Logical Proof for God #2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

Conscious volition?

---

How do you intend to judge if the universe is conscious or not? I don't even have any way to tell if you are conscious, or anyone/thing for that matter, especially since consciousness is one of the most poorly defined words in the english language. Typically the only way to decide if you want to believe if something is conscious is to ask yourself, " is it human?" The entire concept of consciousness is so anthropocentric that using it as a metric for something so different from us as the universe is essentially a paper thin strawman type attempt to avoid any real thought on the issue.

Wolfwood, a few points on the tao;
From the tao te ching
34. Control

The Way flows and ebbs, creating and destroying,
Implementing all the world, attending to the tiniest details,
Claiming nothing in return.

It nurtures all things,
Though it does not control them;
It has no intention,
So it seems inconsequential.

It is the substance of all things;
Though it does not control them;
It has no exception,
So it seems all-important.

The sage would not control the world;
He is in harmony with the world.

It seems like my interpretation focuses on "the way creates and destroys...implements all things...is the substance of all things..." and yours focuses on " though it does not control them...it has no intention..."

In my view, it does not have to intend or control to be labeled a god if it is the source of reality and encompasses/creates/destroys all that is. The way does everything without doing, is everything without being. This is godly.

You may see the way as merely a mechanism, but the way is limitless
"25. Beneath Abstraction

There is a mystery,
Beneath abstraction,
Silent, depthless,
Alone, unchanging,
Ubiquitous and liquid,
The mother of nature.
It has no name, but I call it "the Way";
It has no limit, but I call it "limitless".

Being limitless, it flows away forever;
Flowing away forever, it returns to my self:

The Way is limitless,
So nature is limitless,
So the world is limitless,
And so I am limitless.

For I am abstracted from the world,
The world from nature,
Nature from the Way,
And the Way from what is beneath abstraction."

The labels "mechanism" and "agent" are limits.

The Way creating and destroying things, as a statement alone, would almost imply it is a thing that does things, though I think that's why it's followed importantly with: 'Though it does not control them; It has no intention, So it seems inconsequential.'


I can see where you're coming from, and fair enough, such colossal power could be said indeed to be godly, but not God itself. I think you can gather that for me The Way is not synonymous to a God despite its apparent magnificence... you see, even the translation to 'The Way' suggests a path, a method of doing something, laws <--- I see, more or less, the The Way being synonymous to those. And I couldn't say that a governing physical law in itself is God. I'm trying to gather why I can't call it God....and it's simply because I cannot shake the connotation of God being a being, with choice, intention, and some control or government... and yet, The Way: 'does not control them; It has no intention, So it seems inconsequential.'

I think it's fair to say you've logical implication of The Tao, but not of God. This 'problem' is only because of the connotations of 'God', and what people will inevitably define or perceive it as. Me being one who cannot shake those connotations.

so your argument is essentially that the laws of nature are all powerful and control the universe? I fail to see how that is god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randosity

so your argument is essentially that the laws of nature are all powerful and control the universe? I fail to see how that is god.

---

I'm not sure describing the material God chooses to paint with constitutes an argument, unless you're arguing about the constituents of said material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phion

I'm not sure describing the material God chooses to paint with constitutes an argument, unless you're arguing about the constituents of said material.

---

the impression I was getting from the op was that he is arguing that the universe is god. so using your analogy he seems to be calling dripping paint an artist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randosity

the impression I was getting from the op was that he is arguing that the universe is god. so using your analogy he seems to be calling dripping paint an artist.

---

By definition, God is higher than any conception of mind, at least in my imagination, and so I would agree with your interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

The Way creating and destroying things, as a statement alone, would almost imply it is a thing that does things, though I think that's why it's followed importantly with: 'Though it does not control them; It has no intention, So it seems inconsequential.'


I can see where you're coming from, and fair enough, such colossal power could be said indeed to be godly, but not God itself. I think you can gather that for me The Way is not synonymous to a God despite its apparent magnificence... you see, even the translation to 'The Way' suggests a path, a method of doing something, laws <--- I see, more or less, the The Way being synonymous to those. And I couldn't say that a governing physical law in itself is God. I'm trying to gather why I can't call it God....and it's simply because I cannot shake the connotation of God being a being, with choice, intention, and some control or government... and yet, The Way: 'does not control them; It has no intention, So it seems inconsequential.'

I think it's fair to say you've logical implication of The Tao, but not of God. This 'problem' is only because of the connotations of 'God', and what people will inevitably define or perceive it as. Me being one who cannot shake those connotations.

---

It seems like you fully admit that your only argument against is based entirely in your own pre-conceptions of what the tao and god are "supposed" to be, and yet god transcends all conceptions. It is my opinion that the intuitive perceptions that lead to the conceptualizations of god and the tao originate from the same source. When a christian conceptualizes a bearded personal god and a taoist conceptualizes a natural universal order, they are really grasping at the same unknowable "thing" that is not a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

they are really grasping at the same unknowable "thing" that is not a thing.

---

Lao Tzu names this the "subtle essense"; the guiding force behind everything knowable and unknowable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It seems like you fully admit that your only argument against is based entirely in your own pre-conceptions of what the tao and god are "supposed" to be, and yet god transcends all conceptions. It is my opinion that the intuitive perceptions that lead to the conceptualizations of god and the tao originate from the same source. When a christian conceptualizes a bearded personal god and a taoist conceptualizes a natural universal order, they are really grasping at the same unknowable "thing" that is not a thing.

---

Yes, God and the Tao are 'supposed' to be something otherwise what is the purpose of such words' existence? And that would make sense if I believed people conceived of God and the Tao as one and the same. They don't, and nearly everyone is disagreeing with you on the basis of your definition of God.

Define God - From your perspective this cannot be done as it transcends all conceptions. It is unknowable. From the common perspective, God is a deity with intention and government. It is 'supernatural'. You look 'up' to God.

Define the Tao - It is the very fundamental essence of everything... one could say it is the 'unified field'. It is not contingent upon a massive leap of faith, and is intuitive from a reductionist perspective. It is not massively metaphysical like God. You look 'within' anything to find the Tao - the substance that is identical, one and the same, in all things. The Tao is not a deity, and has no intention nor government.

If you take the most accepted conception of God and apply your 'proof', then it is nonsensical. If you take the conception of the Tao and apply your 'proof', then it is sensible. I can even safely say I'm atheist and not be against the Tao. I could not say I'm atheist, but believe in God. You would have to forcefully redefine God for that statement to make sense, and that is no different than saying the Spaghetti Monster exists because it is the same as the Tao.

A breath within a breath.