What if the supriem being, was the whole and also the sum of all things conscious within the universe?
In this context, “God” would still be the greatest being, and also a creative force, but “God” would operate inside-of, not outside of reality, in the same way that the brain operates inside of the body in order to make thoughts and emotions, etc.
Is this an undesirable idea? Or was most theology made far before telescopes and space-travel?
It’s undesirable in that it’s not true, and truth should be the most desirable quality of a belief, I think, if one is doing philosophy.
Beyond that, though, you seem to be looking for the mental to have an expression above and beyond this brain or that brain, which I think is definitely on the right track- the universe makes sense if consciousness was a factor from the beginning.
That’s illogical.
If God was a part of the universe then he couldn’t have created it, thus what ever created the universe would be the creator of God and thus your inside the universe God would not be God but the creator of the universe would. Which still leads us to a God outside the universe.
The whole thing doesn’t make any sense to me.
What makes it impossible for something to create something-else from the inside instead of the outside? And do you have any proof that the universe was not always existent in some form or another?
The word “universe” literally means “everything”. “Universe” is a non-excluding ALL. Anything outside of an absolute whole reality, is not even real, is it?
That distinction becomes purely linguistic, then. You concede that God created the Universe, and now all that’s left to haggle over is whether or not we mean to include God when we say “Universe”. That’s all that’s left for this inside-outside distinction to mean, that I can see. Use the word however you want, we’ll make more!
The distinction comes between the conscious, alive parts of the universal-creative-process, and the unconscious, automatic parts of the universal-creative-process.
Why would you assume they are distinct from one another?
I do not assume they are distinct from one another, in so far as all consciousnessness is made of elemental unconsciousness. The animate is made of the inanimate. Etc.
The desinction only arises, if someone wants to seporate creator from creation, and if someone wants to seporate cause from effect.
I think self-determination is too important to the nature of a thinking organism for all thinking organisms to be ‘connected’ in any interesting way. Part my my whole ‘valuing human life’ thing passed down to me through Christianity is a belief in human life (and human-like life, I suppose I’ll add) as irreducibly unique, and this, incomparably valuable.
That is to say, “Dan~” cannot be entirely seen as “part of this” or “composed of that”. Neither view, not even both views taken together, will completely define or justify the worth of you, Dan~. I’m going to sound like a whiny atheist here, but permit me this cliche;
Much human suffering on a grand scale has resulted from valuing the individual purely in terms of what they compose or are composed of.
In another thread, I’m expressing a potential break from monism and dualism. Right now, the idea that Uccisore is a irreducible substance, and Dan~ another, seems tempting.
Self-determination, could arguably be caused by internal-reactions, whilst “external” determination is only caused by external-reactions.
But when we say the word “universe”, there is nothing excluded or externalized, thusly, all we have left is the concept of internal-interactions, internal-existences, and internal-causition.
Yeah, you could argue it, and I’d disagree. That’s kinda what I was saying- I don’t think self-determination is a reducible property.
Yes, but only linguistically internal. That's what I mean when I say your distinction between an external and an internal God doesnt mean anything- God is only 'internal' because of how you've decided to use the word "universe". And it flows backwards, too. 'internal' and 'external' are useful distinctions in all sorts of situations, so if your concept doesn't allow you to make those distinctions, it's a bad concept.