God as Being and Concept

God as Being and Concept:
An Epistemological Essay on Ontology

Part VII
Creation for Purpose and Intent:
Mutually Inclusive Ontology and its Principles

I

Mutually Inclusive Ontology

Without mankind our God is but,
A tree that falls in the middle of the woods;
Without mankind our god is but,
A sound that no one hears.
A sound that no one hears,
Does not exist.

– From my poem ‘Reflections on the First Day’

In arguments for the existence of God many different philosophers have attempted to conceptualize a reason to justify the creation of mankind. The question of being lies in acknowledgement of being; I acknowledge it, therefore it is. This could go further into questioning if we are to describe what it is to which we refer as “I.” But first, the major question: there is one major, seemingly unanswerable, question that has pervaded philosophy and ontology for thousands of years and especially philosophy concerning the nature of being and its purpose. This question stands out amid many others from different perspectives of religion; but the way in which it is to be answered lies in mutually inclusive ontology.

The purpose and intent of the creation of human beings and by what means and for what purpose are thrown into existence is an interesting concept and has often been answered in religious contexts. Along with how the creation of human beings by a god is justified has always stood out among many other philosophical problems of religion and being. But this question creates a creation concept as a means of being in and of itself. Why would an omnipotent god bring humans into conscious existence and what is the intent behind it? Mutually inclusive ontology: of that I will say a few words.

The question of being is how being is acknowledged as existing. How do you verify that which is? In the same context as the tree that falls in the middle of the forest. Acknowledgement precedes existence; “I acknowledge it, therefore it is.” So being is of course based on acknowledgement of perceptions. What is not known is not acknowledged and is thus nothing. Nothing is never something unless it is acknowledged. Think of the nature of creation, the existence brought about for purpose by an omnipotent creator, in the sense in which we acknowledge the existence of sound. Sound does not exist because no one is there to hear it: it does not exist because it is not acknowledged.

“If a tree falls in the middle of the woods does it make a sound?”

Yes, it makes a sound; but sound only exists if someone is there to hear it. It only exists if it is acknowledged as existing.

“If god created a universe without any creature of consciousness to hear or acknowledge its existence, would it exist?”

Yes it would exist. But being, but god as well, only exists if someone is there to acknowledge it.

Of course a god would exist, in and of itself, but sound cannot exist if it goes unheard. Something that is un-acknowledged is nothing; when that, beforehand nothing, is acknowledged: it is something.

Think of the purpose and intent of creation as a means, in and of itself, to assert being. If sound existed in the woods with no one there to hear it – the only way for it to exist would be to bring about a means of being heard; a means for it to exist and be acknowledged as something. Without mankind god exists in the same manner as sound in the middle of the forest. Acknowledgement precedes existence and is based first and foremost on being heard. “I think it is, therefore it is.”

So without mankind god is the sound in the middle of the forest that no one hears. A scream out in the universe or an echo through the ages that is not acknowledged. Without mankind, god would have no acknowledgment, would not be heard, and as such would not exist: ontology in the question of creation is mutually inclusive in the question of being and its intent and purpose. Our creation can be seen as a means for god to exist, like sound, and be heard and acknowledged as existing. Without which, it is nothing; when it is acknowledged, it is something. If it is acknowledged – it is.

As I said in the poem, Reflections on the First Day, without mankind God is but an un-heard scream out in the woods. A tree in the middle of the woods that falls and no one hears, and again, sound only exists when someone is there to hear it and acknowledge its being.

The purpose of creation would be a means of asserting existence, prompting acknowledgement; likewise akin to that sound looking for ears so that it might be heard and in this exist. In this context mankind is relied on for the establishing or hearing the sound of God in the woods. God is the sound and in us he created the ears to be heard. Mankind is relied on by God for existence as much as mankind relies on God for being in terms of creation and being: it is a mutually inclusive process. Look at in the sense of a coin – with god being one side and man being the other side. A one sided coin cannot exist – so the other side is needed. This is my concept of mutually inclusive ontology.

The purpose of creation on behalf of god was at once a means to exist, in and of itself, and a means to cause to exist. Therefore the purpose of creation was mutually inclusive ontology and existence.

II
On Omnipotence:
A Paradox of Infallibility

First of all, omnipotence is a contradictory state and does not exist. There is no such thing as complete, never erring omnipotence. Omnipotence can be seen in many different lights. Some contest that god could intervene by transcending the laws of the world and the probability of physical laws by miracles and did so in the creation of the universe but at the same time decided to give mankind free will and, so to speak, let the chips fall as they may. But this concept of god is in the realm of a man planting a flower and simply sitting back and watching it grow. A benevolent creature with interest but no control over the life and death of the flower.

God, in definitions, can transcend also logic and, for example, could create a square circle. This is, of course, an attributed phenomenon to a being that has yet to do so. Many people speak as though they are telling god what “he” can or cannot do. Nature wrote the laws that god takes credit for.

Some believe that omnipotence does not transcend the laws of physic and logic and that omnipotence is the mastery of the laws of nature and the creator is subject to his own laws. Imagine this in the scenario of a man creating highway laws, such a cop or judge, he has created them but is subject to them as well. It is also believed by some that miracles are rare intentionally to prevent humans from the absolute knowledge of god’s existence because this could destroy the concept of free will. This is easy to respond to. No. It would not.

But, since I’m so fond of thought experiments and paradoxes, I’ve created on in the form of a conversation to present here. It is based on: “God is omnipotent, therefore he is always right and never wrong.” If you agree with this starting point, read on.

If god exists and is omnipotent – he is never wrong and without error. Consider the following dialogue:

“I have absolute, infallible proof, that God does not exist.”
– How?
“God told me himself, ‘I do not exist and have never existed.’ And god is never wrong.”
– If god was right and never existed – he would never have been there to tell you he did not exist; therefore he never could have said that and thus does not say he does not exist. So the source, even if was god, is in no sense infallible. It is a mutually exclusive process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s