Talking to the Big Guy

Originally posted by Halitose
Note: my perspective is that He would not be bound to His own creation in the same way an architect is not part of his blueprint/building.

The blueprint reflects the architect. Creation reflects God. The Bible says as much! (An architect is bound to his building in other ways, especially liability for something going wrong).

Originally posted by Halitose
Really? How does it logically follow that an Intelligent Designer, who created the natural law of "cause and effect", must have a cause Himself?

Note: my perspective is that He would not be bound to His own creation in the same way an architect is not part of his blueprint/building.

Compared to what the architect creates he himself is immensely more complex.

The argument I have heard is "How can an eye happen by chance? how can life just happen? how do the planets spin around in such a balanced manner? etc, etc. All these things so finely tuned are the result of intelligent design...god.

My argument is that the designer (and creator) himself must be that little bit more complex than what he has designed/created and would he himself need a more intelligent designer/creator. To follow along logically...endless regression with the gods becoming more super at each step.

Originally posted by Wajoma
My argument is that the designer (and creator) himself must be that little bit more complex than what he has designed/created and would he himself need a more intelligent designer/creator. To follow along logically...endless regression with the gods becoming more super at each step.

Straightforward logic! Now, someone needs to produce a rabbit from a hat.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The blueprint reflects the architect. Creation reflects God. The Bible says as much! (An architect is bound to his building in other ways, especially liability for something going wrong).

The blueprint reflects the architect. Creation reflects God. The Bible says as much!

Yes. I agree.

An architect is bound to his building in other ways, especially liability for something going wrong.

That would only be true if the house was constructed for someone/something else. Since the creation is constructed by God, for God and through God, I fail to see him being accountable to anybody but himself.

Also, if the tenants trash the house, is the architect still to blame? The analogy falls short in that the tenants are actually part of the creation, however the architect holds no control over the actions of the tenants (a plus point).

Originally posted by Wajoma
Compared to what the architect creates he himself is immensely more complex.

The argument I have heard is "How can an eye happen by chance? how can life just happen? how do the planets spin around in such a balanced manner? etc, etc. All these things so finely tuned are the result of intelligent design...god.

My argument is that the designer (and creat ...[text shortened]... To follow along logically...endless regression with the gods becoming more super at each step.

Why can the "designer" not be infinitely (I use the term rather loosely) more complex than his creation -- imagine the designer of "Lego".

Do I detect some evolutionary process in your logic? I'm already bristling at the thought. 😀

I think you fail to see my point: Must the designer of Lego play with Lego? Must the designer of Lego consist of plastic? Must the designer of Lego be slightly smarter than Lego?

Your reasoning is possible, but very restricted. Also, you have completely ignored my point of a designer who is not within the restrictions of cause and effect. You seem to maintain the idea that a designer can be only that much more complex than their design. The same designer can design the Sistine Chapel and a paper-airplane; the design does not necessarily reflect the capacity of the designer.

Originally posted by Halitose
Since the creation is constructed by God, for God and through God, I fail to see him being accountable to anybody but himself. Also, if the tenants trash the house, is the architect still to blame?

We don't actually know that. He might have been working on instructions from a bigger designer (Wajoma's example). Can't prove otherwise. Anyhow--if an independent architect decides he's going to put people in his folly*, he's responsible for feeding them isn't he?

The architect isn't to blame if the tenants trash the house, but if someone dies because of some design flaw--a collapsing building in the case of a human architect, earthquakes, floods etc in God's--he is.

If we do reflect God, we can find out God's purpose precisely because he's bound in his own creation.

*In architecture, a folly is an extravagant, useless, or fanciful building, or a building that appears to be something other than what it is.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
We don't actually know that. He might have been working on instructions from a bigger designer (Wajoma's example). Can't prove otherwise. Anyhow--if an independent architect decides he's going to put people in his folly*, he's responsible for feeding them isn't he?

The architect isn't to blame if the tenants trash the house, but if someone dies bec ...[text shortened]... r fanciful building, or a building that appears to be something other than what it is.

maybe god is a giant toilet, and making men in his image was a typo


as good a guess as any other considering the facts at hand🙂

Originally posted by Halitose
Also, you have completely ignored my point of a designer who is not within the restrictions of cause and effect.

If creation mirrors God, God must be subject to cause and effect. How else does he get anything done? "Let there be light; and there was light": cause & effect.

Anyhow...how do you describe an entity not subject cause & effect?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If creation mirrors God, God must be subject to cause and effect. How else does he get anything done? "Let there be light; and there was light": cause & effect.

Anyhow...how do you describe an entity not subject cause & effect?

If creation mirrors God, God must be subject to cause and effect.

If. I do not hold that a designer must necessarily mirror the design. You can have a sculptor of human form, but he may also sculpt a stone or a stick.

This is how the reasoning goes:

1) God created the law of gravity; should God obey the law of gravity? My response - no.
2) God created the law of cause and effect; should God obey the law of cause and effect? My response - no.

How else does he get anything done?

Your example is taken from within a universe bound to cause and effect - not relevant.

Anyhow...how do you describe an entity not subject cause & effect?

That is why this is called abstract reasoning. Something happens without a first cause, quite simple. University level math allows for calculating in 4D (an abstract concept), but since no one can see 4D this doesn't mean the concept is impossible.

Originally posted by Halitose
You can have a sculptor of human form, but he may also sculpt a stone or a stick. [b]How else does he get anything done?

Your example is taken from within a universe bound to cause and effect - not relevant.

Anyhow...how do you describe an entity not subject cause & effect?

That is why this is called abstract reasoning. Something happe ...[text shortened]... (an abstract concept), but since no one can see 4D this doesn't mean the concept is impossible.[/b]

A sculptor can sculpt whatever she likes, yes. The end result will always have that sculptor's particular imprint, which is what I mean by "reflect". (Of course today some sculptors don't bother with the chiselling, they design the whole thing on a computer and have their assistants do the hard labour).

I don't know the relationship between abstract logic and the notion of cause and effect, but as far as I know abstract thought generally follows logic. Do you have any examples of abstract thought that is not logical? There must be a logical system for calculation to be possible, even in 4D.

Gravity--is a physical force, not an abstract concept. So, your example is not relevant 🙂

As for my irrelevant example..,if God acts within a universe bound by cause & effect, he enters into its physics...Is there a single action attributed to God in the Bible that doesn't happen for a reason?

My theory, cribbed from the Kabbalah, is that God, in limitless potential but unmanifest, had to create a framework in which to play the game of creation. Hence, physics, chemistry, all the rest of it. He also bound himself to his own rules. Of course he can sweep the pieces from the board, but then it is game over.

Nothing stopping God from creating infinite universes all with different game rules, either.

(Seem to have got far away from Wajoma's critique of ID).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
We don't actually know that. He might have been working on instructions from a bigger designer (Wajoma's example). Can't prove otherwise. Anyhow--if an independent architect decides he's going to put people in his folly*, he's responsible for feeding them isn't he?

The architect isn't to blame if the tenants trash the house, but if someone dies bec ...[text shortened]... r fanciful building, or a building that appears to be something other than what it is.

I didn't answer this post at first as I thought it sidetracked from the issue at hand.

Why would the taking of human life by God be punishable (or even morally objectionable)? In the case of the human architect (whose interaction is mainly on the physical plane), the tenants are his contemporaries, equally entitled to the right to life by the constitution of their country. Ergo, the deaths are a breach of judicial authority (or the slaying of a fellow human). With God (whose interaction with man is mainly on the spiritual plane) it is the case of his transferring their spirits to the next level - hardly a breach of any form of authority that we can understand.

Anyhow, a lot of the problems on earth are the result of human error (my fundy half would that I also add Satan to the mix).

It is often the case on this forum that God is judged by our human standards. It's a little... erm... disingenuous IMO.

Originally posted by Halitose
It is often the case on this forum that God is judged by our human standards. It's a little... erm... disingenuous IMO.

Job, right?

As soon as we try to imagine God, we start anthropomorphising. Now God is an architect, now God is running souls on a sci-fi conveyor belt from this plane to the next. None of these analogies really work, especially the Divine Clock Maker. Because God never made a clock.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Job, right?

As soon as we try to imagine God, we start anthropomorphising. Now God is an architect, now God is running souls on a sci-fi conveyor belt from this plane to the next. None of these analogies really work.

None of these analogies really work.

Indeed. They do however allow for a glimpse of understanding -- something familiar that silhouettes the concept.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]None of these analogies really work.
Indeed. They do however allow for a glimpse of understanding -- something familiar that silhouettes the concept.[/b]

If God is definitively ineffable, they do nothing of the sort. They do allow us to familiarise God and so create idols.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A sculptor can sculpt whatever she likes, yes. The end result will always have that sculptor's particular imprint, which is what I mean by "reflect". (Of course today some sculptors don't bother with the chiselling, they design the whole thing on a computer and have their assistants do the hard labour).

I don't know the relationship between abstrac fferent game rules, either.

(Seem to have got far away from Wajoma's critique of ID).

A sculptor can sculpt whatever she likes, yes. The end result will always have that sculptor's particular imprint, which is what I mean by "reflect".

Gotcha.

Do you have any examples of abstract thought that is not logical? There must be a logical system for calculation to be possible, even in 4D.

Sure, abstract thought still requires logic. IMO, one can logically define a first cause, e.g. Aristotle's "unmoved mover".

Gravity--is a physical force, not an abstract concept. So, your example is not relevant 🙂

Aha! ...but the concept of "force" is abstract, ergo my example might be relevant.

Is there a single action attributed to God in the Bible that doesn't happen for a reason?

I'd agree -- although the reason would be His, i.e. we might not understand it.

if God acts within a universe bound by cause & effect, he enters into its physics...

Possibly. However, since he existed (hypothetically) before the inception of physics, he is not bound "backward" by this invention. (if you understand my drivel)

My theory, cribbed from the Kabbalah, is that God, in limitless potential but unmanifest, had to create a framework in which to play the game of creation. Hence, physics, chemistry, all the rest of it.

Yep.

He also bound himself to his own rules.

This is the part I contest.

Nothing stopping God from creating infinite universes all with different game rules, either.

Yep.

(Seem to have got far away from Wajoma's critique of ID).

Speaking of... where did Waj disappear to?