Originally Posted by PureX
Some folks are as irrationally devoted to philo-scientific meaninglessness as others are irrationally drawn to "God did it all", I think. And the rest of us ... most of us, I'd say, land somewhere in the "I don't know but I lean toward ...", category.
I, personally, just can't get around the fact that existence as we know it (complexity) is being expressed through order (the limitations inherent to expressed energy). To me, that implies purpose. So much so that I would need someone to explain to me how I'm wrong in thinking that.
On the other hand, I can't go so far as to ascribe intelligence, or a 'personality' to that implied purpose. That would just be anthropomorphic projection, in my opinion. So I've had to learn to let the mystery stand as it is.
Any scenario that aims at explaining why there is order rather than disorder is metaphysical, but it seems to me that when we take into account non-spatial and non-temporal ("pre-universe") realities and consider what must be in order for what is to be as it is, attributing existence as we know it in space-time to some kind of intelligence is unavoidable.
In his book Behold the Spirit
, Alan Watts made the point that "to argue that Reality is not a blind energy but a "living principle," an "impersonal superconsciousness," or an "impersonal mind" is merely to play with words and indulge in terminological contradictions. A "living principle" means about as much as black whiteness, and to speak of an "impersonal mind" is like talking about a circular square. ...From many points of view the term "personal" is badly chosen, but it means simply that God is alive in the fullest possible way."
Nevertheless, IMV, the term "personality" is appropriate given a proper conceptual frame.
I strongly object to the question "who made God"
since to ask that is to suppose "God" is a being alongside other beings and thus anthropomorphize him. The UB destroys that "argument" by simply stating in a matter-of-fact way, 3:0.3 Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature.
I agree, but there is
a way to understand how God came to qualify as a
personality -- but only hypothetically
because, as the statement implies, there is really no beginning.