I don’t understand what you mean when you use certain phrases. Can you be more explicit about what you mean by “God is lacking all that I am”? Similarly, can you cache out in what sense “my existence apart from God diminishes what He has”?

Also, what does it mean to exist apart from God? Can you be more specific about what you mean by independence? Spinoza’s view would say that we are directly dependent on God for our existence because we are the same substance. “My” existence is really illusory, isn’t it? But then, the monotheist generally claims that my existence is entirely dependent on God, perhaps in God initially creating me and perhaps in a continual sustaining. Then in what sense am I independent? In that I and God are not the same entity?

Saying that God is lacking all that I am doesn’t mean that God literally has to have myself included within him does it? If I have black hair, and God has black hair, then he has the qualities of me. So within God there is a token of myself in him.

Now to say that Gates’ wealth is diminished by the fact that I have some wealth seems odd. Lets say that Gates has infinite dollars, and I have 1. How is my having one diminishing Gates’ infinite wealth? Adding one to infinity doesn’t make him wealthier, and the larger infinities that you speak of later (I’m assuming powersets) would make God infinitely wealthier than having infinite wealth.

Aren’t there many other ways to define perfection that would fit? For example: there are no stages of perfection, you cannot be “partly perfect” or “more perfect”. Everything that is not perfect is imperfect. Since we are not perfect, God can exist apart from us and still be perfect (if I were part of him, he would be imperfect, because I am imperfect*). We might additionally say that being able to choose not to believe in God, or to act wrongly makes us imperfect, thus letting every other entity be value-less regarding perfection (God may thus safely include inanimate things and non-human animals).

* Only for the purposes of this example. I am, of course, perfect. :)

Why does pantheism seem nuts, as you put it? In fact, Spinoza’s pantheism seems a lot less “nuts” than Christianity. By the way, Ethics 2 D6: By reality and perfection I understand the same thing.
So, I’m not sure that Spinoza understands perfection in the same way as you do.

I concur with scholar $tephen Nadler that the Amsterdam philosopher was not a pantheist.

His argument is very convincing to disabuse us of this pernicious canard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7NMxPOKH90
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNFoHD1WinY

As Spinoza conceives of substance it is an indivisible infinite whole. This disallows any substantive entity an existence outside of God:
Prop.xv - Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can either be or be conceived without God.
So I would say that it is as a result of the demand of inconceivability that everything is in God (panentheism) rather than the diminishment of the perfection of God that would ensue if anything were to exist outside of Him.

I think a similar case for pan(en)theism can be stated by noting that if God is an infinite, necessary being (as he is generally taken to be) then there can be no original not-God. Creation necessarily a process taking place within God. I think the nicest word for a theological concept ever coined is “tzimtzum”: the Jewish/mystical idea that before creation ever took place, God had to withdraw within himself and create a “space” for creation. Otherwise, if you would have God and an original nothingness or chaos, then God would seem to be a limited being in some fashion. But the consequence of “tzimtzum” would seem to be panentheism. Which if I understand was happily accepted by the more mystically-oriented currents within Judaism, such as Hasidism.

I don’t think it’s nuts. I’m rather fond of panentheism. But there are nasty consequences for traditional Christian theology. The Gnostics had a pretty consistent story by supposing wickedness, evil and imperfection were due to a bungling Demiurge, with the original perfect being thinking his perfect thoughts someplace else. In comparison, the Biblical narrative seems jarring: creation is “very good” until suddenly a talking snake comes along and everything ends in tears (some Gnostic sects ended up concluding that the snake was right). On a panentheistic view, the “fall” would be likewise an event _within_ God, a corruption _of_ God in his immanent aspect.

Which does not sound nuts to me but would probably to most traditional Christian theists (the worst argument against pan(en)theism I’ve read was the title of an Evangelical essay: “Cockroaches aren’t God.” No, God is only fluffy and nice things. Looking at the world, that is really the picture that suggests itself. Come on.). Panentheism would, in any event, put the whole notion of Fall and redemption in a very different light.

All of this only shows, I think, that the Biblical narrative sits ill with the four philosophical “omnis” (omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence) and that trying to combine them was probably a bad idea from the start.

As one of the attributes of God is omnipresence, this denotes pantheism. A way to consider pantheism is to compare it to our nightly dreams. The characters in our dreams are the stuff of our dream consciousness - the relaxed energy of our minds. Similarly, we can think of God as both the dream and the Dreamer, as the energy of the dream, and the consciousness that dreams the dream. An ocean of energy without motion and the waves that are the flux and motion of space-time and our world of relativity.

It could be perceived as similar to what would apply if the characters in our dreams had autonomy. They would not be aware that we were dreaming them and that their world was our dream creation. We as dreamers participate in our dream dramas without knowing that we are the dreamer. The difference with God is that though He sleeps in the dream drama of creation, His attribute of omniscience makes Him aware that He is both the dream and the Dreamer.

He is not lacking, the seemingly double existence is due to the dream (energy in flux or vibratory consciousness) and omnicience without motion. Therefore, God exists both in creation and apart from it.

I would call Spinoza a pantheist.

Ethics 1, p.18: God is the immanent, not the transcendent, cause of all things.

Whether he is a pantheist or a panentheist, he is hardly “nuts”. Pantheism can easy slide into panentheism, perhaps not vice versa. Pantheism can also slide into atheism. It is a delicate balance between atheism and panentheism.

Spinoza a pantheist, I think.

Ethics 1, p.18: God is the immanent, not the transcendent, cause of all things.

Whether he is a pantheist or a panentheist, he is hardly “nuts”. Pantheism can easy slide into panentheism, perhaps not vice versa. Pantheism can also slide into atheism. It is a delicate balance between atheism and panentheism.

Sorry for the repetition. The blog wouldn’t accept my first post, then accepted it.

Ethics IV p 54: Repentance is not a virtue.

Perhaps the incomprehensible Trancedent is laughing at us when we are fantasizing those insipid argument in cruely poor (say, kyu) taste. Panentheism is in nature Buddism cloaked in a new covering.

I recall a lecturer in MI spending almost an hour on the possibility that, if God has all perfections, then he must get really excellent gas mileage.

Well, we’re imperfect, so if god ‘includes’ us he would be less than perfect. Can a perfect whole include imperfect parts?

Rather than being “within” God, as if he’s a container, perhaps we’re only imperfect because we’re merely a tiny part (with a limited perspective like monads) while God is the totality of all those parts together.

Hrrm. I’ll have to read Liebniz again.

I’m delirious at the moment but a quick point, and perhaps tomorrow an extended reply. Being dismissive does not a good argument make. Also, lets remember that human existence for Spinoza is a mode of Existence, which is the quality of God as he defines it. We are finite expressions of an infinite quality. It really is quite simple, and for a man who wrote in a geometric format, mathematically beautiful. To express this in perhaps a German vernacular, God is “is-ness”. Modern cosmology has begun to move in this direction, with cyclical universes, and therefore cyclical “big bangs” or moments of creation, suggesting an infinite existence. Remember as well that Spinoza severely chastises anthropomorphic interpretations of God, which includes ascribing intentions to God. His explication is not flawless, but I believe it is one of the most rational expressions of the meaning of the term we call God.

I also can’t help but notice the use of personal pronouns when talking about God as Spinoza defines the concept…this relates to the comment about his distaste for anthropomorphic descriptions; it misrepresents his conception, and subsequently confuses the understanding of what one might call Spinozan pantheism.

“…If so, God is lacking all that I am…” I understand that according to Spinoza “everything is god”. But to say i am part of god.. I feel there is a flaw in this argument. I am a human and humans are bound to have some bad qualities and bound to commit some sins. According to Spinoza everything is god, in that me being a part of god should imply my bad qualities and sins are also a part of god.
But i cannot say this because the moment i say that god has bad qualities and god has committed sins, god is no more god. Hence god is imperfect.
so I feel that Everything is not god and that is what makes God great

Reply to James:

“God is lacking all I am” means that God does not have what I have. Imagine that the universe is a pie. If God is everything, God is the whole pie. Now, imagine that the pie is cut into slices and each slice is a distinct being. In this case, God would be less than the whole pie-less than everything.

So, “my existence apart from God diminishes what He has” means that God would be less pie. To use the analogy, of course.

Also, what does it mean to exist apart from God?<

In this context, I mean that I would not be part of God, not a mode of his being. This does not mean the same thing as existing uncreated by God. Of course, I could be both-after all, if God does not exist, then I am not a part of Him nor was I created by Him.

Reply to Wayne:

Well, Gates would have less than all the wealth if I had the one penny he did not. He would not be perfectly wealthy (taken, perhaps incorrectly, as possessing all wealth). He would not have less wealth than he does-but he would be lacking. In the case of God, He would likewise seem to be lacking.

In regards to infinity, that could be the case. The “magic of infinity” (as I note in the post) can be used to dismiss the alleged problem (assuming I even managed to create a real problem here…).

In reply to Jake:

True, the use of personal pronouns does run against Spinoza’s view that God is not a person. To be true to Spinoza, I should have avoided them where required.

As far as calling pantheism “nuts”, I must apologize. It was making an obviously failed attempt at humor. As far as its origin, when I was in grad school, I remember a comment something like “why, that would be nuts…as nutty as pantheism” and it just stuck in my memory.

Pantheism seems counter intuitive and rather odd; but that is only a minor strike against philosophical or scientific views. Assuming, of course, they can be argued for adequately.

Just a question. If we take Augustine’s point that evil (or any other imperfection, I should think) is a privation, then must it not be the case that God (if, per impossibile, s/he/it exists), already includes whatever is perfect in us (=0, according to Christian theology).

Eric: For Spinoza, good and evil are human concepts and do not exist “out there” and have nothing to with God. Spinoza’s God is not good or loving or evil for that matter.

Spinoza does take good and evil to be subjective. For him, “Good” and “evil” refer to subjective evaluations of how something impacts one’s interests and concerns. As he says: ‘We neither strive for, wish, seek, nor desire anything because we think it to be good, but, on the contrary, we judge a thing to be good because we strive for, wish, seek, or desire it.” He also adds: “For one and the same thing may at the same time be both good and evil or indifferent.”

So, for Spinoza, then, there is nothing either good or evil, but thinking (or desiring) makes it so? Does the attribute of perfection, applied to the whole, make any sense, then, in Spinoza’s system? (I have to be honest. I’ve always found Spinoza hard slogging, and have not read him closely.)

Eric: I cited above Ethics 2 D6: By reality and perfection I understand the same thing.

That would mean, in my opinion, that “isness” (to use Jake’s word) or God, is perfect. Spinoza is a determinist: things could not be otherwise than they are and things as they are (isness) are God. I suppose that in some sense it is meaningless to call the whole “perfect,” but recall that Spinoza was in love with logic and the whole being logically structured would be perfect for him. Perfection for Spinoza would be a mathematical or logical, not an ethical, concept. Spinoza is a maze. Once you get into him, it’s hard to get out. My suggested method for reading Spinoza is to start with book 3, book 4, and book 5 and then go back to book 1 and book 2.

In the preface to book 4, Spinoza equates perfection, power, and reality. The more power, the more perfection, the greater the degree of reality. One reason why Spinoza is a maze is that his definitions are stipulative.

Thank you Amos - helpful as always! (When I get the chance, I might just take you up on that way of reading the Ethics.)

However, I can’t find the identification of power (potestas, I assume) with reality and perfection in the preface to Bk 4. (He does refer to his definition in IID6.) Indeed, he refers to perfection and imperfection as ‘modes of thinking.’ Imperfection, however, for Spinoza, is obviously privative, since pefection and reality are equivalent. (Isn’t there some kind of contradiction here? After all, perfection is still only a mode of thinking.) That means that imperfection has no reality. Insofar as the whole, Nature or God, is a thinking being (is he, on Spinoza’s terms?), then, as complete logical system, it cannot be thought other than as perfection.

On Spinoza’s terms, then, we neither exist apart from God, as we are parts of nature (reality, perfection), nor does God have any imperfections, since imperfections are not part of reality, not part of the whole. This was Augustine’s point too, I think.

Of course, I don’t think it works, but it’s ingenious, I’ll give him that.

The pantheist cannot be considered as wholly atheist as he believes in God but not in a transcendental God.
God’s perfection does not depend on our existing apart. If existing apart is just perception. Perception can change our view of reality but perception cannot change reality. If perception is due to a limiting, hindering, outgoing force that posits a dualistic world of relativities in four dimensions, it is tenuous, because a shift in perception would posit a different world.
Physicists, including some Nobel Laureates, who posit hyperspace and other dimensions are getting closer to understanding how light gets transmitted. Our heliocentri worldview may bite the dust, as did our geocentric worldview. Philosophers who have deserted the rigors of rational, discriminative intellect (with occasional flashes of intuitive perception) for the geocentric world of sense perception and inference of evolutionary biology may be in for a shock.

There may be some element of truth in Spinoza’s understanding of God. One question in the balance is whether there is really “truth” or “falsity” in things, or our judgement swayed by feelings makes it so. It is true that the change of perspective may lead to very different judgments. This instability in judgement may be due to the limitation of ego. Ego posits a narrow, relativistic and dependent worldview, and always demand instead of give (eg.failing to help by giving a bad answer to an important question.) Only by extension of ego can we reach into a more concrete and reliable reality. Perhaps this is where the significance of belief in a transcendental God lies.

God is necessarily imperfect because He/She/It cannot possibly satisfy the manifold and sometimes contradictory human notions of Perfection.

He/She/It used Quantum Mechanics, so that a quality cannot be said to exist until it is measured, thereby allowing the superposition of many ideas of perfection.

Yet, as this blog shows, even that is inadequate to the task.

There’s a real error here in the definition of perfection. God is an ideal of moral perfection, not some being whose perfection is defined in terms of how much “space” God takes up. Hat tip: Hermann Cohen.

This perplexity has been well addressed in a number of the Upanishads, and in greater detail, in the 13th century, by Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi. If the world, including us, is a series of veiled self-manifestations of God, whose being and unicity are not diminished thereby, the partialities of monism and pantheism can be reconciled.
To use the simplest analogy: a novelist is not diminished by the characters he imagines and deploys in a mode of being relative to his more absolute and comprehensive existence; rather, his characters are modes of his self-knowledge and manifest his qualities, and have no access to qualities that are not his.
The characters are not separate from him; all their existence is his; they are no other than he; but they are not (comprehensively) him.
The difference with us is that our apparency of independence and free will has a dimensionality that fictional characters lack, and this measures the distance between God’s creations and human imaginings, which recapitulate his creation in a lesser and still more relative mode.

You’re using a mathematical concept called infinity and applying it to theology but you are missing the boat both from a theological standpoint and a mathematical one You seam to want to discuss the theological concept of monotheism without acknowledging a human inability to conceptualize it without faith (some may call it magic). You also want to use a mathematical concept called infinity without acknowledging a human inability to comprehend it without, what you call, “magic.” Both approaches are dead ends. Infinity isn’t the only “unimaginable” mathematical concept. For example there’s also something called an imaginary number, which, when multiplied by itself, results in -1.

Back the concept of infinity. Infinity + 1 is not greater than infinity, nor is infinity -1 less than infinity. Infinity + or - any finite number still is exactly equal to infinity, no more and no less. That is not magic, it is simply math.

This is sort of off-topic but I find it interesting that individuals who have had intense mystical experiences and/or moments of perceived illumination often describe these episodes in terms of understanding that everything in the universe is interconnected i.e. Pantheism.

For example, RM Bucke, the author of “Cosmic Consciousness,” an early 20th century work on higher states of consciousness described his peak experience as a realization that the “Cosmos is not dead matter but a living Presence…that the universe is so built and ordered that without peradventure, all things work together for the good of each and all…”

Whether through meditation, a random flash of insight, or under the influence of psychedelic drugs, countless individuals have described a similar realization—a sort of cosmic awakening to the unity of all things.

Perhaps the human mind is uniquely susceptible to a Pantheistic view of the world?

I second Scott’s comment that you seem not to understand how infinity works. If God’s perfection is infinite, it doesn’t make it any less infinite that he lacks everything you are. I assume you are a finite being. For any finite number, n, infinity minus n = infinity.

Secondly, the analogy between God’s perfection and Bill Gates’s wealth is faulty in at least two ways. One, though Gate’s wealth is considerable, it is not infinite. In fact it is as far from being infinite as mine is. Two, wealth is zero-sum–if there is some wealth I have, then there is some wealth that Gates lacks. Perfection is clearly not zero-sum in this way. Take omnipotence for example. If there is something I can do, it does not follow that there is something God cannot do. So the fact that God lacks everything that you are is no threat to his perfection.

If I am a writer, do the characters I create exist apart from me? To them, I am omnipotent and omniscient - whatever I say happens in the story, happens. I can know whatever there is to be known about their world in an instant. I exist outside of time as they experience it. (Though interestingly enough, there is nothing about my omnipotence or omniscience and so on that guarantees that I am perfect - in fact, I’ll readily admit that I’m not).

Justin wrote: If there is something I can do, it does not follow that there is something God cannot do.

There is an old story of the Mughal Emperor Akbar and his courtier Birbal. After listening to panegyrics by a wandering bard, that compared Akbar to God, the emperor asked his court, is it possible that I’m greater than God?

Birbal said, of course! There is something that you can do that God cannot do.

Akbar was stunned, and demanded an explanation.

Birbal said, you can banish people from your realm; the Ruler of the entire Universe cannot do so!

You are right that if you are separate from God, that He is lacking completeness. This naturally leads to the notion that you are not separate from God, which in turns leads to non-dualism, rather than pantheism. You might consider non-dualism even more “nuts” than pantheism, but I would disagree. The basic notion of non-dualism is that separation is an illusion the mind superimposes upon the non-dual reality, It may appear to be true, but it is not, and living under the assumption of separation is what creates all misery and suffering. The solution is therefore not to try to create a perfect utopia out of separation, but to examine this separation and see if it is real, and thus find out who we really are, rather than merely assume that we are separate creates lacking God, or that God is a separate being lacking us. One finds this approach in advaita and various buddhist traditions, and elements of it in some mystical forms of Christianity, Judiasm, sufism, etc.

Nothing exists but God. Here we are, God’s thoughts.

How can you even reason about God without using Quantum Logic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
How do you know that quantum logic does not apply to God?

Tel’s response to my simple metaphor of the novelist and his characters sounds right to me. The characters in my novel exist apart from me only conditionally, especially in their own plane of view. I do not posit my own perfection, or even, in the minutes and seconds of their doings, an active omniscience and omnipotence, but the metaphysical and epistemological difference between me and them is clear; as is our essential and ineradicable unity.
In our less blatantly metaphorical world, the situation can be verified, whether easily or not, by the spiritual means mentioned by conradg, whose tendency toward a Buddhistic empiricism seems wise to me, whatever tradition one favors.
Quantum logic may well be an aid, cf. Arun’s query, in delineating a situation, rich in antinomic affirmations, in which God is both immanent and transcendent from His immanence, and then again transcendent from from this distinction and any limitations it might imply.
The logic seems simple enough, but it can only be verified in person.
Many have done so in the course of a glimpse; far fewer, evidently, in more enduring experience and vision.

Arun,

I must admit that I don’t understand your example. Why couldn’t God banish people from Ackbar’s realm? He banished people from Eden, didn’t he?

Anyway, it seems to me that you may not have understood my point. My point concerns the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the analogy between that and God’s perfection. If there’s a dollar that I have, then there is a dollar that Bill Gates lacks, since we can’t both own one and the same dollar.

However, if I can do something, say banish people from my realm, it does not follow that there is something God cannot do. Since God might be able to do it, too.

Is this projection of our idea upon the transcendental god a perceptual reality or actual reality? This comes close to the mysticism of some non-western philosophy: Is my conceptual/metaphorical/dreaming world real, or this conscious reality unreal? Seems a baffling question. But what can be certain, from our practical experiences, is that the Things we have projected into our mind seems inseparable, have been transformed into our inner qualites and become a part of our mind. And this is the stage of growth, a stage leading to enduring experience.

Mmm, there are many interesting points in this thread, I’ll definitely learn from it sth. when I’ve got time :-).

“God is supposed to infinitely perfect and lacking in nothing. But, suppose that I (or anything else) exist apart from God. If so, God is lacking all that I am. In other words, my existence apart from God diminishes what He has and thus entails He is less than infinitely perfect. However, if I (and everything else) am part of God, then this would lead to pantheism. Pantheism, to be properly technical, seems completely nuts. So, it would seem that if I exist apart from God, then God (assuming He exists) would not be perfect.”
To escape the absurd conclusion of the argument presented here you can reject one or the other premise. You have chosen to reject the premise that “God is perfect.” The rejection of this premise will also lead to absurdities, e.g. Pure Act is in potency. It would be correct to reject the other premise that “Infinite perfection is imperfect if it does not include the perfections of other beings. The argument is based on an incoherent mental fiction. You cannot add to infinity. Sure, you can write “infinity + 1″, but it’s a self-contradiction, just as a “square circle” is. The problem is that you’re thinking of infinity in a positive way as an ever-increasing quantity, rather than as a negative concept (which it is, even etymologically) as the absence of all limitation. And I know what you’re going to say, “But if God’s unlimited then he must include the perfection of others in himself, right?” No. God is unlimited perfection in himself; the addition of a limited perfection to it is impossible and incoherent. Finito.

I was going to write a “Non-finito” pointing out errors of logic and the ranty dismissal of pantheism, but all that seems to have been taken care of. Instead I can add a corollary to the mention of “tsimtsum” or God’s withdrawal so that an apparent Otherness can manifest. The Sufi version of this, as formulated by Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi, who was, like natives Lurianic Kabbalists, a native of Moorish Andalusia, involves not a withdrawal of the Divinity from existential space but an overflowing of His attributes and potentialities via an existentiating “Breath of Mercy (or the Merciful,” through which he has mercy upon the potentialities latent within Himself and has mercy upon their wish to become. No withdrawal is necessary because no “elsewhere” is required. Additionally, this version leaves open the possibility, always, that these existentiated possibilities—ourselves—have the potential to realize and experience their never-severed no-otherness with the One Absolute Being.

To: ALL

For this discussion it is rather possible be useful to read some arXiv papers where a new, “informational” concept in philosophy (and in other sciences) is discussed – see the arXiv links:
http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V3, (paper “The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature”)
and:
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V1, V5 , (paper “The Information and the Matter”).
Since the last iteration of the physics model is in the first link, in these links it is suffice to read:
- in V1: sections: 1. “Introduction”; and may be 2. “To the definition of the concept of information”;
- in V5 – sections: 1. “To the definition of the concept of information”; and “Discussion and conclusion”.

Suggested concept enables to clear, or to consider on a new stage, the main ontological and epistemological (O&E) problems (including this blog-thread), which aren’t resolved in a number of thousands years already. Briefly the points are as:

(1) – any discussion of some specific O&E problem eventually reduces to a choice between two main philosophical Beliefs – Materialism and Idealism; and, since the belief is by definition something non-provable, any discussion goes inevitably to a deadlock.

(2) From epistemological point of view Materialism is nothing else a belief in the Great Materialistic Principle “That is so because of that is so”. It is grounded on the system of “Nature laws”, but the laws in turn are grounded only on necessary but non-sufficient criterion of reiteration of experimental results; so Materialism by any means doesn’t answer on the question “Why that is so?”, or, e.g., - “Why these “Nature laws” exist at all? “From where (how), e.g. – this World – happened?”, etc.

(3) Idealism is more epistemologically grounded – It states that the “Nature laws” were established by some judicious Creator Who also created this World. But Idealism is a belief also – It can not prove the existence (as well as non- existence) of the Creator; moreover – e.g. a requirement for a Creator to be omnipotent in order to create, e.g., a World from nothing turns out to be logically non-consistent. And, besides, the same as for Materialism question remains “From where (how) this Creator – happened?”. Etc.

Informational concept hasn’t full answers on these questions now, but at least yet now points out the ways where the questions should be solved. It is (practically*) strictly proven, that all/anything what exists – Matter, Consciousness, religious phenomena – is/ are the elements/ systems of elements of specific sub-sets of ultimately fundamental Set “Information” which exists always because of It logically can not be non-existent.

So, e.g., “Nature laws” become quite natural - the information inherently is grounded on some logical connections; any logically consistent scenarios, including creation and evolution of our World, become be possible, moreover - its are/ were ready always, including “up to its’ beginning” and can be activated by some non-omnipotent Creator or accidentally (in “materialistic case”); etc.
For the natural and other sciences, religions - now it becomes clear, that further its development should pass taking into account the informational concept, including – when studying the Set “Information” specifically. And this Set is very interesting object for studying…

More - see the links

Cheers

Is it possible that we already are “complete” (GOD) but that our sensibilities at any given time is what is limited?

My opinion: It is impossible for creation (things) to exist outside of GOD!

Is it possible that we already are “complete” (GOD) but that our sensibilities at any given time is what is limited?
—————————–

- it seems you answered in your question: if something (somebody) has limited sensibilities then (s)he isn’t complete.
_______________________
My opinion: It is impossible for creation (things) to exist outside of GOD!
—————————–
- to answer you should define what is “to exist outside of GOD”. For example a helminth exists in or outside a human?
So a human can be no more then a something like for God…

I haven’t read the earlier comments, so maybe this argument is already stated. You can go the mystical hindu/kabbalistic route and say that God does not lack us or our qualities because we (and consequently, our qualities) do not really exist, only God. Furthermore, one can say that everything is God, and yet God is still more. This is what Isaac Luria seems to say in the concept of the tsimtsum (retraction):

God makes a space within himself to create the universe within. What is in the retraction is not God, and God is outside of it. The trick is that the tsimtsum does not really exist. It’s existence is perceived in order for their to be beings that perceive their own existence rather than the reality of God. The idea is that God’s reality is so absolute and all-pervaiding that one cannot perceive themself as independent being and simultaneously perceive God. Therefor, we do not really exist, only God. Furthermore, to the extent we seem to exist (within the tsimtsum), God contains all things within and yet exists as something independent of us because God exists outside the tsimtsum as well.

“I haven’t read the earlier comments, so maybe this argument is already stated. You can go the mystical hindu/kabbalistic route”

Sorry, but because of you didn’t point out – what post do you comment? – I answer - if your post relates to arXiv links in the SSDZ post of May 25, 2009, 3:36 am

- these posts don’t contain any hindu/kabbalistic – its contain the logic only…

Cheers

Well, I’d say that Luria’s theory is a logical alternative to Spinoza’s pantheism. As a philosophically thought out theology, I don’t think this idea is irrelevant to the thread just because it is from the Kabbalah (which has more than one rationalist approach) or Hindu Vedanta (which often argues along the same lines as this post). Basically, the origin of this thread posits that if God is not apart of us, he is lacking and therefor imperfect (although the definition of perfection is debatable). Therefor a perfect God cannot exist independent of creation.

However, Isaac Luria states that just because creation is unified with God does not mean that God cannot also exist beyond creation. In other words, take a blank piece of paper and say it represents God. Then draw a shape inside that piece of paper and say that region of the paper represents creation. The shape exists within the scope of the paper, but there is still blank paper outside the boundaries of the shape. Therefor, the paper and the shape cannot be treated as congruent, and the paper contains the shape. This illustrates a scenario where God does not lack anything within creation and yet still exists as a being independent of creation. Like a sentence containing an independent and dependent clause, the dependent clause is a part of the sentence, but the sentence can go without is and even possibly retain the idea it communicates. I would not say this is an illogical argument. It falls firmly within the scope of the logic presented at the beginning of this thread. This is one form of Panentheism, not to be confused with Pantheism.

SSDZ, I think your reply to my post was unnecessarily dismissive.

At this moment in time I do not believe god could be perfect without us. Supposing god is everything, like I have been. Lately I have considered the Universe a complex mathimatical equation, extremely complex, beyond anything thing we do comprehend. I believe this equation would equal 0. We cannot be counted out of the equation. It would need every bit of everything, to the smallest object and event, in the universe and would be perfect.

The only thing that seperates us from God is our sinful nature, and our sins. He only lacks inperfection, therefore……

It is rather possible that God exists as some phenomena which is independent on how many other living beings exist; when the beings appeared under condition that God appeared previously. And the beings, including humans, are no more then something as, e.g., a bacterium in human’s body. A human bears the bacterium till it doesn’t become be injurious to health, in other case he detect a disease and takes a pill.
Though there is a difference. The humans have the consciousness, when Matter (possibly “God’s body”) is some informational system – roughly - a computer (besides the arXiv links above see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) and there is a possibility to make a virus that can destroy the computer. That is the main sin, and the utmost comprehensive religions require for the believers or to be ultimately afraid of God (Judaism and Islam), or to ultimately love God (Christianity), or to avoid ultimately any desires at all (Buddhism).

Cheers