Why doesn't God believe in a meta-God?

We are taught by the religious authorities that the truth is that there is a God that we can't see and looks over us and the universe. Now, God possesses perfect knowledge, he knows everything. So if we were to assume that the existence of an invisible God above and beyond us is a truth, then mustn't God must accept that same principle? If he doesn't, then because he has perfect knowledge, we know that his way of thinking is the best way because he knows all and we should follow him. But we are told that there is no higher than God. So in theory if we were to adapt God's knowledge to our own, we would find we are in error when we assume the existence of God. Or that God indeed does believe in one higher and beyond Him, which isn't what the books say. As appealing as the idea of an infinite series of Gods stretching into the horizon may be.

 

You make an illicit logical jump between what we must accept and what God must accept. We must accept that God exists; this only implies that God knows that He exists, not that there is another God (which would nullify God as being all powerful, since two all powerful beings cannot exist simultaneously, else they limit each others power.)

 

But what we must accept must be found only in and obtained from God, since what other source of pure knowledge is there? If that is so, the fact (or dogma) that there is an unobservable superior entity follows and it comes from God, since it is true. If that is the best knowledge, then it proceeds logically that it is also God's, therefore he must also accept an unobservable superior entity.

 

Depends how you look at it. You don't recognise what you don't know. Since we as humans are imperfect how would we know if God is perfect and all powerfull. Maybe there is a God above God that is even more powerfull. Does a dog (not that men are dogs) know there is a God that is more powerfull then men. Men who takes care of him and punishes him if he disobeys the rules.. The dog doesn't know cause he doesnt have the knowledge. To him men is all powerfull.

 

Humans are incapable of understanding God conspetually. The closest I can come is it call the entierty of everything God.

 

the bible gets around that lil' problem with three simple words

in the beginning

 

I don't dispute that all knowledge would could from God and that whatever this God says would be true. What I doubt is your logic - simply because we must accept that their is an unobservable, all powerful being doesn't mean that God also must accept that there is ANOTHER being that even HE cannot observe. God IS that being in question, not some other being. What you suggest is a logical impossibility, as I stated before. You create the same illusion two mirrors facing each other create.

 

There is the universe... and the theory of the multiverse

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory, also known as Membrane Theory.[13] In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer);[14][15] each universe takes the form of a D-brane.[14][15] Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.[16] This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#M-theory

So considering God as a symbolistic metaphor of the universe(as I do at least) the OPs question is a valid one.

 

i can't really see why you quoted me there... i wasn't diagreeing with anyone's interpretation of the universe and/or god simply explaining how the bible (for many believers in God, the only source of information about Him) answers the OP's original philosophical question.

the multiverse theory i hinted at in the title of my post (tis a phrase popularised by stephen hawking) ... the easiest way to avoid infinity is to provide an answer that is itself, infinite... the bible circumvents this by simply denying infinity itself, all was created by god... the multiverse example you gave states that a universe' creation is also only possible with an occurance from another source, i can see why you thought the op was relevant if this is the theory you prefer ... others that teh universe is a self replicating process... others that the universe is replica of another universe.. and even some that state that it is all held up on the back of turtles

gods .. unverses... turtles .... it's all just theories so we can try to grasp the concept of infinity ... not terribly complicated at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

 

I agree with you, well stated. But the reason I brought it up because I saw a connection between "father of God" and the birth of our universe from another. I simply think that "in the begining" is a narrow veiw, for such a ignoriant short sited race as us humans. And you brits.

What is considered a begining? The only way I can take it is that we do not have the proper perception to understand such vast consepts. As you said, we can only theorize and speculate.

I have a very abstract way of making connections, and sometimes find it hard to effectivly articulate myself.

 

The beginning is without form or void, that is amounting to nothing in terms of context or character. Then god said let there be "light", consciousness, awareness, conception. Meaning the world is without value save the meaning we assign to it.

 

I see that as an arrogant veiw. A single persons life is what his pont of veiw makes it, but I don't know. I can't argue something I don't really comprehend.

 

Look at the equation from the other side.

There is no human value that is necessary for reality to be what it is.

 

Could you say that a different way for me buddy? Didn't quite follow. Seemed like you were contradicting what you said earlier.

 

Human values are valuable only to human beings. There is no need for human values outside the human community. Nature has no respect for human values.
The only value the world has for us is the value we give to it.

 

Ah, you mean value from a point of perspective. I thought you meant it in a more litural sense, which baffles me because I can't argue that either way. Nature acts independantly of us, until we exert ourselves upon it. But then you look at things on a quantum level and it's different...

But are we not quamtum on the scale of the universe? Where is the line drawn and who draws it?

 

Divisions are meaningful in terms of electromagnetic spectrum. Our lines are drawn by biology.

 

Those lines can be bent, blurred, or even broken alltoghether. If I'm not mistaken, aren't you into trancendant meditation? Then you should understand how feeble the social and biological constructs of our minds and bodies really are.

"our" lines are too varried. A man with skitzophrenia does not live in our reality, yet he does. He is simply a concous observer with lines that don't jive with the accepted falicy.

 

If god does exist then it would not "believe" (poor word choice for this topic) in a meta-god or any thing about it. Because god would be an uncaused cause. Or else we have turtles all the way down... Ad Infinitum.

 

Our perspectives vary in attitude and vector. But the body is a communication device that operates within a certain range of frequencies induced or supported by earth's magnetosphere and troposphere. This is one reason why we are able to communicate with each other, we all operate on the same frequency. Human eyes perceive visible light only within a certain bandwidth. It would do me absolutely no good to have a gamma light body as no one would be able to see it.

What I am saying is that subjective differences are differences in form only and are not meaningful in determining our substantial relationships.