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?

[Dimmesdale]

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.

I am having trouble understanding where you are coming from. What exactly is it you have in mind? In my religion, God is the source of all energies, spiritual AND material. We may disagree that matter and spirit are polar opposites, but they are, in my view, both regarded as grounded in the divine. There is a place for matter, in other words. It is not meaningless.

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.

I am an unabashed dualist, but I do believe we bear a certain relationship to matter which should be honored and respected. True, matter is not our raison d'etre. An atom or molecule of, say carbon, can never be accorded the same Rights, Privileges, or Life as consciousness, but it can most certainly be used in the service of consciousness. I am not anti-matter in that respect. "Give us today our daily bread" is something I can most certainly dignify.

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.

I am not against the addition of matter to consciousness, to give it a certain present meaning. I am against valuing matter in and of itself, which is dull and insentient. Matter is 0 in my worldview. However, if you put 1 (consciousness) next to that 0, it becomes 10. Something substantive. So it is with matter and spirit.

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.

Matter has its place. You are correct that all phenomena are connected in a broader unified sense, and that, I will repeat, includes matter. But there is still hierarchy within this unity. Just as you have a King, and underneath the King are his lower ranking officers and ministers. There is nothing incongruous here as far as I can tell. It is still One Kingdom.

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.

I admire your project of seeing things in wholes. However, according to my religion, matter and spirit cannot be conflated. They can be united, even intimately and inter-relatedly so, but they can never be one-and-the-same. Otherwise, we would never differentiate between them from the outset.

[The Tanager]

[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.

[William]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #81]

Dimmesdale, I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding my position on hierarchy. My argument does not exclude hierarchy; rather, it reinterprets it within a framework where consciousness, or what you might call God’s Mind, shapes matter from itself. In this view, there is no need to degrade one aspect of existence in favor of another because both are integral expressions of the same unified reality. The distinctions that dualism draws between spirit and matter, while conceptually useful, may not reflect the ultimate nature of existence.

Your concern that matter might be accorded undue value or treated as equivalent to spirit seems to stem from a dualistic worldview where the two are inherently separate. My perspective challenges this separation by proposing that matter and spirit are not opposites but complementary aspects of a single reality. In this sense, hierarchy is not negated but is recontextualized. Consciousness, as the source of all phenomena, shapes and imbues matter with meaning. There is no inherent degradation of one by the other because they are not truly distinct.

What I find unclear, and what I hope we can explore further, is why dualism insists on these distinctions and hierarchies in the first place. If all energy—material and spiritual—is grounded in the divined, as you acknowledge, why does dualism persist in separating and ranking them? Could it be that this separation reflects human modes of categorization rather than reality truthfully divined? Dualism’s insistence on dividing spirit from matter might obscure the deeper unity that underlies their apparent differences.

To me, this unity dissolves the need for concern over hierarchy because it recognizes all distinctions as expressions of the same foundational reality. It does not erase differentiation but reframes it as arising from a shared source, with no real opposition or degradation involved. I wonder if, when viewed this way, the distinctions and hierarchies you defend might appear less as intrinsic truths and more as artifacts of human perception—useful for certain purposes but ultimately unnecessary in understanding what is divined.

Perhaps there is room to explore why dualism insists on its distinctions and whether such distinctions remain necessary when viewed through the lens of a unified whole.

Footnote on the use of divined:
My choice to use "divined" rather than divine is intentional and reflects an important distinction. The term "divine" carries an inherent bias, suggesting that theological or spiritual categorizations are intrinsically linked to God or ultimate truth. In contrast, divined emphasizes the act of human interpretation or discernment, whether theological, philosophical, or scientific. This usage challenges the presumption that dualist frameworks, which often label certain phenomena as "divine," inherently reflect ultimate reality. It highlights the interpretive nature of human understanding, acknowledging that categorizations arise from efforts to grasp and organize reality rather than representing truth in an absolute sense.

Furthermore, using divined broadens the discussion to include all interpretative frameworks, whether theological or scientific, as equally subject to scrutiny and reevaluation. This linguistic choice neutralizes any undue elevation of specific perspectives, including dualism, by reframing them as interpretations rather than inherent truths. By doing so, it encourages a more reflective and open-ended exploration of reality, where language itself is recognized as part of the process of meaning-making rather than a definitive arbiter of truth.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #82]

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 invite you to read my paper posted in another thread as it deals with a lot - if not all of these concerns you bring up.
Foundational Creation
The Material Nature of the Creator-Mind and Its Dynamic Realities

(Or if you'd rather, I can repost it here.)

I think the paper shows alternative premises which are more reasonable, going some way to disprove the KCA claim that the creator is immaterial.

Materiality of the Creator-Mind.
Creation as Shaping, Not Ex Nihilo.
Multiverse and Material Realities.
Human Role in Creation.
Critique of Immateriality Assumptions.


These alternative premises make the framework presented a robust critique of the KCA. By addressing the metaphysical and scientific gaps in the KCA, it provides a compelling alternative that integrates materiality, consciousness, and the interconnectedness of realities. This not only challenges the KCA’s conclusions but also broadens the philosophical discourse on the nature of creation and causality.

[Dimmesdale]

Dimmesdale, I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding my position on hierarchy. My argument does not exclude hierarchy; rather, it reinterprets it within a framework where consciousness, or what you might call God’s Mind, shapes matter from itself. In this view, there is no need to degrade one aspect of existence in favor of another because both are integral expressions of the same unified reality. The distinctions that dualism draws between spirit and matter, while conceptually useful, may not reflect the ultimate nature of existence.

I sense a dim fear or apprehension in you that my "degrading" or lowering of matter is in ways a calumny upon the created order. Is this a fear that you have? If so, I feel obliged to respond.

Firstly, my setting of ontological reals in order is not meant, ipso facto, to denigrate the value and importance of the material sphere. I respect it as far as it goes. However, from the vantage point of the Absolute Real (God, or Brahman) the material world is completely denuded of value by its comparison. There is no material influence in Vaikuntha (the spiritual realm) nor is there any need of it ("In Vaikuṇṭha, the spiritual sky, there is no need of sunshine, moonshine, electricity or fire. Every planet there is self-effulgent like the sun..") In terms of the metaphysics I use, the material world and the spiritual world are, by their very nature, mutually exclusive realms which can only encroach on the other and therefore need to be carefully separated, at least in the matter of Ultimates (ultimate soteriology, specifically). While we are certainly given license to enjoy this material world as unenlightened souls, at the end of our sojourn here, we will no longer need or desire anything material. This present order will be rendered as though void.

Which brings me to the second point. Of course, not everyone can follow this austere path of spirituality. Therefore, in the Vedic tradition, there are three paths to choose from: Vaishnava, Shaiva, and Shakta, all in descending order.... Shaktas may certainly avail themselves philosophically of turning to more terrestrial ways of viewing the world, and if that is your sva-dharma (natural proclivity) you may feel free to assert that to its teleological end.... However, 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 that cannot admit matter as it would simply be incompatible and an adulterating admixture.

So, from the standpoint of both metaphysics and praxis, spirit and matter, at least as far as Vaishnavism is concerned, can and must remain, carefully delineated....

I hope that answers some of your questions that you hinted at in the rest of your post.

[William]

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[marke]

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?

God created all things for His good pleasure and before those things were created those things did not exist.

[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?

God created all things for His good pleasure and before those things were created those things did not exist.

Where did God dwell before he created the heavens?

[marke]

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?

God created all things for His good pleasure and before those things were created those things did not exist.

Where did God dwell before he created the heavens?

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

[POI]

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?