The debate with Church of Entropy everyone said I lost

1:00 CHURCH OF ENTROPY'S CASE FOR AN IMPERSONAL GOD

I will be presenting the position that God is impersonal. I will first explain the importance of the God concept in social engineering then I will demonstrate the existence of an impersonal God and finally argue in favor of the effects of the belief in an impersonal God. 

The dawn of human civilization is indistinguishable from the advent of theocracy, that is all human cultures have historically had some type of religion along with precipitating shared worldviews and ideological convergence, religion gives shared ideals to a people and the highest among is that of God. Thus a civilization's view of God is largely determinative of its ultimate destiny. In general the God concept ties together the idea of a supreme source of creation, life and consciousness with the idea of anthropomorphism which is the attribution of human qualities to God. The concept of a personal God thus necessarily represents some degree of anthropomorphism. Within a religion, the qualities of God expressed the highest sociological ideals whether people are aware of it or not. They strive to emulate the qualities of the supreme personality of God. This is why Hindus imitate the personality of Krishna and Christians imitate the personality of Jesus. There is nothing beyond God and so the god ideal is the most important sociological ideal because it constrains the range of human achievement. If God can be proven to exist, this will certainly strengthen people's faith in God. Thus we will attempt to prove the existence of the impersonal God. In order to prove such a thing, we must first define what exactly we mean by God and thereby determine what entity if any meets these criteria. We assert that God must be uncreated, the creator of all things, undisturbed and eternal as well as perfect. 

We will now show how defining God as equal to the universe satisfies these criteria. By equating God to the universe, the laws of God therefore become the laws of physics. We start off with the uncreated. The universe is itself uncreated. Because the universe contains mass and mass is subject to the law of conservation, whatever mass exists within our universe must be uncreated for if it were created it would require a creator, and we have no evidence for such. Thus the totality of the mass and the universe is uncreated and therefore so is God. 

God is the creator of all things because through God's immutable laws the universe creates all observable things. The laws of the universe being God's laws certainly exist. The laws of chemistry and physics predict the changes observed in all matter. Thus all things that are observable are observable because of God's laws, for instance, the mechanism of star formation mentioned in the article displayed can be demonstrated to be a confluence of the laws of uncertainty and gravity: God's laws. Nothing is truly created or destroyed. The universe and its laws are uncreated and the laws of the universe dictate the procession of all things that emerge within the universe.  

So we have proven that God is the creator of all things in the universe because all things created in the universe are changes to the mass distribution of the universe because the mass itself is conserved. 

Now we will prove that God is eternal and unchanging due to conservation of mass. The mass in the universe cannot be destroyed and so the mass comprising the universe is eternal the periodic table does not change with time and so is also eternal. Therefore God is eternal. 

Now we will prove that God is perfect. We have to define what perfect means first off and so I use the quality of symmetry, the quantum mechanical periodic table. The smallest space-time event is certainly symmetric and so satisfies this criterion. Since humans find symmetry to be beautiful, the periodic table must also be beautiful because it is symmetric. Thus we have shown the proof of God's perfection. 

Thus we have shown that an impersonal God can be demonstrated to exist. This officially makes me a pantheistic panentheist panpsychist monotheist, technically.It was only through the worship of an impersonal God that I was able to deduce this depiction of the periodic table in its true form. Thus my knowledge is evidence in support of the utility of the belief in an impersonal God.  

Next we'll go to the pragmatic reasons why an impersonal God is a superior belief. The main reason why God should be viewed as impersonal is because attempting to personalise something that is not necessarily personal will impede someone's ability to observe its true nature. If you presume God is impersonal and later determine God to be personal based on your validated evidence you can easily change your mind. Our minds being personal themselves recognize personal entities far more easily than impersonal ones. In fact some people go as far as to say that an impersonal God is inconceivable. If you instead presume God is personal, you will have no way of understanding what it means for God to be impersonal and thus unable to accept this truth even if it is proven. 

The concept of God introduces a hard limit to our idealism. The personality of God is the supreme ideal and there is nothing we can conceive of which is beyond that. By imagining an impersonal God, the perceiver can start to think beyond the confines of their subjective ego. This process of mind expansion from entirely personal to part personal and part impersonal is integral to the practice of meditation which is a necessity for the manifestation of the perfecting of consciousness or enlightenment and this is certainly a desired sociological effect because enlightenment is the cessation of suffering. Societies that had a concept of an impersonal God have made more significant contributions to philosophy and science than those that did not. Personalizing God leads to numerous undesirable consequences such as supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God because God's personality is not manifesting the way you would like it to because God does not have a human personality and ultimately atheism. We cannot change the nature of God because God is unchanging . If we accept God as personal we will always be hindered by a personal ego in our search for God. However, if we accept God is impersonal, we open ourselves up to true realizations about the nature of reality and causality.

9:00  MY REBUTTAL

Jen has stated a number of very complicated ideas that I do not believe many people understand. I did not believe that the moderator herself understands all her talk about the periodic table and the symmetry of God and how the periodic table is evidence of God's beauty and perfection. These are unusual views not explicable within the time allotted which is only seven minutes. I have been told that I am to ignore though the things that are that cannot be understood by either the moderator or myself and only concentrate on what I do understand and managed to note down in the very brief speech. They are merely assertions as far as I can tell.

So Jen claims that there is utility in a personal God and as far as I can tell, did not explain the reasons. She said that a personal God causes war and imperialism and death and destruction but the reasons are not understood. I cannot rebut them in the sense that I cannot undermine the reasons because I have not been given reasons for her claims, so it is actually very difficult for me to operate under these very difficult conditions when I don't even understand the points that are being made and are not allowed to ask questions about the conclusions she bases her arguments on. It's not clear why why a personal god is destructive bringing war and imperialism and it is not clear why the impersonal God is better than a personal God and and why it would prevent war and destruction.

I don't quite see why the periodic table has to do with the impersonal God apart from the fact that the periodic table is not expected to care about us personally. I cannot see the reasoning behind it and if the moderator sees the reasoning on which Jen's arguments are based, I will be very grateful for the moderator's explanation of what Jen has just said. There's something about maths being eternal that she said and there's the mass distribution of the universe. These are all very technical issues which are not understood by the average person and for some reason I am  expected to understand all these questions when previously I haven't been able to understand it myself after many hours of asking Jen. I think it at the very least the terms of of what Jen is relying on should be understandable to at least a moderator. I really have no more to say on this matter other than I failed to understand Jen's position and I can't be expected to rebut something I can't understand using the reasonings that are not explained properly, but I'm happy to proceed with it and put up my case set up my case for a personal God, but that's the extent of the rebuttal I can do when I understand so little of what Jen is relying on. 

14:00  MY CASE FOR A PERSONAL GOD

God is a personal God because we have been told that He is a personal God or that the overwhelming majority of the opinion of God in the Abrahamic sense is a personal God. We can go to the Hindu system where where its God is also considered to be personal. This is something that is generally agreed on in Hindu circles ie that God is personal. Jainism explicitly states that all the gods in Jainism are personal. Now we come to the Abrahamic God. It's certainly true that Christians worship God through Christ and they pray to Christ and Christ is supposed intercede between themselves and God. Before that it was Mary so you know for Christians it's very very personal indeed. As for Islam, again this perception of God is it's personal. As for Jews, they have a prohibition against anthropomorphizing the nature of God because they believe God is pure spirit, is immaterial and is outside the universe after having created it. He is also considered to be omnipotent ie capable of doing anything and beyond human comprehension. He knows the hearts and minds of those who believe in Him and submit to Him which is His  personal nature. Worshipers are encouraged to have a personal relationship with God in order to more effectively follow His laws. We can assume that if a perfectly moral God exists as the Abrahamic God is said to do, we are also expected to obey His laws. We can only obey His laws if we know what they are and have a personal relationship in which to frame our prayers in terms of whether we have obeyed His laws or not. I suppose most people will only pray to God not out of gratitude for being alive but out of habit, but if they want something they will will ask God to grant them success in romantic and business endeavours etc. They would be referring to their previous behavior on how well or how badly they followed His rules and in so doing they will have a life that is examined in that they will have a conscience that tells them whether they deserve to have their prayers answered or not. This is what centers the individual onto a path of morality and awareness of God's laws. I simply do not see how worshiping an impersonal deity said not to care about whether we live or die is going to help us to be morally centered. It seems to me to be a waste of good divine resources. Believing God is personal if we chose to believe in God in this way would make us lead better lives, be better people and enjoy the spirituality that we would enjoy in having this personal relationship with God. I do not know how Jen prays to God but I can imagine it can only be an impersonal or automatic repetition of formulaic prayers which is not so much about examining one's life and one's past and one's conscience but leading to very little self-examination. For this reason I think believing in a personal God actually helps us to cultivate a sense of conscience and awareness of His laws as well as an awareness of how well or how badly we are obeying them. I do not quite see how believing in an impersonal God would would help keep the world a peaceable place. Obviously, if we as individuals are expected to follow of God's laws, we as nations are also expected to follow God's laws and there are rules of warfare that are in scripture in the Old Testament and the Koran. War is inevitable and must be regulated in its conduct, the conduct of which is stated in scripture. I think that it would be better for us to to limit ourselves in whatever atrocities we would commit on conquered peoples rather than do as our inclination dictates or expediency dictates, and for this reason rules written down sanctified by tradition and time would be more helpful in this regard than an impersonal God that left no scripture.

JEN'S REBUTTAL

Claire has indicated that she doesn't understand how an impersonal God can lead to a peaceful situation which is ironic because the world has been plagued by non-stop brutal conflict in war since the advent of the expansion of the personal Abrahamic God construct, so we certainly have evidence for a personal God causing war and destruction. Maybe it is less clear how to get evidence on how an impersonal God creates more peace but let's leave that for now and just address Clare's arguments. [NB: Jen admits she cannot address my criticism.]

So she opened with an ad populum fallacy that most people believe in a personal God because they are part of Abrahamic religions and therefore this is somehow an indication of its validity. I don't think this is a fair argument because the behavior of many of these people suggests they do not have very strong moral high-ground. Many scholars have indeed argued for an impersonal God within the Indian traditions. However, I do not think this is a viable line of interrogation because I do not feel that Westerners can really distinguish between the personal and impersonal God concepts. These are Hindu-type philosophies but more accurately are described as Vedic in origin, so we'll leave that. [Apparently, Westerners are to stupid too understand Hindu scripture and/or Jen is too lazy to explain it to us.]

Claire does not appear to mount much of a defense for a personal God asides appeals to utilitarianism. [What is wrong with being useful? How is an impersonal God more useful than a personal God? She herself used the utilitarian argument in her first speech ie that an impersonal God is more likely to encourage morality than a personal God, but did not explain how or why.]

Her arguments are mere justification for the existence of this imperialist, supremacist, dogmatic cult politically expanding to the ends of the earth, but I ask what about the ignoble wars that brought untold suffering among numerous people simply for being "idolaters" when propagators of these wars can just define idolaters any way they want?  [Jen betrays a visceral hatred of the Abrahamic faiths but does not make clear what war casualties of which war(s) she is referring to. Do idolaters never go to war with each other? What are these "ignoble wars" she is referring to? Who were the "propagators" of what wars who define idolaters any way they want?]

What about all the imperialism which Claire has many times defended as being a good thing? [I do indeed say that all great civilisations are great empires.]

I don't think that's very wise because we live on a finite surface and we cannot expand in perpetuity upon the surface. We must learn to live there as peaceably as possible. Claire has insisted that the Jews have a personal God, but if this is the case, how could this God have chosen them to be His people? [God had to choose someone. Here is a story I once told Jen about how God came to choose the Jews. 
https://www.aish.com/j/j/51478992.html]

The ability to make a choice implies one can change and an impersonal God would be unchanging, because the capacity to change or to change one's mind or to make a choice is a personal thing. Moreover, the personality of this entity appears to change quite drastically from the Old testament to the New. No answers regarding this dramatic shift in personality are forthcoming from Claire. [Did Jen ask me any questions that I did not answer?] Claire has suggested that an impersonal God will not bring about morality but Claire is actually just deflecting from the fact that her personal God has never brought about morality nor people obeying their own rules for any reason other than selfish materialism and it appears she has failed to grasp the totality of the argument that is being made here. 

Claire has the audacity to assert that I have not examined myself but how else did I find that the mind is a quantum computer if not through self inquiry? I must have had a pretty good mind to be able to figure out the source of its consciousness and the nature of its consciousness. I've done what no one else has done before me: I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what happens after death, thus I must have spent a large part of my life doing self inquiry, so I wonder why Claire is attempting to undermine me in this fashion when the position can be so easily defeated. I would like to thank you for coming to this debate and apologize for the lateness and most of all thank the moderator for her patience and wisdom guiding us forward in this. Debate is a very difficult subject so I hope that the material covered here hasn't been too upsetting for people.

3:00  Doooovid muddies the waters by pointing out that nobody else apart from Jen and I knew what we meant by a personal or impersonal God. It was in fact he who was confused, and this will come out in the wash in the next stream. All three streams on the subject are featured at https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-debate-everyone-said-i-lost-with.html


5:00  I ask to discuss morality because of Jen's claim that an impersonal God would encourage more morality than a personal God, but Jen merely tells me to read her blog. I define morality as a system of dos and don'ts for the purpose of keeping the group together and apart from others.

6:00  Doooovid drops a bombshell: he declares Judaism and Islam to have impersonal Gods and idolaters to have personal deities, explicitly including Christians.

7:00  I point out that Jen and I were clear about what we meant.

9:00  Doooovid confirms his confusion.

10:00  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions

12:00  Jon Vance joins.

13:00  Erika makes clear she did not understand Jen's position. She never stopped Jen when she talking though she said she would.

18:00  Erika admits that "there was quite a lot of stuff that she didn't quite understand", but she never asked a question though she said she would. Erika claimed I lost my train of thought but never said why. I basically said in my rebuttal that it was impossible to rebut something I did not understand and complained that I did not see the basis on which Jen based her claims even after many hours of questioning her on this on my channel.

20:00 Jon Vance makes a complicated point that no one understands.

21:00  Doooovid says Christian idolaters who worship an executed revolutionary have a personal God but Jews and Muslims have an impersonal God.

24:00  Jon Vance asks Doooovid if he thinks Christians are idolaters, Doooovid does not answer.

25:00  Jon Vance makes a very complicated theological point on idolatry.

27:00  Jen dismisses his question because reincarnation is real and implies that those who are not as enlightened as her waste her time asking questions that are counter-productive.

28:00  Jon asks Jen what she means by enlightenment. Jen starts to answer but Doooovid interrupts.

29:00  Jen defines what she means by impersonal.

30:00  Jon asks Jen about the goal being nirvana and implies that people who philosophise smoking weed under a tree are not conducive to this.

32:00  Gandalf said my performance was so poor that he considered switching to another channel.

33:00  I point out that not being able to understand Jen's ideas was an obstacle in rebutting them. Jen says it is my problem I don't understand them. I point out that the moderator herself did not understand them.

34:00  Moderator Erika claimed she did understand them and I invite her to explain her understanding. She said she was not clear on why the Periodic Table proves God's existence.

35:00  I point out that for the purposes of the debate, both Jen and I assumed the existence of God.

36:00  Erika says she didn't how God is impersonal and points out that the practice of science does not prove the existence of God.

38:00  Erika praises my courage in going against Jen whom she thinks is a professional debater, while I who was called to the Bar am not.

40:00  I invited Erika to agree with me that Jen did not explain why an impersonal God would encourage morality more than a personal God, but Erika says she cannot now remember what Jen said.

41:00  I ask that the question of whether an impersonal God encourages morality than a personal God be discussed.

42:00  Erika says she thinks bad things happen because people don't believe in God. Gandalf continues to mock my debating skills.

43:00  Doooovid points out that I have been legally trained and that the terms of debate were unclear. They were clear to Jen and I, however.

The terms of debate should have been this, in my view: "We should believe in an impersonal God because this would encourage more morality."

46:00  I again point out that none of us: Jen, Erika and me, had a problem with the terms of the debate.

48:00  I invite Jen to make out her claim that an impersonal God would encourage morality more than a personal God. I kick this off by giving my definition of morality. Jen tells me to read her blog.

49:00  Doooovid interrupts and says we should be debating about debating.

50:00  Erika thinks I am being a bad loser and tries to mollify me with praise.

51:00  I point out that there is a problem with this formal structure that bores people to death and prevents the message from being conveyed.

51:30  Doooovid says my arguments were illogical, unstructured and nobody followed what I was saying.

54:00  I point out that people don't care about the rules and it was pointless talking about talking about talking. I restated what my point, which I thought I had made in the debate: that a personal God who had made laws is more likely to encourage morality than the impersonal God Jen believed in who had left no scripture. Jen at no time explained how an impersonal God would be more likely to encourage morality than a personal God, she merely asserted it. 

55:00  Erika interrupts to say I had forgotten what I meant to say.

56:00  Doooovid interrupts Erika to say that everyone thought I had lost the debate.

57:00  I point out that Jen utterly failed to explain or prove that worshipping an impersonal God would be more likely to encourage more morality than worshipping an impersonal God.

58:00  Irrelevantly, Gandalf says Jay and I should get together and talks about how much he hates Secular Koranism.

1:00:00  Doooovid points out that he is off topic. Gandalf gives me zero points.  Jen says delightedly "Thanks, Gandalf!  Doooovid goes on to accuse me of not having a "flowable debate", whatever that means.

1:08:00  Jen says I did not tell stories enough.

1:09:00  Dooovid praises Jen for recognising my alleged ad populum fallacy but fails to mention that Jen has not proven her case that an impersonal God is more likely to encourage morality. He also failed to recognise that I was never given an opportunity to ask Jen on what basis she came to this conclusion because, as far as the rigged rules of the debate were concerned, the debate had ended. My attempt to get Jen to prove this point has also been repeatedly ignored and derailed, and this stream and the next is evidence of it.

1:12:00 Jen says we should not talk over other people. Let us see how well she adheres to this rule or enforces it in her next stream!

1:13:00  Con Opps would have given a different view about my performance but was deliberately excluded. Jen's sense of fair play is being displayed here to good effect, is it not?

NOTICE HOW DOOOOVID AND JEN TALK OVER ME AS IF IN CONCERT AND ALLOW ANY AND EVERY STUPID INTERRUPTION IN THE HOPE OF DERAILING ME

1:35:00 What Jen and I meant by God being personal or impersonal was not in dispute between the two of us. It was Doooovid who muddied the waters by saying that God was impersonal, which is quite simply incorrect. Any Jew would be familiar with the 13 Principles of Judaism. The 10th principle of Judaism states that God is omniscient.  

http://web.oru.edu/current_students/class_pages/grtheo/mmankins/drbyhmpg_files/GBIB766RabbLit/Chapter9Maimonides13Princ/index.html

I believe by complete faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, knows every action done by each human being as well as all their thoughts, as it was said, "It is He that fashions their hearts together and He ponders all their deeds" [Ps. 33:15]. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/worship/prayer_1.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#Hinduism

1:39:00  For some inexplicable reason, Doooovid waffles on about God's personality.  

1:40:00  God has attributes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions

The Abrahamic God in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common attribute of all three traditions. God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice, omni-benevolence and omnipresence. Proponents of Abrahamic faiths believe that God is also transcendent, meaning that he is outside space and outside time and therefore not subject to anything within his creation, but at the same time a personal God, involved, listening to prayer and reacting to the actions of his creatures.

1:43:00  Jen waffles nonsensically and I demand that she repeat what she said. She refuses because she cannot.   

1:44:00 Jen says the Universe is God.  

1:46:00 Jen says the Universe is God, again.

Nonsensically, she says "Our hearts and minds count as a subset of the Universe."

Jen invites me to agree with her. I say I don't know what she means.  

Jen invites me to agree with her that the galaxy we live in is a subset of the Universe. I agree.  

"Earth is a subset of the Universe," Jen continues. "Everything is an oscillating harmonic of God."

"Whether God knows everything depends on what you mean by know," says Jen mysteriously, and inexplicably talks about panpsychism.

2:09:00  Jen babbles nonsensically.

I would say that as humans our conception of God is limited by our human understanding so regardless of the ultimate nature of God we're going to personalize God through the lens of our ego and if you accept my definition of God that God equals the universe then there's no such thing as a permanent personality and so God would sort of see all time in some sense simultaneously and minor fluctuations like a temporary human personality maybe wouldn't be recognized as personal to this entity because it does no means to distinguish between living and nonliving flesh so you could possibly construct that argument but again there's the challenge of setting up these definitions which I think this conversation has really shown us how difficult it is to just agree on definitions in the first place.

2:10:00  The attributes of God

2:15:00  God's Omniscience 

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/332555/jewish/Maimonides-13-Principles-of-Faith.htm

2:32:00  I point out that Dooovid is talking shit about Judaism. 

2:32:00  Doooovid says I don't have that many questions for his Ask the Rabbi streams.  Actually, I had a whole bunch of questions for him at https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/07/esoteric-doooovidims-w-claire-khaw.html

2:34:00 I point out that God's attribute of omniscience is at issue.

We were not disagreeing about the existence of God, but His nature.


We both employ utilitarian arguments because we would have to concede that God's existence is unprovable.


My utilitarian argument is that belief in a personal God tends to make us more moral because belief in God necessitates obedience to His laws.


Her utilitarian argument is that an impersonal God would encourage morality more than a personal God. Jen does not demonstrate how and why though.

So now everyone acknowledges the existence of God and His impersonal nature, it seems. Or is it just the supporters and subscribers of Church of Entropy?


How many of them even understand her arguments?


How many of them see them as valid?


Do any of them understand the concept of a valid argument?


Do they care?  Of course not.


In reality, most men will support any woman they find attractive and withhold their support from a woman they find unattractive irrespective of the merits of her argument, because the attractive one gives them pleasure while the unattractive one does not.


This is precisely why women should not be in politics.


Not only am I older than Church of Entropy, I am not the right white race. That is why they will find her arguments, however nonsensical, more worthy of their support than mine.


Who was the Moderator? A woman with fewer subscribers who hopes to increase her subscribers through streaming with Church of Entropy?


Then there was Doooovid the Jew who is allowed to dominate all her streams. A pretty woman prepared to platform him? Of course he will never say anything that might offend her.


And Gandalf who is suffered to be given a platform on her channel even when he suffers from social retardation, whose ideas are mediocre in the extreme, coupled with an obvious inability to control his emotions.


Clearly, these people have their own reasons for supporting Jen. This is how the West is run, currently. Westerners have made very clear their preferences: JEN'S RULES RULE.


Even Jay Walker says he doesn't give a damn about the arguments and even berated me for participating in the debate because I had obviously lost. Did you see him pop up to defend Jen in the chat?


This is why the morals of the men of the West are an unflushed toilet.