GENIUS FORUMS

I was reading David Quinn's book, and the following passage struck me as a bit suspect:

So even in the unlikely event that the Christian God actually existed (as a separate being who created the world), he would still be in the same boat as everything else when it comes to cause and effect. He too would be composed of internal causal processes which merge seamlessly into the rest of the causal Universe. The blowtorch of causation disintegrates both God and the world into countless processes which unfold endlessly. Everything breaks apart and disappears in this way. Nothing can withstand the heat of causation, not even God. It reigns supreme in the Universe. Everything else is just an afterthought, an accidental by-product.

The principle of cause and effect is not causal, right? How can everything else be an afterthought? Without causes and effects, there is no principle of cause and effect, the principle can't be before the individual causes and effects. A cause is not a cause because it embodies the principle of cause, the principle of cause is formulated by intelligent beings when they see causes and effects.

Loki wrote:The principle of cause and effect is not causal, right? How can everything else be an afterthought? Without causes and effects, there is no principle of cause and effect, the principle can't be before the individual causes and effects. A cause is not a cause because it embodies the principle of cause, the principle of cause is formulated by intelligent beings when they see causes and effects.

I believe you will find that the term “principle”, as it is employed here, denotes, not a fundamental basis for reasoning, but a rule of conduct. In other words, the principle of causality is an inviolable law which governs the progression of all effects – and just as the law of gravity governed how things fell for eons before anyone ever formulated it, so to does the law of causality operate independent of its being intellectually defined. However, you are quite correct when you say that there can be no principle of causality without that there is something that is caused (an effect), for a principle is a relation, and so must abide within some sort of quality; i.e., change.

Loki wrote:I was reading David Quinn's book, and the following passage struck me as a bit suspect:

So even in the unlikely event that the Christian God actually existed (as a separate being who created the world), he would still be in the same boat as everything else when it comes to cause and effect. He too would be composed of internal causal processes which merge seamlessly into the rest of the causal Universe. The blowtorch of causation disintegrates both God and the world into countless processes which unfold endlessly. Everything breaks apart and disappears in this way. Nothing can withstand the heat of causation, not even God. It reigns supreme in the Universe. Everything else is just an afterthought, an accidental by-product.

The principle of cause and effect is not causal, right? How can everything else be an afterthought?

This is my sense of humour surfacing. Christians and theists like to claim that their God is central to existence. From the point of view of causality, nothing is central to existence.

A God, should it exist, is just as much an accidental by-product of causality as trees and specks of dust are. They are not fundamental to the nature of reality.

-

Can God be an uncaused, necessary cause? I mean, can God be a cause that is uncaused, and can God be necessary in the sense that without that cause, we or the world wouldn't exist?

If by God we mean the ALL, then yes. It is uncaused and responsible for everything that exists.

If not, then God just becomes another phenomenon within the ALL and part of the causal web.

-

Okay, I don't quite understand what the significance of this is. So what if God is a "phenomenon within the ALL", isn't this exactly what many claim that God is? Surely if God is the cause of that which he created, he is "part of the causal web". What is wrong with this idea?

Loki wrote:Okay, I don't quite understand what the significance of this is. So what if God is a "phenomenon within the ALL", isn't this exactly what many claim that God is? Surely if God is the cause of that which he created, he is "part of the causal web". What is wrong with this idea?

David's mind is not able to grasp that there is nothing wrong with this idea. In fact, he is willing to say that causality is uncaused. That is his boundary. He does not concede that it is possible that consciousness, not ours, specifically, but that of the I AM, is uncaused, a first cause. You cannot comprehend the nature of time and you do not fully grasp the meaning of space; only the uncaused First Cause can do these things because they exist as its concepts, its Consciousness made physical.

We all seem to agree that something is infinite and eternal. I am merely saying that Consciousness itself is that thing.

Loki wrote:Okay, I don't quite understand what the significance of this is. So what if God is a "phenomenon within the ALL", isn't this exactly what many claim that God is? Surely if God is the cause of that which he created, he is "part of the causal web". What is wrong with this idea?

It just depends on whether you want to worship a speck of dust and regard it as the supreme creator of all things.

-

brokenhead wrote:We all seem to agree that something is infinite and eternal. I am merely saying that Consciousness itself is that thing.

I personally believe a large aardvark is that thing.

If we were to redefine consciousness to mean the ALL (as opposed to saying that the ALL is consciousness), then your point would be true.

But that's not what you want, of course. You want a finite thing (consciousness) to be infinite.

It is through such irrationality that the ego thrives.

-

DQ wrote:But that's not what you want, of course. You want a finite thing (consciousness) to be infinite.

I will agree on the finiteness of your consciousness, Quinn.

DQ wrote:It is through such irrationality that the ego thrives.

I paint what I see, child.

David Quinn wrote:

Loki wrote:Okay, I don't quite understand what the significance of this is. So what if God is a "phenomenon within the ALL", isn't this exactly what many claim that God is? Surely if God is the cause of that which he created, he is "part of the causal web". What is wrong with this idea?

It just depends on whether you want to worship a speck of dust and regard it as the supreme creator of all things.

-

We are talking about a God that has caused all things. How is such a god necessarily a speck of dust?

Loki wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Loki wrote:Okay, I don't quite understand what the significance of this is. So what if God is a "phenomenon within the ALL", isn't this exactly what many claim that God is? Surely if God is the cause of that which he created, he is "part of the causal web". What is wrong with this idea?

It just depends on whether you want to worship a speck of dust and regard it as the supreme creator of all things.

We are talking about a God that has caused all things. How is such a god necessarily a speck of dust?

Given the endlessness of infinity, how could he not be?

-

David, if God created the world and/or us, it doesn't matter, he's still God. He doesn't have to be infinite or whatever to be just as valid (as a deity subject to worship).

In other words, your argument is, so far, totally unconvincing.

Look at it this way:

What if we were to discover that the human race was created by an alien species for whatever reason - would that be reason enough for us to worship these aliens and abandon the larger issue of understanding the nature of reality?

These aliens, if they existed, would themselves be part of the equation to be solved. Our becoming aware of their existence or non-existence makes no difference either way to the resolving of this larger equation.

The Buddha made the same point when he asserted that a belief in God was unimportant to spiritual life. Buddhism is often wrongly tagged as being an "atheistic" philosophy. It isn't atheistic as such. It doesn't put forth an atheistic viewpoint. It simply declares its lack of interest in theism.

In order to understand this point, you need to know how to ascend to the largest possible perspective and not get side-tracked by lesser concerns.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Loki wrote:Okay, I don't quite understand what the significance of this is. So what if God is a "phenomenon within the ALL", isn't this exactly what many claim that God is? Surely if God is the cause of that which he created, he is "part of the causal web". What is wrong with this idea?

It just depends on whether you want to worship a speck of dust and regard it as the supreme creator of all things.

-

Hello. Everyone!!!

It isn't about that, David! God is only a supreme being to those who put their faith in him! Almost like a chess match! The person playing chess on one side is life. God, on the other hand, is you're opponent, coaching you to finish!

Loki wrote:if God created the world and/or us, it doesn't matter, he's still God.

If by God you simply mean a super powerful alien/grandfather type being who "created us" he's not really of much interest to me. He was and still is nothing more than just another cause to our existence like any other thing one can imagine, and therefore does not come anywhere close to fitting in to the definition of God in any profoundly meaningful sense.

Loki wrote:He doesn't have to be infinite or whatever to be just as valid (as a deity subject to worship).

Whoa hold on! How does this theoretical God you speak of deserve my worship? If I created a race of individuals who were capable of making decisions for them selves and could potentially understand the nature of reality, I'd much rather they do that than worship me. In fact I would discourage any and all forms of worship of myself. What kind of egotistical asshole (God) would want people to worship him? Does this God you speak of have the mentality of a toddler or adolescent?

God's returns home from the bohamas.

God-
What's wrong???

Loki-
if God created the world and/or us, it doesn't matter, he's still God.

God-
Spoken like a true healer.

Nick-
If by God you simply mean a super powerful alien/grandfather type being who "created us" he's not really of much interest to me. He was and still is nothing more than just another cause to our existence like any other thing one can imagine, and therefore does not come anywhere close to fitting in to the definition of God in any profoundly meaningful sense.

God-
I imagined it!

Loki-
He doesn't have to be infinite or whatever to be just as valid (as a deity subject to worship).

Nick-
Whoa hold on! How does this theoretical God you speak of deserve my worship? If I created a race of individuals who were capable of making decisions for them selves and could potentially understand the nature of reality, I'd much rather they do that than worship me. In fact I would discourage any and all forms of worship of myself. What kind of egotistical asshole (God) would want people to worship him? Does this God you speak of have the mentality of a toddler or adolescent?[/quote]

God-
I cannot speak for the both of us.

people who feel the need to worship the idea of higher beings are incomplete. They have to be because It is a contradiction of terms to believe that you are complete spirit on the one hand, but that you must worship something higher than yourself on the other. Basically, people enjoy the pleasure of being a dependent slave-like consciousness, infinitely lower than something higher. A disgusting idea in my opinion...

Ryan Rudolph wrote:people who feel the need to worship the idea of higher beings are incomplete. They have to be because It is a contradiction of terms to believe that you are complete spirit on the one hand, but that you must worship something higher than yourself on the other. Basically, people enjoy the pleasure of being a dependent slave-like consciousness, infinitely lower than something higher. A disgusting idea in my opinion...

So, basically, what you're saying is semi-intelligence goes good with worship. That a man uncapable of sustaining himself must be dependent on a worship type therapy. What are you saying? I don't see the boat full of people unless it is the boat full of people that man designed and God created!!!
What if by some ill will chance God relies on us to predestine our futures while the whole time He is discerning a particular scheme for us. Doesn't it make sense, if you're a genius, you're taught one thing that leads to totality! Yet, you provoke the christian belief cuz it has no boundaries, while, you carry bondaries.

I'm sorry Ryan. I've just seen too much to just hold back my feelings. I mean no disrespect.

paco,

no need to apologize, as I no longer have unstable feelings that get hurt. Unstable Feelings implies an ego that is overly sensitive. Enlightenment requires an ending of egotistical sensitivity through understanding how the mind works.

My point with the attack on the christian god is that the whole idea is illogical. It doesn't make sense, why? because why would an wise being need other lesser beings to worship it? It is a bizarre arrangement, an egotistical fantasy at best - it sounds like a supreme dictatorship - so if you really want to experience the god-worshiper reality in this world, move to North Korea, become a loyal subject of Kim Jung Ill and let me know how that goes...