The Christians Idea of God

[OrthodoxBerean]

As I understand it Objectivism teaches that existence has primacy over consciousness. I agree. It must. Although, an objection to the Christian idea of God is that the idea of God creating is the same as the primacy of consciousness. I don't see how that follows necessarily.

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I read the problem with the primacy of consciousness is that it crontradicts the law of identity and existence itself. Correct? I cannot look at a rock and think "turn into a stone" and it do so. Although, that is only the case because of my nature. Abiding by the law of identity, I must act according to my nature.

If the nature of God allows him to create something from merely speaking it. It only does so because he has a specific nature and acts accordingly.

If I take clay I can that from that clay make a pot.

According to the Chrstian tradition all thing are from him. That which he has created is merely from himself. It was eternal in the sense that it came from him. He can't create just anything that he thinks of. He cannot create a married bachelor or square circle, because while he has a divne nature it is also a rational nature.

What he creates does indeed exist and has identity. I am not sure that God is ever said to do something that is in conflict with natural laws, which I believe also flows from his nature.

A point of clarification, I do not think that God IS all things I do think that all things came from him; much like in infant is from me but not me.

If God can be all things at any given time then the existents could be said to be from him and not necessasarily that he simply created soemthing out of nothing. The something the he created from was himself.

What do you all think?

[aleph_0]

I agree with your post, except that I reject the idea that the standard Christian belief is that god is beyond logic, that he created logic and can destroy logic. If, on the other hand, one claims that god is not omnipotent in what I call the naive sense (in which god has the power to create and destroy the laws of logic), then logic does not rule out his possibility. It only remains to be seen whether there is evidence for such an omnipotent being in what I call the mature sense (such as Jews define god's omnipotence).

[KendallJ]

What he creates does indeed exist and has identity. I am not sure that God is ever said to do something that is in conflict with natural laws, which I believe also flows from his nature.

A point of clarification, I do not think that God IS all things I do think that all things came from him; much like in infant is from me but not me.

What is your evidence for these claims?

If God can be all things at any given time then the existents could be said to be from him and not necessasarily that he simply created soemthing out of nothing. The something the he created from was himself.

Emphasis mine. That "nature" that you ascribe to God is non-nature. Being all things at all time is not having a particular nature, it is having no nature in particular. God violates the axiom of identity.

You can't simply use the law of identity to make up a "nature" and give it to God, nor can you use it to make up a nature which is contradictory to identity.

God is a non-sequitir.

[OrthodoxBerean]

I agree with your post, except that I reject the idea that the standard Christian belief is that god is beyond logic, that he created logic and can destroy logic. If, on the other hand, one claims that god is not omnipotent in what I call the naive sense (in which god has the power to create and destroy the laws of logic), then logic does not rule out his possibility. It only remains to be seen whether there is evidence for such an omnipotent being in what I call the mature sense (such as Jews define god's omnipotence).

Thanks for your response. I really didn't want to get into whether or not God exist as much as the logical consistency of what I am saying given the terms used and relavent context. It might be said that God is beyond logic in certain evangelical circles, but the more orthodox maintain the God is a rational being and that logic would be an aspect of his rational nature.

Thanks.

[OrthodoxBerean]

What is your evidence for these claims?

Emphasis mine. That "nature" that you ascribe to God is non-nature. Being all things at all time is not having a particular nature, it is having no nature in particular. God violates the axiom of identity.

You can't simply use the law of identity to make up a "nature" and give it to God, nor can you use it to make up a nature which is contradictory to identity.

God is a non-sequitir.

Ah, I see what you are saying, but I still think that there is no violation.

God, in himself, has all components (the stuff) that make up the natural. None of these are confused with each other. All are what they are in there respective identity. I would say that in God all was in potential until he brought them from himself and it became actuality. Just like in a seed is an oak tree in potential. In God was all that is in potenetial. When he created it it was what it is in actuality.

So I would not say that God is everything. I would say that God is A and in him exist ,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,... That which he used to create the world from himself could be taken from him without destroying his essential nature.

Just like I am A, but my heart is not A. As a matter of fact my heart can give life to someone else that is not me, but it was a part of me when with me. In this case since I am human and my nature depends on this part for me to have life my essential nature would be destroyed.

In God that which was used to create the universe is not something that would destroy his nature by allowing it to not be a part of himself. I guess it would be like a finger nail. It is a part of me but when removed from me does nothing to my essential nature.

My point is that I can conceive of God without saying that the existence of God must be the same is the primacy of consciuosness.

[aleph_0]

Just about every Christian I have spoken with has claimed that god is beyond logic, and I'm relatively certain it is also official Roman Catholic doctrine. It would make very good sense if it were the official doctrine of the East Orthodox Church. It is without doubt the official view of either the Sunnis or the Shi'as, but I'm not sure which. Maybe both. It is also without doubt not the view of Orthodox Jews--and most likely not the view of Conservatives or Reforms. Indeed, to my recollection Jews and deists are the only religionists I know to believe the mature sense of omnipotence.

[Chops]

My point is that I can conceive of God without saying that the existence of God must be the same is the primacy of consciuosness.

If God created existence, yet is a part of existence, that's the contradiction. God must exist outside of existence in order to create existence. He is an example of a consciousness independent of existence (primacy of existence).

That is the contradiction. God is a consciousness, and all consciousness must exist within existence. This is where God violates the primacy of existence. Nothing exists outside of existence.

For God to not be a contradiction, he must:

1) Follow the rules of the universe (ie, information is limited by the speed of light). Simply "Knowing" something without seeing it or having that information transmitted is not possible.

2) Have an identity: Finite size, shape.

Unfortunately, God, in it's current definition (that is, in it's lack of a definition) does not fit any of those. God is considered* to be outside the realm of existence, "infinite" in size scope and power (which makes no sense since infinity is another non-existent).

So God, aside from being an arbitrary assertion (being unverifiable and unprovable), is ultimately a contradiction of reality, in that it requires the assertion that some consciousness can exist independent of reality. Existence exists first. Consciousnesses must exist within existence.

* I use the word "considered" because there is no valid definition of God. This is because definitions require concepts, which ultimately require perception (a concept which does not hierarchically terminate at perceived reality is not a valid concept).

Edited February 8, 2008 by Chops

[KendallJ]

My point is that I can conceive of God without saying that the existence of God must be the same is the primacy of consciuosness.

You missed my first question. Your conception, no matter how gibberishy does not make it so.

[D'kian]

Remember Clarke's law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I'm open to the possibility of some advanced being litreally playing God in this planet by menas that are, as yet, beyond our comprehension.

Except there's not a shred of evidence that God, or a god, exists or has ever existed.

[softwareNerd]

To answer the kernel of the original question: I do not think it is correct to say that Objectivism rejects the notion of God because God represents a primacy of consciousness view. Replacing the term "because" with "and" would be more accurate. I think this might be the basic misunderstanding underlying the original post.

If God is the source and the creator of all, and if God is a consciousness, then this consciousness was primary. That's neither proof nor disproof of God. If one believes in this type of God, then one believes in the primacy of consciousness. If, on the other hand, one believes in a God that has to deal with some type of pre-existing constraint -- even if it is something as broad laws of logic -- then that's a different conception of God.

In either case, it's not fundamental to the question of God's existence or non-existence.

Edited February 8, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Steve D'Ippolito]

To answer the kernel of the original question: I do not think it is correct to say that Objectivism rejects the notion of God because God represents a primacy of consciousness view. Replacing the term "because" with "and" would be more accurate. I think this might be the basic misunderstanding underlying the original post.

I believe this is correct. My understanding is that the big Objectivist arguments against are that God is basically an arbitrary and that he cannot be outside of existence and yet exist. (This latter argument, of course, assumes that the universe that we see, galaxies, quasars, etc., which I will call "the cosmos", is the entirety of existence. Certainly if existence were bigger than the cosmos, something not in the cosmos could have created the cosmos. But since we can't see outside of the cosmos, the conjecture that something exists outside of it is an arbitrary speculation!)

If God is the source and the creator of all, and if God is a consciousness, then this consciousness was primary.

Yes, god's consciousness would be primary, but that doesn't imply OUR consciousness would be primary. I could imagine a situation where it would look to us like the cosmos were primary over our consciousness, and thus the consequences of "the primacy of existence" as Objectivists understand it, would follow perfectly--and yet that other consciousness would be primary over the cosmos. This would not contradict Objectivism, at least I cannot see how it would--other than that minor little detail of being arbitrary!

That's neither proof nor disproof of God. If one believes in this type of God, then one believes in the primacy of consciousness. If, on the other hand, one believes in a God that has to deal with some type of pre-existing constraint -- even if it is something as broad laws of logic -- then that's a different conception of God.

In either case, it's not fundamental to the question of God's existence or non-existence.

Entirely true. (You just forced me to edit my previous paragraph for clarity.)

Okay, that's my daily ration of playing with arbitrary speculation just to see where it goes and exercise my brain.

</silly arbitraries>