Incoherent God?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would disagree and I'll point to a conversation we are having else
where for my reasoning. I started off with some labels, father,
brother, and so on, each of these gave you a little something about
me, not enough to really know me, that is only going to be done by
those that basically, know me personally. So there are people who do
not know God and ...[text shortened]... hing to do with the real life in God in
Christ. God is the best part of Christianity!
Kelly

Yes, but if you added to your list of attributes “I exist, but I exist nowhere”—I would have to say, “What do you mean? Can you explain what it is for you to exist, but not exist any-where?” I would say such a statement is internally contradictory.

When we speak of any being “outside” of time and space, we tend—inescapably I think—to conceptualize that in terms of a larger spatial dimension (beyond the one of the cosmos), in which that being resides. So we are not really conceptualizing non-spatiality at all, because we can’t.

I also think it is internally contradictory to think of a being that is infinite (that may be internally contradictory itself; I’m not sure) and creates a finite cosmos. From where/what was such a cosmos created? If there was some kind of void or nihil separate from that being, then that being was not infinite to begin with. If such a God does not include the cosmos, but the cosmos is separate, then at any rate, that God is now finite.

At present, I can only see two ways out of the dilemma—

(1) God is a being, maximally powerful and knowledgeable perhaps, but a being nevertheless, and therefore finite and bounded. This is kind of a “superman” model of a supreme (the “superest” ) being (I say “superman,” but I don’t mean to imply that one has to anthropomorphize such a God).

(2) What we call God is All-Being and the ground of all being, such that the phenomenal cosmos is manifest or engendered from that God, of that God, exists within that God—there being nothing and nowhere else.

This second option is, of course, monism or non-dualism, such as Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism.

Actually, perhaps there is a third option: to recognize that whatever transcends our cognitive capacities is ultimately a mystery. Now the non-dualist point of view then implies that the “grammar” of our consciousness is at least coherent with (maybe “congruent with” is a better phrase?) the grammar of the whole, of which it is—although limited. The wave is coherent/congruent with the ocean from which it arises.

This is why religions like Vedanta and Buddhism lay so much stress on letting the discursive, concept-making activities of the mind become still, in order to experience consciousness of reality before conceptualization. (The experience might be likened, by way of a loose analogy, to an athlete being in the zone, or the flow.) Such folks tend to be suspicious even of their own subsequent attempts at conceptualization, and mostly talk in the language of poetry, or myth, or symbol, or music, or dance, or art—or remain silent. What statements they do make (as well as recommendations for practice, such as meditation) are generally intended to elicit, or enable, in the hearer the same kind of experience—or at least to “point” toward it.

Monists are not immune from metaphysical speculation either, but they seem to tend to take it less seriously, realizing that their attempts at conceptualization are likely to be at best paradoxical.

I’m not sure that dualistic theism implies the same kind of coherence/congruence. Or to what degree. Or if such an implication leads at least to a panentheistic view...
_______________________________

With all that said, please note that my original post is in the form of a question. There may well be another, coherent, way out of the dilemma for dualistic theists to speak of an omnipotent, omniscient God that is beyond time and space, etc.

Note: I’m not so much concerned with experience of the ultimate reality here, but how we attempt to translate that experience into coherent, propositional thought. I also have absolutely no problem with metaphorical language; I do hate to see “metaphor wars” between people who take their metaphors for propositional truth, however. I don’t think that is necessary for dualists or non-dualists.

Originally posted by vistesd
I also think it is internally contradictory to think of a being that is infinite (that may be internally contradictory itself; I’m not sure) and creates a finite cosmos. From where/what was such a cosmos created? If there was some kind of void or nihil separate from that being, then that being was not infinite to begin with. If such a God does not include the cosmos, but the cosmos is separate, then at any rate, that God is now finite.

The existence of something apart from God does not imply that God is not infinite. There is an infinity of even numbers; that does not mean that all numbers are even.

It seems to me that you are assuming what you are trying to show--that is, that an infinite God cannot exist as an entity separate from the universe.

Originally posted by GregM
The existence of something apart from God does not imply that God is not infinite. There is an infinity of even numbers; that does not mean that all numbers are even.

It seems to me that you are assuming what you are trying to show--that is, that an infinite God cannot exist as an entity separate from the universe.

But note my emphasis on God as a being, such as the God-who-is-a-person of Christianity, say. And I am addressing certain statements made about that being as such.

So I think the question is: in what way can such a being coherently be considered as infinite in the face of the existence of another reality (e.g., the finite universe) that is separate from that being? How would such a being be identified, since we identify existent beings by there very separability from other existing beings—by their limited boundaries, by their finiteness in that sense.

If God is infinite in the sense of the set of all integers, what does it mean to describe God that way?

If God is infinite in the sense of, say, the number Pi, what does that mean—what does it describe about God?

Is God, as an entity, more like a mathematical set, or a series of thoughts, or a galaxy, or an individal person, or what?

My assumptions are for the purpose of investigating the question, in this case whether or not certain claims about God in a dualistic worldview are coherent. I am, for that purpose only, attempting to argue the one position in my own terms. What I am looking for are the counter-arguments (though corrections to my own expression are welcome).

I have indicated that I think one solution is to drop the notion of God as a being, in favor of the non-dualist, or monist, view. Another may be panentheism...

Originally posted by vistesd
But note my emphasis on God as [b]a being, such as the God-who-is-a-person of Christianity, say. And I am addressing certain statements made about that being as such.

So I think the question is: in what way can such a being coherently be considered as infinite in the face of the existence of another reality (e.g., the finite universe) that is ...[text shortened]... a[/i] being, in favor of the non-dualist, or monist, view. Another may be panentheism...[/b]

Infinite is the wrong word and like so many other words is frequently used wrongly by Christians. (Or at best used with a different definition from the commonly accepted definitions in the English language and without a redefinition being available.)
What they probably mean is something akin to "all-encompassing."
Of course any concept of a being external to the universe is hard to describe as no dimensions are known in such a state. The fact that the time dimension is a part of the universe makes it even harder as the whole concept of creation becomes meaningless without time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Infinite is the wrong word and like so many other words is frequently used wrongly by Christians. (Or at best used with a different definition from the commonly accepted definitions in the English language and without a redefinition being available.)
What they probably mean is something akin to "all-encompassing."
Of course any concept of a being extern ...[text shortened]... iverse makes it even harder as the whole concept of creation becomes meaningless without time.

Thank you.

EDIT: Would "unbounded" be a possible term? Scottishinnz used the phrase (which I have stolen) a "totality that has no edge" in describing the universe; and he and I both take the position that the universe is properly treated as a totality, rather than a thing-itself--like a jar containing bugs; the universe being defined by being the totality of everything (including forces and dimensionality) that makes it up.

I think the most prominent theory is that the universe is finite but unbounded (edgeless).

So the question might become: What would it mean to say that God is unbounded, and yet refer to that God as a being? If the universe cannot properly be treated as a thing-itself, does not identifying God as an entity-itself imply boundedness?

Originally posted by no1marauder
When I see you and God at a Cubs game "rubbing shoulders" then we'll take this baloney seriously. Until then, I have no more reason to consider your belief in a personal God who has direct dealings with you as anything more than a mental illness like a guy who thinks he's Napoleon, Emperor of France.

Are you comfortable with the notion that your apparent lack of a belief in anything outside of the rational realm may also constitute a mental illness?

Originally posted by vistesd
EDIT: Would "unbounded" be a possible term?

It still doesn't properly convey the meaning of including all inside it. It is also not clear that all dimensions are included, though if not it would be bounded in at least one dimension.

I think the most prominent theory is that the universe is finite but unbounded (edgeless).
I don't agree. I think that the most prominent theories would have the universe finite but edgeless in the spacial dimensions, but not necessarily so in the time dimension.

So the question might become: What would it mean to say that God is unbounded, and yet refer to that God as a being? If the universe cannot properly be treated as a thing-itself, does not identifying God as an entity-itself imply boundedness?
The supernatural is almost by definition impossible to truly understand or describe. It should however be able to describe its effects on the physical universe if those effects are consistent ie follow a pattern. The question then is, if those effects are nevertheless entirely consistent with other explanations (ie fall within expected behavior of the universe without the need for a supernatural explanation) then can the supernatural still be said to exist?

It is my belief that Christians (and other theists) often feel uncomfortable with not being able to explain something and will go overboard trying to explain and describe the indescribable. There was a thread on this forum totally dedicated to trying to show that God fits perfectly with a large number of pleasing English words such as Justice, Sovereignty etc and yet all the writer actually did was to redefine the words in circular manner.
If you ask a theist something like "what is a soul" he will certainly have some explanation whether or not it makes sense or fits in with his religions official teaching.

[edit]
I guess the main reason why most theists would say that God is external to the universe is because science has more or less explained the workings of most of the observable universe and so where else could he be except outside it somewhere?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It still doesn't properly convey the meaning of including all inside it. It is also not clear that all dimensions are included, though if not it would be bounded in at least one dimension.

[b]I think the most prominent theory is that the universe is finite but unbounded (edgeless).
I don't agree. I think that the most prominent theories would have ...[text shortened]... f most of the observable universe and so where else could he be except outside it somewhere?[/b]

It still doesn't properly convey the meaning of including all inside it. It is also not clear that all dimensions are included, though if not it would be bounded in at least one dimension... I think that the most prominent theories would have the universe finite but edgeless in the spatial dimensions, but not necessarily so in the time dimension.

Once again, thank you for the clarification.

The supernatural is almost by definition impossible to truly understand or describe. It should however be able to describe its effects on the physical universe if those effects are consistent ie follow a pattern. The question then is, if those effects are nevertheless entirely consistent with other explanations (ie fall within expected behavior of the universe without the need for a supernatural explanation) then can the supernatural still be said to exist?

Without making the assumption one way or the other, I think it is quite possible that we are not the singular species for whom nothing in the natural order transcends our cognitive abilities—the only way to know that would be to know everything, and know that we know everything. Therefore, I see no reason to make the leap to a supernatural category even if there are aspects of the cosmos that are unknowable (let alone any kind of “god of the gaps” argument from what is simply now unknown).

We may be faced with mystery; that does not mean that the mystery has to be supernatural.

I suppose I basically apply Occam’s razor...

...to explain and describe the indescribable.

Instead of following Wittgenstein’s advice to just—stop. Or produce art that reflects your response—wonder, say—to what seems indescribable: poetry, myth, music... And perhaps may elicit a similar response in others. Even from my monistic viewpoint, I think that is the most that can be done.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, but if you added to your list of attributes “I exist, but I exist nowhere”—I would have to say, “What do you mean? Can you explain what it is for you to exist, but not exist any-where?” I would say such a statement is internally contradictory.

When we speak of any being “outside” of time and space, we tend—inescapably I think—to conceptualize ...[text shortened]... for propositional truth, however. I don’t think that is necessary for dualists or non-dualists.

God exists; everything else rests within God since all things come from
God. There isn't a place God hangs out and God didn't make, that God
doesn't completely fill. So to say that, “God exists no where”, would not
accurately describe 'no where' or 'God'. The universe cannot contain,
God, I have heard that described that God can go anywhere in or out, but
I believe it is speaking about that God fills the universe and some, this is
the point I believe God was making to Jonah when Jonah was trying to
run from God, God told him everywhere he could possibly go God was
already there.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
God exists; everything else rests within God since all things come from
God. There isn't a place God hangs out and God didn't make, that God
doesn't completely fill. So to say that, “God exists no where”, would not
accurately describe 'no where' or 'God'. The universe cannot contain,
God, I have heard that described that God can go anywhere in or out, b ...[text shortened]... run from God, God told him everywhere he could possibly go God was
already there.
Kelly

I think this is at least close to the panentheistic view that I mentioned (I don’t want to put a “label” on you here ! 😉 ). Basically, God in everything and everything in God; but God is not simply the sum total of everything (pantheism).

I’m going to mix some texts here, but if God is agape, and also “a consuming fire,” then, as Isaac of Nineveh (7th century) though, perhaps “hell”—rather than being separation from God—is better described as being in the presence of that agape which one has not wanted, and for which one now feels remorse: “As for me, I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by an invasion of love... Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways... That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion—remorse [in the face of that love].” (Isaac did not think, I believe, that anyone was condemned to hell for eternity, but that the fire of agape ultimately would burn away the “chaff” of sinfulness—but that is another issue that I don’t want to argue; both views seem to be permitted in the Eastern Orthodox churches).

Anyway, I want to think about it some more. That was just a little aside...

Originally posted by vistesd
I think this is at least close to the panentheistic view that I mentioned (I don’t want to put a “label” on you here ! 😉 ). Basically, God in everything and everything in God; but God is not simply the sum total of everything (pantheism).

I’m going to mix some texts here, but if God is agape, and also “a consuming fire,” then, as Isaac ...[text shortened]... hodox churches).

Anyway, I want to think about it some more. That was just a little aside...

"...perhaps “hell”—rather than being separation from God—is better described as being in the presence of that agape which one has not wanted, and for which one now feels remorse: “

I can see this as possible, it seems to me that as the sun treats all
things the same, the result of sunlight isn't the same upon all things.
I imagine that God preparing us for what is to come is for our own
good, and without that we are doomed to enter it as we are.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...perhaps “hell”—rather than being separation from God—is better described as being in the presence of that agape which one has not wanted, and for which one now feels remorse: “

I can see this as possible, it seems to me that as the sun treats all
things the same, the result of sunlight isn't the same upon all things.
I imagine that God preparing us ...[text shortened]... is to come is for our own
good, and without that we are doomed to enter it as we are.
Kelly

Yeah, I think that expresses it well.

Again, that is not a doctrine of the Orthodox churches—it is merely not considered heretical to think of it that way.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, but if you added to your list of attributes “I exist, but I exist nowhere”—I would have to say, “What do you mean? Can you explain what it is for you to exist, but not exist any-where?” I would say such a statement is internally contradictory.

When we speak of any being “outside” of time and space, we tend—inescapably I think—to conceptualize ...[text shortened]... for propositional truth, however. I don’t think that is necessary for dualists or non-dualists.

At present, I can only see two ways out of the dilemma—
....
(2) What we call God is All-Being and the ground of all being, such that the phenomenal cosmos is manifest or engendered from that God, of that God, exists within that God—there being nothing and nowhere else.

This second option is, of course, monism or non-dualism, such as Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism.

I disagree that the second option is necessarily "monist". The statement sounds very much consistent with the concept of a "self-contingent" being, one which provides its own existence, and is the source of all other existences, and is perhaps, the property of existence in itself. I guess that could be monist, but I don't believe it negates dualism necessarily. I think it would approach a more panentheist perspective, as you have already suggested.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]At present, I can only see two ways out of the dilemma—
....
(2) What we call God is All-Being and the ground of all being, such that the phenomenal cosmos is manifest or engendered from that God, of that God, exists within that God—there being nothing and nowhere else.

This second option is, of course, monism or non-dualism, such as Advaita Vedant y. I think it would approach a more panentheist perspective, as you have already suggested.

Deleted--see below...

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]At present, I can only see two ways out of the dilemma—
....
(2) What we call God is All-Being and the ground of all being, such that the phenomenal cosmos is manifest or engendered from that God, of that God, exists within that God—there being nothing and nowhere else.

This second option is, of course, monism or non-dualism, such as Advaita Vedant y. I think it would approach a more panentheist perspective, as you have already suggested.

[/b]I think—and I am still thinking about this—that panentheism may be a kind of dialectic synthesis between monism and strict monotheism.