if reality could resolve itself into one complete whole being/entity, there would not be other things, there would just be that one >whole< thing.
To be omnipotent or omni-anything, ‘God’ would need to be the greatest aspect of reality? What is a God which is not the greater part of, and indeed what reality is?
if everything were God, that’s not ‘one thing’ in the singular. even if it is equally not strictly a multiplicity because everything merges, that is not the same as being one single being and entity. certainly, we wouldn’t state that god is one and we are literally part of God, and therefore what we do is what God is doing as us. that all ones ills are thusly Gods will, the devil is also God, and what have you. if we are first making a separation, then we cannot go back on that and suggest God is whole and complete.
_
Our past and present events existed. But some of these events are no longer conscious.
Do we say that these events were not part of us?
The majority of the time I don’t think about fudge sundaes.
But when I think about a fudge sundae it was already in my brain somewhere.
Yes. But the totality of it all isn’t resolved into the singular thing the statement infers. The totality of it all as a collection made ultimately of one thing. we are something similar, so I can imagine a ‘god’ which is reality rounding itself up into one, same as our brains do to make consciousness. but if it did that we’d have no identity and neither would it.
Can there be creation – ultimately? i.e. or beginnings et al, but instead there is only change rather than making from nothing.
like a book in a library. Omniscient = all science and all books ~ and without the requirement of all science and all the books existences. it works the same with or without us.
Consciousness could have an inherent limited range in all dimensions, laterally and vertically.
Its like, when we want to think about Bananas, we think about bananas.
But not until that point.
And we can’t simultaneously experience a past and future event or else it would be Present. Past, indicated by weakness of neurons and it’s lack of lucidity.
But deep down, spiritually, we choose to think about Bananas - the illusion of free-will. The subconscious energies forming laterally.
And we can spontaneously choose to think about Bananas.
So it’s like, God could experience duplicates of our lives and experience our exact lives but at the same time with multiple lives. But we the original lives cannot experience it.
Theatre analogy - we are sitting at the theatre stuck in one movie. But God is the security gaurd who can look at any screen at any time.
there are no instances of complete wholes though? Perhaps you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head; there can be no God as that which is reality entire resolved into singularity – its all contingent [relative I suppose].
Why can’t it be 100% of us? …and omniscient because it is the mathematical collection [alpha-omega] i.e. 100% of all 100%
…
Good point [which kinda enhances the op position btw], but why cannot it forget it is god when it is us? Or what if to it, each instance of existence is like you are now compared to a moment ago – another being? Like if instead of being born and moving through time in linear fashion, it gets born over and over – in each instance of a birth. Then once ‘born’ its God-mind gets fully and completely embroiled in its material form, as that is its only information source.
Imagine the process of that,… there is a space – an infinite being, then that space [i.e. not an atom of self] begins gradually to realise its being and world [of other instances of itself]. Then it adjusts and tunes its new computer and its instruments, like how babies are born ‘blind’ but gradually begin to see [even though their eyes are working perfectly].
I believe the problem with the above is the issue of conflating [equivocating] the transcendental and the real.
I define “real” as empirical reality [80%] [proven Scientifically and others] plus sound philosophical justifications [20%].
What is transcendental [illusory] cannot be real as defined above.
The best proposition for a God is the ontological God,
“God is a being than which none greater can be conceived/idealized
(that is, the greatest possible being that can be conceived).”
There can be no greater definition of god other than the above ontological God. [Kant]
This best definition of a god is based on Pure Reason [Kant] and thus transcendental, i.e. transcend the real [as defined above].
Because one cannot equivocate the transcendental with the real [as defined], the idea of a transcendental God is an impossibility to be real [as defined].
Since the idea of God is an impossibility in the real [as defined] sense, the question of ‘God’s existence’ is moot and never a starter for reality.
Why the idea of a God emerges within humanity is due to a terrible UNAVOIDABLE psychological weakness of theists [inherent potential in All humans]. Why the idea of God [despite illusory] is sustained for so long is because it works at the psychological level to relieve the terrible subliminal sufferings of psychological angst, despairs, emptiness, hopelessness, desperation, trembling, anxieties in theists.
I agree that in your example, an omni being could grow into it’s omnistates and know both states…
But what it cannot do, is grow from each individual state, unless all beings grow into an omnistate…
BUT!!! Even then!! Once they all converge to an omnistate, they cannot know other individuals non omni states (which are actual states of knowledge that can’t be known, rather than imaginary ones)
Physical existence is the ONLY physical existence.
Mental existence is the ONLY mental existence.
What else do you want?
If you claim otherwise, then prove it.
I have demonstrated why the transcendental idea of a God is a non-starter in terms of reality and possible reality.
A transcendental idea of a god is illusory in contrast to reality but it is nevertheless merely a critical necessity to deal with the mental reality of one’s psychological angst. This is the basis and ground why the idea of a transcendental god is a critical necessity without which most of the majority [theists] will be mental wrecks and paralyzed with subliminal fears of DOOM.
yes that [the latter], ~ there is only ever ‘the omnistate’ ~ all as one thing so to say. So we are part of it now, have and always will be a part in it. You could in visual theory have an infinity of epicentral spherical lights [or cosmic orbs in metaphysics of the tibetan book of the dead], where each volume can change anywhere up to a variance reaching denumerable limits. They can all be individual much like an infinity of cubes, and all also be a part of an omnipresent entity.
You mean the finite aspects cannot know all other finite objects, as this is very true. If you were in a given ‘box’ [of an infinite set] you could only observe the boxes surrounding you. Even if they were all transparent, the lines of perspective would limit how many you could see amongst many other things. Now hop outside of that box and into the third person perspective, you can now see outside any singular perspective, so now all you need to be is an indescribable God-like being, and you could see from every third person perspective. It seams to me there has to be both things occurring at once, such to complete the picture. There are then individualised epicentral observers, and an universal 3’rd person observer, no?
That universal observer can see everything, where to it, your epicentre is just another x,y,z spatial location. This must be including what you see but without your limits you have from your perspective.
This does not seem to negate the existence of God but challenges a specific Christian view of God as an Other, next to and above the rest of creation. I am pretty sure that this is not the only view that has been advanced though. What you worte could be interpreted as a sort of Pantheism.
if I remember correctly, calculus ~ in its inception, began with the Hindu philosophy of the infinite e.g. ‘take an infinity from an infinity, and you have an infinity remaining’. In this sense you keep drawing infinities out until you have sets, like the set of infinite red planets and what have you. If you then unstitch all ‘states’, they will be entirely composed of infinities intertwining/interacting. Its all like a tree.
a processing by the infinite would be an amalgamation and collection, which in infinite terms would have to then be a part of a further collection, is that what you mean here? I don’t see why an infinite camera cannot take a picture of everything? We are getting tripped up on the math, when the objective truth is far simpler. If you look in every room of the hotel [- of everything existent/finite], and of Hilberts hotel, then the former would simply be a smaller amount of observations.
infinity doesn’t need to make those observations, when everything has an infinity at root. It just is everything material, everything non-material, and everything else there can possibly be. - its all of that in the first person/instance just like you are. No cross or parallel referencing required.
I see your point, but I am challenging all such notions, not just the Christian one. In maths you cannot say there is one when there is at least two. You can have a oneness which after all reality must ultimately be, but that’s not the same a singularity. There can be; reality is many things as well as a oneness. There cannot be reality which is a ‘god’ which is one thing, and is also omnipresent, that’s specifically a different kind of oneness as explained.
Numbers are relative, I would think. But let’s put it in the context of the widely accepted Big Bang Theory. According to this theory, this “oneness” did exist. The singularity was the size of a pebble, where time and space of all we see today existed in an infinitely dense and hot form. Today that form has changed, but can we say that it is no longer a one? Experience and observation, as I stated elsewhere, imply the existence of time, but what if time and scale merely create the illusion of parts within a one just as our perception of a one hides from us the existence of parts at a molecular level?
If we regard God as simply a name that we give to the anthropomorphized conception of the Universe then we are dealing with a One that emcompases all, that is us and that the distance between me and an other, drawn from experience, from observation are all illusions created by our relative position, our scale. This kind of pantheism is not problematic at all. The issue is discoverable only when we use a Christian traditional that makes sense of Reality as a collection of parts. If that is accepted then problem ensues.