An infinitely 'large' creator, though. I'm asking what sort of attributes such an entity might have.
[RD] Ask a Theologian V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
An infinitely 'large' creator, though. I'm asking what sort of attributes such an entity might have.
Well, presumably if this deity is omnipresent, he is also omnipotent and omniscient, but you'd still fall immediately into the trap of asking whether this deity can do or know anything or only everything is not impossible.
I don't understand what you said.
If this being is infinitely large, it is presumably everywhere at once and thus likely can do anything it wants and knows everything that happens. That does not necessarily mean that this being can do something that is impossible though, e.g. creating a rock so enormous that even it cannot lift it.
I think the hindu scriptures describe something as larger then the largest and smaller then the smallest in the same time. This illogical paradox is quite foreign to ordinary human perception but then I dont think to expect anything alike human is very much justified. I think at most we can say the very best of man may be imperfectly shadowing this Existence.
One of the new ways for me to percieve this creator is the double side of it. In accordence with religious texts God wants you to ascend to him. On the other hand all the destruction, temptations and disharmonious disruptive forces cant exist outside of God but play into his game.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I don't see how that follows any more than the presumption that you likely know every chemical reaction occurring within your body and can control all of them consciously.
I'm human. This infinitely large creator deity is presumably not so limited.
You asked what sort of attributes such an entity might have and I provided three (to my view) likely qualities of such a being. The philosophical question at the end was a separate issue.
If that's not enough or I stupidly mistook your question for one exclusively aimed at Plotinus, then maybe you should have been clearer with your question.
If that's not enough or I stupidly mistook your question for one exclusively aimed at Plotinus, then maybe you should have been clearer with your question.
This is a hard question to answer because I can't really imagine just knowing such a thing outside any evidential context. I suppose you're imagining that, say, I realised that the ontological argument actually works, or something like that. Clearly the Abrahamic religions, or any other monotheistic religion, would become more plausible as a result, because a major claim of theirs would be true - just as, if I knew that the Loch Ness Monster actually existed, I'd regard the claims of other people to have seen it as more plausible than I would otherwise. It doesn't necessarily follow that any or all of the Abrahamic religions would become very plausible, though, because there might be good reason to doubt them not connected to God's existence. For example, I find the story of the origins of the Book of Mormon pretty implausible, and I find the Christian doctrine of the incarnation pretty implausible too, and I'd do so even if I knew that God existed.
The mere fact that a being is all-powerful, infinite, and a Creator wouldn't tell me much, I don't think. I'm not sure what "infinite" even means by itself. But I would probably think that, from these attributes alone, together with observation of the world, the Creator is probably not very nice, and therefore not perfect.
That doesn't seem a very good argument to me. You could have an infinitely large rock, occupying all space, but it wouldn't know anything or be able to do anything. Size has nothing to do with power, really, or at least so she said.
Besides, God's omnipresence is usually seen not as meaning that he's literally located everywhere, because he's non-material and therefore not really located anywhere - it's usually seen as meaning that he's equally free to act everywhere. God isn't literally "big". And being equally free to act everywhere doesn't necessarily mean he's omnipotent, either, because his ability to act in any given location could be limited but not zero, as with the God of Open Theism.
Fair enough, but my thought was that if said infinitely large entity was an active creator (rather than life just springing into existence from its fleshy corpse, as with the fallen giant Ymir in the Norse creation story), presumably it would be cognisant of its surroundings and able to act accordingly. (Obviously, this falls apart if it isn't literally everywhere at once, even in some incorporeal state.)
I think this can be a problematic judgment in regard how subjective its bound to be. Normaly I dont consider bacteria anything beautiful but the other day I was listening some scientist passionately talking of possibility of existence of some basic life somewhere around Jupiter becouse presence of water has been detected on one of its moons. Sheer beauty apparently.
I think its matter of degree as well. There may be some degree of perfection and beauty present in this world but the potential Creator although connected with this world can be in class of its own. Or to say it in spiritual terms the Creator isnt manifested fully yet.
Regarded people most enjoy their lives and have strong will to live (thats something I think holds great beauty in itself).
But Abrahamism evolved a very specific idea of God, which to my knowledge was not independently conceived elsewhere. Or am I wrong about this? Other belief systems I could name are either animist or simply philosophical frameworks.
(I have indeed come up with a convincing argument for God's existence. As far as I know, it is original. But I'm not sure if I can explain it properly yet.)
Yes, though the term "Abrahamism" is fraught with problems. For one thing, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have rather different views of God. And the notion of a one God who is a perfect being, the source of all that is, can be found in other traditions too, notably Platonism.
But the point is that if you know that God exists, then any thought system that includes a God must become more probably true that it was before. Just as, if I know that the Loch Ness Monster exists, then the claim "There is a Loch Ness Monster and it is entirely green" becomes more probably true, as does "There is a Loch Ness Monster and it is entirely blue" also becomes more probably true. Obviously they can't both be true, but they both become more worthy of consideration than they would have been if we didn't know there to be a monster in the first place. Similarly, if I know that God exists, then both Christianity and Islam, and Platonism for that matter, become more worthy of consideration, though they can't all be true (and they may all turn out to be wrong, apart from the theistic element).
Well naturally I'd be interested in hearing that, once you've worked out the explanation.
I think the case with God is that it can be both blue and green in the same time. Faith isnt something which depends on physical organs and reality but mainly on configuration of ones consciousness. Even through physical organs reality may seem quite different even opposite at times also due to influence of consciousness.
In case with religions and philosophical schools it can be alike that each of them describes portion of reality and embodying some truth depending on the aproach and inner inclinations (configuration of consciousness) of the respective followers. But the totality of existence doesnt (cant be) bound into any specific ideological system.
I don't think that that defence really works. For example, Christianity teaches that God is very definitely a Trinity, while Islam teaches that he very definitely is not. These two things can't both be true. It doesn't make sense to say, for example, that part of God is a Trinity and another part isn't, just as part of an elephant is wrinkly and another part isn't. God isn't supposed to have parts at all. One might say that Christians and Muslims are both just describing God as he appears to them, as best they can, and that might be true, but it would still mean that at least one group of them is mistaken in their description of him.
I think what is happening is that every approach is higlihting specifical part of reality which it consideres usefull for its method and purpose. Or which comes becouse of the specific way the founder of the path felt inspired to approach the reality. If God represents some total reality its likely extremely vast field and no wonder if dealt with only superficially it can lead to many disagreements. Islam just doesnt need to feel reason to discriminate this reality into three parts whereas Christianity may find reasons to do so. Buddhism doesnt need to feel like approaching this reality in any personal matter, while Hinduism can put stress on unlimited forms of one single original reality. On the top of that since the Reality isnt limited to physical reality its mental conception is bound to be only sort of practical aproximation.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Why did you choose "Plotinus" as your user name? What draws you to him?
