wintermute

I agree that "before we can look at a brainscan ... we have to exist as mental beings"; however, to exist as mental beings requires brain activity. It is impossible to prove that the mind precedes matter because matter is the only medium through which we experience existence. To illustrate the problem, let me ask you two questions: did you exist as a "mental being" prior to your physical conception? If so, how would you prove it?

I'm interested in the question of whether or not God is real. Why does it seem confusing or strange to you that a person would be interested in this perennial question? What I'm asking is why Atheists think God is self-contradictory. It can't be due to God's "complexity" because this isn't even a definable thing.

I think your explanation is plausible, but I don't think there is any way to prove it because there is nothing observable which is not moved by something else. Both emotions and wave-particles are caused in all cases we can observe, both dissipate over time, and neither one can be observed to spontaneously manifest in a true vacuum.

These are good questions. Since each would require an extensive essay, let me focus on what seems like the simplest to answer: "...what in your reality have you observed that is a display of these qualities of omnipotence or omniscience?" I would answer this in two ways: one positively and one negatively. Negatively, I've seen nothing which conclusively proves that omnipotence is not possible. Positively, I believe in the law of entropy, and this has power over the entire universe to destroy it. This seems like omnipotence; however, there must be a creative force more powerful than entropy in order to explain the origin of reality. Returning to the original question, I have not observed anything in reality displaying omnipotence; it is the observation of reality itself that displays the quality of an omnipotent creative power. Omniscience is more difficult. This is because I do not have a clear idea of what "sentience" means. Most people agree that walls and doors are not sentience, but the same could be said of neurons and blood vessels. At what level of anatomy does a human being become "sentient"? Do multiple humans have "sentience" beyond the individuals? At what stage in life do humans gain and lose the quality of "sentience"? Questions like these must be answered before I can hope to approach the problem of omniscience.

This sounds like an adhoc argument. Why do you feel it necessary to postulate an eternal, self-causing bundle of emotionally-charged stimuli rather than a simple, unemotional wave-particle?

I think it is safe to say that any recognizable form of Christianity will include belief in a personal and eternal god with the properties of omniscience and omnipotence. Even early semi-Christian systems such as Gnosticism, Nestorianism, and Arianism accepted this. It is not necessary to debate the "branches" (Scripture, infallibility, free will, etc.). The root of the question is whether or it is possible for a being to possess the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and sentience. If "complexity" is not a valid reason for denying this possibility, what is?

I was brought up Christian, I pray and read Scripture on a daily basis, and I attend Mass periodically, though not regularly. I don't feel qualified to answer the very large question of what it means to "believe" and whether or not I qualify. What I do feel qualified to say is that I want to believe in what is real. To that end, I want is to answer the question: is God self-contradictory? I've read "Against the Gods" several times, and I found the reasons given there for God's self-contradiction both extremely thought-provoking and also unsatisfying. By "unsatisfying" I mean that the full implications of these questions were not discussed in the book, so I thought I would explore each more fully on the forums. Each argument raised such a formidable array of deep questions in my mind that I felt it best to isolate each argument within its own discussion, so far as possible. The issue at hand (the complexity of an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent god) touches upon several difficult questions: What do we mean by "complex"? Is "omnipotence" conceivable? What is "sentient"? Is it possible to be "eternal"? I agree with thebeardslastcall that "complex" is a subjective standard in the sense that the same thing can be described either as "complex" or as "simple" depending on what aspect of that thing you are describing; therefore, I suggest that perhaps "complexity" is a distraction from the the other questions mentioned above: "is 'omnipotence' conceivable?", "what is 'sentient'?" and "is it possible to be 'eternal'?" I'm not sure I agree that Stefan is intentionally attempting to create a straw man of God, but I am open the possibility that this was his intention. Nevertheless, his arguments raise substantial questions. Perhaps my original post should have been: "are omnipotence, sentience, and eternity possible either in isolation or in combination" because the question of why someone would say God is complex is less significant that the above questions.

In "Against the Gods" (available from https://freedomainradio.com/free/). Stefan gives four reasons why gods are contradictory. These are described in the section "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?". The first reason is that: "Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." The premise that gods are portrayed as complex does not correlate with the concept of God as historically developed in the West. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy begins its article on "Divine Simplicity" by bluntly stating: "Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God." (Para. 1, Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/).The Encyclopedia stresses that the concept of Divine Simplicity is not unique to Christianity but developed from Plato and Aristotle: "The Platonic idea of a highest principle, combining supreme unity and utter perfection, strongly influenced Jewish and early Christian discussions of God’s supreme unity and perfection. . . . Aristotle’s first mover is a simple, unchanging form that still causally affects other beings... The Platonic notion of a supreme perfection at a remove from all things and Aristotle’s causally efficacious, disembodied mind would combine to suggest a powerful model for Western theologians seeking language to describe God’s nature." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Divine Simplicity", section "1. Origins", para. 1). God is specifically described as simple, not complex in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts — a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God." (Catholic Encyclopedia > G > The Nature and Attributes of God, "Simplicity of God", Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC). Radio Replies Vol. 1 also specifically defines God as being simple: "God is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, absolutely simple or lacking composition, immutable, happy in Himself and by Himself, and infinitely superior to all that is or can be conceived apart from Himself. He is incomprehensible in His infinite perfection by all lesser intelligences, although knowable as to the fact of His existence as Living Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, and distinct from all that He has created. That is what I mean by God." ([emphasis mine] "8. What do you mean by the term God?", Retrieved from http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=2). Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?

Emotion comes in response to stimuli like everything else, so why is emotion a sufficient reason for anything?

Ah, I see what you mean at last. Let us assume that the Origin can "sense" itself. Why would this mean that it chooses to generate the multiverse?

The "intelligible alternative" is an "eternal machine" or "God particle" which causes perpetually by force of nature without will or consciousness. This causation would have to form a multiverse in order to account for the random variables in our own universe which allow for life to develop, but I do not know of a reason to say that such a scenario is not intelligible.

When you say, "The apparent brute facticity of the Creator's will is a necessary component of consciousness which is a necessary state." This sounds circular to me because it resolves to: 1. The Creator's will is appears as a brute fact 2. This apparent fact is necessarily associated with consciousness 3. Consciousness is therefore a necessary state of the Creator The problem with this is that the Creator's will is *not* apparent. This is precisely my objection. I do not argue that something came from nothing. What I doubt is that the Origin is conscious.

To argue that will or soul is the Brute Fact seems to violate the principal of sufficient reason no less than arguing that change is the Brute Fact. What reason do we have for accepting will rather than change? I can think of at least one precedent for each position. To argue that change is the Brute Fact seems correspondent with the "Panta Rhei" of Heraclitus, while to argue that will is the Brute Fact seems close to Descartes position that the only certain reality (the "brute fact", if you will) is the mind which he describes as, "A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sense perceptions" (Descartes [emphasis mine] as in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Call me old fashioned, but I incline toward Heraclitus over Descartes in this, but perhaps you prefer some third option...

I certainly agree that perceptions are the only way we can know that anything exists (in so far as we *can* know this at all), but why does it follow that will is necessary to perception?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be your logic concerning substance: "soul is the only substance possible" because... "Substance is efficient cause [which] requires will" because... substance is "necessarily conscious" I do not yet see your reason for this third premise. Why do you think substance is conscious? Put another way: why is the Efficient Cause not an "eternal machine" which causes perpetually by force of nature without will or consciousness? Forgive me if this question is ignorant or foolish. I am not a trained philosopher, nor have I read Leibniz, but I do find your posts extremely interesting and significant.