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?

[POI]

We've had these exchanges before. The time to believe that something exists is after demonstration. Has "immaterial being(s)" actually ever been demonstrated anywhere, or, instead only asserted/inferred/postulated/hypothesized/other?

This seems to be the first point we need to discuss. What do you mean by “demonstrate”? Science involves inferences to the best explanation as well, so are you saying that scientific claims aren’t “demonstrated” anywhere?

As a refresher... I am not allowed to merely infer blackholes, dark matter, or dark energy, as we have had no direct demonstrable experience(s). Likewise, you are then not allowed to merely infer "immaterial beings" unless you can provide demonstrable experience(s). Can "immaterial beings" actually be demonstrated, or merely inferred? If they can be demonstrated, would you mind doing so?

We might be talking past each other a bit here. An inference to the best explanation (also known as abduction) is a reasoning process where one chooses the hypothesis or theory that best explains a set of observations or evidence. When saying science involves inferences to the best explanation, I'm not just talking about blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, but evolutionary theory, astronomy, climate science, etc. Is this what you mean by having "direct demonstrable experience(s)"?

We could be getting into murky waters because one could always argue that nothing is ever really "demonstrated" outside our own existence/etc.... I guess maybe the best way to move forward would be for you to just to present what you feel is actual 'demonstration' for an immaterial being, and go from there?

[Dimmesdale]

1. Why did God create anything at all?

He never did. Everything, all energies, both sentient and insentient, always existed. Perhaps you mean "why did God MANIFEST anything at all?" - For his own Enjoyment and Sportive Play. And to please his devotees and all creatures. In a word, Love. But perhaps you are stuck at the level of the first question, as most people are.

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

God lived in his unbounded Present, the Spiritual World, Vaikuntha. And it is Because the Spiritual World is Bordered by Eternal Time, that it, too, is Eternal. Time, in other words, is a type of Benchmark. God is not IN Time, but Time Exists alongside Him, and is the proper benchmark ruler, to show the limitless "contiguity" of the Eternal World. Otherwise, how can you not say that God ever had his proper time to be, before he was virtually compelled to Act and "create" the material world?

[William]

1. Why did God create anything at all?

He never did. Everything, all energies, both sentient and insentient, always existed. Perhaps you mean "why did God MANIFEST anything at all?" - For his own Enjoyment and Sportive Play. And to please his devotees and all creatures. In a word, Love. But perhaps you are stuck at the level of the first question, as most people are.

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

God lived in his unbounded Present, the Spiritual World, Vaikuntha. And it is Because the Spiritual World is Bordered by Eternal Time, that it, too, is Eternal. Time, in other words, is a type of Benchmark. God is not IN Time, but Time Exists alongside Him, and is the proper benchmark ruler, to show the limitless "contiguity" of the Eternal World. Otherwise, how can you not say that God ever had his proper time to be, before he was virtually compelled to Act and "create" the material world?

My answers to the 2 questions are.

1. Why did God create anything at all?

If the ability to do so exists, then "why" is answered in the ability to do so.

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

There would be no "other" until the "other" was created and the need to create it became apparent.

The ongoing argument is the claim that God is immaterial. What are your thoughts on that being/not being the case, Dimmesdale?

My argument is that all (including Mind/God) is material (even if present science is unable to detect and measure) and that the notion of immateriality is an unnecessary form of separatism.

[The Tanager]

We could be getting into murky waters because one could always argue that nothing is ever really "demonstrated" outside our own existence/etc.... I guess maybe the best way to move forward would be for you to just to present what you feel is actual 'demonstration' for an immaterial being, and go from there?

My standard is certainly not 100% certainty. We need to at least agree that "demonstration" doesn't mean "scientifically demonstrated" or "physically demonstrated" before moving on to the actual demonstration, though. Do you agree with that? Or do I need to provide arguments to convince you of that?

[Dimmesdale]

The ongoing argument is the claim that God is immaterial. What are your thoughts on that being/not being the case, Dimmesdale?

My argument is that all (including Mind/God) is material (even if present science is unable to detect and measure) and that the notion of immateriality is an unnecessary form of separatism.

God is certainly not material. He is all-spiritual. However, by God's inconceivable power, He can manifest a form that looks, seems and acts material, but is actually the opposite. We can perceive this form if our eyes are smeared with the ointment of love, or inspired perception. Otherwise, the form does look like another material form. God can convert spirit into matter, and matter into spirit, as he sees fit. God, being absolute, not relative, everything to Him is Spirit. For us, lowly fallen souls, some things are material and others non-material. God is Absolute Truth. There is no variance with him.

[William]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #75]

God is certainly not material. He is all-spiritual. However, by God's inconceivable power, He can manifest a form that looks, seems and acts material, but is actually the opposite. We can perceive this form if our eyes are smeared with the ointment of love, or inspired perception. Otherwise, the form does look like another material form. God can convert spirit into matter, and matter into spirit, as he sees fit. God, being absolute, not relative, everything to Him is Spirit. For us, lowly fallen souls, some things are material and others non-material. God is Absolute Truth. There is no variance with him.

The dialogue between material and immaterial existence is a profound exploration of how humans perceive and divine the nature of reality. The traditional theological insistence on separating material and immaterial states often stems from an attempt to elevate God or ultimate reality beyond the limitations of the observable universe. Materiality is frequently associated with imperfection, transience, and constraints, while immateriality is positioned as a symbol of transcendence and absoluteness. However, this dichotomy relies heavily on speculative assumptions rather than observable evidence. Material existence, as something directly accessible and verifiable, offers a coherent framework where complexity and unknowns can be addressed without invoking a separate immaterial domain. God, or ultimate reality, need not be framed as emerging from material or immaterial, but as a unified reality encompassing both aspects without distinction or separation.

Rather than viewing material and spiritual as opposing forces or hierarchical states, they might be understood as complementary perspectives on a single, indivisible reality. The material refers to what is observable and measurable, while the spiritual captures subjective experiences, interpretations, and meanings that provide depth to existence. In this view, spiritual phenomena could be seen not as emergent from materiality in a causal sense but as intrinsic expressions of the same unified whole. By dissolving the need to categorize reality into material or immaterial, this perspective aligns with a more cohesive worldview where all aspects of existence are deeply interconnected and inseparable.

The idea of inspired perception, often linked to divined grace or love, is another area where the material-immaterial dichotomy is invoked. Such experiences are described as profound or beyond ordinary explanation, giving rise to the assumption of separate immaterial origins. However, these heightened states of awareness could equally reflect the mind’s capacity to divine deeper patterns and meanings within the unity of existence. Inspired perception, then, might expand our understanding of this unified reality rather than suggesting a bifurcation into material and immaterial realms.

Similarly, the notion that God transforms spirit into matter or matter into spirit introduces unnecessary complexity. Within the framework of a unified existence, such transformations are not needed, as all forms and phenomena are expressions of the same underlying reality. Claims of transformation might better serve as metaphors for shifts in human understanding, perception, or consciousness. Simplicity and coherence should guide our explanations, and positing dualistic distinctions between material and immaterial obscures the indivisible nature of reality.

The narrative of human limitation, often framed as a "fallen" state, further complicates this discussion. This perspective implies that humanity's fragmented understanding creates the illusion of duality, leading to distinctions such as material versus immaterial. However, these distinctions may reflect cognitive biases and attempts to grapple with the unknown, rather than inherent truths about existence. As understanding deepens, what was once labeled as "immaterial" might increasingly be recognized as part of the same undivided reality, rendering such labels unnecessary and reductive.

Ultimately, framing reality in terms of material versus immaterial may serve poetic or symbolic purposes, but it risks distorting the essential unity of existence. When all phenomena are understood as expressions of a singular reality—whether perceived as God, Mind, or the cosmos—there is no need to distinguish between material and immaterial. Instead, such categories may be placeholders for human attempts to articulate the ineffable. This reframing invites a profound reevaluation of spirituality, theology, and philosophy, emphasizing the inseparability of all aspects of existence and embracing the unity that transcends artificial distinctions.

[POI]

We could be getting into murky waters because one could always argue that nothing is ever really "demonstrated" outside our own existence/etc.... I guess maybe the best way to move forward would be for you to just to present what you feel is actual 'demonstration' for an immaterial being, and go from there?

My standard is certainly not 100% certainty. We need to at least agree that "demonstration" doesn't mean "scientifically demonstrated" or "physically demonstrated" before moving on to the actual demonstration, though. Do you agree with that? Or do I need to provide arguments to convince you of that?

It's kind of like asking the interlocutor, do you promise you will not get mad?, or, do you promise you won't tell on me? Until I hear what you have, I do not know how I will actually receive the information. In an effort to move this discussion along, let's just see what you've got. If I'm not convinced by your given data, I'll tell you why it is not convincing for me.

What 'evidence(s)/other' suggests immaterial being(s) exist?

[Dimmesdale]

The dialogue between material and immaterial existence is a profound exploration of how humans perceive and divine the nature of reality. The traditional theological insistence on separating material and immaterial states often stems from an attempt to elevate God or ultimate reality beyond the limitations of the observable universe.

Quite right. We are meant to elevate God, or ultimate reality, beyond the limitations of what we can empirically observe. But why? Not because of some vanity on our part, but because, those of us who have perceived something of the essence of God (all mystics, rishis, seers and yogins throughout the span of ages) know that God is Nothing like anything material, but is utterly transcendent in essence. The duty is laid upon us to assert that God is non-material. It isn't based on speculation, but on perceivable fact. All those who partake of the perennial philosophy, regardless of particular religion, recognize this. For them, as for me, it would be foolish to assert otherwise.

Materiality is frequently associated with imperfection, transience, and constraints, while immateriality is positioned as a symbol of transcendence and absoluteness. However, this dichotomy relies heavily on speculative assumptions rather than observable evidence.

We observe that matter is dull and inert. The opposite of consciousness. Otherwise, would you be willing to admit a grilled cheese sandwich is conscious? Perhaps if you were a panpsychist. But, evidence-wise, there is no reason to assert this as the default position. It is natural to suppose that matter is inert. So how can it be conscious? Clearly consciousness, or spirit, is superior and matter inferior. We value persons, not objects.

I will continue this later.

[William]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #78]


Dimmesdale, your response touches on some of the themes I raised, but it seems to bypass key elements of the perspective I proposed. While you reaffirm the traditional theological insistence on God’s transcendence and immateriality, you do so without fully engaging with the possibility of a unified reality that dissolves the need for such distinctions. You emphasize the insights of mystics and seers who describe God as utterly non-material, yet this perspective, though profound, does not address the alternative I suggested: that material and spiritual might not be opposites but complementary expressions of the same indivisible reality.

Your assertion that matter is dull and inert, and thus fundamentally distinct from spirit or consciousness, raises questions about the assumptions underlying this perspective. You use the rhetorical example of a grilled cheese sandwich to illustrate the absurdity of equating materiality with consciousness. However, this sidesteps the deeper inquiry into the nature of consciousness itself. Is consciousness truly the opposite of matter, or might it be an intrinsic quality of existence that manifests in ways we do not yet fully understand? While panpsychism may seem far-fetched to you, dismissing it outright without engaging with its premises risks reinforcing dualistic assumptions without sufficient exploration.

Your framing of spirit as superior and matter as inferior also appears to conflict with my argument that such hierarchies arise from cognitive biases rather than inherent truths. The valuation of persons over objects, which you reference, does not necessarily mandate a dualistic view. Instead, it might reflect a subjective prioritization based on human experience rather than an ontological separation of spirit and matter. By positing that consciousness, or spirit, is superior, you reinforce a dichotomy that my earlier reflections aimed to dissolve.

Moreover, your reliance on the testimony of mystics and the perennial philosophy to assert the non-material nature of God is compelling as a historical and spiritual tradition, but it does not directly address the possibility that such experiences could reflect the mind’s capacity to perceive deeper patterns within a unified existence. Inspired perception, as I suggested, need not point to a separate immaterial domain but could instead expand our understanding of the interconnectedness of all phenomena.

Ultimately, your response seems to restate the traditional separation of material and immaterial without critically engaging with the possibility that such distinctions are human constructs rather than reflections of reality itself. If we can view existence as a singular, unified whole, the need to distinguish between spirit and matter dissolves, along with the hierarchical implications such distinctions carry. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this reframing of reality as an indivisible unity, where God—as ultimate reality—encompasses and transcends without division or opposition.

[The Tanager]

It's kind of like asking the interlocutor, do you promise you will not get mad?, or, do you promise you won't tell on me? Until I hear what you have, I do not know how I will actually receive the information. In an effort to move this discussion along, let's just see what you've got. If I'm not convinced by your given data, I'll tell you why it is not convincing for me.

What 'evidence(s)/other' suggests immaterial being(s) exist?

It's nothing like that. It's me saying that I'm not giving a scientific argument (although science does inform the argument). Some people believe science is the only way to truth. So, it's me avoiding the possible wasting of your time by giving a philosophical argument, if you think something like "even if all that were true, it's not science, so it's not rational to believe".

But I'll move on. I might get to it tonight. Definitely by this weekend.