Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Problem With Most Theological Doctrines and the Theological Argument for Mental Reality

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In most theologies, it is said that God created the material world. It is also said that God is (1) omnipresent, (2) omnipotent, and (3) omniscient; that God knows the future and the past. It is also said that God is an unchanging, eternal, immaterial being and the root of all existence.

Unless God is itself subject to linear time, the idea that God “created” anything is absurd. The idea of “creating” something necessarily implies that there was a time before that thing was created. From the “perspective” (I’ll explain the scare quotes below) of being everywhere and everywhen in one’s “now,” nothing is ever created. It always exists, has always existence, and will always exist, from God’s perspective, because all those things would exist to God as “now.”

“Matter” cannot exist if God is an immaterial being because God “is” everything from a theological perspective. There is no place or state “outside of God” or “unlike God,” because there is nowhere else to exist, and nothing else to comprise anything that is said to exist. If God is fundamentally immaterial being, then everything is fundamentally immaterial. Matter cannot exist in that situation.

All spiritual or religious doctrines extend from the perspective of assigning “not-God” characteristics and perspective to God. IOW, they are characterizations of God and the assigning of attributes to God that inimical to the logical ramifications of the attributes assigned to God by those same metaphysical perspectives.

The idea that God “chose” to create this specific world and limit the experiential capacity of all sentient beings to, basically, a single architecture out of infinite possibilities is absurd because God cannot have a “perspective.” “Perspective” requires a point of view. God cannot have a point of view.

Furthermore, God cannot “make a decision.” A decision requires context, organized sequential experiences, and a perspective – none of which God can logically experience, at least not from the state of “being God”

Even if we ignore all that, let’s say God instantaneously examines all possible experiential architectures “before” he “chooses” one – let’s say the Christian architecture – to limit sentient beings to. The problem with this is that a Godly “examination” of all possible experiential pathways would necessarily mean instantly knowing all possible experiences in every possible architecture – IOW, experiencing every possible life of every possible person in every possible architecture. That’s what omnipresence and omniscience would necessarily entail.

But God exists in a complete state of omniscient, eternal “now-ness, always experiencing all of those other possibilities as those beings in those other possible reality architectures. That’s what eternal omniscience and omnipresence necessarily means. God cannot then decide to “unexist” those other individual experiences in other architectures – they eternally exist as beings experiencing other architectures. Other realities. In the only place and as the only thing any such reality can ever exist – in the mind of God.

If the “perspective” of God is “all possible perspectives at the same time all the time,” then God (from the “God perspective) doesn’t have a perspective. If the nature of your being is “always fully experiencing all possible experiences all the time from every possible perspective,” no experiential decisions can be made; they are all fully being made eternally. There are no “others” to make experiential parameters for; all possible decisions from every individual perspective always fully exist eternally AS those individual beings in the mind of God – the only way anything ever exists as “real.”

Every possible experience, every possible experiential pathway in every possible experiential architecture always and eternally exists as real as any other. As individual consciousnesses, we can only be observational aspects of God, “exploring” an ocean of fully real possibilities, only limited by what is possible in the mind of God.

IOW, no four-sided triangles or 1+1=3 experiences or the like. But that’s the only kind of limitation to what is available to experience. As observational aspects of God, everything is ultimately “within” us. All possibilities. All other aspects conscious aspects of God – other people with individual perspectives, are in this sense “within” us.

Comments
Querius & EDTA: Unfortunately, appeals to the incomprehensibility of god shut down all rational discussion about God. My argument is based on logical extrapolations stemming what were common theological perspectives that were represented to me in the past. Vividbleau, It means that from an objective, universal "perspective" there is no linear time; from the subjective perspective, sequential experiences are a necessary aspect of continuity of identity and free will. I'm not sure what you mean by "logically contradictory" at the end of your question.William J Murray
October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
WJM First, appreciate all the good stuff you have written over the years. “It always exists, has always existence, and will always exist, from God’s perspective, because all those things would exist to God as “now.”” I’m not sure about “perspective”, but I do agree they exist to God as now. As a point of clarification. Are you saying that if everything exists to God as “now” that means the actual state of affairs of my existence is not temporal and logically contradictory? Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
EDTA @13, Yep. Well said! The Bible quotes God through a prophet, saying that we cannot understand God's thoughts. It sounds like we're being told that we shouldn't try. We have as much chance of getting it right as a news reporter trying to explain first-year calculus. Putting it another way, let's assume that most people don't understand the details of physical chemistry, algebraic geometry, and artificial intelligence filter schemes. What chance do they have of understanding a spirit being with an IQ of a million? The anthropomorphisms are plentiful. "If God is old, he must have a long white beard." "If God didn't live on earth, what would he breathe?" "Is God limited by the size of the universe?" "Can God make a rock that he cannot lift?" "If God cannot lie, cheat, and steal then he can't be omnipotent." "God cannot be omnipresent because the stars and planets take up space." And so on. But we can have a relationship with God--but on God's terms. A lot of "trust me" is involved as well. -QQuerius
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
Omnipresence is an over-simplification, a first approximation. I don't take it to be a mathematical absolute that we can reason from, as you are attempting. We like single words for concepts; it makes us feel like we fully grasp something. (And it gives philosophers something to attempt to argue from.) But I don't take God to be omnipresent in the literal, absolute, mathematical sense. He's not present in hell, for instance. He's not absolutely omnibenevolent, because he doesn't do every possible good thing that we think he should do. He doesn't prevent pain, for instance. So his omnibenevolence is just a first approximation, a generalization. He is ultimately very good to those who put their trust in him. If we allow omnipotence to include doing contradictory things, then he's not that either. We want to ascribe the highest, most good, things to him, so we use the above words as short-hand for what we can't otherwise delineate. Any attempt by us to actually list or delineate the exceptions would be futile, because we lack the knowledge. But the concepts are not things we can/should reason from. They're too vague and fluid.EDTA
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
EDTA: What are the logical ramifications of "omnipresence?" If I take an empty cylinder and fills it with a gas until that gas is omnipresent in the cylinder, what does that mean? Is there room for anything else? If there was, would the gas actually be omnipresent? If you pout a marble in there, would the gas still be omnipresent? Ultimately, "omnipresent" means god is everything. If we examine this from the immaterial, mental reality perspective, what does "omnipresent" mean when space and matter don't actually exist? Where is God "omnipresent?" In all information, throughout mind, and in all experience, and in consciousness itself. God is omnipresent and omniscient because God is everything. Mental reality theory isn't resistant to falsification; it's impervious to it (at least mental reality as a general theory) because the basic premise is self-evidently true. Self-evidently true statements or concepts cannot be falsified. Perhaps existence and reality are really very simple things to understand once you agree to stop denying the obvious and just apply some simple logic extending from self-evident truths.William J Murray
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
WJM, I do think you have created an internally-consistent description of things here. But it seems to have been created in order to be resistant to falsification. As far as theology, you do seem to press some assumptions on to God, however: >“Matter” cannot exist if God is an immaterial being because God “is” everything from a theological perspective. Not sure where that comes from. God may be over all, but you are saying he can't can't create anything outside of himself. I would say he can't create anything he can't control. But to use a definition of God that says he can't create anything outside of himself seems like taking it too far. >There is no place or state “outside of God”... He cannot create a place outside of himself? We take the things of theology, which are dumbed down for us. We try to reason with them, and end up in some strange places.EDTA
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
@Rhampton7 Of course God is not emotional, but humans ARE... so sometime God communicate like a Leader ,not like Data from StarTrek because nobody would listen. Secondly ,how do you judge someone is rutless? :) If a swat team kill few terorists to save innocent people ,are they criminals or heroes? They killed. If you wouldn't know the final objective you would judge they are killers. Do you know what objectives had God ? If not you are in hot water.JohnB
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
What if there's a dialog between God and another sovereign moral entity with free will such as a person? Perhaps the omniscience of God is misunderstood. If we can collapse a wave function by observing it, why hasn't God already collapsed it? Maybe because it's because God chooses not to do so, leaving it as a wave function. Maybe this is part of his granting us free will. "There's some good news and some bad news in physics. The good news is that we finally detected God. The bad news is that it turns out he's a mathematician." -QQuerius
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
God is also perfect, and I don’t see how it’s logically possible to change the mind of a perfect, omniscient being. I happen to think the other omnipowers of God are more about what humans want to believe than what God has actually said. God is portrayed as a very emotional, quick to anger, and at times ruthless being in portions of the Old Testament. That doesn’t square well with the Omni characteristics.rhampton7
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
William J Murray @6, My first question is whether you tried creating and running some random patterns using the rules based, finite-state machine known as the Game of Life? I’m not suggesting that God necessarily operates like a state machine, but I'm just suggesting that decisions and actions don’t necessarily require time. So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that God is revealed in the inspired text of the Bible and let’s do a partial inventory about statements made by or about God.
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. – Genesis 1:27 (NASB)
Let me suggest that this image for humans is of sovereign moral agents capable of real choices, including love, hate cooperation, rebellion, and meaningful dialog. Dialogism as expressed by M.M. Bakhtin is prominent in many parts of the Bible.
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." – Genesis 6:3 (NASB)
The word, “strive” in Hebrew can mean contend, but most often means to judge.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” – Isaiah 55:8-9 (NASB)
Nevertheless, God can communicate with humans on their level just as a human can communicate with a beloved pet. Now I once "tried" explaining quantum mechanics to my beloved tabby, but she had a short attention span and her math was pretty basic. She did like to be petted some, definitely liked treats, and she could tell me when she wanted to be let out.
“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” - John 4:24 (NASB)
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that not all propositions can be verified or falsified from any single self-consistent mathematical system. Deductive logic is one such system. Logic is not enough and even studying the logos of God, while helpful, is not sufficient. To me, logic is like building a bridge of books off the end of a table. Without tangible supports, one cannot get very far due to the shifting center of mass. This is the problem I had with Spinoza. Supports would have to be additional evidence that's not derived from logic alone. -QQuerius
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Querius, Yes, there are things that would be extremely difficult to imagine, perhaps impossible from this perspective, but logic about it can be pursued. Assumed states of being have both logical limitations and consequences. I don't see how certain theological claims in these various doctrines can be logically reconciled with these presumed states of being. They make sense from a limited perspective, linear-time framework, but from a "god" perspective as posited?William J Murray
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
as to:
Unless God is itself subject to linear time, the idea that God “created” anything is absurd. The idea of “creating” something necessarily implies that there was a time before that thing was created.
Wow! Just Wow. I didn't even read past that hubris parading as intellect. First God is not a 'itself', He is a person, i.e. a 'himself'. Secondly, God is 'eternal' and is above time. And if you have a problem with the person of God creating time from his eternal perspective, then I guess God stepping into time, (i.e. subjecting himself to time), to become a human and conquer death, will completely blow your little finite mind out of the water. Verse and music:
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Agnus Dei - Third Day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bkx0phc50E Phil Wickham - (God Does) Great Things (Official Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4CY3nf1Mvw Zach Williams - Song of Deliverance (Official Audio) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUVMAMwPAKE
bornagain77
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
These are legitimate and interesting questions, but extremely difficult to answer for the following reasons. Let's start with a perspective: 1. From what we observe through scientific investigations, God's creation is profoundly complex considering all the different codes in a cell, all the complex chemical cycles, the programmability of our genetics, and so on. 2. One of the most fundamental assumptions of science is that we have the capability to understand it entirely. For example, our current speculations involve additional dimensions and parallel worlds. Can you visualize a rotating hypercube with four linear dimensions? I've seen one generated by a computer program and could almost understand it. Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to imagine either no time dimension or an infinite number of time dimensions. 3. Human IQs top out at around 200. Let's say that God's IQ is a million. If we have trouble understanding someone with an IQ of 200, understanding God will certainly be a problem for us. God created space-time among other things. We can collapse a spatial dimension by geometric projection. Can we convert all time into space or vice versa? God describes himself as I AM. Is it possible that God can move in temporal dimensions as easily as we move in spatial dimensions? We can imagine and build finite state machines, which are not dependent on time. Can we imagine an infinite state machine also not dependent on time? That doesn't mean that a state machine is not in motion. State machines can oscillate and form consistent patterns. Have you ever seen The Game of Life (cellular automata)? You can try it online here: https://playgameoflife.com/ Before launching it, click a complex pattern not too near the initial "flier." Notice that it's rules-dependent, not time dependent. God describes himself as changeless. This includes being changeless in justice, mercy, purpose, intention, character, and so on. But, the fact that there was an "In the beginning" indicates a difference between a non-existent universe to an existent universe. This leaves us with many possibilities that are by definition incomplete and untrustworthy. Here are two possibilities: a. God lives mostly in another set of space-time dimensions, but created a simulation reality that we exist in. Ancient Jewish thought includes the concept that God fills reality but withdrew somewhat to allow us to exist. b. God always maintains consistency but changes "in conversation" that might result in things that are new but not requiring time. This would be like the time-independent state machine of the Game of Life. -QQuerius
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
@GCS It's obvious the writer of this article is a believer of New Age B.S. and from his writings you can understand he really thinks is a kind of god .He already knows everything and he write to help other people understand "the reality". :)) coincidentaly what snake was doing in the Garden of Eden.JohnB
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
GCS said
1 – God is omniscient, I am not omniscient. How can I expect to understand all there is to understand? The writer places himself in a very lofty position.
Not really. I offer a logical extrapolation from the assumed innate qualities of God. Your same objection can be made against any characterization of God. I posit that my characterization is more logically sound, given the assumptions. It's no more "lofty" than any other characterization.
2 – God is omnipotent. That means God can do anything not logically inconsistent with His divine nature. We may only have the power to recognize things around us, understanding some but not all of what He does and how He does it (see #1 above).
See response to #1.
3 – Most theologies do not have God creating out of nothing. This is a unique characteristic of the Hebrew God. The unique position of Christianity (derived from Judaism) is that God is fully transcendent and fully imminent at all times. Most religions have divided the two – transcendence and immanence.
Care to explain what those things mean and what the difference between the two perspectives are in relation to my post?
4 – There is a difference between God being in and supporting all things verses the pantheistic idea that all things are just part of God. One of the real mysteries is that God created other creatures to share His life with Him.
So, God lives a linear time existence where he creates things? Does 'mystery" indicate an inability to logically track that from the given assumptions about God's nature?William J Murray
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Interesting Comment - maybe not too accurate. Problems or issues: 1 - God is omniscient, I am not omniscient. How can I expect to understand all there is to understand? The writer places himself in a very lofty position. 2 - God is omnipotent. That means God can do anything not logically inconsistent with His divine nature. We may only have the power to recognize things around us, understanding some but not all of what He does and how He does it (see #1 above). 3 - Most theologies do not have God creating out of nothing. This is a unique characteristic of the Hebrew God. The unique position of Christianity (derived from Judaism) is that God is fully transcendent and fully imminent at all times. Most religions have divided the two - transcendence and immanence. 4 - There is a difference between God being in and supporting all things verses the pantheistic idea that all things are just part of God. One of the real mysteries is that God created other creatures to share His life with Him. God BlessGCS
October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
1 14 15 16

Leave a Reply