I think therefore I am. To think one must exist and function at the same time. But man is a derived existence, i.e. his existence is dependent on a prior existence.
Now we must ask ourselves, if our existence is dependent on a prior existence, then this existence must have always existed, in some way, because the universe itself is changing and distinct from itself (i.e. a sun, the solar system, planets, galaxies, all have dependent existence).
The only valid argument for god: Existence is god. So it would simplify to:
I am a dependent existence, therefore god is existence.
People are not truly independent existences because they derive their life from something that came before, and if we ask, what does existence derive itself from? The only answer is: Existence. Therefore it must always exist, any time existence doesn’t exist, means it’s always true that it (existence) always absolutely never existed.
Actually you’re wrong, because the universe has not always existed, the universe is a derived existent, a depedent. Matter and energy change shape and therefore are not eternal, their symmetry is changing, so their state is dependent, therefore their forms are derived.
The concept you’re missing is all-symmetry, where symmetry can merge into what seems to be an indistinct continuous plane but it isn’t, it is all symmetry.
If your consciousness “all channel” (i.e. universe perception channel) then that means there must be a pre-existent all channel, since your channel collapses at death back into the field.
"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning. … Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, … and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950) "
Because the universe changes i.e. the form of the environment is dependent on something else. Anything that changes it’s form is dependent on something else for that change. It’s the same principle we use for engines or the idea of perpetual motion, we know perpetual motion can’t happen ‘in’ the universe because of entropy, if the universe was eternal it would not change, therefore it must be dependent on something else for those changes.
Consider the sun, if the universe was eternal, stars should be able to perpetually exist in a steady state and never die.
The cause is the illusion, since everything that exists is always connected to the existence.
Here’s einstein’s take
When we say “caused into being” we have misconceived the idea of being “created”, a thing is not created it is actualized, from a potential form that is stored in all symmetry (i.e. god), which has always existed.
You have to grasp the idea of symmetry, that is where you are going wrong.
Ask yourself: Was there a time when existence never absolutely existed?
Now ask yourself, did the universe begin to exist? if it began, (had a birth) it must have been born from something, and if we say existence absolutely never existed, then we are saying the universe was born from non-existent existence. A contradiction.
To reply to the original post: is there one God or two? or 156? Or inifinitely many?
Stating that there must be an independent existence does not pescribe how many existences are there. For all things may be dependent on more than one thing.
The property of existence belongs to distinct beings, but you have to still prove the being beyond describing it as existence. Aquinas will agree God’s essence is equal to his existence. However, as finite humans, we can still think of God in other ways.
Conclusion: “God=Existence” should not convince anyone (any finite being).
I never “got” that First Cause thing, because each cause goes infinitely back, but no, not infinitely, because we are saying “First”…
But does “First Cause” mean something metaphysical in this sense of “God”? Like that there is a cause OUTSIDE of time which is responsible for this endless succession/regression of events? A difficult concept even to rationalize but it is the only one which works according to the theory of “symmetry” one might suppose?
I’m sorry, does “God=existence” mean that there is no cause OF existence to call “God”, since God is infinite existence itself ( a logical description whatever associations the word “God” conjures), or does it mean that existence traces back to a First Cause which is a “God”----two entirely different connotations, each which different problems…
Again, this ‘I think therefore I am’ is now taken far too literally. The statement’s intention is to say, when we go to sleep, we do not feel anything, our mind is a blank and so we do not exist. when we are awake, we can feel things so we exist. Existence is based on experience.
Now if you are going to ask what does I, or we or you mean. Well, they are references. If you ask what I mean by references, then I believe you are thinking what can’t be thought of, and therefore should pass over it in silence.
Which is complete and utter bs. You are made of stuff that existed before you and that stuff was made of stuff, at some point there is an a stuff which everything is made, and that is the final existence - god.
You’re all confused because you are trying to understand it without understanding relativity, time and geometry, until you study physics you’ll be hopelessly lost.
You’re misunderstanding what I am saying, time and the unvierse were created, i.e. there was a point at which time itself didn’t exist but for it to exist it must be derived of something that exists always, if we say there is a most basic unit of which all existent things derive themselves from (are made of), that can only be the the most basic existence and the most basic is omni-vector energy, which always exists, the universe moves and changes, hence it’s shape and it’s existence is derived from a prior existence.
Logic and geometry (and even physics) demands that their is a final ever existent substance, you can only see this using logic and geometry.
You concept of infinity is the problem, infinity exists as a concept in peoples minds as an ever increasing change (i.e. it can only be change) therefore “infinity” as humans conceive it is for all intents and purposes a non concept because it is aconcept based in time (at which point did not exist)
It’s not by changing “definitions”, most people can’t even define god, the pink unicorn has the possiblity of it existing, since “unicorns” are taken from objective reality, a unicorn is nothing more then a horse with a horn, so when we say unicorns we are speaking of derived objective existents.
i.e. horses with horns, horses with horns like unicorn and color do not ‘exist outside’ but they do have existence inside (in your mind as concepts, otherwise you could not visualize nor see a unicorn).
believing in god is not like believing in unicorns, believing in ANCIENT gods is like believing in unicorns, there is a difference, one is based on logic and geometry, the other is not, you have in your mind ANCIENT superstitious gods that imposed themselves on mankind, rather then a greater force of life-existence, which has always existed, otherwise you could not exist, since you are made of ‘consciousness stuff’, stuff that can give birth to self awareness. Since you are derived from that existent stuff, and time itself is derived from existence, the universe can never be self-sufficient.
Whether we call it god or the first cause, or the prime mover is irrelevant to the fact that all geometries and symmetries must logically have existed prior to our universe since we are derived (i.e. dependent) existence. You’d have to study relativity and the nature of time, and geometry to grasp what I’m saying.
In short you’re incapable of grasping the argument.
If I am understanding what is being said here, there is a problem with the use of the word God. The word God as it is generally used includes creativity and causality. The common use of God also includes the concept of greater than and ultimately greater than anything that can be conceived of.
I find myself focused on the statement “it is all symmetry.” In that context, existence is symmetry (e=s). It is not clear to me how god (note small g) is different from existence. For me God (with a capital G) includes the concept of greater than anything that can be conceived.
Which means nothing, since you’re missing the point that the sun is a dependent existence, it changes, it lives, it dies, therefore it is not self-sufficient. Your point doesn’t refute anything I’ve said, you’re not understanding what I’m saying and it’s quite obvious.
Is “Greater then anything that can be coneived” a valid statement? I don’t think that it is. Your problem is that anything that exists contains part of the symmetry of existence (existence can never be divorced from existence), god contains all of existence, and therefore all symmetries. So when you say “Greater then anything that can be conceived” that’s not a valid statement, for if god is greater then conception itself, god can never be conceived, therefore the statement itself is self-refuting.
You: “Alex is greater then anything that can be conceived”
Me: “Then how can you talk about alex, if you can’t think about him?”
When you say “Greater then can be conceived” you’re saying that it is not thinkable, impossible to grasp, think, know and talk about, which is self-contradicting. So the statement itself is not a valid statement. Anything that has existence, must, by necessity be able to be conceived, you can’t conceive of non-conceivables by definition.
Not only that it doesn’t tell us what about ‘god’ (your conception of it) is greater then can be conceived, ‘its’ ability, ‘its’ attributes, etc? You statement is a claim to knowledge that ‘god is greater then what can be conceived’ but then the concept of god should be inconceivable by definition, which is a contradiction.
You completely read something into my reply which wasn’t there. All I meant was that I can’t conceive of being (existence) without substance, and so it’s probably safer to say: ‘Substance is God’.