GENIUS FORUMS

Dave Toast wrote:Well, when in considering my treating Og derogatorily, you suggest:

"you think that the ideas of Christianity are ridiculous and possibly even dangerous and you think that my twist on them somehow adds legitimacy to the religion when you think that I would be better engaged in trying to delegitimise and destroy it."

That was only one of two alternatives. The other was: "Perhaps you simply think that manichaeanism is on its own merits ridiculous, perhaps because you think that it doesn't fit with your experience of the world."

Dave Toast wrote:And later assert:

"What you're really attempting to do is to reduce the traditional concept of God into something that you can scoff at more easily. It's a similar but slightly more sophisticated tactic to the one that Dave Toast employed when he suggested "Og" as an identifier for _God_."

How am I supposed to read it?

As I wrote in my most recent post to you, I wasn't trying to imply that your objective was exactly the same as Kevin's. The tactic that I referred to was only similar, and not identical, and so was the actual objective: namely, that you were trying to reduce my conception of _God_ (and not the traditional concept of God as Kevin was doing) into something that you could scoff at more easily, as I made clear in my later longer post to you when I wrote that "[m]y best guess is that you think that the concept of _God_ is implausible and you're using mockery to express your distaste for the idea."

Dave Toast wrote:

Laird: it's because the Totality is the sum of the things within it and to say that "things within the Totality are deterministic" is to say that the Totality itself is deterministic.

I've pointed this out to you before on this very same subject. This statement commits the logical fallacy of composition. It does not logically follow that something true of a part, some parts or even all parts is true of the whole. Much in the same way that the existence of crows does not imply the existence of murders of crows.

Will you take it on board this time or is it just another truth to be ignored on account of it confining the scope of intuition?

I'll take it on board, and I actually agree with you. I just think that if we can say things like "the Totality is boundless" and "the Totality is causelessness itself" then we can certainly say that "the Totality is deterministic", and even if my reasoning seemed to involve the fallacy of composition then I think that this conclusion is sound anyway, because by "the Totality is deterministic" I mean essentially the same thing that I'd mean if I wrote that "[all] things within the Totality are deterministic". It's just a more concise way of writing it. I agree that it wouldn't apply in other cases, for example I wouldn't equate "[all] things within the Totality are caused" with "the Totality is caused". I just think that it applies in this case.

Put it this way: if someone asked you, "Is the universe deterministic?" would you reply "No, it's not, but the things within it are"? That would petty nitpicking wouldn't it? It's a legitimately phrased question, just as it's perfectly legitimate to denote the Totality as either deterministic or non-deterministic.

Laird wrote:Put it this way: if someone asked you, "Is the universe deterministic?" would you reply "No, it's not, but the things within it are"? That would petty nitpicking wouldn't it? It's a legitimately phrased question, just as it's perfectly legitimate to denote the Totality as either deterministic or non-deterministic.

Take the example of a swimming pool. The water is wet, but the swimming pool itself is not said to be wet, because it is more than just the water.

Likewise with the Totality: the parts are deterministic, but the Totality is not.

If our universe is one of countless universes, then our universe could be said to be deterministic.

Kevin Solway wrote:Take the example of a swimming pool. The water is wet, but the swimming pool itself is not said to be wet, because it is more than just the water.

The Totality is more akin to the water than to the swimming pool.

Laird wrote:The Totality is more akin to the water than to the swimming pool.

The point you are missing is that the properties of the Totality are different to the properties of its parts due to its entirely different nature.

Kevin Solway wrote:For there to be something "unexplained" there needs to be something. And right there is where you are drawing its boundaries. You are making it a "something".

It seems that you're saying that if something has no boundaries then it doesn't require explanation. I reject that idea, because there's always the question of why/how anything exists at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:I haven't described any model of [the Totality]. I have specifically stated that it can't be modeled. You can't create a remotely accurate model for something that has no boundaries.

Again, have it your way mate. If you want to go around stating the obviously fallacious then far be it from me to stop you.

As I understand it, the reason that you refuse to allow that you are modelling is because models can be wrong and you will do everything in your power to avoid the possibility that you are wrong.

Laird: So... the Totality isn't a "thing" and nor will you allow me to use the words "object" nor "entity". So which word can I use in this context then?

Kevin: There's already a word for it, namely "Totality".

I'm not asking for another word for it, I'm asking what category it fits into so that I can talk about it more readily. It seems that you are refusing to allow it to fit into any category. Fine then: despite your protestations I will continue to use the word "entity" to categorise the Totality.

Laird: albeit that there's plenty illogical about it. He has the power to do anything: to transform your mindless Totality into any shape that He wants to.

Kevin: Once again, your are conceiving of something outside and apart the Totality, proving that your model of the Totality is completely wrong.

You are misinterpreting me. As part of the Totality, the Christian God is still capable of transforming it.

Laird: You have "derived" a "formula" (i.e. a conclusion) that the Totality is causeless, but you don't have an explanation for how this can be

Kevin: The explanation is that there is no possibility of there being anything that could have caused it - because if such a thing existed, it would necessarily be part of the Totality.

This is a faultless explanation.

It's a derived conclusion that doesn't explain how something can exist causelessnessly, merely that it does. What I mean by this is better explained below.

Laird: nothingness.

Kevin: I have already proven that there cannot ever have been nothing - because if there ever were nothing, there would not be something now. So there is no logical reason why you are persisting with the idea.

There is a very, very good reason why I am persisting with the idea. This is it: there are two alternatives for reality, one of those is that nothing exists and one is that something exists. It is the case, as you point out, that the second alternative is true. So how do you explain why it is that the second alternative is true rather than the first one?

Laird wrote:

There's already a word for it, namely "Totality".

I'm not asking for another word for it, I'm asking what category it fits into

Are you joking?

The Totality is the only thing that doesn't have any boundaries - by definition - and therefore it is in its own category.

Laird: albeit that there's plenty illogical about it. He has the power to do anything: to transform your mindless Totality into any shape that He wants to.

Kevin: Once again, your are conceiving of something outside and apart the Totality, proving that your model of the Totality is completely wrong.

You are misinterpreting me. As part of the Totality, the Christian God is still capable of transforming it.

Firstly, you are imagining the Totality to have some kind of form which can be transformed. But it has no shape or form, due to the fact that it has no boundaries.

Secondly, if the "God" you are speaking about is part of the Totality and can change things around him, then he is essentially no different to ourselves, because we ourselves can do precisely that. In other words, such a "God" is incredibly weak.

In fact, such a finite being is infinitely weak when compared to the Totality, and in reality is no God at all.

The explanation is that there is no possibility of there being anything that could have caused it - because if such a thing existed, it would necessarily be part of the Totality.

This is a faultless explanation.

It's a derived conclusion that doesn't explain how something can exist causelessnessly, merely that it does.

You are seeking a cause (an "explanation") for something that is logically proven to be causeless. That is irrational.

why it is that the second alternative is true rather than the first one?

The question is wrongly asked. You can't sensibly ask for the cause of that which is proven to be without cause.

Kevin: There's already a word for it, namely "Totality".

Laird: I'm not asking for another word for it, I'm asking what category it fits into

Kevin: The Totality is the only thing that doesn't have any boundaries - by definition - and therefore it is in its own category.

Are my eyes deceiving me or did you just write that the Totality is a "thing"? See, that's exactly what I'm asking for - the same freedom to sensibly describe the Totality as a thing as you've just given yourself, without you picking fault with my wording. In that sentence you defy yourself by denying that the Totality can fit into a category and at the same time categorising it as a thing.

Kevin Solway wrote:Firstly, you are imagining the Totality to have some kind of form which can be transformed. But it has no shape or form, due to the fact that it has no boundaries.

It is deterministic and in the sense that a deterministic system is fixed, the Totality has a fixed shape and form. God, being omnipotent, would have the power to adjust, from within, the web of cause and effect that makes up the shape of the Totality.

Kevin Solway wrote:Secondly, if the "God" you are speaking about is part of the Totality and can change things around him, then he is essentially no different to ourselves, because we ourselves can do precisely that. In other words, such a "God" is incredibly weak.

Huh? We as human beings have the ability to effect limited change on a single planet in a corner of a single galaxy. And you reckon that's "essentially no different" to a God who can create and obliterate galaxies, change past events, and who created us?

Kevin Solway wrote:In fact, such a finite being is infinitely weak when compared to the Totality, and in reality is no God at all.

The Totality is mindless - it is meaningless to describe it as either weak or strong.

And boy that's some strange reasoning you've got going on there - God is not God. A != A.

You are seeking a cause (an "explanation") for something that is logically proven to be causeless. That is irrational.

No, what's irrational is to cling to a model of reality in which there is much that is unexplained but that by that model is deemed inexplicable.

The two main things that your model leaves unexplained are:
1. How it is that anything exists at all - in other words why there is a somethingness and not a nothingness.
2. Why the Totality, being deterministic and hence in some sense a fixed shape, has the particular shape (particular web of cause and effect) that it does, and not some other "shape".

Kevin: There's already a word for it, namely "Totality".

Laird: I'm not asking for another word for it, I'm asking what category it fits into

Kevin: The Totality is the only thing that doesn't have any boundaries - by definition - and therefore it is in its own category.

Are my eyes deceiving me or did you just write that the Totality is a "thing"? See, that's exactly what I'm asking for - the same freedom to sensibly describe the Totality as a thing as you've just given yourself, without you picking fault with my wording. In that sentence you defy yourself by denying that the Totality can fit into a category and at the same time categorising it as a thing.

Kevin Solway wrote:Firstly, you are imagining the Totality to have some kind of form which can be transformed. But it has no shape or form, due to the fact that it has no boundaries.

It is deterministic and in the sense that a deterministic system is fixed, the Totality has a fixed shape and form. God, being omnipotent, would have the power to adjust, from within, the web of cause and effect that makes up the shape of the Totality.

Kevin Solway wrote:Secondly, if the "God" you are speaking about is part of the Totality and can change things around him, then he is essentially no different to ourselves, because we ourselves can do precisely that. In other words, such a "God" is incredibly weak.

Huh? We as human beings have the ability to effect limited change on a single planet in a corner of a single galaxy. And you reckon that that's "essentially no different" to a God who can create and obliterate galaxies, change past events, and who created us?

Kevin Solway wrote:In fact, such a finite being is infinitely weak when compared to the Totality, and in reality is no God at all.

The Totality is mindless - it is meaningless to describe it as either weak or strong.

And boy that's some strange reasoning you've got going on there - God is not God. A != A.

Kevin Solway wrote:You are seeking a cause (an "explanation") for something that is logically proven to be causeless. That is irrational.

No, what's irrational is to cling to a model of reality in which there is much that is unexplained but which by that model is deemed inexplicable.

The two main things that your model leaves unexplained are:
1. How it is that anything exists at all - in other words why there is a somethingness and not a nothingness.
2. Why the Totality, being deterministic and hence in some sense a fixed shape, has the particular shape (particular web of cause and effect) that it does, and not some other "shape".

Laird wrote:The Totality is the only thing that doesn't have any boundaries - by definition - and therefore it is in its own category.

that's exactly what I'm asking for - the same freedom to sensibly describe the Totality as a thing as you've just given yourself

As I've said previously, it doesn't matter what words you use to describe it, if you lack an understanding of it, your words will be wrong.

It is deterministic and in the sense that a deterministic system is fixed

"Fixed" compared to what? There is nothing other than itself, so the concept "fixed" doesn't mean anything in relation to the Totality.

Huh? We as human beings have the ability to effect limited change on a single planet in a corner of a single galaxy.

Cause and effect is not constrained in the way you think it is. That which is caused to happen in one place has effects in far distant places.

And you reckon that that's "essentially no different" to a God who can create and obliterate galaxies, change past events, and who created us?

That which is finite, such as the God you are talking about, is infinitely small when compared to the infinite - just the same as ourselves. In this regard such a God is the same as ourselves.

And boy that's some strange reasoning you've got going on there - God is not God. A != A.

I'm saying that what you are personally choosing to call God is an infinitely small thing when compared to the Totality, and therefore doesn't deserve the title.

How it is that anything exists at all

That is a question that can't be asked of something that is proven not to have any cause.

Why the Totality, being deterministic and hence in some sense a fixed shape, has the particular shape (particular web of cause and effect) that it does, and not some other "shape".

This is the same question as above, and is not something that can be rationally asked, for the same reason.

On Totality:

Laird: What's left? "Thinking about"?

Kevin: Experiencing it.

Back to the topic of this thread. Even to consider the possibility of experiencing the Totality, you would require more than a single mortal lifetime. Therefore, you must at least entertain the notion of the survival of the soul beyond death. That opens up an entire new realm of potential reality, of which we know little and understand less.

brokenhead wrote:Back to the topic of this thread. Even to consider the possibility of experiencing the Totality, you would require more than a single mortal lifetime. Therefore, you must at least entertain the notion of the survival of the soul beyond death. That opens up an entire new realm of potential reality, of which we know little and understand less.

Speak for yourself.

I myself know all about the immortal nature of the soul.

Kevin Solway wrote:Speak for yourself.

I myself know all about the immortal nature of the soul.

Why am I not surprised? Can you either give me a precis of this knowledge or give me a link to where you have one?

Ultimately the soul is identical with the Totality, since it is the source of all that we are and all we do.

Kevin: The Totality is the only thing that doesn't have any boundaries - by definition - and therefore it is in its own category.

Laird: that's exactly what I'm asking for - the same freedom to sensibly describe the Totality as a thing as you've just given yourself

Kevin: As I've said previously, it doesn't matter what words you use to describe [the Totality], if you lack an understanding of it, your words will be wrong.

We're not talking about some hypothetical person who doesn't understand the Totality and whose words are therefore wrong (what kind of sense does that make anyway? A person's words are right or wrong independently of their understanding). We're talking about you using the word "thing" to describe it when you forbid anyone else to. How about an "Oops, I made a mistake - what I should have said was <insert rewording here>", or an "Oops, I made a mistake - it's sensible to describe the Totality as a thing after all." Wouldn't that be the human thing to do?

Laird: It is deterministic and in the sense that a deterministic system is fixed

Kevin: "Fixed" compared to what? There is nothing other than itself, so the concept "fixed" doesn't mean anything in relation to the Totality.

I've noticed something that qualifies as Reason Number 9 Why It Is A Waste Of Time To Debate With Kevin Solway:
9. He will snip so many quotes that the original point gets lost.

You've snipped so much that we've lost the context: we were originally talking about God being able to adjust the Totality from within.

Oh, and, fixation does not need to be relative.

Laird: Huh? We as human beings have the ability to effect limited change on a single planet in a corner of a single galaxy.

Kevin: Cause and effect is not constrained in the way you think it is. That which is caused to happen in one place has effects in far distant places.

Personally I'm skeptical of that way of looking at things. The effect that my typing these words out has on Alpha Centauri is probably "none whatsover". Oh, I know that you (or at least David) might argue that my "not travelling over at greater than the speed of light with a star-destroying weapon" is a cause of Alpha Centauri's continued existence, but I think that arguments like that are ridiculous: we don't even have those abilities. In any case: even if the human causes in one place have effects in far distant places, they are not the conscious, deliberate effects, such as those God is capable of.

Laird: And you reckon that that's "essentially no different" to a God who can create and obliterate galaxies, change past events, and who created us?

Kevin: That which is finite, such as the God you are talking about, is infinitely small when compared to the infinite - just the same as ourselves. In this regard such a God is the same as ourselves.

You've just ignored my point. God has the power to manipulate the Totality at will and is hence infinitely powerful. We do not and are not.

Laird: And boy that's some strange reasoning you've got going on there - God is not God. A != A.

Kevin: I'm saying that what you are personally choosing to call God is an infinitely small thing when compared to the Totality, and therefore doesn't deserve the title.

But that's just how God is defined, although I've just realised that your Totality and the Christian God are incompatible because He is usually considered to be the First Cause whereas you do not allow for such a thing in your Totality.

Laird: How it is that anything exists at all

Kevin: That is a question that can't be asked of something that is proven not to have any cause.

Proven in the context of a particular model. And yet an explanation is required. Clearly there's something wrong with your philosophical model if it denies the existence of an explanation that is clearly required. Perhaps this is what brokenhead meant when he wrote that your philosophy doesn't allow for growth.

Laird: Why the Totality, being deterministic and hence in some sense a fixed shape, has the particular shape (particular web of cause and effect) that it does, and not some other "shape".

Kevin: This is the same question as above, and is not something that can be rationally asked, for the same reason.

See above.

Laird wrote:We're talking about you using the word "thing" to describe it when you forbid anyone else to.

Once again I'll repeat that it doesn't matter what words you use to describe the Totality. It's the understanding behind the words that matters.

It doesn't matter if you call the Totality a "thing" so long as you don't conceive of it as having boundaries in any way, or as possibly being caused by something outside of and apart from itself.

fixation does not need to be relative.

All things are relative.

The effect that my typing these words out has on Alpha Centauri is probably "none whatsover".

It's definitely not none whatsoever. That is a logical certainty.

Further, imagine that there are alien-creator-Gods, and they read what you have written, and it gives them the idea to destroy Alpha Centauri. In that case your words will have been a major cause in the destruction of Alpha Centauri.

God has the power to manipulate the Totality at will and is hence infinitely powerful.

Given that such a God is part of the Totality, any changes he makes to the Totality will also be made to himself.

But the important point is that such a God is *infinitely* small, and disappearing into non-existence, when compared to the Totality.

How much power can something truly have when it is infinitely small? Virtually none at all.

Also, such an alien-creator-God may well have been created by other alien-creator Gods who are much more powerful than himself. So if he thinks he is the most powerful being in existence then he has a huge ego problem.

Furthermore, the particular God that you believe in is no more powerful than the Devil. So this particular God can't have infinite power if the Devil has just as much power as he does.

I'm saying that what you are personally choosing to call God is an infinitely small thing when compared to the Totality, and therefore doesn't deserve the title.

But that's just how God is defined

That's how irrational people define it, yes. Rational people define it to be identical with the Totality.

Laird: How it is that anything exists at all

Kevin: That is a question that can't be asked of something that is proven not to have any cause.

Proven in the context of a particular model.

You need to prove that all we can ever experience or talk about are only models.

This you cannot do.

Perhaps this is what brokenhead meant when he wrote that your philosophy doesn't allow for growth.

You could say the same thing of truth itself.

"Truth doesn't allow for growth."

You could say the same thing of truth itself.

"Truth doesn't allow for growth."

Actually, the "truth" is paradoxical. It is always changing and it is always the same.

Laird wrote:DT: I'm merely making the point that a lowercase god is no God at all. Shorn of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and creator status, this mundane being resembles the traditional conception of God in none of the important ways.

Laird: I find the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience to be quite problematic, even implausible

Just out of interest, why?

so my conception - _God_ - is not all-powerful and all-knowing but rather the most-powerful and most-knowing (of the "good" forces).

You mean like Richard Branson or Chomsky? Exactly how powerful is this most-powerful "good" force? Exactly how knowing is this most-knowing "good" force? Is Og like....99% omnipotent and omniscient? And wtf is 99% omnipotent and omniscient? While we're at it, what is 99% of infinite?

And what is a "good" force? I mean, obviously you're talking about objective good and evil here and yet you know as well as the rest of us that good and evil are merely subjective value judgements. So how do these forces derive their knowledge of the objective good or evil involved in any matter they partake in? Or, alternately, how can their raison d'etre be judged to be good or bad across all subjective viewpoints?

I maintain that this is at the very least a "resemblance" to the traditional conception of God.

I maintain that mundane beings bear no resemblance to the traditional conception of God beyond being supposedly created in his image. Which in itself is a marvellous feat of anthropomorphism turned on its head.

In the power and knowing stakes, Og bears as much resemblance to God as the Rhesus Macaque does to humans. Far less so in fact.

As for omnipresence and creatorship, there's no reason that _God_ couldn't possess those qualities to a significant enough degree to reasonably lay claim to them.

Ok, creatorship. First off, one doesn't lay claim to it and significant degree just doesn't come into it. One either did create everything or one didn't. Secondly, if one did create everything, or even co-create everything, and yet one is not omnipotent and omniscient, exactly how did one go about doing that?

Again, with omnipresence, it's not something one lays claim to and significant degree cannot come into it as one is either omnipresent or not.

Of course He wouldn't be "present" in _Satan_, but then I don't think that the traditional God, even being held to be "omnipresent", is held to be "present" in _Satan_, so again it's reasonable to say that _God_ "resembles" the traditional God in this respect. And of course He wouldn't have created His opposite, so He would not be the ultimate creator, but we might speculate that He is the primary creative force behind the universe, which again bears a strong "resemblance" to the traditional God.

You can't just mitigate this stuff away.

To be omnipresent Og wouldn't have to just be present in 'Go', Og would also have to be present in Go's domain (Hell as they call it) and also present in all the evil perpetrated by Go. Omnipresence with relation to good OR bad in a world of good AND evil is every bit as paradoxical, problematic and even implausible as omnipotence and omniscience. You'd have been better leaving this one at the door with them.

And God did create the fallen angel Satan, so we're told.

God's properties and the means by which he creates and maintains are paradoxical, problematic and even implausible. That's why attempting to remove or mitigate them leaves you with something that bears no resemblance.

DT: Og does not come close to deserving comparison with God.

Laird: I hope that my previous paragraph makes it plain that I strongly disagree with this.

It does but it has no basis worth talking about.

DT: When comparing and naming the two, Og is deserving of disparagement and degradation and certainly not deserving of the same or even similar nomenclature.

Laird: So you're disparaging _God_ because He's not God.

Shouldn't that end with a question mark?

Not really, I was not disparaging Og per se, rather I was using a derogatory identifier for Og with reference to the subject that was being discussed, that is a fitting and accurate name for your attempted watered down _God_, named so to indicate the similarities with God. As such, one must contrast God with Og and it is then only natural that degradation be applied to Og the signifier, and by extension, Og the entity naturally just happens to suffer by comparison.

That strikes me as a particularly weak reason to disparage a being.

Not when we're discussing whether this merely superior being should be classified under the same nomenclature as the supreme being.

Do you likewise disparage all human beings for not being God too?

No but then you're not trying to rename human beings as _God_.

Come on mate, there's got to be another reason behind your disparagement. My best guess is that you think that the concept of _God_ is implausible and you're using mockery to express your distaste for the idea.

Not at all. The only reasons why I was being disparaging are explained above. Granted, mockery made its way in along the way.

While we're at it though, of course Og is implausible, lest we make a mockery of the English language. You don't even believe in _God_ yourself so you too find Og implausible.

Perhaps you concur with the scrutiny that I applied to my own speculations in my most recent post to Ataraxia. Or perhaps you have your own explanation of why it's an implausible scenario. If so, then I'm interested to hear it.

Not really. It’s so far removed from the fundaments of the matter as to be easily thrown into doubt, whilst remaining superficially within the scientific paradigm, by any old spurious speculation under the rules of this game.

“My main criticism of the scenario that I've proposed is that it's hard to reconcile it with an evolutionary universe. If conscious life is the main object of the battle between the forces of good and evil, then what were these two super-beings doing in all of the billions of years before life evolved?”

Waiting. Og and Go, not being omnipotent or omniscient, knew the only way that they could recreate consciousness was via the process of an evolving universe and they knew the time involved in such a process. However this wait was but a trifle to them as they can manipulate their passage through time.

“And by whose hand was the universe and ultimately life created - _God_'s or _Satan_'s or in combination, and if in combination, then how do we explain two sworn enemies cooperating?“

They knew that they had to, just this once, to achieve their only shared goal.

“And again, if conscious life is the main object of the battle then why is there apparently so little of it in relation to the rest of the universe - what's the point of all of those countless stars when they have no bearing on the battle between good and evil?“

Stars are the crucible of life and the nature of the evolutionary universal process requires experimentation on a massive scale in order to produce comparatively small incidences of consciousness.

DT: Og is no God at all really. Og is just a powerful consciousness, subject to the same conditions a squirrel is. Even though Og might be able to more skillfully manipulate those conditions with Og's superior knowledge, Og is only superior to me and you in the same way that we're superior to squirrels.

Laird: Well He's a God in the sense that He's an ultimate: there is none greater than Him.

DT: I've already covered this, as has Ataraxia. Og cannot be the ultimate or the supreme by definition. Og is merely a superior.

Please see the first three paragraphs of my most recent post to Ataraxia for my take on this.

All you did was bend the operative definition of ‘ultimate’ with relation to God - THE ultimate - to better suit your needs - AN ultimate. And if we backtrack through the above quote we can see that you likewise attempt to blur the line between a superior and the supreme.

What it boils down to then is what you say above in this new context: “He's a God in the sense that He's an ultimate: there is none greater than Him.”
Well then I’m a God in the sense that I’m an ultimate when it comes to being me. A mathematical infinite is a God in the sense that it’s an ultimate in the context of numbers. A Cray is a God in the sense that it’s an ultimate in the context of supercomputing. Mount Everest is a God in the sense that it’s an ultimate in the context of climbing destinations.

The point being that once you water down the operative context of THE ultimate to AN ultimate, it no longer follows that this AN ultimate is a God.

DT: This greater knowledge doesn't make us gods or supreme, just superior beings in that respect.

Laird: Well, I maintain that there are regions on the scale of knowledge (and power) where an animal becomes a human and then where a human becomes a god - there are clearly in polytheistic religions conceptions of "gods" who are thus referred to due to the amount of knowledge/power that they hold. I think that it's reasonable to extend this to say that there is a point on the scale of knowledge/power where a god becomes _God_ - namely the point where no further knowledge/power is possible.

Yes indeed, in other words, omnipotence and omniscience; which you have clearly stated that Og is not possessed of.

Laird: So _God_ it is.

DT: Fair enough. Your definition, your call. I'm just pointing out that your nomenclature is semantically inaccurate and thereby misleading, equivocal, deceiving and perhaps even dishonest.

Laird: Again, I refer you to my first paragraph in this post to make it clear that I strongly disagree with you.

Then I refer you to my disagreement s with your disagreements.

The nomenclature is clearly inaccurate. You’ve said that the Og is not omnipotent or omniscient so that’s 2 of God’s 5 traditionally ascribed unique attributes Og doesn’t have. I’ve shown the problem with omnipresence and Og so that’s 3 of 5 Og doesn’t have. Og’s status as creator of the physical universe is a matter of conjecture due to Og’s nebulous and undecided nature so I’ll give Og a ½ there. And finally, Og is not infinitely compassionate, like God, but Og is supremely compassionate specifically in the context of extant compassionate beings. Now I was going to give Og 9/10ths for that which would mean that Og resembles God to the extent that Og fulfils 7/25ths of God’s attributes, kind of. But then I got to thinking about compassion and the requirement of omniscience in order to be truly compassionate. As such, Og’s compassion score is immediately slashed in half by virtue of lack of omniscience. So, 9/20ths for compassion which adds up to a grand total God quotient of 19/100 for Og. In fact fuck it, I’ll give Og a ½ for compassion. So Og’s God quotient is a nice round 1/5. I think that’s fair!

DT: Can you see the difference between the existence of a number of crows gathered together and the existence of the murder part of a murder of crows? Between the existence of the elements of a set and the existence of the set itself?

Laird: Sure I can, but if an element of the set exists then how can we say that the set itself, which contains that existing element, does not exist?

DT: By realising that we simply project the abstraction of a set and not reifying it.

Hmm, it seems to me though that according to QRS (I gather that you sympathise with a lot of their philosophy, and I'm assuming that you sympathise with this reasoning - please correct me if I'm wrong), every "thing" is an abstraction of sorts, being that it's the product of causes, with an arbitrary boundary. So the element of the set is no less an abstraction than the set itself, and that the set is a "projected abstraction" is not an argument against my feeling that the container (set) must exist if that which it contains (the element) exists, because each element is likewise a "projected abstraction".

Well if you’re going to accept the implications of what you’re saying here as truth then we have no problem. As I’ve already said, if you use and understand this definition of existence then the seeming problem of the difference between the nature of the existence of the element and the nature of the existence of the set dissolves – just like the seeming problem of the difference between the nature of the existence of a thing and the nature of the existence of the totality dissolves, subject to such understanding.

But you don’t accept that definition of existence. Rather you go with the intuitive, empirically concrete one. That’s the one I was referencing as you know. Your answering in that context instead of adopting a context you don’t believe in order to escape the conclusion would be a damned sight more intellectually honest.

Contains? Are you saying that each of these crows are contained in a murder? And that this murder is somehow actually existent in the same way that a crow is actually existent?

Laird: in forming this scenario you're not comparing apples with apples. The original point of contention was over Kevin's assertion that the Totality (everything) does not exist whilst every thing that it contains does. Now "the murder of crows" is not to "an individual crow" as "the Totality" is to "an individual thing", precisely because - as you question me about - it does not "contain" each crow as the Totality "contains" each thing.

You can’t use what Kevin calls his ‘poetry’ as an argument against my words unless you understand this poetry. When he says ‘contains’ in this context, he doesn’t mean in the same sense that a cup contains liquid. After all, how could boundlessness ‘contain’ anything?

To the extent that a murder ‘contains’ a group of crows, and to the extent that a set ‘contains’ numbers, so too the totality ‘contains’ things.

These apples are exactly the same as your apples.

DT: I know through direct experience that if one assumes that to exist is to present an appearance to consciousness and then applies that definition rigorously, such problems disappear

Laird: ...and new ones appear. In a universe without consciousness, nothing would exist. That's just bizarre.

It’s only bizarre if you employ the intuitive, empirically concrete definition of existence. So now you’re not comparing apples with apples in conflating the two definitions. The new problems you say appear simply don’t if you rigorously apply the suggested definition.

Further, in a universe without consciousness, what is existence? Under any sensible definition whatsoever, existence can only ever be a concept within a consciousness. No consciousness - no concepts - no existence. So in a universe without consciousness, what exists? This question can only be passed over in silence - Moooooo!

----------------------------------

The subject matter of this conversation and this post has become increasingly nebulous. This whole subject of Og is a full-on exercise in counting angels on a pin-head.

Much as I like the name Og, a far more accurate and descriptive name now occurs to me for your suggestion of this _God_ that you yourself find implausible. The name is Loki – the trickster god - ‘contriver of all fraud’. You have assumed his role admirably.

Thank Og you snipped so much of what I said or this post would have gone on to 99% of infinity.

Og knows how I managed to let myself get suck(er)ed into this.

Kevin Solway wrote:Ultimately the soul is identical with the Totality, since it is the source of all that we are and all we do.

I don't see it that way. I rather think of creatures as sheathes within sheathes, one after another, the physical body being the outermost, the divine spark, the spirit, being the innermost. The soul is somewhere in the middle, what we carry on after death and the kama loca, the process we undergo whereby we peel away from the mortal coil and take with us whatever we can, whatever we have been spritual enough to impress upon our souls. The kama loca is what people begin to experience in near-death circumstances, and feels like a "life passing before the eyes."

Kevin, I really believe you have not done much investigation into these things. I think you believe you understand it just fine and leave it at that. The soul is part of us, and we are part of the Totality, so the soul cannot be identical with the Totality. It's like you are equating things difficult of definition and discussion and almost attributing some magical properties such as "boundary-lessness" to them.

In my view, there is one causeless Cause, the Universal Source and Center (term not original with me, as few enough things are). This First Cause does not even interact with anything, having created an Eternal Son (not Jesus) and a Conjoint Actor (the Infinite Spirit) to whom all but his ultimate authority he has delegated, and through whom the Universe of Universes was created and is maintained.

Thus, in a very real sense, the smallest "number" that can be known is three. Any entity or quantity must first, be itself; second, there must be at least one other thing that it is not; and third, there must be at least one thing viewing, measuring, considering, or observing it. This is true of physical events and objects. It is also true of anything that can be conceived, that is, it is true of every concept.

This triune nature of reality is directly traceable to the Absolute Triunity that is known as the Godhead. It is also responsible for the structural appearance of the number seven as I've noted elsewhere on these boards, since 2^3 = 8 represents the number of ways a trinity can manifest. This includes nonmanifestation as well, which is then not included, leaving us with 7.

Try as they might, physicists have not been able to nail the nature of light and matter down further than the wave/particle duality. Light and matter will exhibit properties of one or the other, but not both, in a given experiment. Here again the "third thing" shows up, as it is the experimenter who decides which way light or matter manifests.

In my view, not only is the existence of sentient life here on earth evidence of creation by design, but that this life can teach itself about the environment also suggest we are being intelligently guided in our evolution.

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Ultimately the soul is identical with the Totality, since it is the source of all that we are and all we do.

I don't see it that way. I rather think of creatures as sheathes within sheathes, one after another, the physical body being the outermost, the divine spark, the spirit, being the innermost. The soul is somewhere in the middle

I did say that it was ultimately identical with the Totality. It is certainly practical to speak of individualized souls, even though all souls are ultimately all connected.

Dave Toast wrote:Og knows how I managed to let myself get suck(er)ed into this.

it made for an an entertaining post nevertheless. :)

Laird: We're talking about you using the word "thing" to describe it when you forbid anyone else to.

Kevin: Once again I'll repeat that it doesn't matter what words you use to describe the Totality. It's the understanding behind the words that matters.

It's hard to reconcile that liberal attitude with your constant fault-finding with the characterisations that have been applied to the Totality in this thread: for example you were very loath to accept that it exists and you still have not accepted that it's reasonable to characterise it as deterministic; but I'm pleased to see you express this attitude and I hope that it leads to less pettiness and more focus on substance.

Kevin Solway wrote:It doesn't matter if you call the Totality a "thing" so long as you don't conceive of it as having boundaries in any way, or as possibly being caused by something outside of and apart from itself.

That quote's going straight to the pool room. Finally, sanity prevails.

Edit: I just want to add that in my opinion, even according to the terms in which you describe the Totality, it does have boundaries of a sort as I've twice pointed out to you and which arguments you've ignored on both occasions.

Laird: fixation does not need to be relative.

Kevin: All things are relative.

The Totality is not.

Laird: The effect that my typing these words out has on Alpha Centauri is probably "none whatsover".

Kevin: It's definitely not none whatsoever. That is a logical certainty.

Please elaborate on your logical certainty.

Kevin Solway wrote:Further, imagine that there are alien-creator-Gods, and they read what you have written, and it gives them the idea to destroy Alpha Centauri. In that case your words will have been a major cause in the destruction of Alpha Centauri.

Oh come on, you can't expect me to take that seriously. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would firstly have had the idea well before me and secondly wouldn't engage in wanton destruction for no benefit.

Kevin Solway wrote:But the important point is that such a God is *infinitely* small, and disappearing into non-existence, when compared to the Totality.

I'm going to stop debating with you about the "alien creator God" of your Totality because as I've already explained, it is different to the traditional Christian God who is a First Cause, which your Totality will not admit of. The most that you will allow for is a powerful being who has been caused by the rest of the Totality, and that's clearly incompatible with the Christian God. So say what you will about an "alien creator God" within your Totality, it's ultimately not an attack on the Christian God but on a mutated conception of God of your own devising.

Laird: How it is that anything exists at all

Kevin: That is a question that can't be asked of something that is proven not to have any cause.

Laird: Proven in the context of a particular model.

Kevin: You need to prove that all we can ever experience or talk about are only models.

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't deal in proofs, I deal in arguments? I've argued my case already in the thread, "Naturalistic philosophy denies life", so reread that thread if you want to know my "proof". And by the way I don't remember writing before that "experience" is about modelling, although now that you bring it up I have to agree - our brains interpret sensory data and construct a model of reality out of it. I suppose that in this regard we could argue that there's no such thing as "direct" experience, although I don't make this argument myself because I don't see how any other type of experience than modelling based on sensory data is possible, so that's as direct as it gets.

Certainly though when you talk about abstract concepts like the Totality and describe characteristics of them such as that they are infinite in all respects (boundless) and that they are deterministic then you are constructing a model.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:Perhaps this is what brokenhead meant when he wrote that your philosophy doesn't allow for growth.

You could say the same thing of truth itself.

"Truth doesn't allow for growth."

For sure you could say the same thing of the whole truth, but it's pretty clear to at least me that you're not in possession of that ultimate commodity.

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:It doesn't matter if you call the Totality a "thing" so long as you don't conceive of it as having boundaries in any way, or as possibly being caused by something outside of and apart from itself.

That quote's going straight to the pool room. Finally, sanity prevails.

The fact that you conceive of the Totality as something that requires explanation (ie, an outside cause) means that you are conceiving it as possibly being caused by something outside of and apart from itself.

All things are relative.

The Totality is not.

Obviously I am speaking about finite things, such as you were speaking of.

Laird: The effect that my typing these words out has on Alpha Centauri is probably "none whatsover".
Kevin: It's definitely not none whatsoever. That is a logical certainty.

Please elaborate on your logical certainty.

The light from your words, and the gravity of the ink in your words, will have an effect on Alpha Centauri. Also, there may be beings on Alpha Centauri who can read your words and act upon them.

Kevin Solway wrote:Further, imagine that there are alien-creator-Gods, and they read what you have written, and it gives them the idea to destroy Alpha Centauri. In that case your words will have been a major cause in the destruction of Alpha Centauri.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would firstly have had the idea well before me and secondly wouldn't engage in wanton destruction for no benefit.

Firstly, there's no reason to think that any creator of our world has any of the qualities you attribute to them. They may be evil creators.

Secondly, if the creators are good, they may be able to see a positive effect in destroying Alpha Centauri, inspired by your words.

I'm going to stop debating with you about the "alien creator God" of your Totality because as I've already explained, it is different to the traditional Christian God who is a First Cause, which your Totality will not admit of.

The traditional Christian God is either infinite or finite. If he is infinite he is identical with the Totality, and if he is finite then he is an alien-creator God, such as I have been speaking of.

There is no third possibility (other than the obvious explanation that the traditional Christian God is an insane and nonsensical construct).

Certainly though when you talk about abstract concepts like the Totality and describe characteristics of them such as that they are infinite in all respects (boundless) and that they are deterministic then you are constructing a model.

You haven't demonstrated this, by argument or any other means.

Laird: I find the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience to be quite problematic, even implausible

DT: Just out of interest, why?

Omnipotence has the sort of logical problems that are pointed out in the Wikipedia page that Ataraxia directed me to in an earlier post in this thread - I forget the title of that page now but one of the questions posed was something like "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" Whether you answer yes or no to this question, there is something that God cannot do and so He loses His omnipotence. I guess that one could define omnipotence in a particular way that avoids these sort of problems but I haven't cared to put the effort into that task as of yet.

As for omniscience I should clarify that I don't find the concept problematic or implausible in isolation, but only when paired with the Christian insistence on the existence of free will. I don't see how the two can exist together. If God is omniscient then He knows the future, which entails the future being fixed, which entails determinism. Free will and determinism are incompatible. Sure, we can talk of a "practical" free will in that conscious agents have a sphere of influence, but under determinism an "ultimate" free will is impossible - the conscious agents are not "free" to influence their sphere but rather have no alternative but to act in the way that they do albeit that it seems to them that they do. It would not be fair for an omniscient God to ascribe responsibility for sin to humanity given that humanity would have no ultimate choice in its actions, whereas God would see the (predetermined) trap into which humanity is walking, and, being omnipotent, would have the power to avert the disaster.

Laird: so my conception - _God_ - is not all-powerful and all-knowing but rather the most-powerful and most-knowing (of the "good" forces).

DT: You mean like Richard Branson or Chomsky?

Nope, I don't. Funny line, but diversionary...

Dave Toast wrote:Exactly how powerful is this most-powerful "good" force? Exactly how knowing is this most-knowing "good" force?

Your guess is as good as mine, suffice it to say that there is none more powerful than He.

Dave Toast wrote:Is Og like....99% omnipotent and omniscient? And wtf is 99% omnipotent and omniscient? While we're at it, what is 99% of infinite?

Well, exactly. Why bring percentages into it in the first place? The concept of omnipotence is flawed already so taking a percentage of a flawed concept is pretty meaningless. As for omniscience, if you really want to get into the realm of percentages (I really don't, but I'm prepared to ride with you on this for a while), then let's say that He's something like 70% omniscient. The first 25% off is to cater to the nearly equal power of His opposite which He is unable to predict with complete accuracy and the other 5% off is assuming some metaphysical model of reality that allows for His own "truly" free will such that He cannot even predict with perfect accuracy His own future actions. And no, I have absolutely no idea of what that metaphysical model would consist of - this is pure speculation.

Dave Toast wrote:And what is a "good" force? I mean, obviously you're talking about objective good and evil here and yet you know as well as the rest of us that good and evil are merely subjective value judgements.

Well, no, I don't. I subscribe to the possibility that various actions have been objectively defined as good or evil for reasons that are beyond us.

Dave Toast wrote:So how do these forces derive their knowledge of the objective good or evil involved in any matter they partake in? Or, alternately, how can their raison d'etre be judged to be good or bad across all subjective viewpoints?

I can think of a couple of possibilities. The first is that good and evil exist innately as part of the same set of rules of existence that necessitate an evolutionary universe - that is to say "somehow in some preexisting manner but I have no idea how". The second is that good is what ultimately leads to maximum pleasure for all and evil is what ultimately leads to maximum suffering of a few and pleasure for only the evil which feeds upon that suffering, and that as mortals without the ultimate knowledge that _God_ and _Satan_ have, we are unable to judge how each of our actions contribute to those outcomes and rather simply have to accept the "objective" understanding of our _God_.

Laird: I maintain that this is at the very least a "resemblance" to the traditional conception of God.

DT: I maintain that mundane beings bear no resemblance to the traditional conception of God beyond being supposedly created in his image. Which in itself is a marvellous feat of anthropomorphism turned on its head.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Dave Toast wrote:In the power and knowing stakes, Og bears as much resemblance to God as the Rhesus Macaque does to humans. Far less so in fact.

Be that as it may, the label "God" has been applied to concepts far less "God-like" than my _God_. Kevin's God (and this applies to the pantheist God too) isn't even conscious! Nor wilfull, nor - if Kevin is to be taken at his word - can almost any characteristic be applied to it, and yet I don't see you disparaging it for lack of resemblance. How does that work?

Laird: As for omnipresence and creatorship, there's no reason that _God_ couldn't possess those qualities to a significant enough degree to reasonably lay claim to them.

DT: Ok, creatorship. First off, one doesn't lay claim to it

It was a figure of speech. If you don't like it, then perhaps this rephrasing will work for you: "be said to conform to them".

Dave Toast wrote:and significant degree just doesn't come into it. One either did create everything or one didn't.

Hmm, you seemed to be so eager to think in percentages earlier and yet here you want to talk solely about booleans. One may not have created everything, but one might have created a significant enough percentage of it to be referred to as a (or "the") creator.

Dave Toast wrote:Secondly, if one did create everything, or even co-create everything, and yet one is not omnipotent and omniscient, exactly how did one go about doing that?

You seem to be implying that to create everything, one needs to be both omnipotent (an apparently flawed ideal anyway) and omniscient. Human beings create things all the time without being even close to omnipotent and omniscient. Why is it not simply enough for creation on the scale of "everything" (it's not quite everything because I've already alluded to the preexisting rules of engagement, and because both of the primary protagonists are preexisting) to require ultimate power and knowledge as opposed to full-scale omnipotence and omniscience?

Dave Toast wrote:Again, with omnipresence, it's not something one lays claim to and significant degree cannot come into it as one is either omnipresent or not.

All I'm saying is that there is a scale according to which a being is "present" and _God_ would fit as far up the scale as it's possible for any being to go.

Laird: Of course He wouldn't be "present" in _Satan_, but then I don't think that the traditional God, even being held to be "omnipresent", is held to be "present" in _Satan_, so again it's reasonable to say that _God_ "resembles" the traditional God in this respect. And of course He wouldn't have created His opposite, so He would not be the ultimate creator, but we might speculate that He is the primary creative force behind the universe, which again bears a strong "resemblance" to the traditional God.

DT: You can't just mitigate this stuff away.

You're denying a resemblance between _God_ and the Christian God with respect to omnipresence. I'm not merely "mitigating this stuff away", I'm showing that the resemblance is actually pretty strong.

Dave Toast wrote:To be omnipresent Og wouldn't have to just be present in 'Go', Og would also have to be present in Go's domain (Hell as they call it) and also present in all the evil perpetrated by Go.

So you're saying that the Christian God is present in those things? That just doesn't make sense for an omnibenevolent being, which is why I don't apply it to my _God_, who nevertheless bears a resemblance because He's as present as it's possible for an ultimately-good entity to be.

Dave Toast wrote:Omnipresence with relation to good OR bad in a world of good AND evil is every bit as paradoxical, problematic and even implausible as omnipotence and omniscience.

Agreed, and that's why I explained that _God_ would not necessarily be present in His opposite nor in His opposite's domain, which is not to say that He might not venture in there (more likely "wage war" in there) for purposes of, for example, saving souls from eternal torment.

Dave Toast wrote:And God did create the fallen angel Satan, so we're told.

The reason that I apply preceding and trailing underscores to Satan is because in the scenario that I'm speculating on, _God_ did not create _Satan_ - _Satan_ is as much of a necessary/preexisting being as _God_ is.

Dave Toast wrote:God's properties and the means by which he creates and maintains are paradoxical, problematic and even implausible. That's why attempting to remove or mitigate them leaves you with something that bears no resemblance.

Dave, I don't really understand where your criticism is coming from. It seems that we share the view that the traditional concept of the Christian God is significantly implausible. Why then do you attack my attempts to salvage something plausible from the mess?

DT: When comparing and naming the two, Og is deserving of disparagement and degradation and certainly not deserving of the same or even similar nomenclature.

Laird: So you're disparaging _God_ because He's not God.

DT: Shouldn't that end with a question mark?

It could. I was expressing my understanding, which you're free to clarify. I'm glad to see that you've done so.

Dave Toast wrote:Not really, I was not disparaging Og per se, rather I was using a derogatory identifier for Og with reference to the subject that was being discussed, that is a fitting and accurate name for your attempted watered down _God_, named so to indicate the similarities with God. As such, one must contrast God with Og and it is then only natural that degradation be applied to Og the signifier, and by extension, Og the entity naturally just happens to suffer by comparison.

OK.

Laird: That strikes me as a particularly weak reason to disparage a being.

DT: Not when we're discussing whether this merely superior being should be classified under the same nomenclature as the supreme being.

OK.

Laird: Do you likewise disparage all human beings for not being God too?

DT: No but then you're not trying to rename human beings as _God_.

Fair enough.

Dave Toast wrote:While we're at it though, of course Og is implausible, lest we make a mockery of the English language.

I don't see what language has to do with it. It's irrelevant how we identify Him, the question is whether or not it's likely that He exists.

Dave Toast wrote:You don't even believe in _God_ yourself so you too find Og implausible.

I have mixed feelings. I don't know how to adequately explain the scenario that I've posited but on the other hand I've had experiences that strongly suggest to me that it (or something similar) is the truth.

Laird: Perhaps you concur with the scrutiny that I applied to my own speculations in my most recent post to Ataraxia. Or perhaps you have your own explanation of why it's an implausible scenario. If so, then I'm interested to hear it.

DT: Not really. It’s so far removed from the fundaments of the matter as to be easily thrown into doubt, whilst remaining superficially within the scientific paradigm, by any old spurious speculation under the rules of this game.

I don't argue against your characterisation of my speculation as a "game" - except to say that I'm serious about considering alternative explanations of reality - but I do argue that all philosophising at this level, including the modelling of reality as a Totality that can be described in various ways but that ultimately cannot be explained (to attempt to explain it ultimately is to "ask a wrong question"!), is likewise a "game".

Dave Toast wrote:“My main criticism of the scenario that I've proposed is that it's hard to reconcile it with an evolutionary universe. If conscious life is the main object of the battle between the forces of good and evil, then what were these two super-beings doing in all of the billions of years before life evolved?”

Waiting. Og and Go, not being omnipotent or omniscient, knew the only way that they could recreate consciousness was via the process of an evolving universe and they knew the time involved in such a process. However this wait was but a trifle to them as they can manipulate their passage through time.

“And by whose hand was the universe and ultimately life created - _God_'s or _Satan_'s or in combination, and if in combination, then how do we explain two sworn enemies cooperating?“

They knew that they had to, just this once, to achieve their only shared goal.

“And again, if conscious life is the main object of the battle then why is there apparently so little of it in relation to the rest of the universe - what's the point of all of those countless stars when they have no bearing on the battle between good and evil?“

Stars are the crucible of life and the nature of the evolutionary universal process requires experimentation on a massive scale in order to produce comparatively small incidences of consciousness.

Nice work mate! I have other questions that trouble me too - perhaps you'll lend your imagination to the answering of these ones: _God_ and _Satan_ are to some extent bound by rules - they are for example compelled to create an evolutionary universe - and yet they are to some extent above rules, in the sense that they can for example create energy and matter whereas we as humans cannot (yet anyway) do more than observe that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that they merely change forms. What then is the nature of the interaction of _God_ and _Satan_ with the created universe? How interventionist are they? Can science ever discover evidence of their intervention? How much can they bend the rules of physics? And what's the point of having rules of physics that we as humans are "bound by", if those rules are not invariant anyway but are subject to "miraculous" overruling by these two protagonists (and perhaps by other supernatural assistants of these two protagonists) and what stops them from constantly bending the rules to favour their preferred version of reality?

Dave Toast wrote:

DT: Og is no God at all really. Og is just a powerful consciousness, subject to the same conditions a squirrel is. Even though Og might be able to more skillfully manipulate those conditions with Og's superior knowledge, Og is only superior to me and you in the same way that we're superior to squirrels.

Laird: Well He's a God in the sense that He's an ultimate: there is none greater than Him.

DT: I've already covered this, as has Ataraxia. Og cannot be the ultimate or the supreme by definition. Og is merely a superior.

Laird: Please see the first three paragraphs of my most recent post to Ataraxia for my take on this.

All you did was bend the operative definition of ‘ultimate’ with relation to God - THE ultimate - to better suit your needs - AN ultimate. And if we backtrack through the above quote we can see that you likewise attempt to blur the line between a superior and the supreme.

What it boils down to then is what you say above in this new context: “He's a God in the sense that He's an ultimate: there is none greater than Him.”
Well then I’m a God in the sense that I’m an ultimate when it comes to being me. A mathematical infinite is a God in the sense that it’s an ultimate in the context of numbers. A Cray is a God in the sense that it’s an ultimate in the context of supercomputing. Mount Everest is a God in the sense that it’s an ultimate in the context of climbing destinations.

The point being that once you water down the operative context of THE ultimate to AN ultimate, it no longer follows that this AN ultimate is a God.

Oh, but I'm not intending to say that just any old ultimate qualifies something as God. We have the context of the original (Christian) conception of God to give us a reference point when deciding which type of ultimate it is appropriate for a "God" to conform to. And you can see that my _God_ and the Christian God are both the same type of ultimate in the sense that they are both: (a) an ultimate consciousness (b) the ultimate good consciousness (c) the most ultimately powerful good force (d) the most ultimately knowledgeable good force and (e) the most ultimately compassionate and benevolent good force.

But anyway, if you think that I should be talking about "THE" ultimate, then please explain how I should be defining "THE" ultimate.

And as I asked Ataraxia: THE ultimate what?

DT: This greater knowledge doesn't make us gods or supreme, just superior beings in that respect.

Laird: Well, I maintain that there are regions on the scale of knowledge (and power) where an animal becomes a human and then where a human becomes a god - there are clearly in polytheistic religions conceptions of "gods" who are thus referred to due to the amount of knowledge/power that they hold. I think that it's reasonable to extend this to say that there is a point on the scale of knowledge/power where a god becomes _God_ - namely the point where no further knowledge/power is possible.

DT: Yes indeed, in other words, omnipotence and omniscience; which you have clearly stated that Og is not possessed of.

Nevertheless He is at a point where no further improvement is possible: an ultimate point. Sure, it's not quite as impressive as omnipotence and omniscience, but it's a lot more plausible than those concepts.

Dave Toast wrote:

Laird: So _God_ it is.

DT: Fair enough. Your definition, your call. I'm just pointing out that your nomenclature is semantically inaccurate and thereby misleading, equivocal, deceiving and perhaps even dishonest.

Laird: Again, I refer you to my first paragraph in this post to make it clear that I strongly disagree with you.

Then I refer you to my disagreement s with your disagreements.

The nomenclature is clearly inaccurate. You’ve said that the Og is not omnipotent or omniscient so that’s 2 of God’s 5 traditionally ascribed unique attributes Og doesn’t have. I’ve shown the problem with omnipresence and Og so that’s 3 of 5 Og doesn’t have. Og’s status as creator of the physical universe is a matter of conjecture due to Og’s nebulous and undecided nature so I’ll give Og a ½ there. And finally, Og is not infinitely compassionate, like God, but Og is supremely compassionate specifically in the context of extant compassionate beings. Now I was going to give Og 9/10ths for that which would mean that Og resembles God to the extent that Og fulfils 7/25ths of God’s attributes, kind of. But then I got to thinking about compassion and the requirement of omniscience in order to be truly compassionate. As such, Og’s compassion score is immediately slashed in half by virtue of lack of omniscience. So, 9/20ths for compassion which adds up to a grand total God quotient of 19/100 for Og. In fact fuck it, I’ll give Og a ½ for compassion. So Og’s God quotient is a nice round 1/5. I think that’s fair!

Hmm, I don't. Earlier you were willing to consider percentages for omnipotence and omniscience yet here you give _God_ zero for both of those characteristics. Likewise I think that it's reasonable to ascribe a rough percentage by which _God_ is omnipresent.

But in any case, the point remains that He resembles the traditional God to the extent that He is the most potent, knowing, present, creative and compassionate force for good that is possible, and, given that the ultimate properties ascribed to the traditional God have serious problems with them, that's the best that I can do. I'm disappointed that you're so scathing of my attempts to resolve some of the problems associated with the traditional God and end up with a more plausible concept.

DT: Can you see the difference between the existence of a number of crows gathered together and the existence of the murder part of a murder of crows? Between the existence of the elements of a set and the existence of the set itself?

Laird: Sure I can, but if an element of the set exists then how can we say that the set itself, which contains that existing element, does not exist?

DT: By realising that we simply project the abstraction of a set and not reifying it.

Laird: Hmm, it seems to me though that according to QRS (I gather that you sympathise with a lot of their philosophy, and I'm assuming that you sympathise with this reasoning - please correct me if I'm wrong), every "thing" is an abstraction of sorts, being that it's the product of causes, with an arbitrary boundary. So the element of the set is no less an abstraction than the set itself, and that the set is a "projected abstraction" is not an argument against my feeling that the container (set) must exist if that which it contains (the element) exists, because each element is likewise a "projected abstraction".

DT: Well if you’re going to accept the implications of what you’re saying here as truth then we have no problem. As I’ve already said, if you use and understand this definition of existence then the seeming problem of the difference between the nature of the existence of the element and the nature of the existence of the set dissolves – just like the seeming problem of the difference between the nature of the existence of a thing and the nature of the existence of the totality dissolves, subject to such understanding.

I didn't realise that I was utilising any particular definition of existence when I wrote the above, but I think that I see where you get it from: you probably infer a particular definition of existence from the phrase "projected abstraction". I didn't mean to imply, though, that "projected abstraction" is equivalent to existence. I did, as I mentioned in one of my posts to Kevin a while ago that I would do, think a little on my long bus trip home about a definition of existence but I was unable to come up with one. It seems to be one of the most (perhaps the most) fundamental of concepts, and not amenable to breaking down. Suffice it to say that I believe that both the set and the element of the set exist in some sense (a "conceptual realm" perhaps) regardless of whether one is consciously projecting their abstraction.

Dave Toast wrote:But you don’t accept that definition of existence. Rather you go with the intuitive, empirically concrete one. That’s the one I was referencing as you know. Your answering in that context instead of adopting a context you don’t believe in order to escape the conclusion would be a damned sight more intellectually honest.

Well, the thing is that I agree to some extent that the things that we experience "out there" in the world (and the things that we conceptualise, like numbers, formulae, sets and elements, etc) are in some sense abstractions, I just don't think that that's the full story. I think that the abstractions exist (as do their components) whether or not they are present in anyone's consciousness.

DT: Contains? Are you saying that each of these crows are contained in a murder? And that this murder is somehow actually existent in the same way that a crow is actually existent?

Laird: in forming this scenario you're not comparing apples with apples. The original point of contention was over Kevin's assertion that the Totality (everything) does not exist whilst every thing that it contains does. Now "the murder of crows" is not to "an individual crow" as "the Totality" is to "an individual thing", precisely because - as you question me about - it does not "contain" each crow as the Totality "contains" each thing.

DT: You can’t use what Kevin calls his ‘poetry’ as an argument against my words unless you understand this poetry. When he says ‘contains’ in this context, he doesn’t mean in the same sense that a cup contains liquid. After all, how could boundlessness ‘contain’ anything?

Quite right: my understanding is that he means it in the sense that a set contains its elements. And that's not the sense in which "the murder of crows" contains crows, it's the sense in which "a group of crows" contains crows.

Dave Toast wrote:To the extent that a murder ‘contains’ a group of crows,

I disagree, I think that there's a subtle distinction.

Dave Toast wrote:and to the extent that a set ‘contains’ numbers, so too the totality ‘contains’ things.

I agree.

Dave Toast wrote:These apples are exactly the same as your apples.

Nah, not the murder of crows business. Murder is an act - an event, not an agglomeration or grouping.

DT: I know through direct experience that if one assumes that to exist is to present an appearance to consciousness and then applies that definition rigorously, such problems disappear

Laird: ...and new ones appear. In a universe without consciousness, nothing would exist. That's just bizarre.

DT: It’s only bizarre if you employ the intuitive, empirically concrete definition of existence. So now you’re not comparing apples with apples in conflating the two definitions. The new problems you say appear simply don’t if you rigorously apply the suggested definition.

So why should I give up a perfectly serviceable definition of "exists" for one that narrows the possibilities and doesn't even make sense to me anyway? We will need a new word other than "exists" to describe the state of things in a universe without consciousness if we're to employ this new definition. What would you suggest that that new word might be? And why invent that new word when "exists" already does the job pretty darn well?

Dave Toast wrote:Further, in a universe without consciousness, what is existence? Under any sensible definition whatsoever, existence can only ever be a concept within a consciousness. No consciousness - no concepts - no existence.

I flatly disagree. I think that the notion that the only "sensible definition" of existence has it as a "concept within a consciousness" is from bizarro-land. Yes, I'm being blunt.

Dave Toast wrote:So in a universe without consciousness, what exists? This question can only be passed over in silence - Moooooo!

No, I think that the question is rather: in a universe without consciousness, why wouldn't anything exist? All of the raw material that the abstractions are comprised of is undeniably there still, and that's most of what "exists" means to me.

Dave Toast wrote:The subject matter of this conversation and this post has become increasingly nebulous. This whole subject of Og is a full-on exercise in counting angels on a pin-head.

Oh but you're so good at imaginative speculation!

Dave Toast wrote:Much as I like the name Og, a far more accurate and descriptive name now occurs to me for your suggestion of this _God_ that you yourself find implausible. The name is Loki – the trickster god - ‘contriver of all fraud’. You have assumed his role admirably.

I don't know what I'm doing that's so fraudulent. I'm simply trying to turn something that I find highly implausible into something a lot more plausible. Even you have found ways to "play the game" and to answer the questions of implausibility to a reasonable level of satisfaction.

Dave Toast wrote:Og knows how I managed to let myself get suck(er)ed into this.

You're committed now, there's no turning back! :-P

Kevin Solway wrote:The fact that you conceive of the Totality as something that requires explanation (ie, an outside cause) means that you are conceiving it as possibly being caused by something outside of and apart from itself.

The fact that you deny the possibility of an explanation when one is required means that your model is deficient. I don't know how to resolve it though, except by suggesting the somewhat unlikely possibility that the Totality's existence (as opposed to nothingness) can be explained by something within it. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to suggest that though.

Kevin: All things are relative.

Laird: The Totality is not.

Kevin: Obviously I am speaking about finite things, such as you were speaking of.

Actually I was speaking not of finite things but of the Totality, but you've again snipped excessively so that's not clear. Let's restore the dialogue shall we?:

Laird: It [The Totality] is deterministic and in the sense that a deterministic system is fixed

Kevin: "Fixed" compared to what? There is nothing other than itself, so the concept "fixed" doesn't mean anything in relation to the Totality.

Laird: fixation does not need to be relative.

Kevin: All things are relative.

Laird: The Totality is not.

Kevin: Obviously I am speaking about finite things, such as you were speaking of.

I request that you leave a little more context in with your quotes. I appreciate your brevity but sometimes I really battle to remember what in the world we're debating about anyway with the amount that you leave out. Could you please leave in enough context that it's clear what the original point of contention was?

Laird: The effect that my typing these words out has on Alpha Centauri is probably "none whatsover".

Kevin: It's definitely not none whatsoever. That is a logical certainty.

Laird: Please elaborate on your logical certainty.

Kevin: The light from your words, and the gravity of the ink in your words, will have an effect on Alpha Centauri. Also, there may be beings on Alpha Centauri who can read your words and act upon them.

OK, so I'll change "none whatsoever" to "so vanishingly small that it's effectively non-existent".

As for reading my words from Alpha Centauri, one might enquire of such a being "is that a telescope in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" or, in the manner of Croc Dundee, such a being might declare "That's not a telescope, this is a telescope!" I mean really Kev, you can't be serious.

Kevin: Further, imagine that there are alien-creator-Gods, and they read what you have written, and it gives them the idea to destroy Alpha Centauri. In that case your words will have been a major cause in the destruction of Alpha Centauri.

Laird: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would firstly have had the idea well before me and secondly wouldn't engage in wanton destruction for no benefit.

Kevin: Firstly, there's no reason to think that any creator of our world has any of the qualities you attribute to them. They may be evil creators.

OK, I thought that we were talking about something that resembled the Christian God but apparently not.

Kevin Solway wrote:Secondly, if the creators are good, they may be able to see a positive effect in destroying Alpha Centauri, inspired by your words.

They'd be filling in a lot of gaps if that were the case.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:I'm going to stop debating with you about the "alien creator God" of your Totality because as I've already explained, it is different to the traditional Christian God who is a First Cause, which your Totality will not admit of.

The traditional Christian God is either infinite or finite. If he is infinite he is identical with the Totality, and if he is finite then he is an alien-creator God, such as I have been speaking of.

There is no third possibility (other than the obvious explanation that the traditional Christian God is an insane and nonsensical construct).

Actually there is a third possibility but I already know that you reject it. That possibility is that He is infinite in some respects and that He is uncaused and that He is the original cause of all else.

Laird: Certainly though when you talk about abstract concepts like the Totality and describe characteristics of them such as that they are infinite in all respects (boundless) and that they are deterministic then you are constructing a model.

Kevin: You haven't demonstrated this, by argument or any other means.

OK, well if that's what you think then let me make an attempt here. First stop, a definition from dictionary.com. The one that I'm going to use is this:
10. a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon, often mathematically.

I'd like to think that I need do no more than write: "Well, there you go!" but I know that you're going to make me work harder than that. So here we go.
* "a simplified representation": you represent the Totality in words but more important to you than the words is the understanding behind them - clearly pointing to the fact that you intend for some sort of conceptual representation to be created in people's minds; simplified because as you point out, it's impossible to form a complete image of a boundless thing.
* "of a system or phenomenon": I don't know that either of those descriptions exactly fits the Totality, but they're a close enough match. "System" is the better of the two.
* "as in the sciences or economics" or philosophy.
* "with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon": you "hypothesise" that all parts of the universe conform to the behaviour suggested by the definition of a boundary as "a line (or plane) that separates two things", in order to "describe the system" as physically infinite.