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
I will be presenting the position that God is impersonal.
[Statement of Intention]
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.
[Statement of Intention]
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.
[This seems to be saying that religion is necessary for society and all advanced civilisations had a religion of some sort. I am not going to quarrel with this.]
Thus a civilisation's view of God is largely determinative of its ultimate destiny.
[This seems to be saying that the Abrahamic faiths have a common eschatology, and I am not going to quarrel with this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology]
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. [This seems to be saying that God is supposed to be the Creator and that God has been given human qualities because Christians are told they must worship God through the method of talking to Jesus. I am not going to quarrel with this.]
The concept of a personal God thus necessarily represents some degree of anthropomorphism.
[I disagree with this statement because the Abrahamic God is supposed to be omniscient, and is supposed to know our hearts and minds.
10th Principle of Judaism: I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, knows all the deeds of human beings and all their thoughts, as it is written, "Who fashioned the hearts of them all, Who comprehends all their actions" (Psalms 33:15).
3rd Principle of Judaism: I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, has no body, and that He is free from all the properties of matter, and that there can be no (physical) comparison to Him whatsoever.]
Within a religion, the qualities of God expressed the highest sociological ideals whether people are aware of it or not.
[The word "sociological" is redundant because the sentence would have been clearer without this word. I am not going to quarrel with this.]
They strive to emulate the qualities of the supreme personality of God.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Attributes_of_Mercy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam I am not going to quarrel with this.]
This is why Hindus imitate the personality of Krishna and Christians imitate the personality of Jesus. [https://vedicfeed.com/10-qualities-of-lord-krishna/ These qualities are indeed desirable
Jesus was known for turning the other cheek. Do people relish being slapped? Would many people want to be crucified in order to become the co-equal of God. Half of this claim is therefore dubious.]
There is nothing beyond God and so the god ideal is the most important sociological ideal because it constrains the range of human achievement.
[The purpose of this statement is not clear, other than to suggest that human achievement cannot exceed God's, which we must already know.]
If God can be proven to exist, this will certainly strengthen people's faith in God.
[This is actually nonsensical, because if we knew for a fact that God exists, faith would become redundant.]
Thus we will attempt to prove the existence of the impersonal God.
[Statement of intention]
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.
[This is another nonsensical statement because any list of attributes can be imagined of God, but if He exists in the terms stated in scripture, He would never be available for us to dissect at an autopsy.]
We assert that God must be uncreated, the creator of all things, undisturbed and eternal as well as perfect.
[That is how the Abrahamic God is described.]
We will now show how defining God as equal to the universe satisfies these criteria.
[Statement of Intention not performed.]
By equating God to the universe, the laws of God therefore become the laws of physics.
[How does equating God to the universe in defiance of the traditionally stated attributes of the Abrahamic God conjure God into existence? It would be no different to my saying that a box of frogs is God just because I say so.]
We start off with the uncreated. The universe is itself uncreated.
[There are two schools of thought:
1) The Universe was created by God.
2) The Universe exists alongside God.
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.
[Jen seems to be saying that because she assumes the Universe to be uncreated, therefore God that exists alongside the uncreated Universe must also be uncreated. But that does not take us any further, does it?]
God is the creator of all things because through God's immutable laws the universe creates all observable things.
[Jen now inexplicably says after saying that the Universe is uncreated that God is after all the creator of all things. This is bemusing and comical. Unfortunately for me as regards winning the debate, I was unable to consider her words as carefully as I needed to in order to notice all these failures of logic and was expected to respond to it almost immediately. ]
The laws of the universe being God's laws certainly exist.
[Jen equates physical laws with God's laws after assuming that God is the Universe and/or was its Creator after saying the Universe is uncreated, fatally contradicting herself. Her entire premise is now clearly nonsensical.]
The laws of chemistry and physics predict the changes observed in all matter.
[I suppose this must be so.]
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.
[I never read that article on the mechanism of star formation referred to and wouldn't have understood it even if I had. In the rigged game of that debate, I was expected to absorb all Jen said within 7 minutes and formulate a rebuttal.]
Nothing is truly created or destroyed.
[Apparently, energy just gets moved about.]
The universe and its laws are uncreated and the laws of the universe dictate the procession of all things that emerge within the universe.
[How would Jen know about the laws of the universe being uncreated? The physical laws of the Universe must have been created by God if God created the Universe but if God did not create the Universe then the laws would have to be regarded as uncreated. Perhaps she means that cause and effect will determine human history. I wouldn't quarrel with the second half of the sentence.]
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.
[So, according to Jen, "God is creator of all things" even as she asserted earlier that the Universe - which is also God - was uncreated. Again, this is nonsensical.]
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.
[Because God is also the Universe and the Universe consists of mass which cannot be destroyed, God is eternal. Jews regard pantheism as heresy because God and His Creation must not be confused, or we will end up worshipping ourselves.]
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.
[Jen seems to be saying because the Periodic Table is symmetrical, it is perfect. Because the Periodic Table exists and is perfect, God exists and is perfect. None of these arguments are valid, let alone sound. Is the Periodic Table even symmetrical? http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/?gclid=CjwKCAjw7uPqBRBlEiwAYDsr1zGWfrkt5StEfDudutf6f8mbf7uYJrjD-yuJe9dtpf-RffgpRk8T4RoC5esQAvD_BwE]
Thus we have shown that an impersonal God can be demonstrated to exist.
[Only if the arguments Jen makes are sound, but they are not even logical, are they?]
This officially makes me a pantheistic panentheist panpsychist monotheist, technically.
[Why it is impossible for a Panentheistic God to exist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGXu0u06Lqs]
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.
[It is not clear what Jen means by the Periodic Table "in its true form".]
Thus my knowledge is evidence in support of the utility of the belief in an impersonal God.
[This is not explained at all.]
Next we'll go to the pragmatic reasons why an impersonal God is a superior belief.
[Statement of Intention]
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.
[Jen seems to think any human being could be in a position to observe God's "true nature", which is clearly unproven, unprovable because no one could possibly observe the "true nature" of God. Even if this were possible, no one would believe him or her as in the case of Jen, who clearly thinks she has observed God's "true nature" and thus accomplished the impossible.]
If you presume God is impersonal and later determine God to be personal based on your validated evidence you can easily change your mind.
[Jen is saying it is better to think less of God and find Him greater than to think of Him as great and find Him to be not as great, which would be disappointing. This is a sentiment that makes sense in utilitarian terms, but does nothing to prove that God is impersonal. It seems to me that Jen is saying that her non-Abrahamic God is probably closer to the truth than the all-singing and all-dancing power and glory of the fully-fledged Abrahamic God who might not even exist.]
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.
[Jen is saying that if you believe in the all-singing all-dancing power and glory of the fully-fledged Abrahamic God, you would find it difficult to worship an impersonal God. This is something I wouldn't quarrel with.]
The concept of God introduces a hard limit to our idealism.
[I actually have no idea what this means.]
The personality of God is the supreme ideal and there is nothing we can conceive of which is beyond that.
[Does God have a "personality", like a celebrity? If God is indeed a "personality", what kind of a personality is He? Extrovert or introvert? How many kinds of personalities are there? Could God have multiple personalities? If so would He have a personality disorder? These and thoughts of personality problems come to mind.]
By imagining an impersonal God, the perceiver can start to think beyond the confines of their subjective ego.
[I suppose it is entirely possible that praying to God makes us humble and less egotistical.]
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.
[Jen seems to be saying that meditation perfects her consciousness and makes her wise which would have the effect of helping her avoid pain. I am quite happy to subscribe to this theory.]
Societies that had a concept of an impersonal God have made more significant contributions to philosophy and science than those that did not.
[This is not proven and in any case cannot be measured objectively.]
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.
[Jen seems to be saying that believing in the Abrahamic God would lead to supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God if He does not grant our wishes as soon as we would wish.]
We cannot change the nature of God because God is unchanging .
[Attempting to change the nature of God would be presumptuous indeed.]
If we accept God as personal we will always be hindered by a personal ego in our search for God.
[Apparently, we are not worshipping God correctly if we don't do it Jenny's way.]
However, if we accept God is impersonal, we open ourselves up to true realisations about the nature of reality and causality.
[This is mere assertion.]
I cannot find any single sound argument here, can you?
Transcript of the stream on valid and sound arguments deleted by Church of Entropy
The debate with Church of Entropy everyone said I lost
A valid is an argument that is logical. This particularly applies to hypothetical situations.
A sound argument is one that is both logical and true.
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
I will be presenting the position that God is impersonal.
[Statement of Intention]
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.
[Statement of Intention]
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.
[This seems to be saying that religion is necessary for society and all advanced civilisations had a religion of some sort. I am not going to quarrel with this.]
Thus a civilisation's view of God is largely determinative of its ultimate destiny.
[This seems to be saying that the Abrahamic faiths have a common eschatology, and I am not going to quarrel with this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology]
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. [This seems to be saying that God is supposed to be the Creator and that God has been given human qualities because Christians are told they must worship God through the method of talking to Jesus. I am not going to quarrel with this.]
The concept of a personal God thus necessarily represents some degree of anthropomorphism.
[I disagree with this statement because the Abrahamic God is supposed to be omniscient, and is supposed to know our hearts and minds.
10th Principle of Judaism: I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, knows all the deeds of human beings and all their thoughts, as it is written, "Who fashioned the hearts of them all, Who comprehends all their actions" (Psalms 33:15).
3rd Principle of Judaism: I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, has no body, and that He is free from all the properties of matter, and that there can be no (physical) comparison to Him whatsoever.]
Within a religion, the qualities of God expressed the highest sociological ideals whether people are aware of it or not.
[The word "sociological" is redundant because the sentence would have been clearer without this word. I am not going to quarrel with this.]
They strive to emulate the qualities of the supreme personality of God.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Attributes_of_Mercy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam I am not going to quarrel with this.]
This is why Hindus imitate the personality of Krishna and Christians imitate the personality of Jesus. [https://vedicfeed.com/10-qualities-of-lord-krishna/ These qualities are indeed desirable
Jesus was known for turning the other cheek. Do people relish being slapped? Would many people want to be crucified in order to become the co-equal of God. Half of this claim is therefore dubious.]
There is nothing beyond God and so the god ideal is the most important sociological ideal because it constrains the range of human achievement.
[The purpose of this statement is not clear, other than to suggest that human achievement cannot exceed God's, which we must already know.]
If God can be proven to exist, this will certainly strengthen people's faith in God.
[This is actually nonsensical, because if we knew for a fact that God exists, faith would become redundant.]
Thus we will attempt to prove the existence of the impersonal God.
[Statement of intention]
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.
[This is another nonsensical statement because any list of attributes can be imagined of God, but if He exists in the terms stated in scripture, He would never be available for us to dissect at an autopsy.]
We assert that God must be uncreated, the creator of all things, undisturbed and eternal as well as perfect.
[That is how the Abrahamic God is described.]
We will now show how defining God as equal to the universe satisfies these criteria.
[Statement of Intention not performed.]
By equating God to the universe, the laws of God therefore become the laws of physics.
[How does equating God to the universe in defiance of the traditionally stated attributes of the Abrahamic God conjure God into existence? It would be no different to my saying that a box of frogs is God just because I say so.]
We start off with the uncreated. The universe is itself uncreated.
[There are two schools of thought:
1) The Universe was created by God.
2) The Universe exists alongside God.
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.
[Jen seems to be saying that because she assumes the Universe to be uncreated, therefore God that exists alongside the uncreated Universe must also be uncreated. But that does not take us any further, does it?]
God is the creator of all things because through God's immutable laws the universe creates all observable things.
[Jen now inexplicably says after saying that the Universe is uncreated that God is after all the creator of all things. This is bemusing and comical. Unfortunately for me as regards winning the debate, I was unable to consider her words as carefully as I needed to in order to notice all these failures of logic and was expected to respond to it almost immediately. ]
The laws of the universe being God's laws certainly exist.
[Jen equates physical laws with God's laws after assuming that God is the Universe and/or was its Creator after saying the Universe is uncreated, fatally contradicting herself. Her entire premise is now clearly nonsensical.]
The laws of chemistry and physics predict the changes observed in all matter.
[I suppose this must be so.]
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.
[I never read that article on the mechanism of star formation referred to and wouldn't have understood it even if I had. In the rigged game of that debate, I was expected to absorb all Jen said within 7 minutes and formulate a rebuttal.]
Nothing is truly created or destroyed.
[Apparently, energy just gets moved about.]
The universe and its laws are uncreated and the laws of the universe dictate the procession of all things that emerge within the universe.
[How would Jen know about the laws of the universe being uncreated? The physical laws of the Universe must have been created by God if God created the Universe but if God did not create the Universe then the laws would have to be regarded as uncreated. Perhaps she means that cause and effect will determine human history. I wouldn't quarrel with the second half of the sentence.]
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.
[So, according to Jen, "God is creator of all things" even as she asserted earlier that the Universe - which is also God - was uncreated. Again, this is nonsensical.]
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.
[Because God is also the Universe and the Universe consists of mass which cannot be destroyed, God is eternal. Jews regard pantheism as heresy because God and His Creation must not be confused, or we will end up worshipping ourselves.]
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.
[Jen seems to be saying because the Periodic Table is symmetrical, it is perfect. Because the Periodic Table exists and is perfect, God exists and is perfect. None of these arguments are valid, let alone sound. Is the Periodic Table even symmetrical? http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/?gclid=CjwKCAjw7uPqBRBlEiwAYDsr1zGWfrkt5StEfDudutf6f8mbf7uYJrjD-yuJe9dtpf-RffgpRk8T4RoC5esQAvD_BwE]
Thus we have shown that an impersonal God can be demonstrated to exist.
[Only if the arguments Jen makes are sound, but they are not even logical, are they?]
This officially makes me a pantheistic panentheist panpsychist monotheist, technically.
[Why it is impossible for a Panentheistic God to exist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGXu0u06Lqs]
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.
[It is not clear what Jen means by the Periodic Table "in its true form".]
Thus my knowledge is evidence in support of the utility of the belief in an impersonal God.
[This is not explained at all.]
Next we'll go to the pragmatic reasons why an impersonal God is a superior belief.
[Statement of Intention]
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.
[Jen seems to think any human being could be in a position to observe God's "true nature", which is clearly unproven, unprovable because no one could possibly observe the "true nature" of God. Even if this were possible, no one would believe him or her as in the case of Jen, who clearly thinks she has observed God's "true nature" and thus accomplished the impossible.]
If you presume God is impersonal and later determine God to be personal based on your validated evidence you can easily change your mind.
[Jen is saying it is better to think less of God and find Him greater than to think of Him as great and find Him to be not as great, which would be disappointing. This is a sentiment that makes sense in utilitarian terms, but does nothing to prove that God is impersonal. It seems to me that Jen is saying that her non-Abrahamic God is probably closer to the truth than the all-singing and all-dancing power and glory of the fully-fledged Abrahamic God who might not even exist.]
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.
[Jen is saying that if you believe in the all-singing all-dancing power and glory of the fully-fledged Abrahamic God, you would find it difficult to worship an impersonal God. This is something I wouldn't quarrel with.]
The concept of God introduces a hard limit to our idealism.
[I actually have no idea what this means.]
The personality of God is the supreme ideal and there is nothing we can conceive of which is beyond that.
[Does God have a "personality", like a celebrity? If God is indeed a "personality", what kind of a personality is He? Extrovert or introvert? How many kinds of personalities are there? Could God have multiple personalities? If so would He have a personality disorder? These and thoughts of personality problems come to mind.]
By imagining an impersonal God, the perceiver can start to think beyond the confines of their subjective ego.
[I suppose it is entirely possible that praying to God makes us humble and less egotistical.]
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.
[Jen seems to be saying that meditation perfects her consciousness and makes her wise which would have the effect of helping her avoid pain. I am quite happy to subscribe to this theory.]
Societies that had a concept of an impersonal God have made more significant contributions to philosophy and science than those that did not.
[This is not proven and in any case cannot be measured objectively.]
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.
[Jen seems to be saying that believing in the Abrahamic God would lead to supremacism, imperialism and hatred of God if He does not grant our wishes as soon as we would wish.]
We cannot change the nature of God because God is unchanging .
[Attempting to change the nature of God would be presumptuous indeed.]
If we accept God as personal we will always be hindered by a personal ego in our search for God.
[Apparently, we are not worshipping God correctly if we don't do it Jenny's way.]
However, if we accept God is impersonal, we open ourselves up to true realisations about the nature of reality and causality.
[This is mere assertion.]
I cannot find any single sound argument here, can you?
Transcript of the stream on valid and sound arguments deleted by Church of Entropy
The debate with Church of Entropy everyone said I lost
A valid is an argument that is logical. This particularly applies to hypothetical situations.
A sound argument is one that is both logical and true.
No comments:
Post a Comment