It’s a floating casino
Anyway, certainly god is causeless, if there is god. I think that is a very common view of god (not referring to demiurges or the like)
Doesnt this depend on how you define god though?
I mean theoretically the writer fulfills all the traits of a god from the written characters perspective.
They can do whatever they want to them, to their world, they know all, they are everywhere at the same time, every “omni” in the omni book.
From a lower dimensional entity’s perspective even a human being can be god.
But we are not causeless either.
I don’t think so. God is not caused, as much as I’ve seen. You seem to be referring to demiurges
Plus, is god definable? It may be one of those things that defy depiction, which is a usual stance about it. Ineffable
Not from a lower dimensional being’s perspective.
A flatlander cant correctly define a 3D entity either.
Yeah, but not just from a particular point of view or dimensionality or whatever. God may be indefinable all around.
Could god not define god?
1 Like
God doesn’t even have to be interactive. For example, for pantheism, it’s nature
Well the original God, Deus, has a genealogy.
The uncaused is more of an Aristotalian innovation.
1 Like
I think it’s not dependent upon Aristotle: the uncaused is the ultimate response to any kids question of asking why over and over again
I like how you mixed up totalitarian and Aristotle there 
… it can be quite useful from time to time to address someone as an Aristotalian.
I guess that, as with most quality philosophy, most of Aristotle can be retrived through a child’s questions.
Aristotle, as I’m sure you know, was pivotal for Catholic doctrine from fairly early on.
It’s possible that a perfect trifecta exists between childishness, philosophy and religion. Not that I would suggest that The Church found the perfect mix.
Yeah! Children are great. Many of the most childish things are the most serious.
The problem with the taxonomy and sets and subsets, categories and subcategories:
It does not allow for being both contained in and contained by—unless you’re somewhere in the middle of the taxonomy. But one can only be an individual at the very bottom of the taxonomy (kingdom phylum class order family genus species)… even more specific than species.
Kingdom contains everything below and is contained by nothing.
Individual contains nothing below, only what is above—but then branches out into and from (this is co-iteration if via sexual reproduction) a family tree.
So what kind of tree is that taxonomy that can only iterate via individuals? What came first, the individuals, or the taxonomy they iterate?
The individuals are like the boards in the Ship of Theseus, except participation in the Ship is voluntary and not guaranteed by birth.
What if we were talking about Theseus child or wife and all the matter was slowly or organ by organ, including the brain, replaced over time - or really at the cellular level?
1 Like
If the subject in question has an identity of it’s own, that turns the question into an entirely new problem.
And technically you wont even have to cut them up and start removing organs and such, you can just ask yourself whether or not you are still the person you used to be 20 years ago.
Clearly yes. Also, clearly no.
As long as you can establish a causal connection between the thing you were and the thing you have been, i’d say its still you. Even if its “changed”.