Defining what is God.

[Medicine*Woman]

You do have an opinion. So do I. 100 years from now we'll see who was wrong.

You don't believe in an afterlife. The laws of probability support my view:

If something happens once, given enough time, it will happen again. Hence, another life is inevitable.

*************
M*W: Why would it take a 100 years from now? If there was a god, he'd make it known to us NOW!

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Why would it take a 100 years from now? If there was a god, he'd make it known to us NOW!

I think his point is that knowledge can be revealed at a later date by dint of experience - thus learning by experience is slower than learning by hearing

[Ayodhya]

I told you. One of them created this thing that we would call a universe. To them it is a marble. (Some time watching the end of Men in Black might help give you a pespective of this).

I've always supported the idea that we are an alien version of the Roman coliseum.

Or perhaps a science experiment: we are actually underneath a giant microscope, growing on a slide.

[Sarkus]

as explained previously, wanting something for others who lack something (like the way that god wants that the living entities in the material get liberated from their self induced ignorance (because they,like god, have independence, but of th e miniscule variety) does not necessarily indicate a lack

...obviously a god that creates to accommodate for his personal lack is inferior to a god that doesn't create because he has no personal lack - but higher than both these conceptions is a god that creates to accommodate for the lack of others

Thanks for your answers.

Now answer me this...

How does the "superior" god who is eternal, and who does not lack anything, create something when there is noone else around to create for their want?

This god starts his eternity with no want - not lacking in anything.
Why would he then create, if not for a lack?
We did not exist prior to this god's creation - so we could not have been lacking, as we did not exist.
His initial creation MUST HAVE BEEN FOR HIM - TO SATISFY HIS PERSONAL WANT.
The god that initially created must therefore be an inferior god to the one that did not create.

Enjoy.

[lightgigantic]

Thanks for your answers.

no problem

Now answer me this...

How does the "superior" god who is eternal, and who does not lack anything, create something when there is noone else around to create for their want?

why is there noone around?
God is eternal and the living entity is eternal - sometimes the living entity is liberated and sometimes teh living entity is conditioned, according to their free will, thus god, the living entity, the material world and the spiritual world are all eternal (although the material world goes through seasons of annhilation and creation, just like we go through seasons of winter to spring)

This god starts his eternity with no want - not lacking in anything.

how do you start eternity?

Why would he then create, if not for a lack?

I think you have problems with the nature of god, the nature of eternity, and the nature of what is eternal

We did not exist prior to this god's creation - so we could not have been lacking, as we did not exist.

I never asserted this

His initial creation MUST HAVE BEEN FOR HIM - TO SATISFY HIS PERSONAL WANT.

its the natural constitutional position for everything created to be for god's pleasure - since such creations (maybe emmanations is a better word) are eternal and infinite, the nature of god's pleasure is always increasing. Living entities in conditioned life perceive the exact opposite (we die, or rather the body does .... we move on to another one)

The god that initially created must therefore be an inferior god to the one that did not create.

actually christians and most scientists are similar in one regard - they regard time as linear (something happened at X and now we are at Y and in the future in could be Z) as opposed to cyclic (from A to B and back again)

[Sarkus]

why is there noone around?

It stems directly from your superior god being the cause of all causes.

Hence - no one around.

If others are eternal, as is god, then god could NOT be the cause of all causes, as you claim.

They are mutually exclusive.

To be the cause of all causes you must be the only.

how do you start eternity?

As you claim, god is the cause of all causes.

I think you have problems with the nature of god, the nature of eternity, and the nature of what is eternal

No - I think you are unable to follow rather simple logical steps.

I never asserted this

You did - when you said god is the cause of all causes.
We could not be around, in any guise, material or immaterial, if we were not caused.
And since god is, as you claim, the cause of all causes, he MUST have created - and he MUST have been their first.

If he is FIRST and does not want (i.e. superior to a god that wants) then he WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED.

Again, you can obviously not comprehend the simple logical implications of what you are saying.

its the natural constitutional position for everything created to be for god's pleasure - since such creations (maybe emmanations is a better word) are eternal and infinite, the nature of god's pleasure is always increasing.

And here you admit he was lacking - be it pleasure or something else - and thus he can NOT BE THE SUPERIOR! For a superior god does not lack (be it pleasure or anything else). He would therefore not create for pleasure as he has no want for additional pleasure - as it is already infinite.

Again, the logic of your own words are working against you.

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
why is there noone around?
”
It stems directly from your superior god being the cause of all causes.

Hence - no one around.

If others are eternal, as is god, then god could NOT be the cause of all causes, as you claim.

They are mutually exclusive.

To be the cause of all causes you must be the only.

if there was an eternal fire, would there be eternal heat? would there be eternal smoke? would there be eternal light?

“
Originally Posted by LG
how do you start eternity?
”
As you claim, god is the cause of all causes.

contingency can still exist amongst eternal entities

“
Originally Posted by LG
I think you have problems with the nature of god, the nature of eternity, and the nature of what is eternal
”
No - I think you are unable to follow rather simple logical steps.

I repeat, I think you have problems with the nature of god, the nature of eternity, and the nature of what is eternal

“
Originally Posted by LG
I never asserted this
”
You did - when you said god is the cause of all causes.
We could not be around, in any guise, material or immaterial, if we were not caused.
And since god is, as you claim, the cause of all causes, he MUST have created - and he MUST have been their first.

ditto above

If he is FIRST and does not want (i.e. superior to a god that wants) then he WOULD NOT HAVE CREATED.

big difference between cause and first - if you light a fire what comes first? the heat or the fire?

Again, you can obviously not comprehend the simple logical implications of what you are saying.

ditto above

“
Originally Posted by LG
its the natural constitutional position for everything created to be for god's pleasure - since such creations (maybe emmanations is a better word) are eternal and infinite, the nature of god's pleasure is always increasing.
”
And here you admit he was lacking - be it pleasure or something else - and thus he can NOT BE THE SUPERIOR! For a superior god does not lack (be it pleasure or anything else). He would therefore not create for pleasure as he has no want for additional pleasure - as it is already infinite.

i didn't say he was lacking - I said his opulences were infinititely increasing

Again, the logic of your own words are working against you.

we need to talk

[Sarkus]

if there was an eternal fire, would there be eternal heat? would there be eternal smoke? would there be eternal light?

Does not address the point.
Please address the point.

contingency can still exist amongst eternal entities

Please expand - as at present this does not address the point.

I repeat, I think you have problems with the nature of god, the nature of eternity, and the nature of what is eternal

Arrogance on your part, LG. Unbecoming of you.

big difference between cause and first - if you light a fire what comes first? the heat or the fire?

What comes first is ME. I am the cause.
Please tell me of where the cause can come after the effect.
If god causes all other causes - that cause MUST be first.

i didn't say he was lacking - I said his opulences were infinititely increasing

Then you do not understand "infinite".
There is NOTHING beyond - it is the limit.
If you have INFINITE opulences then there is nothing more.
You can NOT increase further.
If you are still doing something when you have infinite of that opulence, then you are still doing it for some other reason.

If the superior god has infinite everything then he has no need for anything.
If he has a need for more then he is LACKING.
Lacking implies INFERIOR.

What of all this do you fail to grasp?

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if there was an eternal fire, would there be eternal heat? would there be eternal smoke? would there be eternal light?
”
Does not address the point.
Please address the point.

“
Originally Posted by LG
contingency can still exist amongst eternal entities
”
Please expand - as at present this does not address the point.

“
Originally Posted by LG
I repeat, I think you have problems with the nature of god, the nature of eternity, and the nature of what is eternal
”
Arrogance on your part, LG. Unbecoming of you.

not clear how you missed the point, but lets try again
you were asserting that for something to be the eternal cause of all causes there is no possibility of other eternal articles also being present
I asked you to consider (hypothetically) what would be the qualities of an eternal fire, so you could answer these questions
Would it have eternal heat?
would it have eternal smoke?
would it have eternal light?

Before we move on to the next part maybe you should answer these q's

“
Originally Posted by LG
big difference between cause and first - if you light a fire what comes first? the heat or the fire?
”
What comes first is ME. I am the cause.
Please tell me of where the cause can come after the effect.
If god causes all other causes - that cause MUST be first.

Unless you took the example to mean what would happen if you set yourself on fire, its not clear why we should start talking about YOU - I was talking about fire - if you light a fire what comes first? the heat or the fire

“
Originally Posted by LG
i didn't say he was lacking - I said his opulences were infinititely increasing
”
Then you do not understand "infinite".
There is NOTHING beyond - it is the limit.
If you have INFINITE opulences then there is nothing more.
You can NOT increase further.
If you are still doing something when you have infinite of that opulence, then you are still doing it for some other reason.

If the superior god has infinite everything then he has no need for anything.
If he has a need for more then he is LACKING.
Lacking implies INFERIOR.

What of all this do you fail to grasp?

lets see how you go with comprehending "eternity" before we move on to an article possessing infinite qualities

[SnakeLord]

then you have a polytheistic paradigm, which differs from a monthesitic one because there is no possibility of claiming omnipotence, as you clearly indicate

The statement concerning your statement made has no bearing on omnipotence. You claimed - incorrectly - that an eternal 'cosmic manifestation' is contingent on an eternal god which is wrong - and I shall explain to you why that is wrong using your fire analogy.

therefore I mentioned an eternal fire - it explains not what came first but what is the cause and what is the effect

This is generally where your problem lies.. You're looking at "creation", "cause and effect" etc which does not count for two things that are eternal.

If a god 'created' the cosmic manifestation then that cosmic manifestation is contingent on god - because without the existence of god that cosmic manifestation could never have "come into existence" - but if that cosmic manifestation is eternal then it could never have "come into existence" because it always existed and thus is not contingent on the existence of anything else for its own existence.

The cosmic manifestation just is, god just is. If god decides to rub himself out of existence that cosmic manifestation would still exist, (although what an entity with the added bonus of omnipotence does at a later date is neither here not there to the issue).

If you're saying that there was a millibilligazilli-second an eternity ago where god caused that cosmic manifestation to be then that manifestation cannot be eternal - so then we need to look what was there before this cosmic manifestation was created which would undoubtedly be some other form of cosmic manifestation. You can go back and back and back until you find something that was not created at all but has always existed independent from the existence of any other eternal being.

Your problem is you're trying to use fire (something created) and heat (something created) as a comparison to two things never created - and that is where you are making the mistake.

If you say that god existed even a nanosecond before this cosmic manifestation then your argument would work, but if they are both equally eternal then one could have never caused the existence of the other meaning the existence of that thing can never be dependant upon the existence of the other.

the eternality of the heat owes its nature to the eternality of the fire - in other words the heat would have no scope to act independant from the fire

Again you're making a mistake - I can understand why, but it is a mistake nonetheless. If the fire "created" the heat then the heat cannot be truly eternal, the fire must have been there first to 'produce' that heat. If the heat and the fire, (unfortunately both created things), were equally eternal then the heat could not have been caused by the fire. The fire will undoubtedly go on to produce it's own heat, but that 'created' heat is different to an eternal heat. I would advise trying to stick to eternal gods/cosmic manifestations instead of using an analogy concerning two "created" things. It might save the confusion.

multiple cases of being omnipotent is a problem, unless you advocate that the multiple causes are expansions of the same sense of being

It isn't. Let's use your later quote..

as for claimingthat the medium of objective existence is eternally independant (regardless whether you are talking about this phenomenal world or some abstract of pre-phenomeanl world existence) then you have a potency (ie the medium of objectivity) that is actually superior, since without this medium, your so called god or gods is powerless to act

They're not powerless to act, just like your god wouldn't be, because they have the added bonus of omnipotence which allows them to act. While the cosmic manifestation just is, the gods can create, destroy and do anything else they want. The argument itself was showing that if that cosmic manifestation is truly eternal, it could never have been created and thus its existence is independant from god.. (It's hard to phrase because you cannot say "its coming into being" because it didn't come into being, it just is - and that's why I used just is). Now, it is at the mercy of a god/gods but its inability to protect itself from the gods, or do anything else for that matter, is not a question concerning it's actual existence - which was not brought about by the god/s.

(which gives you the picture of polytheism - a lot of different "gods" duking it out within the medium of objective existence to gain superiority, while the medium of objective existence remains the unchallenged champion)

Although I can't see why, if the gods were duking it out, they could still destroy that 'cosmic manifestation' or do anything else that they want with it. The cosmic manifestation does not have powers or abilities, it just is. They never created it, it has always been - but that doesn't deny them the ability to destroy it whenever they so choose. That is the same with 1 omnipotent god or 100.

then where were these gods before they created it? (ie what is the nature of this pre-phenomenal existence you are alluding to?)

Exact same place yours was.. (you mentioned the 'eternal cosmic manifestation'). By the fact that it's eternal means it could never have been "created".

Who created or is responsible for being the cause of this pre-phenomenal existence?

If you cannot get over "created" or "caused" you'll never understand the argument. You mentioned an "eternal cosmic manifestation". By the very fact that it is eternal and has existed forever, then there can never be a time when it was caused or created.

[Sarkus]

not clear how you missed the point, but lets try again

I'm not clear how you're failing to answer my initial comments, but instead sidetracking to matters of eternity.

you were asserting that for something to be the eternal cause of all causes...

There was no "eternal" in the cause of all causes.

...there is no possibility of other eternal articles also being present

If those eternal articles are doing anything then those actions must have been caused.
For god to have been the cause there can have been NO OTHER cause/effect relationships before that point.
Whether they "existed" and god caused all of them to start causing other things with the same initial cause is irrelevant.
Prior to being able to do anything (causing) they must have been given the initial cause - which you have said is god (cause of all causes).

Your "eternal fire" is an irrelevancy - a Red Herring - unless you can explain exactly why it is not.

I asked you to consider (hypothetically) what would be the qualities of an eternal fire, so you could answer these questions
Would it have eternal heat?
would it have eternal smoke?
would it have eternal light?

Irrelevant.
We are talking of the logical consequences of there being a Cause of All Causes.

lets see how you go with comprehending "eternity" before we move on to an article possessing infinite qualities

Let's see how you go with comprehending rather simple logic.

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
then you have a polytheistic paradigm, which differs from a monthesitic one because there is no possibility of claiming omnipotence, as you clearly indicate
”
The statement concerning your statement made has no bearing on omnipotence. You claimed - incorrectly - that an eternal 'cosmic manifestation' is contingent on an eternal god which is wrong - and I shall explain to you why that is wrong using your fire analogy.

“
therefore I mentioned an eternal fire - it explains not what came first but what is the cause and what is the effect
”
This is generally where your problem lies.. You're looking at "creation", "cause and effect" etc which does not count for two things that are eternal.

If a god 'created' the cosmic manifestation then that cosmic manifestation is contingent on god - because without the existence of god that cosmic manifestation could never have "come into existence" - but if that cosmic manifestation is eternal then it could never have "come into existence" because it always existed and thus is not contingent on the existence of anything else for its own existence.

The cosmic manifestation just is, god just is. If god decides to rub himself out of existence that cosmic manifestation would still exist, (although what an entity with the added bonus of omnipotence does at a later date is neither here not there to the issue).

contingency is different from creation - like for instance if a fire is moved a 100 yards the heat goes with it - if the heat is moved 100 yards, the fire stays put and the rellocated heat dissipates due to its contingent nature

If you're saying that there was a millibilligazilli-second an eternity ago where god caused that cosmic manifestation to be then that manifestation cannot be eternal - so then we need to look what was there before this cosmic manifestation was created which would undoubtedly be some other form cosmic manifestation. You can go back and back and back until you find something that was not created at all but has always existed independent from the existence of any other eternal being.

don't worry - i don't say that
I say eternal

Your problem is you're trying to use fire (something created) and heat (something created) as a comparison to two things never created - and that is where you are making the mistake.

thats why it is a hypothetical analogy

If you say that god existed even a nanosecond before this cosmic manifestation then your argument would work, but if they are both equally eternal then one could have never caused the existence of the other meaning the existence of that thing can never be dependant upon the existence of the other.

therefore I didn't say that
ask yourself - when you light a fire, what comes first, the light or the fire? Or are both things simultaneous?

“
the eternality of the heat owes its nature to the eternality of the fire - in other words the heat would have no scope to act independant from the fire
”
Again you're making a mistake - I can understand why, but it is a mistake nonetheless. If the fire "created" the heat then the heat cannot be truly eternal, the fire must have been there first to 'produce' that heat.

unless of course the fire and heat exist simultaneously

If the heat and the fire, (unfortunately both created things), were equally eternal then the heat could not have been caused by the fire. The fire will undoubtedly go on to produce it's own heat, but that 'created' heat is different to an eternal heat.

If a fire was going for 2 hours, would it emmanate heat for 2 hours?
If a fire was going for 4 days would it emmanate heat for 4 days?
If a fire was going for 100 years would it emmanate heat for 100 years?
If a fire was going for an eternity would it emmanate heat for an eternity?

I would advise trying to stick to eternal gods/cosmic manifestations instead of using an analogy concerning two "created" things. It might save the confusion.

analogies are the perfect tool to illustrate an unknown article by referring to a known one - since you have no experience of an eternal object, its not clear how we can progress in discussion without the use of analogies

“
as for claimingthat the medium of objective existence is eternally independant (regardless whether you are talking about this phenomenal world or some abstract of pre-phenomeanl world existence) then you have a potency (ie the medium of objectivity) that is actually superior, since without this medium, your so called god or gods is powerless to act
”
They're not powerless to act, just like your god wouldn't be, because they have the added bonus of omnipotence which allows them to act. While the cosmic manifestation just is, the gods can create, destroy and do anything else they want. The argument itself was showing that if that cosmic manifestation is truly eternal, it could never have been created and thus its existence is independant from god.. (It's hard to phrase because you cannot say "its coming into being" because it didn't come into being, it just is - and that's why I used just is). Now, it is at the mercy of a god/gods but its inability to protect itself from the gods, or do anything else for that matter, is not a question concerning it's actual existence - which was not brought about by the god/s.

you don't understand
the fact that they are acting in an objective medium (ie space) raises the question who caused it

“
(which gives you the picture of polytheism - a lot of different "gods" duking it out within the medium of objective existence to gain superiority, while the medium of objective existence remains the unchallenged champion)
”
Although I can't see why, if the gods were duking it out, they could still destroy that 'cosmic manifestation' or do anything else that they want with it. The cosmic manifestation does not have powers or abilities, it just is. They never created it, it has always been - but that doesn't deny them the ability to destroy it whenever they so choose. That is the same with 1 omnipotent god or 100.

therefore you have polytheism - space, or the obejective medium that everyone interacts in, is supreme

“
then where were these gods before they created it? (ie what is the nature of this pre-phenomenal existence you are alluding to?)
”
Exact same place yours was.. (you mentioned the 'eternal cosmic manifestation'). By the fact that it's eternal means it could never have been "created".

the difference is that you cannot entertain contingency in your conception of the eternal

“
Who created or is responsible for being the cause of this pre-phenomenal existence?
”
If you cannot get over "created" or "caused" you'll never understand the argument. You mentioned an "eternal cosmic manifestation". By the very fact that it is eternal and has existed forever, then there can never be a time when it was caused or created.

but because it is contingent, teh effect moves with the cause - like for instance if you move a fire, the heat goes with it - similarly the cosmic manifestation moves under the control of its cause - if you say there are multiple causes you have a problem

[lightgigantic]

I'm not clear how you're failing to answer my initial comments, but instead sidetracking to matters of eternity.

well your original q was
“
Now answer me this...

How does the "superior" god who is eternal, and who does not lack anything, create something when there is noone else around to create for their want?

There was no "eternal" in the cause of all causes.

seems like you no longer want to ask this q?

If those eternal articles are doing anything then those actions must have been caused.
For god to have been the cause there can have been NO OTHER cause/effect relationships before that point.
Whether they "existed" and god caused all of them to start causing other things with the same initial cause is irrelevant.
Prior to being able to do anything (causing) they must have been given the initial cause - which you have said is god (cause of all causes).

this doesn't make sense

Your "eternal fire" is an irrelevancy - a Red Herring - unless you can explain exactly why it is not.

it explains eternality, contingency and how cause and effect can be simultaneous (as opposed to staggered, which seems to be your insistence in the jumble above)

Irrelevant.
We are talking of the logical consequences of there being a Cause of All Causes.

therefore the examination of the relationship between fire, smoke, light and heat could help us determine the relationship between cause and effect in relation to time

Let's see how you go with comprehending rather simple logic.

you don't get much simpler than a fire

[Sarkus]

seems like you no longer want to ask this q?

Stop sidetracking. Answer the question.

this doesn't make sense

Which part does not make sense to you?
Let me break it down in simpler chunks...
"If those eternal articles are doing anything then those actions must have been caused."
To do something there must be a cause, all the way back to the cause of all causes? Agreed.
If not - try doing anything without doing something beforehand.

"For god to have been the cause there can have been NO OTHER cause/effect relationships before that point."
You have claimed god is the cause of all causes.
If another eternal article is doing something PRIOR to the cause of all causes, then, by logical definition, god was not the cause of all causes.
Agreed?

"Whether they "existed" and god caused all of them to start causing other things with the same initial cause is irrelevant."
Whether there existed an eternal article alongside god is irrelevant. If those articles are acting (causing) then we are already past the "cause of all causes".
If they exist at the point that god became the "cause of all causes" then they could not have been acting prior to that point.
Agreed?

"[b]Prior to being able to do anything (causing) they must have been given the initial cause - which you have said is god (cause of all causes).[b]"
This is self explanatory and a logical conclusion based on the above.

Now - which part of this logic are you not understanding.

it explains eternality, contingency and how cause and effect can be simultaneous (as opposed to staggered, which seems to be your insistence in the jumble above).

therefore the examination of the relationship between fire, smoke, light and heat could help us determine the relationship between cause and effect in relation to time

You really think that cause and effect are simultaneous?
Evidence please?

Take a hypothetically vast vacuum in a weightless environment.
Two particles - one matter, the other anti-matter.
Push one toward the other (cause).

They impact after a time (effect).

Please tell me that this was instantaneous?
No?

Wow.

What was the cause?
What was the effect?


Now then - let's try another question...

Please tell me how you can, hypothetically, have an eternal fire and a cause of all causes, without the cause of all causes being the cause of the eternal fire?

[SnakeLord]

therefore I mentioned an eternal fire - it explains not what came first but what is the cause and what is the effect

Your fire analogy is faulty, and I think you're aware of that, (at least I would hope you are). Again I have no dispute that if something 'caused' something else to be then that thing that was caused is contingent upon the other thing - it only exists because of that other thing. This does not apply to anything that is eternal - because by being eternal it could never have been 'caused'.

contingency is different from creation - like for instance if a fire is moved a 100 yards the heat goes with it

You're making a big error. Your own analogy shows that error:

- "If a fire is moved 100 yards the heat goes with it" only applies if the fire creates that heat.

If you keep using a faulty analogy you wont understand it.

if the heat is moved 100 yards, the fire stays put and the rellocated heat dissipates due to its contingent nature

Again, only if that heat is being caused/created by that fire. If the heat has not been caused by that fire, (which being eternal means it can't have been), then your claim fails.

don't worry - i don't say that
I say eternal

Right then, which points out the inherent flaw in the analogy you're using. One creates the other.

thats why it is a hypothetical analogy

No, that's why it's a flawed analogy.

ask yourself - when you light a fire, what comes first, the light or the fire? Or are both things simultaneous?

By "lighting a fire", (striking a match), I have created/caused something - and that causing something to be prevents it from being eternal. As for what comes first.. it would be the fire itself.. (when striking matches you usually get the smell of burning sulphur before the actual 'light' of that fire appears). Now, as I said - even if one of those things comes before the other by even a millibilligazilli second then you have a case - one has caused the existence of the other. This argument does not work in anything that is not caused, but is eternal. You keep using a flawed analogy which is why you cannot seemingly grasp the concept.

unless of course the fire and heat exist simultaneously

But you're still under the fault that the fire is causing that heat. If the fire is not causing that heat then the heat is separate to the fire and can be moved anywhere regardless to the existence of the fire. The only way your argument would work is under the premise that the fire causes the heat to exist.. which can never be the case for two eternal entities.

If a fire was going for 2 hours, would it emmanate heat for 2 hours?
If a fire was going for 4 days would it emmanate heat for 4 days?
If a fire was going for 100 years would it emmanate heat for 100 years?
If a fire was going for an eternity would it emmanate heat for an eternity?

Again, you are using 'cause'. The fire causes the heat. This cannot be the case in anything that is eternal.

analogies are the perfect tool to illustrate an unknown article by referring to a known one - since you have no experience of an eternal object, its not clear how we can progress in discussion without the use of analogies

I never said don't use analogies, (and I'm sure you're aware of that which makes me question why you have made this quote), what I said was don't use a faulty analogy, (something that has been created/caused in comparison to something that was never created/caused).

the fact that they are acting in an objective medium (ie space) raises the question who caused it

There you go with that 'cause' again which is why we're having such difficulty. If the space that they occupy is eternal, it could never have been "caused". The same applies to everything, be it your god or mine, if the space it occupies is eternal.

therefore you have polytheism - space, or the obejective medium that everyone interacts in, is supreme

Not supreme by any means, just as eternal as they are. The same applies to your god. Polytheism is of no relevance here.

the difference is that you cannot entertain contingency in your conception of the eternal

It's logic, you have no argument against it, (unless you keep using flawed analogies while not understanding that your argument means one must have caused the other which goes against eternal and thus this entire argument).

teh effect moves with the cause - like for instance if you move a fire, the heat goes with it

Only if one caused the other.

You really need to try and look beyond "cause" and to eternal, (no cause) if we're ever going to get anywhere.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
therefore I mentioned an eternal fire - it explains not what came first but what is the cause and what is the effect
”
Your fire analogy is faulty, and I think you're aware of that, (at least I would hope you are). Again I have no dispute that if something 'caused' something else to be then that thing that was caused is contingent upon the other thing - it only exists because of that other thing. This does not apply to anything that is eternal - because by being eternal it could never have been 'caused'.

Are you saying that it impossible for an eternal object to bear an effect?
Is yes, why?
If no, how long until one could no longer measure heat from an eternal fire?

”

“
unless of course the fire and heat exist simultaneously
”
But you're still under the fault that the fire is causing that heat. If the fire is not causing that heat then the heat is separate to the fire and can be moved anywhere regardless to the existence of the fire. The only way your argument would work is under the premise that the fire causes the heat to exist.. which can never be the case for two eternal entities.

I have never had experience with a fire that has not caused heat - should I have specified it was a heat causing fire just in case it got confused with a fire that doesn't cause heat?

“
the fact that they are acting in an objective medium (ie space) raises the question who caused it
”
There you go with that 'cause' again which is why we're having such difficulty. If the space that they occupy is eternal, it could never have been "caused". The same applies to everything, be it your god or mine, if the space it occupies is eternal.

exactly - which is why if you have an eternal objective existence indpendant of eternal living entities you cannot have a living entity that is the cause of all causes or omnipotent, since a potency and a cause exists outside of them.
this is why a god that is the cause of all causes and omnipotent must by necessity be singular and not subscribe to polytheistic notions

You really need to try and look beyond "cause" and to eternal, (no cause) if we're ever going to get anywhere.

you need to examine why you think an eternal object cannot bear an effect

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
seems like you no longer want to ask this q?
”
Stop sidetracking. Answer the question.

the original dialouge was

“
You
I'm not clear how you're failing to answer my initial comments, but instead sidetracking to matters of eternity.
”
Me
well your original q was
“
Now answer me this...

How does the "superior" god who is eternal, and who does not lack anything, create something when there is noone else around to create for their want?

if you don't want to examine how more than one eternal article can exist in the same environment, maybe we should just move on to another q

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
this doesn't make sense
”
Which part does not make sense to you?
Let me break it down in simpler chunks...
"If those eternal articles are doing anything then those actions must have been caused."
To do something there must be a cause, all the way back to the cause of all causes? Agreed.
If not - try doing anything without doing something beforehand.

therefore if an eternal object (like say fire) exhibits a constant effect (like say heat) would the effect be eternal or not eternal?

"For god to have been the cause there can have been NO OTHER cause/effect relationships before that point."
You have claimed god is the cause of all causes.
If another eternal article is doing something PRIOR to the cause of all causes, then, by logical definition, god was not the cause of all causes.
Agreed?

therefore, as with the fire eg, both things, heat and fire, occur simultaneously, yet it can be seen quit eeasily that amongst the two constants, one is the cause and the other is the effect

"Whether they "existed" and god caused all of them to start causing other things with the same initial cause is irrelevant."
Whether there existed an eternal article alongside god is irrelevant. If those articles are acting (causing) then we are already past the "cause of all causes".

its not clear why you assume that two eternal articles equals an automatic contradiction

If they exist at the point that god became the "cause of all causes" then they could not have been acting prior to that point.
Agreed?

therefore if god is eternal, any constant effects he has are also eternal, and if god is not eternal, then the effects are not eternal - just like if a fire is eternal, the heat is eternal, and if the fire is not eternal, the heat is not eternal

"[b]Prior to being able to do anything (causing) they must have been given the initial cause - which you have said is god (cause of all causes).[b]"
This is self explanatory and a logical conclusion based on the above.

Now - which part of this logic are you not understanding.

the warmth is caused by heat
the heat is caused by fire
the fire is the cause of the warmth.

“
Originally Posted by LG
it explains eternality, contingency and how cause and effect can be simultaneous (as opposed to staggered, which seems to be your insistence in the jumble above).

therefore the examination of the relationship between fire, smoke, light and heat could help us determine the relationship between cause and effect in relation to time
”
You really think that cause and effect are simultaneous?
Evidence please?

Take a hypothetically vast vacuum in a weightless environment.
Two particles - one matter, the other anti-matter.
Push one toward the other (cause).

They impact after a time (effect).

Please tell me that this was instantaneous?
No?

at what stage would an eternal fire start toi emmanate heat?


Now then - let's try another question...

Please tell me how you can, hypothetically, have an eternal fire and a cause of all causes, without the cause of all causes being the cause of the eternal fire?

if you cannot understand the nature of the heat of an eternal fire, there is not much to say

[Sarkus]

if you don't want to examine how more than one eternal article can exist in the same environment, maybe we should just move on to another q

I am quite happy that more than one eternal article can exist in the same evironment - but if god, being one of them, is the "cause of all causes" then the others are logically irrelevant.

God is the cause of all causes and god is eternal - as you have said of this superior god.
If the eternal fire next to him is causing anything (heat, light, etc), regardless of whether or not it is simultaneous, then that must have been originally caused by god - due to the first claim.

If you disagree with this, please tell me how an eternal fire can be a cause, and sit beside god - the cause of all causes - without this god being the cause of the eternal fire? And please answer the question - do not merely dismiss it with "well, if you don't understand.... blah blah blah". If there are two separate things being causes, eternal or otherwise, and one is the "cause of ALL causes" then that one MUST have caused the other.

The only alternative is that this fire IS god - in which case it is meaningless and adds nothing new. Thus there can only be the one eternal cause of all causes and everything else is merely part of that, including the eternal fire, including us.

However, if this IS your stance then we get back to the logical conclusion that god can neither cause (as all things are already part of him) nor create (as all things are already part of him) - and thus to claim him as the cause of all causes is pointless and meaningless as he can do neither - and thus not a quality of superiority as you claim.

[Godless]

I think Lg is just using the metaphor "eternal fire" to discribe god, not that an eternal fire exist with god.

Anyhow, it's entertaining watching him/her struggle through his nonsense rhetoric of which I get the notion, that he makes up as he goes along! very imaginative indeed..But still no pie!

[SnakeLord]

Are you saying that it impossible for an eternal object to bear an effect?
Is yes, why?
If no, how long until one could no longer measure heat from an eternal fire?

What I am saying is that when you have two eternal entities and neither created the other, (which they couldn't have done else they wouldn't be eternal), then the existence of one is not dependant upon the other. The only way is if one created the other.

I have never had experience with a fire that has not caused heat - should I have specified it was a heat causing fire just in case it got confused with a fire that doesn't cause heat?

Now you're being childish. It is not needed or wanted. Read what has been written again - until you understand it and then get back to me.

exactly - which is why if you have an eternal objective existence indpendant of eternal living entities you cannot have a living entity that is the cause of all causes

Which is the problem with your god as well.. However, I still don't get why you keep saying "cause of all causes". What is it's relevance to anything? Why must a god be cause of all causes?

or omnipotent, since a potency and a cause exists outside of them.

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. It doesn't mean they would have to do everything. This is where you are seemingly making the error.

this is why a god that is the cause of all causes and omnipotent must by necessity be singular and not subscribe to polytheistic notions

You have yet to justify why a god needs to be "cause of all causes". Why can't it be "cause of some causes", while another god is "cause of some other causes"? Well?

you need to examine why you think an eternal object cannot bear an effect

You need to examine what has been written and where you're going wrong.