|
“I don't like that argument. Isn't it possible, nay likely, God is MORE complex than the world? And from that excess of complexity, may come the ability to be self-purposeful.”
- You know I said, “as” complex to be on the safe side…anyways, please read the next sentence.
“But wouldn't such an entity seem like a deity to us causality-bound beings?”
- Yes, but we would not know if it has intelligence, consciousness or any other human quality that seems to be so sheik in our gods.
“Explain this reasoning please?” [concerning: “If everything is One then purpose is a flawed concept.”]
- All right ill try again. There are no boundaries to be found. Mankind imagines the boundaries that create what we call “objects”. There are no objects everything is simply one. The gear does not exist because of the clock, which does not exist because humans made it. They all exist because they are part of the whole universe. Therefore purpose is an allusion. The same applies for causality. Everything is in motion as a whole. We may see that the objects A, B and C all seem to hold their own cause and effect yet they are part of the whole and they are effected by the whole. To make a long story short everything is One.
“X implies Y implies Z implies X is the format for a the following are equivalent proof. All that this means is that they all hold the same truth value, it doesn't say ANYTHING about causality.”
- Sure it does. X caused Y, which caused Z, which caused X.
“Also, there are kinds of infinity which do not encompass everything.”
- Therefore I hope I was talking about the kind of infinity that DID encompass everything.
Giltwist, for god sakes, I am not trying to tell you that my theories are laws. They are only ideas. I am stating them to illustrate how the same arguments that are used to prove a creator, can be used to prove a world without a creator.
What my ideas do show is that there is no objective knowledge of god. This is what this thread is all about.
|