The Reasonable Atheist

Well its friday–time to post something.

I did the atheist’s homework.

I have lately been puzzling my little brain˚ to try to invent a rational argument for atheism.  Apparently the accusative claim has been made that “burden of proof” lies on my side of the intellectual conflict (the side of the theist), and thus the atheist need not rationalize himself.  For it is I alone who have asserted things absurd and unreasonable, and thus it is I who must justify my thinking.  However, I have come to think that I have done my job–let the “burden of proof” lay where it pleases–for I have proposed a deductive argument for the existence of God with which I am well satisfied, and now the atheist must meet my challenge with a worthy response.

Unfortunately, I do not think it meet to trust another person, one who actually disagrees with me, to complete this task, as I am yet to see it done by such an individual in a way that is convincing and stimulating to the argument I have begun.  I would, of course, be thrilled if I could find another to propose such an argument as I would deem satisfying to my purpose, but such propositions are, while not lacking altogether, remarkably rare.  I simply don’t find much of common proposition to be valuable to the formation of a belief on the issue of theism, and it seems utterly pointless for two people to debate when they cannot so much as agree on what is worth debating.  Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to stretch this miniature mind to its utter limits†, and find me an argument I consider prudent to my purpose.  Thus the world of blogging grows even more lethargic than before.

After ruling out many utterly absurd and extremely popular atheistic arguments, I invented my own semi-original argument with the intention of crafting it in a way that adheres to the following two demands:  (1) It must be logical–no arguments against the belief in logic, that’s just pointless  (2) It must be deductive–I don’t really care to bother with inductive proofs and endless rhetoric when the theistic argument I have made is deductive, thus trumping any inductive opposition, no matter how convincing.  Notice, the argument is only semi-original; this is because it is adapted, in part, from a comment on this blog (so I guess blogging can find a small ray of redemption in that).  Anyway, here it is:

Regarding causality, if one is to escape the necessity of a primal cause, one might propose a self-causing model of causality*.  Thus, as my commenter put it (roughly), we mustn’t think of causality as a linear chain, but a figure eight or sideways infinity, eternally causing itself (notice the wonderful symbolism).  So, as I take it, we must imagine that the “end of time” and “beginning of time” are really the same thing, and once its all over, the universe will begin again.  Surely, this has some nice scientific grounds (if we are going to be purely naturalist for a moment) as it seems it would be mathematically impossible for the universe (thought of as a gigantic physical system) to not repeat itself eventually unless its laws were specifically designed to prevent such a phenomenon.  Of course, the most evident flaw with this argument alone is that the cause of that “figure eight” is then unexplained, but we may yet have an answer to that problem upon further complication of the argument.

If I can take the conventional “linear” model of causality, as it exists in the natural world, and mold it into a figure eight, why couldn’t I also take the conventional supernatural model of causality and do the same?  Suppose the natural universe is a causal system that is now thought to cause itself, and as such, we are required to explain its “supernatural” or “conceptual” cause–that is, the cause of causality, if you will.  We may then take that conceptual system and fold it on itself such that causality is its own cause (a conceptual or supernatural figure eight).  Then, whence asked the cause of that conceptual system, we may repeat the algorithm, and continue to do so ad infinitum.

This seems to me a reasonable proposition at face value (which I cannot say of most arguments I find on this side), but I fear it is too simple in its understanding of causality˚.  For if causality exists in accordance with the model I present in The Nature of Causality in the Logical Scope, as it seems it must, within the logical scope, then there are no lines or eights or sideways infinities of any kind.  Instead, just as a proof is a means of understanding that a premise is, in some sense, the same thing as a conclusion, so is causality a method to understand how a cause really is the same thing as its effect.  Thus, whether the physical universe does or doesn’t repeat itself is irrelevant.

To assist with this understanding of causality, allow me to bring in the model of a four-dimensional cube.  Hypercubes, as they are called, are animated three-dimensional objects, for it is presumed that, just as a three-dimensional cube can be shown in all its entirety on a two-dimensional screen by animating it (i.e. rotating it about an axis parallel to the screen), so can a four-dimensional cube be projected in three dimensions by animating it (i.e. rotating it about a fourth access parallel to the universe (see animation below)).  So is causality really just the showing of a singular higher-demensional-entity from different angles over time.  Thus, the natural universe, in all its moments in time, is really just one thing, and being so, must be either the effect (or transformation) of some omnipotent outside of it, or else must itself be omnipotent, uncaused.  And I do believe that this concept supersedes the figure eight algorithm ad infinitum.  (Thus, the omnipotent is, in some way, His creation–hence the Body of Christ–or else, He is the cause of the cause of His creation, still leading to the same conclusion, etc.)

Sorry this animation is so stinky, I’ll try to make a better one in good time.

________________________________

˚ I’ve been told I have a small mind, so I thought I’d call my brain ‘little’ to accentuate this unique quality of mine.

† This additionally servers to hint at my disproportionate height (which seems the result of unnatural stretching)–another outstanding feature I have the honor of bearing.  (Perhaps also alluding to my obsession with calculus.)

* It is my understanding that this could be called an “anti-cosmological argument” if you’re the sort of person who enjoys naming things like that.

˚ Arguments have never been so personified: now they have names and even understandings.

The Nature of Causality in the Logical Scope

if a then b => if !b then !a

Doesn’t that make sense? Why do people act like it doesn’t?

Causality is such a difficult phenomenon to isolate. This is a large part of what makes tragic plays so stimulating–we can argue for hours about what really caused all the dead bodies to pile up at the end; was it Hamlet’s slowness to act? his uncle’s murder? or perhaps Polonius’ regulation of his daughter? The best answer is generally something along the lines of, “it was all these things and more”. For maybe if Hamlet weren’t so prone to depression, if Laertes hadn’t come from France, or the dang Dane, Hamlet the late, had just decided to take his nap somewhere else or a little later in the afternoon, the whole catastrophe could have been avoided. This brings up the whole discussion of chaotic theory on a sociological level. Because perhaps even smaller changes could have been made to the history than the ones I have mentioned if they were made earlier on. Maybe if Hamlet the late had gone to bed earlier the night before, he wouldn’t have needed to take a nap˚. And maybe he would have gone to bed earlier if he weren’t busy doing such and such, and perhaps such and such wouldn’t have had to be done if… We could, theoretically trace the whole history back to the beginning of time; at which point, if a single molecule, floating in space, had been displaced by a fraction of a micrometer, Gertrude might never have married, Hamlet might have never been born, and perhaps even Denmark might never have become a nation.

Personally, I find this is fascinating. It certainly says something about the nature of causality. Every little, fractal detail of the cause has a profound impact on the effect. This is an even bigger deal when it comes to a consideration of the Omnipotent, for He is the beginning of time and the root cause of all reality. I’ve included a definition of the rule of modus tollens at the beginning of this post, with whatever disregard of formal symbols, for this reason. Many a tricky relativist likes to try to weasel his way around causality, often suggesting that every event and quality of reality is the result of nothing and our minds are merely erring in seeking out patterns and reasons for things to result from other things. As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine; if a person doesn’t believe in reality, then I should even less expect him or her to believe in the causal nature of reality. But what doesn’t work, by my assessment, is the attempt to separate causality from the logical scope. Logic, by definition, assumes the principles of modus ponens and modus tollens, or more simply, the concept of an “if then”. Therefore, it seems to be quite impossible to have logic without having causality. For logic assumes that the validity of a premise determines, or causes, the validity of a conclusion.

Within the absolutist scope, metaphysical reality is assumed to be, to some extend, comprehensible via the normative reasoning of the human mind. In a way, reason is the only metaphysical entity that we are undeniably conscious of (if you will pardon my casual use of the term metaphysical). Though reason is expressed as physical phenomena in the brain, the pure properties of logic, that express themselves in the mind, must be considered metaphysical, or as I am using the word, real but not tangible. Because of this, there is a sense in which reason must dictate our beliefs as to the qualities of reality as it exists beyond the purely physical. Just as we assume physical reality to have the qualities which are perceived by our five sense, we must also assume metaphysical reality to have the qualities perceived by our sixth sense–our mind. If the fact that we see in colour leads us to believe that the universe is colourful, then the fact that we reason causally must lead us to believe that the normative is causal. And if we believe there is anything beyond the physical–which we must believe, for by the very act of thinking logically, we are engaging such a realm–then we must believe that reality is ultimately beyond the physical†. Therefore, in the same sense of the word, “reality” is ultimately causal in nature.

This being established, we must consider the nature of causality as it exists in reality to be the same as the nature of causality as it exists in reason. Let us consider what this nature is.

It may be useful here for us to rethink the conventional concept of a logical proof. Proof is commonly thought of as a sort of sequence of steps that lead from a given to a conclusion. This is all fine and well, but let us consider what it really means. If the rules of logic are universal, then a proof is not the act of taking one thing and transforming it into another, but rather the human explanation of why one thing is also another. Take a mathematical proof for instance. If we want to prove that 0over0 equals one in the context of “limit x–> 0 f(x) = sin(x) / x”, we take the function and limit as a given, go through a series of steps, and show why it equals one. But we have not in fact converted one concept into another. We have merely shown that by logic, the one concept is the other, for at the end of the proof, we realise that the given expression is equivalent to the concluded one. There is no conversion process from premise to conclusion; proofs only serve to show us that a premise is the same thing as a conclusion.

In the same sense, we must also consider causality to be, like proofs, a human way of understanding that a cause is, normatively, the same thing as its effect. Therefore, returning to the Omnipotent, He must in this same sense be, as the primal cause, the same thing as His effect. This is why I so often write that He is reality. And thus, if He is everything that is Real, He must possess every quality that is Real. Therefore, if we assume that our reason is Real, then we must believe Him to be rational. To me this is the easy part of the argument. It is self-evident that the cause of all Reality would have to be rational if there is such a thing as reason. Reason must be linked, by causality, all the way to the beginning of existence, the primal cause. And only things that are not real in some sense* may posses “qualities” not possessed by the Omnipotent (see “Theology of Non-being”)˚. All this follows from (or is) what is written above.

And now a point of interest: What also “follows” from above is that the Omnipotent is very large. Certainly, we already knew He was infinite and we are “finite,” but the Hamlet example can give a very good explanation for this. If every effect is affected by smaller and smaller details of its cause the further along the chain of causality that it gets from that cause, then with the Omnipotent having existed eternally before time began, we must believe that we are the effects of his infinitesimals. That is, if the Omnipotent is a giant fractal at the beginning of reality (and really making up all of reality), then we, being effects that exist some infinite distance along His causal chain, must be caused by the smallest possible details of Him, and therefore, are the smallest possible details of Him. However, it is important to note that, with Him being the highest possible order of infinity–paradox that that is–even his infinitesimals must be infinite, and therefore, while He is infinitely greater than us, we are still, in this sense, infinite ourselves, so long as we actually exist.

This means that the Omnipotent is capable of considering us infinitely, while at the same time conceiving an infinite universe, and for that matter making an infinite number of other infinite creations all of which He plans for and cares about infinitely. This seems to present a reasonable rebuttal to the objection that there cannot be a personal God because the universe is so large.

Such is one of the arguments that Richard Feynman brings up in the following video. He doesn’t really focus exclusively on that topic, but he says some other interesting things as well, which I thought made the video worth posting:

____________________

˚ Okay, I suppose it was “his custom always in the afternoon”, but still, would he have upheld that custom even if he wasn’t tired? Of course there is no definitive answer to such a question, but that’s my point: the causality is hard to isolate.

† For it is only beyond the physical that we are ultimately able to say that something exists, as the very notion of existence is a normative principle, and all the qualities of reality are normative, because, while we might describe a physical object as having “physical qualities” those qualities themselves are concepts (ex. an apple is red, but redness is a concept). This might just sound like a word game to many, and I realise that I may be over simplifying a much larger issue–and one that is largely disagreed about–but consider it as this: Somewhere in your mind, you differentiate between the way you view and understand the physical and the conceptual. You, by your very nature as a human, attach to those to realms particular values. That is, each of them means something different. Whether you want to call the one or the other “more real” doesn’t really matter much to this argument, so long as you realise that when I discuss reality, I will be referring to the conceptual or normative, and not just as it exists in our minds, but as it actually exists, even beyond them. For I am assuming–the absolutist that I am–that two plus to actually equals four, not that it just happens to in our minds. Without this sort of assumption, there is no actual point in thinking at all (in the same sense of the word “actual”).

* As darkness can be said to be a thing, but is really nothingness, it is the absence of something, so can there be things that are defined by their lacking of realness, they are the absence of realness.

˚ Here is another way of looking at the irrationality of evil discussed in “Theology of Non-being.” Irrationality is allowed to exist in evil, though it is not a quality possessed by the Omnipotent, because evil is, in a sense, “unreal”.

On Probability

That’s such a stuffy tittle.  You might call it “The Possibility of Probability,” or “What Happens With Chance,” if you like.

I thought I might be of some use to my readers if I were to write a brief article on this subject.  Please note that this is primarily a philosophy paper and not a mathematics one; though, of course, the two subjects are, as all subjects, inseparable and hard to distinguish from one another.

It is, and rightly so, the most commonly accepted model across all subjects that all probability is metaphorical.  From basic physics, we reach the self-evident conclusion that all physical systems have a predetermined out come from the moment they are set up.  Therefore, when this principle is applied on a macro-level, we reach the modern understanding of Chaotic theory; that is, that the entire universe is one giant physical system, composed of the interactions of countless smaller systems, that has had a predetermined course of action from the moment it was set up.  Thus, according to our understanding of physics, there was a one-hundred percent chance, since the dawn of time, that you would be sitting in the exact spot that you are currently, at this exact time, reading this exact sentence, and thinking the exact thoughts that you are thinking right now.

Of course probability is still a very useful concept in many cases.  One excellent example is genetics.  We still use the assumption that inheritance is “random,” and therefore, that the mathematical principles of probability can be applied to determine the “likely-hood” of one trait being passed on versus another.  This method of evaluation is very practical because the chaos involved in the system is so developed that it can be assumed to be random–it functions much like a small angle approximation.  However, according to our larger model, there is no such thing as randomness in the literal sense.

It is imperative that we understand the universality of this principle, even as we venture into metaphysics.  In the absolutist’s scope, probability is still only metaphorical when it comes to metaphysics, and one can use the physical metaphor of probability as an analogue to the metaphysical one.  As I have indicated in my post on fractal reality, there is a fine line between the metaphorical and the literal, and perhaps even no line…metaphorically.  But in the case of probability, there definitely is a line, as the actual relationship between the metaphor and the reality it represents can be entirely understood by the human mind (that is, if anything really can).

In metaphysics as in physics, the whole principle of metaphorical probability is designed entirely for the sake of convenience, and is not actual believed when it comes down to what is really happening.  Thus, in physics, we can estimate the probability that a cannon firing a tennis ball will hit its target, while in reality, we know that if we had every specific detail about the set up of the system to an infinite degree of accuracy, we could know for sure whether it would.  Likewise, in metaphysics, we can say that there is a freedom of the will such that at any given time it has a certain chance of making one decision over another, but in reality, we know that if we knew every single detail about the soul (which is fractal), we could say for certain which decision it would make.  That’s not to say that the soul isn’t free, but that its freedom is not bound to time.  All of time is a metaphor when it comes to metaphysics.  The whole story of a soul choosing between death and life is thus an embodiment of the soul in the medium of time, all though, a complete knowledge of the soul outside of such a scope would allow for a knowledge of the soul’s every decision “before” it was made.  It is as if, in both metaphysics and physics, time is merely a way of looking at a complex system part by part.

To take this a little further, consider a four-dimensional cube.  We can only express such an object in the form of a hypercube, which is a three-dimensional object that changes shape over time, thus expressing each of the different four-dimensional angles form which the real object can be viewed.  But in four dimensions, all those angles are present without any need of morphing.  Likewise, a fractal-dimensional physical or metaphysical system must be expressed by morphing a “three-dimensional,” or what I will call, “normal-dimensional” (to avoid a bias towards physics), one over time.  (and I said this article wasn’t about math)

But when we talk about the limits of either of these systems, we must set aside our normal-dimensional perceptions and likewise our metaphorical probability.  There is no “chance” that the end or beginning of time did or will look one way or another physically or metaphysically.  It just was, will be, and if we are to be most literal, is.  Thus, when we talk about the qualities of the Omnipotent, there is no chance that they are one thing or another, they just are what they are.  This understanding excludes the possibility of an arbitrary Omnipotent “happening” to cause an intelligent humanity.  In the literal sense, nothing about metaphysics is random, and because when we discus the Omnipotent’s first action of causing, we are referring to a limit, even the metaphor of chance is senseless.  Therefore, if we are to say that humanity is intelligent, then we must also say that the Omnipotent is intelligent.  For an understanding of logic cannot “happen” to arise from nowhere.  It must, at the limit of causality, have been present in the origin of reality.

As for the objection that computers are “more intelligent” than the human beings that have created them (this objection was posed by a commenter).  My answer is, no they are not.  The intelligence that this, and all my arguments on the Omnipotent, are referring to is the one upon which the scope of the argument depends.  That is, the argument depends on the fact that human logic is capable, to some extent, of finding and understanding metaphysical truth.  That we can build a computer that emulates some of the mathematical algorithms of the human mind does not mean that we have created something “intelligent” in this sense of the word.  It only means that we have found a way of putting that human intelligence into general terms, much like writing it down.  If I throw a baseball through a window, I have broken the window, not the ball.  In the same way, it takes a human to know that a particular circuit pattern will perform a particular task, but the circuit pattern doesn’t know the first thing about the matter, it is only a tool which is being used by someone who does.  Therefore, computers, which have no understanding of human logic, are not intelligent at all.

What are we doing?

Under our now Christian model of metaphysics as established by my seven previous posts on this topic, we must now better understand purpose.  It has been established that we, as humans, are made to serve a purpose created for us by God which is equal, in some sense, to the purpose he has for himself.  That is, God made us for the purpose of existing in the state that He is in “presently.”  The strange thing about this purpose is that, on the simplest level, we are not presently fulfilling it.  Instead of being infinitely loving, infinitely good, infinitely real beings, we are hate filled, imperfect, mortal ones.  So does this mean we have failed?

In many eastern philosophies and religions, it is believed that souls are subject to a tireless cycle of vain reincarnation until they finally perfect the act of living, and in so doing, achieve some perfected state of being which frees them from the cycle of birth and death.  In some cases, this whole processes is viewed as utter vanity, like Prometheus’ rock, striving after the unachievable only to return to the starting point, and thus the perfected state of being is a state in which an individual does not act and perhaps does not even exist.  In other cases, the journey is seen as valuable based on the fame and honor that can be achieved throughout the process (e.g. the cycle of heroism in greek and roman epic).  In reality, it seems to me that fame and honor would hardly be worth an endless cycle of birth, death and pain.

I bring all this up, because under our current model, it may well seem that life is much like that.  We are born, we sin, we are reborn.  Over and over again.  Constantly striving for perfection, but never getting it.  So why?  Why does God see it as fitting for us all to be sentenced to somewhere between zero and one hundred and twenty years of this aimless strife?  It is not an easy question, and I fear the answer I leave us with, while hopefully intellectually satisfying, will not sit well with us.  But that is well.  Such is a part of the nature of living in an unperfected order (a fallen order).

I turn to our model: we are beings that were given a choice to love God and to exist or to hate Him and die, and we have chosen the latter option.  Upon so doing, we were given a second chance, and this life is our decision process.  All this is as such, that a risen humanity might have a perfected understanding of what a joy it is to exist in God and the perpetually fallen may justly be allowed to creep away from that joy as they have chosen to do even with a “second chance.”  It is absolute nonsense for humanity to be given the perfected understanding of Heaven without experiencing Hell.  Wisdom is by definition the result of experience, and God could not have made a humanity that has the wisdom gained by the experience of Hell without having the experience of it.  For by doing so, He would defy the very structure of reality, i.e. He would defy Himself.

Thus earthly living is our second chance.  But why does it seem like an endless cycle of chances and ruins?  And why is it so long?

I feel quite confident that the answer to these questions is that neither of these things are the case: life is a single decision, a single second chance, and it is very short.  It does not really make sense for God to give the same eternal being multiple chances to make the decision between life and death (that is, without anything occurring in-between to change the being).  Even if we imagine the process from a chronological perspective, it is utter nonsense.  It is as if one were to ask an atheist if he believes in God and upon receiving his negation, re-ask the same question after no debate or persuasion.  It’s just silly.  Instead, when any of the faculties of the soul are being exercised (whether it be the intellect, as it is in this example, or the will as it is in the matter at hand), in-between prompts, the soul must go through some sort of transformational processes if we are to expect a different result.  Therefore, it is necessary that there exists our decision-making process, where we are allowed to experience a distance from God such that His very existence does not compel us to choose Him.  The length of this process, though it may not seem so at present, is negligible when held in perspective of eternity.

I am quite sorry to say that the doctrines don’t go much farther than that, and while they may provide a model of sufficient functionality as to feed the intellect, they are intrinsically destined to leave the rest of us in a state of uneasiness.  It does not satisfy the heart that its sole purpose of being would be merely to make a single decision.  And that is where the misunderstanding lies.  All of us, no matter how strongly convinced of the necessity of supernatural reality, are prone, at times, to naturalism.  The better half of the mind might know that sheer joy awaits us after death, but the will cannot help the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourn no travel returns.  And so also, while one may know very well that a better purpose awaits us in Heaven, it is almost impossible to not be bothered that nothing so grand exists in this life alone.

And in a sense it doesn’t,  “Vanity, vanity, said the preacher,”  but there is still much reason to live, for that single decision which summarizes the entire occurrence of our earthly lives is so very important that it is worth an entire lifetime of toil to make it properly.  It is worth every drop of sweat, blood, and tears that goes into everything you do from creating a work of art, to playing a sport, to taking out the trash.  In fact, it was worth infinitely more than all that, for the decision to live would not even be yours to make had the Infinite God not first decided to die.

What’s Left

I am not a scholar of religions.  I know quite a bit about the way people think and even about the way people in other countries think, but I do not know very much specifically about every one of the millions of religions on the face of the earth.  Therefore, I cannot say I have chosen Christianity as a result of intensive research, but I will say I have done so as a result of much careful consideration, analysis of experience, and collaboration.  In fact, while the first two of these are often the most intellectually satisfying, the third is almost always the most compelling.  If you are a Christian who is having some difficulty believing, I highly recommend talking to an atheist.  Do not, so much, try to argue with them; just talk, ask questions, and go through their thought process with them, and watch as it falls apart all by itself.  Usually, unless they are just genuinely confused people, atheists tend to be very good at arguing, but when it comes to mere philosophical thinking, they run in to natural issues (and please, I do not intend to offend any of my atheist friends, I am just trying to explain what course the debates generally take as a result of the very structure of reality–intellect is irrelevant).  As Christians, we have nothing to hide, there is no intellectual dishonesty that we must cover with word games or what have you.  Instead, the Christian’s duty in an apologetics debate is to stay out-of-the-way of truth and let satins lies expose themselves˚.  All this should be done with the most gracious and loving of attitudes, for it is an attempt to free your opponent’s (whom you would rather call your friend) mind from the lies just as much as it is to free your own.

This post is entitled “what’s left” because I here intend to address what is left of the issue of the Omnipotent; this is the transition post from metaphysics to theology, if we would pretend the argument were so well-organized.  As I have already implied, the primary task that remains for us is to identity which organized religion best suits our derived metaphysical model†. As I said, I am not a scholar of religions; therefore, I will proceed by identifying the necessary qualities of a satisfactory religion and this done, we shall find that the Christian model sticks out dramatically in its principles.  It is for this reason that I hold it to be somewhat superfluous to deal individually with every single religion we can possibly find; though I would by no means discourage the process, for there is likely much wisdom to be gained from such an endeavor.  After all, as C. S. Lewis writes (excuse my failure to bother with exact quotes), while the atheist must hold all talk of anything beyond naturalism as utter nonsense, the Christian is free to believe, and even expect, there to be bits of truth in all religions.

To be clear, concise, and orderly, three things which I almost never am, the sort of religion we should be searching for based on the argument this far posses the following qualities:

  1. It should be centered on an Omnipotent being, a God, that is the cause and definition of all of reality.  This excludes pantheism/polytheism because the quest should be for a root cause, not an inexplicable set of causes–there should be a singular, Omnipotent source of being.  If we instead hold separately the source of each faculty of being, then our argument for reason breaks down and we fall into a cyclical (recursive) insanity.  For our logical scope is dependent on the interdependencies of each of the faculties of being.  That is, if we are sets of unrelated characteristics, then we cannot be “rational thoughts” inside of the Omnipotent’s mind (for rational thoughts must be coherent), and therefore, we cannot explain the cause of logic, and we have left the absolutist scope established earlier through the art of rhetoric. To simplify, there cannot be one god of logic who is not good and one god of goodness who is not logical, as pantheism/polytheism requires, because if that were so, neither would be omnipotent in the sense we have described, the sense that is required in order for a functional scope of logic to exist–logic would no longer be universal, but instead would have a partitioned domain of reality in which to exist.  The alternative is a fractal reality: one that is entirely logical, entirely good, and entirely every other characteristic which the Omnipotent possesses by our model.  This is necessary just as every other part of the argument is necessary: reality must have a root cause, and there we must find also the cause of reason, morality, love, and being-hood.  Pantheism/polytheism are primarily an illusion–usually, they are based around a model that really uses one god from whom others were derived, thus not really being Gods due to their lack of self-sufficiency.˚
  2. Its God should be entirely good, loving, and logical.  As concluded in “The Character of the Omnipotent.”
  3. It should allow for the use of reason.  If any religion does not allow one to contemplate its truth-hood, then there is no reason to suspect it to be true: for even by doing so, you are rejecting its truth-hood.  (Consider the paradoxical sentence: “This statement is false.”)
  4. It should acknowledge us as a part of the Omnipotent’s creation.
  5. It should acknowledge the infinite domain of existence of the Omnipotent as well as of his perfected creation.  It should also allow for the possibility of evil and the natural consequences that arise from morality and immorality as a result of the moral structure of reality. That is, it should allow non-being–the natural consequence of evil due to the fact that all being is good.
  6. It should satisfy the “Art of Thought”–a subject that I will likely touch one in a future post.
Even after this brief list of qualities†, the possible candidate religions are greatly narrowed.  However, there is one piece of the puzzle that is yet missing–a piece whose absence, in all religions that I know of but one, excludes them from the running. That puzzling piece is the reconciliation of natural justice (that non-being stuff) and love.  I know of many religions that simultaneously acknowledge justice and love (usually with a tendency to focus on one or the other), but I am yet to find a religion other than Christianity that allows the two an infinite domain of being.  It goes back to my formally seemingly useless ramblings about pantheism and polytheism.  There are many religions that allow for a partitioned domain in which love may exist and another section in which justice may exist, but only Christianity explains how they may both exist infinitely as they must by our model. It does so with a story:
We have a God who created us perfectly in His own image (like what the pagans call gods).  He loved us infinitely and gave us the capability to love Him and, consequentially, the freedom not to.  We chose not to and the natural consequence should have been death.  Upon our rejection of His love, we were (or would have been–of course time is hardly relevant, and mostly metaphorical) dethroned of our being-hood; however, being a loving God, He chose to give of Himself, thus meeting the definition of a loving God, instead of allowing for the termination of ourselves.  If you have theoretical difficulty with this part, think of Him as thrusting being-hood back into us via the giving of his own being-hood.  Of course, He leaves our salvation ultimately up to us thus leaving the free will intact.  Even after his saving of us, we can still choose to turn away. “Sometimes no matter how much life you give something, it dies anyway.”
Allow me to further relate the story to our model: It is as if our being-hood, our very selves, were a sandcastle built by God, and He gave us the option to enjoy it as it is or knock it down. We chose to knock it down–to knock ourselves down–and so God drew from Himself, a Being of infinite sand, to rebuild it.  Upon rebuilding it, He gave us the choice once more, only this time with us knowing, in the highest sense of the word, what the consequence of destroying it is.  Thus, the result of a redeemed humanity is the exact same thing God created in the fist place only now with a knowledge, or self-awareness, of what that existence is˚.  Hence you have the theme of death and resurrection sprinkled all throughout the universe.
And now my dear friends, that all this messy theorizing and calculating not go to waste, we must move the second faculty of the soul in order that our step up the mountain of purgatory be a complete one†.  That faculty is the will: what are we to do with all this theory?  If our conclusion is correct, then all of our lives here on this earth are but the occurrence of a single event: the decision between eternal live and eternal death.  That’s it.  There is never a moment of meaninglessness, nor a moment of incomparable value.  No amount of pleasure is worth enjoying nor amount of pain worth avoiding if only you may make the right decision about heaven.  “All is vanity under God.”  The only thing that matters at all is God Himself, and therefore the only thing that matters in this life is that precious decision.  Whatever age you are, life is almost over.  Do not let anything get in the way of Heaven, for nothing is worth it.  Choose  very carefully.
________________________________________

˚Like the ‘act of non-action’ for you eastern thinkers

† I apologize for this awkward shift from a Christian perspective to an objective one.  I might rather say: the task remains to explain why our model is best embodied in Christianity.

˚ This is me being clear, concise, and orderly!

† Brief

˚ Of course, with fractal reality, all this story stuff is entirely true and entirely false depending on what you mean by it.  There is indeed a sense in which the redeemed humanity will have never left Heaven because (1) the whole story, even the death, is a part of his paradise, (2) even as a dead man, he was bound for eternal life.  Although he did have a choice in the matter, because he chose life, he may look back at when he was dead and realize that even then he was in paradise because he was on his way to becoming an everlasting splendor, and (3) a finite amount of time spent dead is completely and literally negligible when held next to a timeless eternity of life.

† If you don’t know what I’m talking about, but do care, look up the medieval model of the soul.

The Necessity of Evil

Ooo, creepy.

I ended my post on the Character of the Omnipotent an overly classical˚ foreshadowing of a post to come which would touch on why the Omnipotent would allow our “mortal, finite bodies to be void or partly void of being.”  This is that post.

So far in our model of the Omnipotent, we have One who is Infinite, Rational, Good, Caring, and Loving of us. And as for our model of ourselves, we are infinite, fractal beings embodied in (or imitated by) finite bodies created with love for a purpose equal to the purpose which the Omnipotent has for Himself. That purpose is to exist in the Perfect and Beautiful state which the Omnipotent “presently” enjoys.  If you are an existentialist reading this and have an issue with such being our purpose, then your error is your reading this far before converting to absolutism.  This argument established an absolutist scope from the very beginning; therefore, with in this scope, such a Purpose is valuable on an Absolute level.  That is, the Omnipotents’ Being is Absolutely Good, and to exist like Him is also, therefore, Absolutely good.

By existing “like” Him, I mean existing in the manner in which He created us to exist. Which is to exist as a part of Him.  Each of us is a thought in His mind with a specific “place” that we belong and “function” for which we exist (by nature of being coherent rational thoughts).  Our purpose is to exist in that place and satisfy that function.

Our beings, having been “begotten” of His being, must posses all the qualities of His being†.  Therefore, our beings are loving.  And since they are designed entirely for their purpose, their every quality must be a necessity in fulfilling that purpose.  Therefore, it is necessary that our beings are loving in order to fulfill our purpose.  “Loving of what?” is just a silly question at this point, for the Omnipotent makes up and encompasses all of reality and therefore to love anything other than Him is Absolute Nonsense˚.

So man’s purpose is therefore to love the Omnipotent as He loves man†.  But what is love? Love is the act of feeling joy at another’s presence, the sacrificial longing for the Good of another, the desire of another, the intellectual realization and acknowledgment that another is Good˚… and all arising from the free will of a being.  Therefore, in order to create us to be loving beings, as He did that we might fulfill our purpose, the Omnipotent had to give us free will.  It is Absolute Nonsense for loving beings to exist without free will, and since He is loving, it is also Absolute Nonsense for Him to “beget” beings that are not loving.  Thus we His creatures had to be given the option not to love.

But to not love is to no longer be a part of the Omnipotent, for he is infinitely loving, and to no longer be a part of Him is to no longer be a part of reality–to cease to exist.  This is our model of evil: nonbeing.  In order for love to exist, He had to make our existence optional; thus, evil was a necessary evil.  Any one of us can choose to turn away from the joy of being to the pain of nonbeing.

This whole phenomenon is best illustrated, as it has been, using the metaphor of time (i.e. that we are created at one point and allowed to exist a while in a body and then to decide to no longer be), though it is logically paradoxical because eternity is beyond time.  One might expect that the ones who would have chosen to not be would therefore not have been created.  With fractal reality, we know that both of these are simultaneously true: there is a sense in which the beings who steal away from the gathering of joy† never really exist and also a sense in which a whole journey happens at the conclusion of which such beings are no more.  Remember, reality is infinite and any human scope finite; therefore, in order to see more of reality, we must move our limited scopes from one thing to another through time.

____________________________________________

˚ Alas, one of the tragedies of being born in the eighteenth century (I turn 243 next December).

† Just as it is a logical necessity that His Reason gives birth to ours, so must each of His other “character traits” give birth to each of ours.  (By the way, please do excuse my poor use of the word being; I am merely trying to be consistent.  You may mentally substitute the word soul if you wish.)

˚ And to love the Omnipotent is also to love the self and everyone else for they are all a part of the Omnipotent “A quote from John Milton’s Paradise Lost will go here once I relocate my copy of it–a task which is unusually difficult at 2:30 in the morning” -TWM.

† (hmm, these doctrines are starting to look familiar)

˚ “Ladies with an intellect of love …”

† “Whoever has succeeded in the great attempt / To be a friend’s friend; / Whoever has won a lovely woman / Add in his jubilation! / Yes, who calls even one soul / His own on the earth’s sphere! / And whoever never could achieve this, / Let him steal away crying from this gathering!” -Friedrich Schiller “Ode to Joy”

Absolute Nonsense

Isn’t that a delightful title!?

This being the fifth (if you don’t count Fractal Reality) of a progressive series of posts explaining the logical necessity of Christianity, I suggest that you, my reader and my friend, make sure that you have read the other four before continuing with this one.  Additionally, I have recently made some revisions to the Character of the Omnipotent (an absolute impossibility) and it might therefore be helpful for older readers (or younger ones who have been reading for longer) to go back and check that out as well.

And now to the matter at hand: Absolute Nonsense.  Indeed it is fitting that I begin this post by telling you that I have made revisions to the Character of the Omnipotent as that act epitomizes the subject of this post.  C. S. Lewis begins His book Miracles with the introduction of a concept that he calls ‘Omnipotent Impossibility.’  He expounds on this concept by presenting a model of ‘Relative Impossibility.’  He says that it is impossible for him to see the street as he writes because he is not sitting near a window that faces the street. He goes on to say that this is a relative impossibility because him seeing the street is really only impossible unless he were to get up and go outside or walk over to a window where he could see it.

The defining characteristic of Lewis’ ‘Relative Impossibilities’ is that they are impossibilities that exist relative to other mutable facts.  Him seeing the street is relatively impossible because he is sitting somewhere where he can’t see it, but his location (and or the building’s architecture) is a mutable fact; that is, he is able to change his location.  But it is impossible for him to remain in a situation in which he cannot see the street and also see the street.

‘Omnipotent Impossibility,’ or Absolute Nonsense, arises when the facts that cause the impossibility are immutable. For example, if Lewis were not able to change his situation, if his situate were bound to the very structure of reality, he would Absolutely not be able to see the street.  So can be the case with the Omnipotent.

And such is the case in a few parts of our model of the Omnipotent so far.  In my last Omnipotent post, I said that the Omnipotent could not possibly destroy a part of Himself.  This is an impossibility that exists relative to Him, and consequentially, to the structure of reality.  He cannot both exist and be destroyed, and reality itself depends on His existence–He is reality; therefore, the notion of His destruction or absence is not real. It is Absolute Nonsense.

To simplify and clarify as best I can: all impossibilities exist relative to something, and if that something is mutable, then those impossibilities are not absolute, but if that something is the Omnipotent Himself, then those impossibilities are absolute because He is the very definition of reality and is therefore immutable.

The Character of the Omnipotent

Having arrived at the necessity of a rational, Omnipotent being using the human faculties of reason and rhetoric, I will continue in this endeavor by now beginning to identify the character of the Omnipotent.  He or She must have a character by the simply by virtue of existing in the state that I have called “being-hood.”  Also notice, I will call the Omnipotent a He or She from now on–also as a consequence of His or Her being-hood.

Character is a consequence of being-hood because being-hood is the very thing that ultimately causes character (and always causes it).  By character, I mean the category of qualities of which humanity is the only “known” (or, more accurately, “present to the physical senses in the mortal universe”) race in possession.  These qualities are things like virtue, personality, and other such qualities for which, in some cases, there are no words to describe.  All exist as a result of being-hood because of their transcendence of simple reality (see blog on Fractal Reality) and their requirement of rationality.

Therefore the Omnipotent has character, but  Him having character has much greater implications than one might first see on the surface: it means that all of Reality, the entire universe and beyond, has a singular character and not another.  This means that the Omnipotent and Reality are either Good or Bad, Open-minded or Close-minded, Charitable or Selfish, etc.  The task, then, remains to identify these “character traits.”

Let us begin by considering the nature of reality as embodied in the nature of people.  Few would disagree that humanity is a race of morals.  That’s not to say that they are moral beings, but that they, at the very lest, know right from wrong, and feel an obligation to act as would be acceptable in light of this knowledge (and I’m not just hacking this claim together, this is the very same thing for which Freud so famously coined the scientific term “Super Ego”).  Indeed, this quality is very much responsible for the preservation and civilization of humanity all across the ages.  We can therefore feel quite safe in concluding that the Omnipotent, for whatever reason, wanted humanity to feel accountable for their own morality; i.e. feel joy as a result of righteous action and guilt as a result of evil action.

This conclusion, however, says little about the Omnipotent Himself at this point; there is a piece missing in the puzzle.  That piece is the unanswered question of whether the Omnipotent even knows or cares about humanity.  The answer is rather simple: by definition He must.  If the Omnipotent encompasses all of reality, and everything that exists, including humanity, exists relative to him, then there is nothing in the universe, including humanity, that is not a thought or idea directly out of His very mind.  That is, nothing can exist unless He came up with it and designed its every detail.  For humanity, this means that He not only knows about us each individually and personally, but also that He designed our every intricacy and, being a Rational Being, all for a very specific purpose or function.  For it is an act of irrationality to create or, more accurately, to come up with something for no reason (as one of the defining characteristics of rational thought is that the thoughts have purpose or “reason” behind them, hence the wording).

Therefore, this Omnipotent Being designed us in a particular way for a particular reason, and gave our creation some amount of thought.  In truth, the amount of thought He gave (or gives) could not but be infinite.  By virtue of being an infinite Being and existing in a purely Fractal Reality (a reality in which all things have infinite concrete detail), He cannot be or do anything to any finite degree, but must rather be and do infinitely all things that He is and does.  To better understand the actual logic that leads to this conclusion, please see my post on Fractal Reality, but for a rhetorical proof, just try to imagine a being that is infinitely real but is only somewhat good or only gives a small amount of consideration to what He creates.  Such a being is logically paradoxical, for a being must use a percentage (not just an amount) of their total thoughts they ever conceptualize towards the creation of any one idea, and for a being with an infinite amount of thoughts, this must be an infinite amount of consideration (this forms, if you like calculus as much as I do, a fractal with an infinite area)˚.  Keep in mind that the Omnipotent cannot be bound to time, and therefore, it does not make sense for Him to think about something for “just five minutes” or the like.

Thus, the Omnipotent gave an infinite amount of consideration to His design of humanity.  Therefore, we can be sure that He knows us very personally and must also care that we fulfill the purpose for which he rationally created us.  Because, of course, by very nature of creating something for a purpose, one must care that the thing fulfills that purpose.  The question then remains: what sort of purpose might this be?

His every thought must, in its most natural state, be infinite by the same logic used in the paragraph before last.  Therefore everything that exists (that is, every thought in His mind) exists infinitely–Fractal reality ultimately wins the argument.  Therefore, we His creation, in our most natural state, must exist infinitely.  However, our bodies may be temporal.  Allow me to clarify: it is our reason, and thus our being, that He, a rational being, must be the ultimate cause of (the cause of casualty), but he does not necessarily possess the same relation to our bodies; i.e. our bodies need not be direct “thoughts out of his mind,” though they still exist relative to Him (note once more, with Fractal Reality this is all simultaneously literal and figurative depending on what you mean by those words).  Therefore, only the being part of us need exist infinitely, but our bodies, while still created by Him, need not, to add more metaphor/imagery, be born of Him in order to exist but may have been created by Him merely as a means of housing His child.  Another model of this phenomenon is as follows: our being is directly made out of His being or thought of in His mind, but our bodies were “made by his hands.”  He still must have given infinite consideration to the creation of our finite bodies, but only for the purpose of housing us who are formed of (not only by) his infinite being and therefore exist infinitely†.

And so He created us to be infinite beings with a purpose which requires a sense of morality in order to be fulfilled.  The horrid thought now often comes to mind: what if this purpose is something utterly dreadful?  How can we know that the Omnipotent is not just using us as he is using our bodies?  This question goes back to the distinction I just made.  Our beings are the flesh of His flesh.  He cannot use us anymore than one can use himself.  It is just odd wording to say that someone is using themselves˚. Rather, His purpose for us, who are formed of Him, must be the very same purpose He has for Himself.  This cannot be a destructive purpose because the Omnipotent has a creative character, not suicidal.  In addition, it is an Absolute impossibility for Him to be suicidal, for He could never destroy a single part of Himself–He is Absolutely existent, i.e. does not exist relative to a body that can be killed or anything that can end; he is beyond time. Thus, He has for us, a creative purpose that is designed, by definition, under the maxim of the Categorical Imperative because we are literally extensions of Himself.

It is a logical necessity that He is an ethical being because, like our logic, our ethics are a part of our being-hood which is a part of Him.  However, if you don’t believe by logic that our ethics are faculties of our being (i.e. intrinsically linked to our reason and the rest), then, by rhetoric, consider his acting under the Categorical Imperative: He bore in us an ethical system largely based around the Categorical Imperative, and is, by very definition of who He is, acting under that same maxim.  Therefore, He is infinitely good, and Him being infinitely good and infinitely caring about us and desiring of our well-being, all as has been established, makes him infinitely loving of us.

While all this logic and rhetoric seems to work out, it is likely to leave us confused.  How is it possible then that we, the extensions of Himself are partly evil?  The answer comes down to the definition of evil.  If the Omnipotent is infinitely good, then goodness is a necessary qualifier of being a part of Him.  That is, evil is the absence of Him, and, Him being the definition of existence and reality, the absence of being.  The evil that exists in us in our current hybrid state (part infinite being, part finite creature) is not a part of our being; it is rather, our non-being.  That a mortal, finite body could be void or partly void of being is perfectly reasonable, why this would be allowed by the Omnipotent is topic for another post.

_________________________________________

˚the fractal has infinite area because each of its infinite sides are infinitely long (rather than approaching a limit).  It is much like the limit of an iteration sequence of an already infinitely iterated fractal in a different dimension.  That is, each of the Omnipotent’s thoughts can be thought of as the sides of a fractal because He has infinite thoughts, but each of those thoughts are also infinite in magnitude (they are a part of Him, and are therefore infinite).  Thus the end result is a fractal with sides of infinite length each, and therefore infinite area (the area being proportional to infinity cubed in this case).  This footnote is just here to confuse you and delight me; please ignore it at your convenience.

†Oh dear. So the Omnipotent can think something in His mind, and that thing can be a being (an infinite string of binary).  But He can also chose to have that thing come out of His mind in to some sort of new-found “independent” existence (independent more in will than in dependency).  While the concept of the means by which He has that thing come out of His mind is still an infinite (its one of His ideas), the process itself need not be.  That is, in a sense, the process isn’t real because it isn’t a part of Him.  Analogously, I might have a thought in my mind of something infinite and beautiful (unlike in the case of the Omnipotent, such a thought of mine would be beyond my own comprehension); I might then choose to, with my hands, embody it in some sort of finite language such as music or poetry.  In the same way that the physical music or poetry is not a part of me while the thought still is, so are our bodies not necessarily a part of the Omnipotent while our beings are.  Ultimately, what this means is that it is not necessary for any faculty that does not constitute for the original argument of the “necessity of the omnipotent” to exist infinitely.

˚e. g. “I am using myself to think” or “I am using myself to feel”

The Necessity of Reason

And so in these last two posts, we have arrived at the necessity of an omnipotent being within the scope of reason.  I here intend to address the question that I have hitherto answered only in part: Why reason?  Of course, it is ultimately impossible to give a reasonable answer to such a question because it questions the very scope in which such an answer would have to exist, but the question itself may nonetheless arise within the scope of reason.  That is, even a reasonable man may ask the question at some point, but to answer it, we must turn to the unreasonable.

It is here that I will, as I mentioned at the beginning of the first of these posts, venture into a less functional scope.  This argument will indubitably seem circular–it is–but it is not circular reasoning because it is not reasoning at all.  I am merely trying to identify the qualities and ramifications of the scope of reason, and then allow the reader to decide where he or she stands on the matter or identify the position that he or she has already taken.  The unreasonable is no matter of logic, but of rhetoric.

First of all, lets consider the functionality of our reason on a simple level: on the level of natural science.  We see patterns in nature all the time and consequentially draw the conclusion that these patterns will most likely continue to exist.  And after drawing that conclusion for which there is no evidence, we run “scientific experiments” in which we identify these patterns and come up with some sort of model that can be used to predict the physical outcome of a system assuming the identified patterns repeat themselves.  So far, to my knowledge, we have observed the patterns to hold true one hundred percent of the time.  “We have no reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow,” but it always has.  In my mind, the remarkable thing about this is not so much the fact that the patterns exist (in fact, I could hardly say I’d be all that surprised if the patterns were disrupted one of these days; they are not absolute truths) but rather that humanity has been able to come up with working models of them.  The conclusion, then, from all this is that human reasoning is valid, at lest to some extent, if used properly.

Notice the circular quality of such a conclusion.  I am using some evidence that only has value within the scope of reason (i.e. beyond reason, it might not mean anything at all that humanity is able to create working models of patterns; a “pattern” is, as the naturalists would say, a human invented concept) and then applying it within the scope of reason (i.e. reaching a conclusion based on evidence). Therefore, I have, in reality, not proved anything here, but I have rhetorically identified the scope of reason relative to itself.  This is about all that can be done with a scope–it can be identified relative to other scopes.  But reason is the mother of all scopes, it is the “Omnipotent” scope, if you will.  It parallels in scopes what the omnipotent is in reality.  It exists relative only to itself; to be believed in or not.  For that matter, the omnipotent and the scope of reason are very much like an inseparable package: one must either believe in both or neither as he or she feels is best, but it makes no sense (admittedly within the scope of reason) to believe in one and not the other.

No one comes into philosophy disbelieving in reason just as no one comes into the world disbelieving in God or ethics, but hell has its reasons, and many would sooner deny that which is most naturally within them–their very heart–then bend their stubborn knees to an all powerful creator that would make himself to rule over them and take away their precious freedom.

Oh that precious freedom, some would sacrifice anything for it–even freedom.

The Being-hood of the Omnipotent

Having argued the necessity of the Omnipotent in my previous post, in this, my sub-sequential post, I intent to argue the “being-hood” of the omnipotent as this was not fully addressed in the previous one.  I ended with the necessity of the existence of an Intelligent Omnipotent force or being that existed beyond the scope of causality and the natural universe and from there I called it an “Omnipotent Being” without explaining why.

Of course the title of a “Being” that I–along with orthodox theological doctrines–assigned to the Omnipotent is somewhat metaphorical in that such an existing thing, whatever you want to call it, must really be beyond the scope of any title it could be given in the natural universe.  Everything we say about the Omnipotent is merely a transposition of the Truth which is beyond words, and even beyond our comprehension.  The reason the Omnipotent ought to be called a “Being” is that a “Being” possesses, in some sense, the highest form of existence we know of or can imagine as human beings.

Indeed, it is a logical necessity that the Omnipotent is not only Intelligent, as I have already argued, but also more Intelligent then us, Its “Creation” or “Effect” (It being the ultimate Cause), and furthermore, Intelligent without bound.  All this, as I will argue, is necessarily followed by the assignment of the title of Being.

It is necessary that Its Intelligence is higher than ours by the simple and Absolute principle that a lesser intelligence cannot create a higher one.  As I argued in my previous post, almost by definition, intelligence can only arise from intelligence.  For if ever there were an “intelligence” that resulted from some arbitrary rules (like the laws of physics), we should have no reason to suppose it is actually capable of discovering truth and thus it should not really be called “intelligence” at all.  Rather, if an intelligence arises from rules, as it is reasonably plausible that ours has, those rules must not be arbitrary at all but instead be specifically designed by an intelligent force of sorts to create an intelligence capable of discovering truth. And, if we make the decision to believe that this is not the case in our universe, that our intelligence is indeed incapable of discovering truth, then we mustn’t believe in anything.  There is not much in the way of logic that can be said about this decision, other that the following two considerations that ought to be made: (1) It is obviously a logical error to reach the conclusion that human intellect is incapable of discovering truth by any chain of logic, because the validity of the chain of logic itself is dependent on the human capability of discovering truth. (2) Less on a logical note and more on a rhetorical note–I believe if one really considers the decision, one will find that he or she knows innately that the right answer is the absolutist’s answer (i.e. that human intellect is capable of discovering truth), after all, no sane man can function outside of absolutism, and it is merely some other sort of desire, not reason, that leads to the relativist’s conclusion.  Indeed, it is doubtful that it isn’t a logical error in itself to function on one philosophy (absolutism) and believe in another (relativism). The only problem with using this observation in argument is that the relativist doesn’t believe in logic, and therefore does not “care” that he or she is making a logical error; of course it’s a illogical to disbelieve in logic.

In any case, let us reassume the absolutist philosophy in order that we may continue (because nothing logical can actually be said in the scope of relativism).  As I explained, intelligence may only arise  from (or be caused by) intelligence, and the “first” Intelligence must therefore be the Omnipotent–beyond causality.  The principle that greater intelligence may not arise from lesser intelligence is merely a simpe extension of this basic principle.  If intelligence may only arise from intelligence, then logically, greater intelligence cannot come out of lesser intelligence because that would be like “more” intelligence coming from less. The human mind is incapable of imagining an intelligent being that designs another intelligent being whose intelligence is of greater capacity than his own.  The question, if this were to happen, would be: “Where did the extra intelligence come from?”  Because intelligence may not come from the arbitrary it is also necessarily true that a greater level of intelligence cannot “arbitrarily” come out of a lesser one.  It would be as if a portion of the intelligence had come out of the arbitrary, which is impossible by definition.

Finally, it is necessary that the Omnipotent is Intelligent without bound.  This part of the argument is much more rhetorical, but I urge you to try to view it from a calculus perspective.  If intelligence exists, but may only arise from other intelligence, then there must be an infinite chain of intelligences causing other intelligences.  But the Omnipotent is Itself the infinite chain, and therefore is infinite in intelligence.  Furthermore, if the Omnipotent is, all as was argued in the previous post, the Absolute Truth, or the Ultimate Reality, and is also the most Intelligent thing in the scope of this Ultimate Reality, then He or She must logically also be the “Ultimate” or “Absolute” Intelligence. It makes little difference whether we prefer to call Him or Her a Being of “Infinite Intelligence” or of “Absolute Intelligence” or whatever else along these lines, as these are merely synonyms.

Having determined the quality of the Intelligence of the Omnipotent to be Infinite or Absolute, it then follows naturally that we should assign Him or Her the highest level of existence we can imagine and yet see this as an insufficient description, hence the title of a “Being.”