Proof of a Creator (Moved from Intro Topic)

[vajrasattva]

I argue for the existence of god from the point of view that God is perfect. Each object removed from any preconceived notions of it, and removed from all other objects including reality itself, could be seen as perfect. If objects can be seen as perfect in any way or circumstance, then a perfect creator must exist. please reply

[Donald Schneider]

Dear Vaj,

What is perfect is unlimited potential. Only one thing meets that qualification. All that we perceive within the material world is dualistic and thus limited: This as opposed to that.

Potential creation is perfect. However, any manifestation of creation is imperfect and in a sense unreal in that its existence is conditional and transient. In order to sculpt a horse from a virgin block of marble, for example, the sculptor must “chip away all that is not a horse.” In the process, he or she destroys the unlimited potential of the block of marble, rendering it imperfect, even as he or she produces a perfect equine representation. It is now a horse—as opposed to anything else it could have been. Something is always lost when something is gained. This is the seeming eternal paradox of existence. The only way to win is not to play. Yet, there can often be beauty and joy within the illusion. Thus, it's so very tempting.

[vajrasattva]

but regardless of its imperfection in the objective and subjective sense. removed from that it is perfect as it should be. removed from the essence of existence which is change and progress it posesses infinite potential regardless of what occurs to it. which nothing can because nothing is in non existance

[de Silentio]

Each object removed from any preconceived notions of it, and removed from all other objects including reality itself, could be seen as perfect

How can something be removed from reality itself?

[vajrasattva]

this is theoretically speaking of course if the object were removed from reality in would become reality thereby making the perfection of reality apparent within the object itself.

[Zetetic11235]

You don't seem to understand that physical and mathematical models of the universe are only approximations and thus are not ever entirely "correct"(in the sense that they show the true physical nature of the universe) as a new pieces of data must continually be incorporated into a model thus placing for your hypotheticals on very tenuous ground.

You presume that the illusion of time is not present in the hypothetical 4 dimentional space you cite. This could still be, perhapse due to a fifth dimentional characteristic of the universe that we have not yet determined due to innaccurate measurements. Mathematical and physical models can be extended pretty easily into n-dimentional space. It doesnt guarantee that the hypothetical is correct just because the mathematics shows that a certain lets say k-dimentional model of the universe more accurately answers questions arising from certain physical phemomena, it just shows that this mathematical concept more accurately models the behavior of the universe and thus only indicates its true nature.

I am also at a loss as to how it is a necessary conclution that there is a creator if the universe is static, presuming that it is so(which is not really guaranteed), and what you define the creator to be, just another reaction preceeding the next which is preceeding the next just as our reality is in its enitrety a set of reactions? A creator that is created that is also created, it is just a series of reactions that is indicated not a being per se.

In short, you have based your proof that there is a creator on a hypothetical model and an imaginative leap.

[urangutan]

Donald Schneider, it may seem inconceivable but that can only assure us it may not have happened. With all the possibilities that life has thrown our way, what is to say that an embryo once conceived did not intake another gamete that rather than effected the embryo lay dormant until the embryo as now child, reached puberty. In this amazing kaleidoscope of possibility, the child falls pregnant and walla, your mother is your twin sister.

In assuming that time travel is possible, it takes on the teory that time like light and sound erupts from a point, travelling in all directions. Should this be the case time has no boundary, end or possession of any instant. This would give it no fixed point to conceive that time can be captured for the purpose of time travel.

Travelling at the speed of light does not slow the body by any stretch of the imagination, all this does is give rise to the possibility that blind people are ahead or behind in time and therefore cannot see as there is no light. That would make the cure for blindness a matter of applying or irradicating approximately fifty-five seconds of time in their lives. I think it is about that long that light takes to reach us from our sun. Assuming that this thoery is also true, then light traveling to us from outer space continues to shine upon the Earth, yesterday. Now I cannot say for sure that it doesn’t as I am only here today and this would mean that the blind are not in the past but the future.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

A cause must precede its effect or it cannot, by definition, be termed the effect's cause. Quite simply, one's twin sister cannot also be one's mother.

The obsolete notion of 'cause and effect' has been redefined as 'two (or more) mutually arising features of the same event'.

So at the very least, there seems to be one professional in the field who would not attempt to undercut my basic premise along the lines you have here.

'Celebrity endorsements' are a cognitive fallacy, and mean nothing more then another person shares your opinion.

Additionally, if the past, present and future do not all exist simultaneously, then why do so many physicists even speculate if time travel is possible? (Many believe it is.) What would be the point in doing so if that were not the case?

Another appeal to a celebrity endorsement. Many physicists speculate on many notions, hold many perspectives, host many 'beliefs' (religiously so..)... This is not a valid argument.

What is the flaw with my argument? .I am educable and not doctrinaire.

There's a bit of 'education' for you, as food for thought.
Peace

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

What is perfect is unlimited potential. Only one thing meets that qualification.

Mind/quantum wave field/undifferentiated (there is no evidence of any'thing' 'unlimited') potential.

All that we perceive within the material world is dualistic and thus limited:

Because that 'world' that we perceive by our limited perspective, that 'bit' of Mind, is actualized by our perspective. The perfect symmetry must somehow be limited for existence (context/definitional) to be perceived into what is conceived to be 'actuality'.

However, any manifestation of creation is imperfect and in a sense unreal in that its existence is conditional and transient.

All Perspectives are 'correct'. All Perspectives are 'limited' by nature, and to one extent or another, incomplete.

This is the seeming eternal paradox of existence.

'Paradox' is the street sign of the neighborhood of error. Where there is paradox, there is error. There is no 'paradox' with truth (that which cannot be effectively refuted).

Yet, there can often be beauty and joy within the illusion.

Beauty and joy and pain and grief and bliss and sadness and ennui and... such a wondrous full pallette! Just don't 'believe' that the 'movie' that you perceive is the complete 'Reality'. All Perspectives added together give the most complete 'picture' of Mind to Consciousness.
Peace

[OntheWindowStand]

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

(I have reposted this note from the "Introduction" topic per the advice of Justin, our forum administrator. Thank you.)


I have a personal website (free access; no ads or a PayPal account pitch for donations) that was primarily established to address special interest topics that are not relevant to this forum. I also write literary reviews of mostly short internet literature and occasionally post essays and articles on a potpourri of topics under the “Miscellaneous” category.

One such offering I wrote that might interest some here is an essay in which I assert proving the existence of—if not God per se—some sort of a creator of our universe (or “multiverse” if one accepts the MWI of QM). The essay is a rejoinder to a university professor of philosophy who had written a rebuttal to Hugh Ross on Philo, the Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers. Dr. Ross is a noted astronomer, author and Christian apologist. My rejoinder is to Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania. My basic argument appeals to Einstein’s STR for support; somewhat ironically as Dr. Einstein had been a professed atheist.

As my website is not a public forum and cannot accommodate a debate thread, I’d be pleased and appreciative to entertain rebuttals or comments here, if that is all right with this forum’s administrators. What is the flaw with my argument? .I am educable and not doctrinaire.

Here is the URL should anyone be interested:

School Bullying and Tourette's Forum

At the conclusion of my essay, I link to Dr. Schick's paper available online, also on a free access basis.

Thanks much and best regards,

Donald Schneider

God cannot be proven or disproven but I guess its fun to try