Video Responce Spinozas God Causality vs Reality

Basically, if there where more than one universe, either they cannot interact, or they can and did and the existence
we share is what remains of the interaction, leaving only remains of the more massive universe.
The alternative to this is the two universe that where able to interact where made entirely of the same substance,
in which case there is no differentiation between two universes that interact, and one universe that interacts with itself.

You suggested one realm outside of our universe is outside of causality, well when dealing with realms
that can interact they are either the same substance, or different substance,

Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter
and thought as attributes of such.

Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
[1]No two substances can
share the same nature or attribute. Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by
some difference in their natures or by the some difference in one of their alterable states of being.

If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete.

If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances
in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there
cannot be several such substances but only one."

[2] A substance can only be caused by something
similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).

Substance cannot be caused. Proof: Something
can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its
attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance
cannot be caused. Substance is infinite. Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite
and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance
cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can be two infinite substances, without either being dependent on each other, because
there is unlimited space that they could occupy. Proof: If there was not infinite space that a substance
could occupy then it would be limited by space and this would act as a restraint making the substance
dependent upon space. However substance cannot be dependent upon anything else (premise 1) therefore space
is infinite.

Everything we can prove, is based on evidence.
If the thing you are attempting to prove, has
no evidence, you cannot succeed at a proof.

The assumption that everything that makes up our
universe began, would require evidence that it
didn't exist at one point in the past, and something
that doesn't exist can't leave evidence that does
exist for us to come across at a later date.

Before humans existed there was no notion of a creator, we came to be, then came up with the idea
of god, based on nothing the idea of god is a human creation and is nothing more than an idea.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• SpinozasGodCausalityReality

[MeestaBojangles]

I can't hear this so are you backing him or disproving him?

[NicholasCobalt]

@MeestaBojangles Both? I said the thing I typed in the description.

[NicholasCobalt]

@freshaca3 If there are 3 realms, A B and C, A and B can interact, A has 50% of the gravity of C, B has 200% the gravity of C, to an observer of realm A or B gravity would be the same as realm C. If two realms can interact in any way they will, or a different way to put it is, nothing can affect something in this realm, without being affected by this realm. There is no evidence of another realm so we have no reason to believe they are any different than this one, or that they exist.

[NicholasCobalt]

@freshaca3 It's impossible for a god to create a universe with other rules than this realms because if things can interact, then they will, and both realms will react in the same way, and there is no difference between two seperate realms with different rules that interact, and one realm that acts the way the two seperate realms interact without the need for a second realm.

[freshaca3]

@NicholasCobalt Then you say that unintelligent objects between different realms with different rules can interact with eachother. Then why should it be impossible for a god to create a universe with other rules than his?

[NicholasCobalt]

@freshaca3 I said it's impossible for them not to.

[freshaca3]

@NicholasCobalt why should it be impossible for unintelligent objects to interact with eachother? I can't see the connection.

[NicholasCobalt]

@freshaca3 If two realms can communicate, things that are unintelligent between the realms will interact as well, and there is no way to limit this interaction. Wich leaves the different possibilites, that there are no other realms, that there are and we can't interact with them, or that there are and not only can we interact with them, we always are, and those interactions make up what is "normal".

Things always react in the same way, reacts one way here, reacts that way there.

[freshaca3]

To summarize what I think you want to say:

Realms that communicate with eachother must follow the same rules.

Is that what you want to say? And if so, why is that so?

[MrSentia]

@NicholasCobalt No not @all.I stated that some ideas *could* be given more importance based on the current perceptions of what an God-like entity could look like.Or they *could not*.Never did I say some ideas "definitely" warrant more attention.As for saying that thus "you" should entertain my opinion as "true" is nonsensical.How could I argue something as "true",when I have already categorically stated that the "concept" of a God/Creator existing/or not,@this time in our history,is un provable.