when in fact nothing is identical to anything else )...I mean there are things but no 'thing'. the assumption of plurality always presupposed the existance of 'something' that occurs more than once - but this is wrong: what we have done is to simply 'fabricate' things which do not exist.

That multiple 'things' (two, three, thousands) can be identified is only possible because of the fact that we can differentiate between each one of these things. And in order to differentiate between each thing there must be differences between each thing. Therefore the very existence of division(which allows for multiple things) is inherently dependent upon the divided things being non-identical.

(not sure if that will make sense so here is another version):
The very fact that 2 or more things can be identified means that there must be a difference between those things in order to differentiate them. Thus showing that the very act of division itself is dependent upon the divided things being non-identical.

This applies to all divisions and categories, not just numbers in a mathematical sense.

Our sensations of space and time are also false, for when they are tested consistently they lead to logical contradictions. the understanding does not 'draw' its laws from nature it 'prescribes' them...this is wholly true with regard to the concept of nature which we are obligated to attach to Nature: nature = world as idea - which is an error...to a world which is not our 'idea' numbers are wholly inapplicable.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here but I will take a bite anyway: If our understandings of nature are prescribed rather than drawn from nature, how is it possible to even know anything about nature at all beyond our own prescriptions of it? That being the case, how can we know that our prescriptions of nature are different from actual nature given that we cannot know actual nature?

What tests show logical contradictions in our sensation of time and space? And how do they bypass our prescriptions onto nature?

call it ONE or a BILLION...this sort of thinking is 'fun' it also, when devorced from metaphysical gargar, can be quite useful, practically speaking. with god out of the way, the purpose of philosophy should be to determine the 'value' of its investigations and conclusions and how they can best serve humanity (up to now the reverse has been true) otherwise, philosophy has no real purpose anymore...

My translation: My selfish desires demand that philosophy serves humanity. What serving humanity entails I and only I will decide. If philosophy does serve my selfish desires I shall decree that it has no purpose anymore.

[freelight]

Evolutionary theory more than adequately explains how greater complexity/order can emerge out of a lesser version. But I suppose if you are a fundamentalist God-believer, evolutionary theory has to be rejected forthwith as a matter of course.

Hi David,

Do you see God as evolutional in nature? - some aspects within the Totality appear to be evolving - what is your analysis? I ask this in light of the absolute and relative aspects of existence; the non-contingent and the contingent.



paul

[David Quinn]

Everything within the Totality is constantly changing. Sometimes these changing processes seem more organized and purposeful, and so we call these processes "evolution". These little strands of evolution are isolated and temporary, however, and don't really reflect the overall aimlessness of the Universe.

There is no purpose to the Totality, of course. There is no teleological imperative, no particular outcome which is trying to be reached. In all instances, it is simply a case of causality unfolding in a blind manner. Nature is too restless to ever settle down in a particular state.

-

[freelight]

You sound like a Tool with an agenda.

Words are cheap. Especially flowery ones that are couched in words like "digressing".

Thanks for the kind, warm welcome to the Genius Forum and insightful contribution to the thread-topic. You are forgiven :-)


Analog57 wrote:

[5.] Human Intelligence is a contingent property of existence.

[6.]The emergence of a contingent intelligence can only come from a greater non-contingent intelligence.

Analog57,

Interesting obsevation - would you propose that 'God' is this greater non-contingent intelligence? I sometimes like to denote 'God' as Infinite Intelligence. I would like to draw light to your use of the term 'human' intelligence versus what I call Infinite intelligence(the non-contingent). There are some schools who would say that any 'human' intelligence is not only contingent, but illusory.....as they assume that every ones true 'Self / I AM Awareness' or consciousness is really God-consciousness or Infinite intelligence. So in this light....human intelligence, egoity, finite sense, mortal identifications are relative and contingent....even illusory or unreal - as only the divine Self or I AM Consciousness is absolute, Real, eternal, infinite, non-contingent, etc.

It is evident that human intelligence or any semblence of consciousness must be sourced in or originated from Original Consciousness(the Absolute/Mind) - I am curious if you see the true seat of the human soul being a part of the Absolute non-contingent Intelligence or it only having a temporary, contingent existence or if you have ever even speculated along these lines as regards personal eternal survival-value of the soul discerning what is 'absolute' and 'relative' in our own being and consciousness.



paul

[freelight]

Everything within the Totality is constantly changing. Sometimes these changing processes seem more organized and purposeful, and so we call these processes "evolution". These little strands of evolution are isolated and temporary, however, and don't really reflect the overall aimlessness of the Universe.

There is no purpose to the Totality, of course. There is no teleological imperative, no particular outcome which is trying to be reached. In all instances, it is simply a case of causality unfolding in a blind manner. Nature is too restless to ever settle down in a particular state.

-

IC. I assume you might also be open to classify this Totality as 'God' among other names. Is the Totality Itself as the whole entirety of Existence absolute? What about the Totality is absolute and what is relative? - How do you see non-contingent reality and contingent so called 'realities' as being related or co-existing? (or is there only the absolute existing and anything relative is simply human perspective?). What is absolute in our own being and consciousness? Is consciousness itself the Totality's own Mind consciously aware of Its own Being? Is this the I AM that eternally lives and is aware of all things?

I would still have to explore your postulates about the Totality being 'purposeless' - I am somewhat of a theist along certain lines of thought, some aspects orthodox...others unorthodox. I also gather from other schools of theontology. I could accept that the Totality simply IS...and that is Absolute Truth. (this totality being the One Deity Being, the All, the ONE, etc.). As far as Truth/Reality goes....what is absolute and what is relative and how can we discern the difference?




paul

[David Quinn]

Some good questions, Paul.

I assume you might also be open to classify this Totality as 'God' among other names.

If "God" is defined as that which is permanent, indestructible, beyond life and death, everywhere and everywhen, and the creator of all things, then the Totality is God.

Is the Totality Itself as the whole entirety of Existence absolute?

Since the Totality encompasses utterly everything, it is necessarily absolute. There is nothing else that it can be related to.

What about the Totality is absolute and what is relative? - How do you see non-contingent reality and contingent so called 'realities' as being related or co-existing?

Since the Totality embraces utterly everything, it is non-contingent. There can be no circumstances external to it which can somehow change it or make it disappear.

By contrast, everything within the Totality is relative and contingent. Things relate to each other causally.

(or is there only the absolute existing and anything relative is simply human perspective?).

Human perspective is certainly a necessary cause of a thing's existence, but it's not the only one. Other causes include the conditions surrounding the object, its molecular make-up, the past history of the universe, etc.

What is absolute in our own being and consciousness? Is consciousness itself the Totality's own Mind consciously aware of Its own Being? Is this the I AM that eternally lives and is aware of all things?

Consciousness is necessary for the existence of things, but the Totality itself is non-dual in nature and cannot be described in terms of either consciousness or non-consciousness. It doesn't have any form at all.

I would still have to explore your postulates about the Totality being 'purposeless' - I am somewhat of a theist along certain lines of thought, some aspects orthodox...others unorthodox. I also gather from other schools of theontology. I could accept that the Totality simply IS...and that is Absolute Truth. (this totality being the One Deity Being, the All, the ONE, etc.).

This is actually a very important point. Understanding the Totality's purposelessness is essential to understanding its fundamental nature. It enables one to grasp more easily the lack of inherent existence, and lack of inherent value, of all things, which is the key to understanding God.

When people project "purpose" onto the Universe, they are doing it for their own ego's benefit. They subconsciously want their egos to feel special, to make themselves feel they are part of a greater plan, to believe there is a reward waiting for them in the future.

-

[zarathustra]

jason reckons that "in order to differentiate between things - things must be different?" not so > A=A < it is not the differences between things that we know them by but the 'space' which seperates them > actual and conceptual space. thus things are defined by their 'limits'......we cannot imagine (see) anything that is not seperated thus...when you speak of 'god' 'ultimate' 'eternal being' bla. bla, bla, ad nauseum,you take an irrational leap: you cannot know these things as things...you can BELIEVE you do, but belief proves nothing...

Physics' ( though imperfect and even contradictory when at times it deals with the same phenomena ) is much more viable than philosophy because it no longer deals with the strictly abstract ( i.e. with concepts that rest on metaphysical premises i.e. sweet fuck all ) but applies itself directly to Nature, via a mask of symbols/equasions and so on, which 'in themselves' are NOT true but merely serve as a bridge between ourselves and that which is not 'knowable...' Metaphysical philosophy, on the other hand, firstly sets up a truth ( ultimate truth or whatever) then looks for ways to prove it's existance. ( impossible ) in effect, it puts the cart before the horse.

God, and all the stuff it has left behind, today finds itself confined to either (1) the New Age Movement as supreme bullshit which is usually ripped off other cultures and other times ( a kind of mental/ spiritual colonialist mindset, which is western middleclass in origin ) or (2) to formal 'conservative' philosophy which postuates the existence of a 'designer'....how it gets there in not important...in Q's case its by cause and effect...

Your comments regarding 'selfishness' are unworthy of a response.

[Jason]

quote="zarathustra"]jason reckons that "in order to differentiate between things - things must be different?" not so > A=A < it is not the differences between things that we know them by but the 'space' which seperates them > actual and conceptual space. thus things are defined by their 'limits'......we cannot imagine (see) anything that is not seperated thus...

I think I agree with that. Differring location(even between otherwise identical things) is also a form of differentation. Two otherwise absolutely identical spheres in different locations are not identical - because of their different locations.

when you speak of 'god' 'ultimate' 'eternal being' bla. bla, bla, ad nauseum,you take an irrational leap: you cannot know these things as things...you can BELIEVE you do, but belief proves nothing...

I cannot see where in my post I spoke of "god", "ultimate" or "eternal being" let alone ad nauseum useage of those terms or ideas.

Physics' ( though imperfect and even contradictory when at times it deals with the same phenomena ) is much more viable than philosophy because it no longer deals with the strictly abstract ( i.e. with concepts that rest on metaphysical premises i.e. sweet fuck all ) but applies itself directly to Nature, via a mask of symbols/equasions and so on, which 'in themselves' are NOT true but merely serve as a bridge between ourselves and that which is not 'knowable...' Metaphysical philosophy, on the other hand, firstly sets up a truth ( ultimate truth or whatever) then looks for ways to prove it's existance. ( impossible ) in effect, it puts the cart before the horse.

It all depends on what or whos philosophy you are talking about. What if one of my philosophical premises was "I am experiencing sense perception." Is that not a viable premise?

Science has its own metaphysical premises that it works from too. One premise it rests on is that there is an external world existing independently of the observation of the scientist. That premise is not provable, it is just thought to be a reasonable assumption to make. An alternate assumed premise that the scientist could work from is that they are actually a brain in a vat experiencing a computer simulation. Both assumptions could give a consistent explanation for that which the scientist experiences.

God, and all the stuff it has left behind, today finds itself confined to either (1) the New Age Movement as supreme bullshit which is usually ripped off other cultures and other times ( a kind of mental/ spiritual colonialist mindset, which is western middleclass in origin ) or (2) to formal 'conservative' philosophy which postuates the existence of a 'designer'....how it gets there in not important...in Q's case its by cause and effect...

I'm not sure why you are telling me this....

Unfortunately quite a lot of your response is unrelated to anything I wrote to you previously, and even where it is related your writing style is not conductive to clear communication. If you want to share your ideas you really need to gather your thoughts together and write them down in a coherent and non-rambling manner. It might help you to be better understood if you quote the post you are responding to in your own responses.