2 Questions

[POI]

1. Why did God create anything at all?
2. What arena/space/other did God dwell within or upon before he first had to create it?

[marke]

God apparently dwelt in a place where time did not exist, suggesting His stay there was short.

where did God dwell before he had to create it?

I don't think humans can understand what it is like for God to dwell outside the human concept of time and space.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #85]

Dimmesdale, I find it interesting that you perceive fear or apprehension in my critique. I assure you that my position is not driven by fear but by a desire to question and understand the foundations of dualistic thinking. What you interpret as apprehension may, I suspect, reflect a sense of unease arising from the challenge my argument poses to the framework you hold dear.

If I may be so bold: perhaps your position is not motivated by fear per se, but by some desire to exalt and protect created nature, which I can admire and respect. It may be out of a sense of love and appreciation for matter that you wish to integrate it with spirit, and see in that integration something grand and pure, such that its conception causes you to dwarf dualism..... This is a perspective that I can completely understand, although it in and of itself does not refute dualism. Or, it may be that you see in it a greater, higher explanatory mechanism for how spirit and matter interact, which is also understandable. I do not see any incompatibility in my dualism for that. Matter and spirit can surely interface with one another. I do not see why one would have to "integrate" beyond that.

There is also a sense in which, by safeguarding an "integration" of matter and spirit, one staves off the fears of things like anti-natalism and an abandonment of the created order for being "obsessed" with a narrow, quietist, inward-looking introspection that is indifferent to the external world. However, in my religion, it is just the opposite. The more one is inwardly focused upon the internal energy of God, the more one strives, in that spirit of service, to be of the utmost Service to others, and expand that spirit of service more and more, utilizing all matter in God's service. This, is the way the world of Spirit "encroaches" upon the world of Matter. Spiritual wealth is not like material wealth. The former redounds back infinitely to the Giver, and multiplies incessantly, whereas the latter is of a marked and finite duration. And on the contrary, the more one is enamored with material, worldly wealth, the more one is keen, generally speaking, on his own self-interests, and becomes even more narrowed thereby; into small, circumscribed and ineffectual, yet most passionate, philosophies. On the contrary, those who are beholden to the depths of my religion are not slaves to despairing, anti-natalist philosophies, but expand life.

When I question the necessity of separating spirit and matter or assigning hierarchical value to them, it is not out of a need to defend materiality but to explore whether such distinctions genuinely reflect ultimate truth. Your dualistic metaphysics, while deeply rooted in your tradition, may rely on assumptions that are open to scrutiny. If my critique resonates as unsettling, I wonder if it might be worth considering whether this reaction reveals something about the fragility of dualistic distinctions in the face of a more unified perspective.

I do not feel threatened by your project. But, even if I were, that would not cast aspersions on the truth of Dualism, which I have yet to hear controverted by logic and reason. I am very much open to all sorts of scrutiny. You may hurl as many waves of critiques as you may. Notwithstanding, I feel generally secure that they will all break themselves on the sturdy rock of the truth of dualism, as I believe it represents a sturdy rationality that keeps things in their natural Distinction, without resorting to the irrational mysticism (which is, in the end, I fear, generally precipitated) that matter and spirit amount to the same thing.

Your description of the spiritual realm as so vastly superior to the material world that the latter is “denuded of value” brings to mind an interesting analogy. While I do not question that heavenly or transcendent experiences may feel profoundly superior to material existence, this comparison does not inherently support the dualistic framework you propose. It seems more akin to comparing the lifestyles of the wealthy to those of the homeless and claiming that the existence of the former renders the latter meaningless or redundant. Such judgments rely on relative perceptions rather than an inherent truth about importance or value.

I do not simply stake my claim based on "experiences" but metaphysical fact. There is such a place as Vaikuntha, and it is not material. You may disagree with that assessment, but, unlike you, I am not speculating, but grounding my claims on the basis of Scripture and authorities....

As for the rich and poor, both are conscious. Matter, on the other hand, is not.

In contrast, my framework avoids making such value-laden distinctions. It does not view one realm as inherently superior to another but rather sees all aspects of existence—spiritual with material—as relevant, integrated, and arising from the same foundational reality. Just as the rich and the homeless are both part of the human experience, the material and the spiritual are both integral to the wholeness of existence. Each has its place and role within the larger unity.
Rather than projecting fear or apprehension onto my position, I – once more - invite you to consider whether the separation you so firmly defend is necessary.

In order to consider whether my position that I so firmly defend is necessary, I would have to consider your alternative, which, I fear, I do not even have a coherent view as to..... I do not find it compelling or logical. You would have to first make your own case rather than invalidate my own.

I will say, though, that one possible criticism jumps out at me: the fact of "value-laden" distinctions or, as it were, "judgments." That one may grow to "despise" matter is itself an important thing to figure in, as it may grow fanatical.

To this I rejoin:

"Matter and Spirit -- Polar opposites. Yet for the very same reason, they align and meet, in the heart of the earth...."

Might it be possible to acknowledge distinctions without creating divisions or hierarchies? Could the unity I describe offer a more expansive understanding of reality, where matter and spirit are expressions of the same foundational truth rather than mutually exclusive realms? By embracing a more inclusive view that acknowledges the relevance of all phenomena without creating hierarchies, we might arrive at a deeper understanding of existence that transcends such judgments.

I await a more comprehensive explication of your theory.

[William]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #92]

Several aspects of your replies rely on logical fallacies rather than direct engagement with my critique. I point these out briefly for clarity:

“Perhaps your position is not motivated by fear per se, but by some desire to exalt and protect created nature…”

This is known as Straw Man Fallacy.

“Dualism, as I believe it, represents a sturdy rationality that keeps things in their natural Distinction.”

This is known as Circular Reasoning.

“There is such a place as Vaikuntha, and it is not material. You may disagree with that assessment, but, unlike you, I am not speculating, but grounding my claims on the basis of Scripture and authorities.”

This is known as Appeal to Authority.

I feel generally secure that they will all break themselves on the sturdy rock of the truth of dualism, as I believe it represents a sturdy rationality that keeps things in their natural Distinction, without resorting to the irrational mysticism.

This is known as False Dichotomy.

“The more one is enamored with material, worldly wealth, the more one is keen… on his own self-interests.”

This is known as Red Herring.

“I feel generally secure that they will all break themselves on the sturdy rock of the truth of dualism.”

This is known as Burden of Proof Fallacy.

Those who are beholden to the depths of my religion are not slaves to despairing, anti-natalist philosophies, but expand life.

This is known as Appeal to Consequences.

For Vaishnavas, those who follow the highest spiritual path, any admittance of materiality into worldview and praxis, can only spell a deadening of the spiritual impulse and a dampening of the Eternal Spiritual Atmosphere…

This is known as No True Scotsman Fallacy.

“Irrational mysticism,” “adulterating admixture,” “small, circumscribed and ineffectual philosophies.”

These examples are known as Loaded Language.

“I do not simply stake my claim based on ‘experiences’ but metaphysical fact. There is such a place as Vaikuntha, and it is not material.”

This is known as Begging the Question.

_______________________________

My critique is not primarily rooted in an emotional attachment to matter but in a philosophical examination of dualism as a conceptual framework. My argument is not about exalting materiality but questioning the necessity and validity of its separation from mind. If distinctions exist, as I agree they do, my position asks whether those distinctions must imply hierarchy or opposition.

Your confidence in dualism is clear, but this assertion presumes the validity of distinctions without critically examining their foundations. By framing dualism as the sole rational alternative to “irrational mysticism,” you present a binary choice that excludes other possibilities, such as a unified framework that recognizes distinctions without necessitating hierarchy. My critique challenges the assumption that these distinctions are inherent truths rather than human interpretations. I would invite you to consider whether the "sturdy rock" you defend might reflect cognitive constructs rather than ultimate reality.

I do not dispute the distinction between spiritual and material wealth, but I question whether this distinction requires a hierarchy that diminishes the value of material existence. In my view, material/mindful aspects of reality can be seen as complementary rather than oppositional. By framing material wealth as finite and self-centered, you implicitly suggest that the material world is inherently lesser. Yet, in a unified framework, the material could be viewed as an essential expression of the same foundational reality as the spiritual, with each aspect having its role and value.

My alternative to dualism proposes that spirit and matter are not opposites but interdependent aspects of a unified existence. Distinctions exist but arise from the same foundational source and do not require separation or hierarchy. Matter, in this view, is shaped and imbued with meaning by consciousness (or God’s Mind), making the distinction between them conceptual rather than intrinsic. This framework seeks to integrate rather than separate, honoring the relevance of all phenomena without creating opposition.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of a potential issue within dualism. The tendency to despise or dismiss matter arises precisely because of the hierarchical framework dualism creates. By framing the material as lesser or incompatible with the spiritual, there is a risk of fostering disdain for the created order. My alternative avoids this by reframing matter and mind as complementary, ensuring that neither is degraded or dismissed. In doing so, it effectively mitigates the risk of fanaticism by fostering a holistic appreciation of existence.

My critique does not deny the value of your perspective but seeks to explore whether a more inclusive and unified framework might better reflect ultimate reality. I look forward to your thoughts on these ideas.

To close, you invited me to provide a more comprehensive explanation of my perspective. I think the 12 points of what I call the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) will help articulate my framework and address some of the distinctions we’ve been discussing. Below, I’ve outlined its core principles and how they relate to our dialogue:

Co-Creation with GOD and Evolving Moral Truths: SGM posits that morality is a dynamic, co-creative process between individuals and GOD, evolving through engagement and alignment with divined values. This contrasts with fixed moral frameworks and reflects the integration of spiritual and material realms as part of a shared, interconnected reality.

Subjective Moral Authority: Moral discernment resides within individuals and their relationship with GOD, not external institutions. This internal moral framework allows for adaptability and integration rather than separation, fostering personal growth and alignment with GOD’s creative process.

Free Will and Human Experience: Free will is central to SGM, seen as a pre-birth agreement to experience humanity with its challenges and opportunities. This choice emphasizes co-creation and growth, with human actions distinct from direct divined influence, particularly in historical tragedies.

Forgiveness and Healing: SGM views forgiveness as an internal, spiritual process essential for realignment with divined values. This healing is not contingent on external acknowledgment but is integral to maintaining peace and continuing one’s spiritual journey.

Unity and Interconnectedness: A key distinction in SGM is its emphasis on the interconnectedness of all life, viewing material and spiritual as complementary rather than opposing. This perspective fosters inclusivity and ecological responsibility, integrating rather than separating aspects of existence.

Integration of Science and Spirituality: SGM values both scientific and spiritual exploration as complementary paths to understanding, rejecting the notion that material knowledge undermines spiritual truth.

GOD as a Subjective Presence: GOD is not an external authority but an internal, subjective presence discovered through personal experience and reflection. This presence is manifest in all forms of life, integrating consciousness and material reality as expressions of GOD’s creative will.

Divined Interaction through Synchronicities and NDEs: SGM posits that synchronicities and profound experiences like Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) are ways GOD interacts with individuals, providing guidance and aligning them with divined intentions.

These points highlight how SGM integrates distinctions between spirit and matter without creating hierarchical opposition. The material and spiritual are not mutually exclusive but interdependent aspects of GOD’s creative process, with all phenomena seen as expressions of a shared foundational reality.

SGM offers an alternative that integrates distinctions without imposing hierarchical or oppositional frameworks, emphasizing their interdependence within a unified reality.

At its core, SGM challenges the assumption that matter and mind (or spirit) must exist as separate and hierarchically arranged realms. Instead, it posits that all phenomena arise from the same foundational source and are best understood as interrelated expressions of GOD’s creative process. This approach avoids the tendency to diminish or dismiss one aspect of existence in favor of the other, fostering a more holistic and inclusive worldview.

I invite you to explore this framework and how it aligns—or conflicts—with your own worldview. I think it addresses many of the challenges posed by dualism while offering a coherent and inclusive perspective. Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate further on any specific point.


Link to the comprehensive version of the Subjective GOD Model (SGM)

[POI]

I don't think humans can understand what it is like for God to dwell outside the human concept of time and space.

Since you are a human, does this mean you are pulling random answers out of your keister here?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #77]

One argument for the existence of an immaterial being is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. We can take it one step at a time, but here is Craig’s full (basic) argument that will obviously need to be fleshed out with arguments for the various premises shown here:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause].
P4. If the universe has a cause, it must be uncaused, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, unimaginably powerful, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the universe is caused, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Unless I’ve made a silly mistake in writing it out, the argument is logically valid. But, we obviously have a lot of unpacking to do. Let’s take it one step at a time.

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Reasons for believing this premise is the most reasonable position (not 100% certain) on the matter:

1. The idea itself is incredulous, being worse than magic. With magic you have a magician pulling the rabbit out of the hat. With this, you'd have something, like the spatio-temporal universe, just popping into existence for no reason whatsoever. The only reason people would seem to believe such a thing is to avoid the conclusion of the KCA and is, therefore, ad hoc.

2. Even if something could and we just don't know it, it would be inexplicable why anything else or everything didn't just come into being out of nothing. This would mean that "nothing" is somehow discriminatory, favoring, say, a universe of coming out of nothing, but not a tiger. "Nothing" has no properties because it is not a thing at all. Neither can something constrain "nothing" to this narrow occurrence because there isn't anything to be constrained.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm its truth in every single known instance. In fact, modern science has this idea of causal conditions at its very center, so to reject this premise would be to reject much (if not all) of modern scientific understanding.

I have an open thread with (the KCA), near the top, if you want to engage there. I will also await your response from post 84 by William.

[The Tanager]

I have an open thread with (the KCA), near the top, if you want to engage there. I will also await your response from post 84 by William.

Okay. I'm actually in another one as well (Is the god of the gaps a sound argument?). I have already planned to respond to William's post there (since he first put it there anyway). It may be a little while before I can get to your thread, catch up, and see if I have anything to add.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to William in post #93]

William,

I am not directly engaged in arguing my position versus your position, as you have not even begun to describe your arguments against dualism, or done so very briefly. I am stating my own position and worldview.... If we were going to "debate" then that would be a different matter. As it stands, I am carving out my own position and what I hold to be true (as a sort of comparison of worldviews). If we wish to debate, on the other hand, please let me know, and show your arguments. Thanks.

[William]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #97]

Dimmesdale.
In your clarification about presenting your worldview, I must point out that this is a debate forum, and I have been actively engaging in a debate through critiques of dualism and the presentation of an alternative framework. Your invitation to formally debate and present arguments seems somewhat redundant, given that I have already been doing so.

Moreover, claiming not to have been debating while responding with counterpoints, philosophical assertions, and the use of debate tactics—some of which involve fallacies—suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of our exchange. As we are both long-time members of this forum, with substantial experience in discussions of this nature, it is reasonable to expect that you would engage fully in a debate when responding to critiques of your position.

Rather than repeating myself, I would suggest revisiting the critiques I have already offered and responding with a critique of your own that moves beyond presenting worldview alone. This would allow for a more robust and meaningful engagement with the philosophical issues at hand.

I look forward to your response and hope we can continue this discussion with a shared understanding of the purpose and nature of our exchange.

The Subjective GOD Model (SGM): A Materialist Framework for Understanding Reality

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #97]

Dimmesdale.
In your clarification about presenting your worldview, I must point out that this is a debate forum, and I have been actively engaging in a debate through critiques of dualism and the presentation of an alternative framework. Your invitation to formally debate and present arguments seems somewhat redundant, given that I have already been doing so.

Moreover, claiming not to have been debating while responding with counterpoints, philosophical assertions, and the use of debate tactics—some of which involve fallacies—suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of our exchange. As we are both long-time members of this forum, with substantial experience in discussions of this nature, it is reasonable to expect that you would engage fully in a debate when responding to critiques of your position.

Rather than repeating myself, I would suggest revisiting the critiques I have already offered and responding with a critique of your own that moves beyond presenting worldview alone. This would allow for a more robust and meaningful engagement with the philosophical issues at hand.

I look forward to your response and hope we can continue this discussion with a shared understanding of the purpose and nature of our exchange.

The Subjective GOD Model (SGM): A Materialist Framework for Understanding Reality

I'll admit I forgot that this was a debate forum. My bad.

As to our exchange, it is a cross-comparison of viewpoints, in my opinion. Honestly, I would not not know how to debate someone with such broad a discussion as this. That is why I pointed out motives for holding to different worldviews. Worldviews do not develop in a vacuum. We all hold to some basic premises, and I think we just differ about our own fundamental ones. That's all.

There are as many individual philosophies as there are grains on the beach. I wish you well in pursuing your own particular one. Stay Blessed.

[William]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #97]

Dimmesdale.
In your clarification about presenting your worldview, I must point out that this is a debate forum, and I have been actively engaging in a debate through critiques of dualism and the presentation of an alternative framework. Your invitation to formally debate and present arguments seems somewhat redundant, given that I have already been doing so.

Moreover, claiming not to have been debating while responding with counterpoints, philosophical assertions, and the use of debate tactics—some of which involve fallacies—suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of our exchange. As we are both long-time members of this forum, with substantial experience in discussions of this nature, it is reasonable to expect that you would engage fully in a debate when responding to critiques of your position.

Rather than repeating myself, I would suggest revisiting the critiques I have already offered and responding with a critique of your own that moves beyond presenting worldview alone. This would allow for a more robust and meaningful engagement with the philosophical issues at hand.

I look forward to your response and hope we can continue this discussion with a shared understanding of the purpose and nature of our exchange.

The Subjective GOD Model (SGM): A Materialist Framework for Understanding Reality

I'll admit I forgot that this was a debate forum. My bad.

As to our exchange, it is a cross-comparison of viewpoints, in my opinion. Honestly, I would not not know how to debate someone with such broad a discussion as this. That is why I pointed out motives for holding to different worldviews. Worldviews do not develop in a vacuum. We all hold to some basic premises, and I think we just differ about our own fundamental ones. That's all.

There are as many individual philosophies as there are grains on the beach. I wish you well in pursuing your own particular one. Stay Blessed.

Dimmesdale, thank you for your response and for acknowledging the context of this forum. While I understand your perspective on this exchange as a cross-comparison of viewpoints, I see philosophical discussions like these as opportunities to critically examine the assumptions underlying our positions. It’s through such engagement that we refine and challenge our own fundamental premises, which I believe is one of the great benefits of debate.

I appreciate your acknowledgment that worldviews do not develop in a vacuum. However, I would argue that this makes it all the more important to examine how those premises arise and whether they hold up to scrutiny. Simply attributing our differences to “fundamental premises” without further exploration leaves the deeper philosophical questions unresolved.

That said, I respect your choice to disengage and wish you the best in your own philosophical pursuits. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and engaging in this discussion. Stay well.