Proof that God exists

Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Proof that God exists

While debating on YouTube a guy told me he had proof that God exists. I was intrigued and he seemed like a decent fellow so I asked for his proof. This is what I was sent. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s views.

“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.

"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean. When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination. When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is. And, so do atheists.

But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.

But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.

And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim. Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.

For the purposes of establishing a workable definition of God, we must first familiarize ourselves with some integral terms and their definitions and conditions that ensure that the God we define is worthy of the title, "God."

So, what sort of characteristics must an entity have in order to qualify for the title of "God?"

First, and foremost, any entity qualified for the title of "God" must be provably able to Create the Universe. Anything less would, at most, make such an entity only one of possibly many gods. So, what qualities must an entity have in order for it to be able to Create the Universe?

Such a being must be:

Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.

These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God." If the being lacks omnipotence, it will be unable to Create the Universe. If it lacks omniscience, it will be unable to Create the Universe. And, if it lacks omnipresence, it will be unable to Create the Universe.

This seems like a tall order, until we realize that the Universe IS being Created - so, we can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something meets the criteria we just listed - otherwise, we would not be here to contemplate the question. This entity may possess other characteristics about which we may have no knowledge; but, it absolutely will possess these three characteristics.

Now, let's review some standard definitions of words that will be integral to the process of proving God's existence, shall we? (source: www.dictionary.com)

knowl·edge -

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.

om·nis·cient -

adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.

omniscience

noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge

omnipotent -

1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.

omnipresent -

--adjective present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.

It should be noted that, included within the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is a direct reference to God - indicating general consensus on the characteristics we have ascribed to God. We're not just making up God as we go along and just for ourselves. These characteristics really are the bare minimum requirements for God.

Interestingly enough, the bare minimum requirements for God also point us to exactly who and what God really is. Let's analyze this by looking at one of the characteristics, shall we?

Omnipresent -

In order for God to be omnipresent, God must be at all places and at all times. This would necessarily include the actual space and time occupied by everything in the Universe - and, the space between everything in the Universe. This tells us, quite clearly, that God IS the Universe and that everything in the Universe is representative of Parts of God, in Partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe. In the instant that anything extant or non-extant (space) in the Universe is not God, God ceases to be omnipresent - and, ceases to be God. Because, omnipresence is a requirement for God, remember?

But, how can God be space? How can God be something that isn't? Well, you are mostly made up of space, aren't you? There is far more space between the subatomic particles in the atoms that make up your body than the space they actually occupy - by an enormous margin. Actual matter represents a minuscule portion of the Universe. But, still, the existence of the Universe depends on the space that holds things Here and There. Therefore, the existence of God depends on space, too.

Omnipotence also carries the same implication - the only way you can do anything and everything there is to do attendant to the Creation of the Universe is to BE the Universe and all the processes involved in its Creation. In the instant that anything in the Universe that is not God does anything, God is rendered non-omnipotent - and, therefore, not God. Because, omnipotence is a requirement for God, remember?

To further clarify this point: If I throw a rock at a wall at 2:00PM EST, and I'm not God, then I did something God could not do - throw that particular rock at that particular wall at that particular time and place. That renders God neither omnipotent, nor omnipresent. And, the fact that God could not experience the throwing of the rock at the wall at that time and place, means that He also could not know about it - because, knowledge is acquired through experience - an experience He didn't have; because, something that was not God had it, instead.

This brings us to omniscience. For clarity, I'll repeat the definitions of knowledge, omniscient, and omniscience:

knowl·edge -

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.

om·nis·cient -

adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.

omniscience -

noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge

If God IS the Universe and all of the processes involved in its Creation, as is required by the characteristics of omnipotence and omnipresence(which we have already established), then God is necessarily experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - and, therefore, able to acquire the acquaintance or familiarity attendant to meeting the definition of knowledge.

And, since God IS the Universe, and all knowledge of any kind is contained within it, God, by definition, possesses all knowledge of any kind, and is, therefore, omniscient.

Of course, these three simplistic terms do an injustice to God - the reality of God is far more complex than the simple acknowledgement of three fundamental characteristics. It would be more accurate and meaningful to say that God is All that is True in the Universe. That necessarily includes all of the matter in the Universe, as well as the space in between. It also necessarily includes all of the processes, circumstances, and events that take place anywhere and at any time in the Universe.

There, I've given you a proof for the existence of God and three of His/Her/Its fundamental characteristics. But, I would point out that, for every characteristic you would ascribe to God, you must be able to prove it - otherwise, you render the being to which you refer non-existent. That means that, as soon as you say something like, "God has promised that all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will spend eternity in Heaven with Him, " you render God non-existent. Why? Because, you cannot prove that He made any such promise or that He could or would follow through with it - and, if you would assert that He did, then you MUST be referring to a different entity that cannot be proven to exist.

So, you can choose to accept a provable definition of God and one that requires no faith or belief; because, He/She/It makes no promises or threats and is self-evident and is provably Creating the Universe. Or, you can choose to believe in a God of your imagination, or the imaginations of others, that requires faith and belief. Or, you can choose to believe in no God at all. The choice is yours - and, God doesn't care one way, or another, which way you would choose. Any and all choices you make are attendant to God experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - which is attendant to God's omniscience.

The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.

Please, let me know what you think.”


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:You

lifewhispers wrote:

You really need to work on your interpretation skills - or, stop being so dishonest.  I NEVER said that All in the Universe is True.  I said, All that is True in the Universe is God.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Actually you said it the other way round "God = all that is true in the universe"

You've managed to dishonestly quote your-self einstein

And, you don't see that either way means the same thing?  Sucks to be you.

lifewhispers wrote:

The point is to formulate a tenable definition of God, Creator of the Universe.  In order to do that, you MUST equate God to All that is True in the Universe -

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Then do it and prove it,  oohh you can't

Oh, it's done.  You just cannot seem to come up with a valid logical argument against it.  But, you are welcome to continue trying.

lifewhispers wrote:

unless, you can demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything else that IS NOT TRUE.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

It is not for me to demonstrate anything, this is your proof, please prove that the universe was created by something true

Not by speculation

Not by hypothesis

Not by assumption

And not by somebody's inability to disprove a negative

Ie my inability to disprove invisible space chickens, does not confirm their existence

Ie positively prove it,  oohh you can't  

You have reasoned yourself into absurdity - again.  There are exactly two possibilities:

A - Whatever brought the Universe into existence is true

or,

B - Whatever brought the Universe into existence is not true

If "A," then the Universe can exist.

If "B," then the Universe cannot exist, and we cannot discuss it.

We're discussing it; therefore, "A."  It proves itself by deductive reasoning and empirical evidence (the existence of the Universe).

lifewhispers wrote:

And, again, your comment was so poorly worded as to make it difficult to interpret.  But, despite your poor wording, I think I got the message - and, it ended up being just a couple of straw men.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

I must have asked you for proof, and your proof is......" just a couple of straw men"

It still stands at the top of this thread.  You might consider reading it.

lifewhispers wrote:

I have no burden of proving that all in the Universe is true.  That's just a lame attempt on your part to move the goal posts. 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Arrr you spotted my lame attempt to shift the burden of proof, on-to the person making the claims of proof (this is sarcasm)

Well, I call it foolishness and unresponsive to the issues.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
 

But, you also maintain that its creation stopped 14 billion years, or so, ago.  At least, that seems to be the crux of your objection to my referring to it as an ongoing process of Creation.  And, you don't think it is reasonable to assume that whatever initiated the event colloquially known as the Big Bang is true.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

I don't think assumption is proof, I believe we disagree on this point

Of course, we disagree on this point - you think it's not possible to deduce the truth of that which brought the Universe into existence (and, therefore, unable to safely assume its truth).  That is a patently absurd position on its face - to any rational trier of fact.

lifewhispers wrote:

So, I have a question for you:

If whatever initiated the Big Bang is not true (not a part of All that is True in the Universe), how are we able to discuss it?

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Shifting the burden of proof, again

Unresponsive to the question.  I'll ask, again:

If whatever initiated the Big Bang is not true (not a part of All that is True in the Universe), how are we able to discuss it?

I'm proving to you that your position that it's possible for whatever is responsible for bringing the Universe into existence to be not true is patently absurd - by getting you to notice, for yourself, that you cannot come up with any alternative explanation, or even a theory about how something not true could bring the Universe into existence.  Now, answer the question, or concede that you can't.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Thing is I don't know, I believe it's outside my understanding, so I remain open-minded but skeptical of all hypothesis

I haven't presented any hypotheses.  It is patently obvious that whatever is responsible for bringing the Universe into existence is true.  It's not an assumption.   It is a logical deduction.  It proves itself by virtue of the existence of the Universe.

Rev-Devilin wrote:

Processes ? could you clarify what you mean by processes

lifewhispers wrote:

From Wikipedia:

A process (lat. processus - movement) is a naturally occurring or designed sequence of changes of properties or attributes of an object or system.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] More precisely, and from the most general systemic perspective, every process is representable as a particular trajectory (or part thereof) in a system's phase space.

It may refer to:

You may now continue your tap dance.

Rev_Devilin wrote:

"Processes ? could you clarify what you mean by processes"

I can see you are having problems here, when somebody uses the word "you" this refers to your-self, if somebody wishes to know what Wikipedia means by processes, then they would word it like this, "Processes ? could you give me a link to Wikipedia for a general definition of Processes ?"

Can you see the difference ?

What processes are you referring to specifically

"an official notice of a legal proceeding" or "A specific recipe" ?

In the context of this discussion, ALL OF THEM.  They were not here at the beginning of the Universe; but, they are here, now.  And, there will be more new processes as time goes on that are not here, now.  What is responsible for them, if not All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God?  And, how is it not reasonable to refer to the formation of new processes as creation?  It's entirely consistent with the definition, and the intended use of the word.

You may now continue your tap dance.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote:Rev sez a lot of

Quote:
Quote:
Rev sez a lot of shit that I'm too tired to read right now while, I think, reading lifewhispers' statements a little bit too critically (All that is true in the universe != all in the universe is true, Rev. Sorry, man. Much as I'd like to say otherwise, all he's saying is that he's defining Ultimate Truth as The-Sum-of-All-Truths-Including-The-Truth-That-All-That-Is-Not-True-Is-False. ie: It Is What It Is. It's a tautology. It's like defining '1' as '1+1-1'. That doesn't necessarily give it any weight beyond it being accurate with relation to itself... but I digress).

Lifewhispers sez a lot of other shit that I'm too tired to read while he seems to think Rev's not quite getting what he's saying, or is intentionally misinterpreting him.

Just out of curiousity... why does the universe need to have a creator?

And... just to doublecheck a few things with you now that I've had some time to think about this stuff w/out the other things that were erupting in my life the first time through...

A)Are you or are you not ascribing any supernatural abilities to 'God'?

B)Are you or are you not asserting any facet to the existence of 'God' beyond the physical reality of the universe, including all accurate (even if currently unknown by humanity) data about the universe?

C)Are you or are you not asserting an intelligence/consciousness/awareness to the aggregate physical processes of the universe beyond whatever intelligence/consciousness/awareness exists in discrete segments of those physical processes (example: Human beings are discrete segments of the aggregate physical processes of the universe, being distinct and easily separable subsets of those processes.) ie: When you say the universe interprets and acts upon the total knowledge it possesses, are you advocating the idea of actual universal consciousness, or are you instead meaning it more in the sense of the universe as a tabulator or Babbage machine processing the physical reality of itself, which can be describe with, and so thought of as, information?

D)I am way too drunk for this shit right now. I am way too tired to be awake when I am this drunk. Why the fuck can't I get to sleep tonight?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers

lifewhispers wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

[E=mc2]

Yes, that's quite an elegant THEORY. 

Oh no you di-ent.

Scientific "theory" is the best available explanation based on fact. Take note of the terms "the best" and "fact". You're talking "hypothesis". Since Einstein's relativity worked out almost all of the kinks in Newton's already amazing physics, you're belittling something that is very well founded in evidence.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:But, 14

lifewhispers wrote:

But, 14 billion years ago, there did not exist the countless processes involved in Creation that exist today.  They just weren't there, right after the beginning of the event colloquially known as the Big Bang.  They came into existence, or were CREATED OVER TIME.   This transcends mere "change."  How many processes were there right after the beginning of the Big Bang?  How many processes are there, now?  How many do you suppose there might be in the future?  Will they be Created?  Or, will they just "change" into existence?  And, what is going to be responsible for them, if not All that is True in the Universe, or God (as I have defined God)?

As far as we have information available, it goes back about 14 billion years, yeah. But are you introducing a guiding hand into "processes"?

Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean the best way of dealing with that is to introduce a magic creature.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:The point

lifewhispers wrote:

The point is to formulate a tenable definition of God, Creator of the Universe.  In order to do that, you MUST equate God to All that is True in the Universe - unless, you can demonstrate how the Universe could be Created by anything else that IS NOT TRUE.

Please don't take this as the teenage version of "what is truth?", but help me out with what you mean by "true". Are we talking true and false, or true and non-existent, or ... something?

While this exercise of determining the definition of something for which you have no reference to define is ... well, it's weird, I'm willing to go along for the ride.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:D)I am way too

BMcD wrote:

D)I am way too drunk for this shit right now. I am way too tired to be awake when I am this drunk. Why the fuck can't I get to sleep tonight?

It's counter-intuitive, but alcohol actually disrupts sleep instead of doing what it seems to do, which is help. Valerian root and a glass of milk work better.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Can someone explain this

  Can someone explain this ---->         I  would like to have a full explanation please ......    


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:  Can

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

  Can someone explain this ---->         I  would like to have a full explanation please ......    

I believe you mean the bounciferous nature of blue boggley-eyed blobs? The key is to define the letter "b" as all that is true in the universe.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
yo Will , "as all

  yo Will  ,  "as all that is true in the universe", .... yeah,  as if that is an answer ! 

    .... and as if we need one ..... a definition of Gawed,  

  thanks , your fan, me , GOD.

       


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: Just out of

BMcD wrote:

 

Just out of curiousity... why does the universe need to have a creator?

It's not a matter of the Universe "needing" a creator.  It is a matter that billions of people have chosen the perspective that the Universe is a Creation - and, therefore, must have a Creator.

There is nothing "wrong" with that perspective.  The complexity and beauty of the Universe justifies the perspective that it is a Creation with a Creator - it just does not justify the idea that the Creator is anything like Earth religions have posited (as an anthropomorphic being with human-like characteristics, qualities, desires. etc.).

What is clear is that the Universe is Creating itself.  Therefore, it is its own Creator.  As dichotomous and strange as it may seem, that is what is consistent with the evidence at hand.

So, how do we describe that which is Creating the Universe?  I have chosen to describe it as All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.

BMcD wrote:

And... just to doublecheck a few things with you now that I've had some time to think about this stuff w/out the other things that were erupting in my life the first time through...

A)Are you or are you not ascribing any supernatural abilities to 'God'?

No, absolutely not!  In fact, I am saying that, by all observations and evidence, it is impossible to violate the physical laws of the Universe - rendering the "supernatural" and "miracles" to be completely untenable.

BMcD wrote:

B)Are you or are you not asserting any facet to the existence of 'God' beyond the physical reality of the universe, including all accurate (even if currently unknown by humanity) data about the universe?

Of course!  You have an imagination.  It is capable of conceiving that which is not real.  In fact, it is through your imagination that you can make things that are not real (imagined things) into things that are real (Creations of your own).  Everything you have ever actively Created started as a thought and an image in your imagination.  It was then followed by intent and action to produce the result that is your Creation.  This is TRUE.  It is a PART of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.  But, it started out as something that was not real (an image in your imagination).  So, we HAVE "something"(your Creation) coming from "nothing" (an image in your imagination).

And, my definition also necessarily includes all mathematical truths, logical truths,  and inferred truths, based on the nature of the Universe - even if they are not physically real.

The non-physical in the Universe MUST be taken into account, in order to explain the physical Universe.  How else does one explain the appearance of a Creation that was the result of an image in someone's imagination?  Did it evolve into existence?  No.  Are there any natural processes responsible for it that did not require some agency on the part of a sentient being?   No.  Did it just appear on its own? No.  Did it spring from nothing (an image in someone's imagination)?  Yes.  How do we account for that without considering the non-physical in the equation?

The Universe has already demonstrated its ability to produce something real (a Creation) through the use of something that is not real (an image in someone's imagination).  This has far reaching implications - going all the way back to the very beginning of the Universe (if WE can Create something real from something that is not real, then some other being could, as well - even if we know nothing about that being).  It opens up a possibility that only considering physicality leaves shut - even if it does remain indeterminate.  But, we stand as evidence of why we should not just consider the physicality of the Universe in consideration of what is giving rise to it.

BMcD wrote:

C)Are you or are you not asserting an intelligence/consciousness/awareness to the aggregate physical processes of the universe beyond whatever intelligence/consciousness/awareness exists in discrete segments of those physical processes (example: Human beings are discrete segments of the aggregate physical processes of the universe, being distinct and easily separable subsets of those processes.) ie: When you say the universe interprets and acts upon the total knowledge it possesses, are you advocating the idea of actual universal consciousness, or are you instead meaning it more in the sense of the universe as a tabulator or Babbage machine processing the physical reality of itself, which can be describe with, and so thought of as, information?

Well, that really depends on what you consider to be "awareness" "consciousness" and "intelligence."

Wikipedia defines Consciousness as:

Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.

Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself, and access consciousness, which refers to the universal availability of information to processing systems in the brain.[1] Phenomenal consciousness is being something and access consciousness is being conscious of something.

It can be argued that evolution exhibits phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness, by virtue of its being able to take all  lifeforms in a given system into consideration and adapt them dynamically in accordance with experience and changes in environment and other circumstances.  Those that cannot be adapted will be eliminated.  Those that can be adapted will evolve, or change, in order to continue their existence.  Evolution even takes aesthetics into consideration (i.e. -  physical attraction between the sexes, in order to facilitate procreation). 

Now, that is not to imply that evolution, or the Universe on the whole, actively "cares" about the outcome or influences it in accordance with independent will - only that it exhibits consciousness (awareness of all information in a system) and intelligence (able to employ that information in its systems), as is evident through the existence of balanced ecosystems and is generally "motivated" towards survival, rather than extinction, as is evident by adaptability.  If there was no "motivation" for survival and the continuance of life, there would be no driving force behind evolution.

But, am I positing an anthropomorphic being that pulls levers and pushes buttons behind a curtain?  No.

Of course, there remains the question of whether the consciousness of the Universe has always been there, or whether it has developed, or is developing over time?  The evidence seems to imply the latter.  Perhaps, at some point in the distant future, the Universe WILL become truly conscious and aware of itself, even if it is not, now.

For my purposes, it does not matter.  For me, it is sufficient to define God as All that is True in the Universe, and then, go about figuring out what that is.  So, "God" answers no questions (in that it does not, in and of itself, explain anything) - but, provides all answers (in that, All that is True in the Universe implies a process of discerning what is the truth, and stands as evidence of itself).


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:But, 14

lifewhispers wrote:

But, 14 billion years ago, there did not exist the countless processes involved in Creation that exist today.  They just weren't there, right after the beginning of the event colloquially known as the Big Bang.  They came into existence, or were CREATED OVER TIME.   This transcends mere "change."  How many processes were there right after the beginning of the Big Bang?  How many processes are there, now?  How many do you suppose there might be in the future?  Will they be Created?  Or, will they just "change" into existence?  And, what is going to be responsible for them, if not All that is True in the Universe, or God (as I have defined God)?

HisWillness wrote:

As far as we have information available, it goes back about 14 billion years, yeah. But are you introducing a guiding hand into "processes"?

In some cases, the answer is clearly, "yes."  In some cases, maybe not.

WE are a part of the processes that are responsible for the creation of the Universe, as it is.  So, yes, we act as a "guiding hand" into processes.  Evolution acts as a "guiding hand" in its processes.  "Gravity" works as a "guiding hand" in its processes.

But, let it suffice that I am not making any extraordinary claims, or positing anything that is not consistent with the evidence that we have available at this time.

HisWillness wrote:

Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?

In the context that a process of discernment will reveal one against the other. 

HisWillness wrote:

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean the best way of dealing with that is to introduce a magic creature.

Of course, not.  And, I have done no such thing.  I thought that, at least, that much was clear.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:WE are a

lifewhispers wrote:

WE are a part of the processes that are responsible for the creation of the Universe, as it is.  So, yes, we act as a "guiding hand" into processes.  Evolution acts as a "guiding hand" in its processes.  "Gravity" works as a "guiding hand" in its processes.

But, let it suffice that I am not making any extraordinary claims, or positing anything that is not consistent with the evidence that we have available at this time.

Then why introduce the extra variable of "God"? Why not just stick to the evidence that we have available at this time? 

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?

In the context that a process of discernment will reveal one against the other.

Wait, what? Logic with evidence is the best process we have so far for discerning fact from fantasy. Are you saying your God is only things that are coincidentally true? Or "valid"? Maybe you're going for "valid"? Or just the set of facts that are true?

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean the best way of dealing with that is to introduce a magic creature.

Of course, not.  And, I have done no such thing.  I thought that, at least, that much was clear.

Not really, since you seem to bring in the extra attributes of God instead of saying "the set of all facts" or "the set of all things true". You'll have to give me the precise description of the set before I understand what you mean. Your original definition seems to have changed.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

lifewhispers wrote:

WE are a part of the processes that are responsible for the creation of the Universe, as it is.  So, yes, we act as a "guiding hand" into processes.  Evolution acts as a "guiding hand" in its processes.  "Gravity" works as a "guiding hand" in its processes.

But, let it suffice that I am not making any extraordinary claims, or positing anything that is not consistent with the evidence that we have available at this time.

HisWillness wrote:

Then why introduce the extra variable of "God"? Why not just stick to the evidence that we have available at this time? 

I am sticking to the evidence that we have available at this time.  I'm not positing anything "new."  God is simply a label I have slapped onto All that is True in the Universe.  Why?  Because, that allows God, as Creator of the Universe, to be a tenable construct.

So, why might I care about that?  Because, billions of people already believe that there is such a Creator; and,  their non-sensical ideas about who and what "God" is are creating all manner of problems for everyone.  So, by presenting a tenable definition of God, I am providing the theists with a means whereby they can compare their nonsensical ideas about God to a tenable definition of God that proves itself to be true.  Atheists are certainly not about to do any such thing - therefore, atheists are impotent to solve the problems created by theists.  Only someone willing to entertain their perspective of the Universe being a Creation and having a Creator can effectively persuade them to abandon their faith-based ideas about who and what God might be.

The existence of God is merely a chosen perspective.  The evidence that we have available to us supports both the idea that there is a God that is responsible for the Creation of the Universe and the idea that there is no God responsible for the Creation of the Universe.  It all boils down to a matter of the choice to embrace the construct of "God," and the tenability of the definition of "God" being employed.  I have endeavored to provide a definition of "God" that permits either perspective without disqualifying the other. In other words, it does not matter which perspective you might choose - unless, it does to you.

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?

In the context that a process of discernment will reveal one against the other.

HisWillness wrote:

Wait, what? Logic with evidence is the best process we have so far for discerning fact from fantasy. Are you saying your God is only things that are coincidentally true? Or "valid"? Maybe you're going for "valid"? Or just the set of facts that are true?

I don't think I understand your question.

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean the best way of dealing with that is to introduce a magic creature.

Of course, not.  And, I have done no such thing.  I thought that, at least, that much was clear.

HisWillness wrote:

Not really, since you seem to bring in the extra attributes of God instead of saying "the set of all facts" or "the set of all things true". You'll have to give me the precise description of the set before I understand what you mean. Your original definition seems to have changed.

What "extra attributes of God?" 

I've tried to provide examples that illustrate the context of my definition.  Clearly, it is not sufficient to only consider matters of "fact" as the only things worthy of a truth value of "1."  Is an image in your imagination a "fact?"  Is it worthy of being considered true by virtue of its existence as an image in your imagination, rather than a physically tangible thing?  I would say that it is true that an image exists in your imagination - making it a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, without making it a tangible part of physicality or even a logical conclusion from any stream of logic. But, the image in your imagination can have an influence on physicality, even if only an indirect influence as is evident by your possible choice of making the image in your imagination represented by something physical, or a Creation of your own making.

A piece of artwork is compelling evidence of the existence of the image of that artwork in the imagination of the artist who Created it.   Does the physicality of the piece of artwork give the image of it in the artist's imagination its truth?  Or, is it possible for an image to exist in the imagination of the artist that has not been translated into a physical piece of artwork? 

Of what value is empirical evidence in answering that question?  What about logic?  Can logic determine whether it is true that a particular image exists in the imagination of someone?  Can the image exist, despite our inability to prove that it is there?  Can such a thing that we cannot prove its existence have an influence on physicality?  Is it reasonable to dismiss the possibility of it?  What if the image in the imagination has an impact on the behavior of the person harboring the image?  Must the image even be in reference to something that could be physically manifest for it to be "true?"

What about experiences?  Is experience a physically tangible thing that is supported by empirical evidence or logic?  Can they be true, even if we cannot prove anything about them?  Is it logical for me to experience a roller coaster as exhilerating, while others might experience it as terrifying?  Does one experience preclude the truth of the other?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:My God!

nigelTheBold wrote:

My God! It's all-powerful. SOON I WILL BE INVINCIBLE! All I have to do know is define a bunch of robotic henchmen into existence, and I'll be able to TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Ahhh-hahahahahahah!

This was actually my master plan. Are you saying it can't be done? I mean, I even have the laugh down. It's more of a MU-hahaha than an AH-hahaha, but other than that ...

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:I am

lifewhispers wrote:

I am sticking to the evidence that we have available at this time.  I'm not positing anything "new."  God is simply a label I have slapped onto All that is True in the Universe.  Why?  Because, that allows God, as Creator of the Universe, to be a tenable construct.

There, you did it again! God is simply "all that is true in the universe" (oh, also, God's the creator of the universe). You keep adding that extra part outside the definition. That introduces a whole bunch of other attributes, including the intention of creating and the means to create a universe. That's huge! If you mean that God is a self-creating truth (that also creates falsehood?) ... there are some things to work out with the definition.

lifewhispers wrote:
Only someone willing to entertain their perspective of the Universe being a Creation and having a Creator can effectively persuade them to abandon their faith-based ideas about who and what God might be.

Was this your version of "Luke, join the dark side"? Conceding that

1) the universe was created, and

2) something named God is the creator

would be a long way off from reasonable. Traditional, maybe, but be serious.

lifewhispers wrote:
The evidence that we have available to us supports both the idea that there is a God that is responsible for the Creation of the Universe and the idea that there is no God responsible for the Creation of the Universe.

Not so fast there. What evidence we have points only to what is. What could possibly be is not the realm of fact, but of fiction. Your "everything that is true" should be enough to argue that the set of all truth values constitutes a creator of the universe (including false values). But that slips into the nonsensical.

lifewhispers wrote:
It all boils down to a matter of the choice to embrace the construct of "God," and the tenability of the definition of "God" being employed.
 

But your construct isn't exactly clear. I recall earlier that you had an eternal "everything that is true, and constantly creating" concept. Please clarify where I'm wrong. This still leaves me to ask why you would introduce this thing that is constantly creating the evidence that stays consistent. If the omnipresent God controlling everything results in exactly the same behaviour as the universe without this God, why try to explain it with the extra God layer?

lifewhispers wrote:
I have endeavored to provide a definition of "God" that permits either perspective without disqualifying the other.

You've given a definition of "God" that involves intent and desire to create a universe, and pretended that all you're saying is that it's the set of all things true.

lifewhispers wrote:
What "extra attributes of God?"

That whole creator of the universe thing - see above.

lifewhispers wrote:
A piece of artwork is compelling evidence of the existence of the image of that artwork in the imagination of the artist who Created it.

I've seen paintings, and I've hung out with artists. Both can be perceived without difficulty or special instruments.

lifewhispers wrote:
Of what value is empirical evidence in answering that question?

Same answer. Artists and paintings both exist.

lifewhispers wrote:
Can logic determine whether it is true that a particular image exists in the imagination of someone?

Artwork is evidence that we can represent what is otherwise an image in our brains. It's just reasonable to say that the neurons are firing to make that happen.

lifewhispers wrote:
Can the image exist, despite our inability to prove that it is there?  Can such a thing that we cannot prove its existence have an influence on physicality?

Certainly there is evidence in the form of a drawing.

lifewhispers wrote:
What about experiences?  Is experience a physically tangible thing that is supported by empirical evidence or logic?

Sure - our brains change significantly over time. The physical explanation is still more reasonable than an extra-physical one.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Ok. Gonna  take this a bit

Ok. Gonna  take this a bit at a time, and not alwys quote your answers, because they are long and spammy as quotes, and people can just come back to page... 7? to look at them.

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Just out of curiousity... why does the universe need to have a creator?

It's not a matter of the Universe "needing" a creator.  It is a matter that billions of people have chosen the perspective that the Universe is a Creation - and, therefore, must have a Creator.

Why are the facts subject to what people believe? Shouldn't we seek the truth, and mold beliefs to that, rather than attempting the opposite?

You've said that all of the laws and processes of the physical universe weren't present at the Big Bang. I say to you: They were present, the conditions for them to be demonstrated were not. Rather like the physical laws that make a modern nuclear aircraft carrier work were present in the 1600s, but the conditions (people being able to build one, for example) to demonstrate the weren't.

You also say that it's clear the universe is creating itself. Under the definition you've chosen to use for 'create', this is probably not inaccurate, but as common usage for 'create' implies the initial conversion from 'concept' to 'object', might it not be better to use 'develop'? I'm not asking you to abandon 'create', I'm simply asking if you can agree that other terminology might better convey your point for others with a more inflexible view of the usage of 'create'?

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

And... just to doublecheck a few things with you now that I've had some time to think about this stuff w/out the other things that were erupting in my life the first time through...

A)Are you or are you not ascribing any supernatural abilities to 'God'?

No, absolutely not!  In fact, I am saying that, by all observations and evidence, it is impossible to violate the physical laws of the Universe - rendering the "supernatural" and "miracles" to be completely untenable.

Shiny.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

B)Are you or are you not asserting any facet to the existence of 'God' beyond the physical reality of the universe, including all accurate (even if currently unknown by humanity) data about the universe?

Of course!  You have an imagination. (snipped a few paragraphs that develop from this idea.)

Could it not be said that my imagination, indeed, all thoughts, are simply the firing of synapses in specific order, and so a physical process? What I find very interesting is that while evidence of many physical processes, corrosion, electromagnetic radiation, etc, all can be viewed in an image, that is to say, a representation of spacial dimensions at a particular point in the temporal dimension, the processes themselves exist only in motion through time. Consciousness seems to me to be like this: a physical process that exists only in time, but the effects and state of the affected physical components might be observable in an image.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

C)Are you or are you not asserting an intelligence/consciousness/awareness to the aggregate physical processes of the universe beyond whatever intelligence/consciousness/awareness exists in discrete segments of those physical processes (example: Human beings are discrete segments of the aggregate physical processes of the universe, being distinct and easily separable subsets of those processes.) ie: When you say the universe interprets and acts upon the total knowledge it possesses, are you advocating the idea of actual universal consciousness, or are you instead meaning it more in the sense of the universe as a tabulator or Babbage machine processing the physical reality of itself, which can be describe with, and so thought of as, information?

Well, that really depends on what you consider to be "awareness" "consciousness" and "intelligence." (snipped more stuff that develops on the basic premise here. Again, if people want to, they can look up what you said, it just makes for a REALLY long post.)

So what do you consider "awareness", "consciousness" and "intelligence" to be? My question, I suppose, would be better phrased as 'do you think the Universe expreses intent, or is merely processing its contents mechanically in adherance to the nature of its internal machinery? Does the universe have a choice?'

lifewhispers wrote:

For my purposes, it does not matter.  For me, it is sufficient to define God as All that is True in the Universe, and then, go about figuring out what that is.  So, "God" answers no questions (in that it does not, in and of itself, explain anything) - but, provides all answers (in that, All that is True in the Universe implies a process of discerning what is the truth, and stands as evidence of itself).

So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:I am

lifewhispers wrote:

I am sticking to the evidence that we have available at this time.  I'm not positing anything "new."  God is simply a label I have slapped onto All that is True in the Universe.  Why?  Because, that allows God, as Creator of the Universe, to be a tenable construct.

HisWillness wrote:

There, you did it again! God is simply "all that is true in the universe" (oh, also, God's the creator of the universe). You keep adding that extra part outside the definition. That introduces a whole bunch of other attributes, including the intention of creating and the means to create a universe. That's huge! If you mean that God is a self-creating truth (that also creates falsehood?) ... there are some things to work out with the definition.

The term, "God" holds, as its most widely held definition,  the meaning, "Creator of the Universe. "  In order for that to be true, "God" must also be All that is True in the Universe.

And, if you have any suggestions for improvements to the definition of God, I'm certainly open to entertaining them.  Do you have any?

HisWillness wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:
Only someone willing to entertain their perspective of the Universe being a Creation and having a Creator can effectively persuade them to abandon their faith-based ideas about who and what God might be.

Was this your version of "Luke, join the dark side"? Conceding that

1) the universe was created, and

2) something named God is the creator

would be a long way off from reasonable. Traditional, maybe, but be serious.

The perspective of the Universe as a Creation with a Creator is a tenable one - but, it is certainly not a necessary one.  Theists believe in God.  You will not unseat that belief by summarily dismissing an otherwise valid perspective.   I'm speaking from experience, here.  If you dismiss God, the theists will dismiss you.  And, if you have been dismissed, you can no longer have an influence on them.

The reverse also seems to hold true - if you embrace "God," atheists will dismiss you.  And, if you have been dismissed, you can no longer have an influence on them.  And, it does not even seem to matter what your definition of God might be.

I guess that only goes to illustrate that people who embrace either perspective with emotion and ego blind themselves to any other valid perspectives.

Atheists do not think it reasonable to embrace God.  Theists do not think it reasonable to reject the idea of God.  Neither side seems to be able to see that BOTH perspectives can be correct at the same time.  I'm just glad that's not my problem.

lifewhispers wrote:
The evidence that we have available to us supports both the idea that there is a God that is responsible for the Creation of the Universe and the idea that there is no God responsible for the Creation of the Universe.

HisWillness wrote:

Not so fast there. What evidence we have points only to what is. What could possibly be is not the realm of fact, but of fiction.

I'm not positing about what is possible.  What actually is DOES support both perspectives - even if it does not support the nonsensical ideas that theists typically have about "God."  But, for theists to see that, they need to see a tenable definition of "God" that allows their perspective about God being Creator of the Universe to be true.

You are welcome to a perspective that does not include "God."  I've not said that your perspective is not valid.

HisWillness wrote:

Your "everything that is true" should be enough to argue that the set of all truth values constitutes a creator of the universe (including false values). But that slips into the nonsensical.

How so?

lifewhispers wrote:
It all boils down to a matter of the choice to embrace the construct of "God," and the tenability of the definition of "God" being employed.
  

HisWillness wrote:

But your construct isn't exactly clear. I recall earlier that you had an eternal "everything that is true, and constantly creating" concept. Please clarify where I'm wrong. This still leaves me to ask why you would introduce this thing that is constantly creating the evidence that stays consistent. If the omnipresent God controlling everything results in exactly the same behaviour as the universe without this God, why try to explain it with the extra God layer?

I've not offered any explanations.  The explanations remain the same, regardless of whether you embrace the construct of "God," or not.  It is merely a chosen perspective.  Virtually everything about our understandings of the Universe around us boils down to the perspectives we choose for ourselves. 

Why?  Because, reality is made up of an infinite number of different possible perspectives, and we have but one - our own.  If you look at this mathematically, it reduces down to:

P/R

Where, "P" is our one perspective and "R" represents an infinite number of possible perspectives of reality the way it is.  So, we each have 1 Perspective/infinite Perspectives - or, ILLUSION.

So, we are all functioning within illiusion - even if some of our perspectives can be demonstrated to be more or less accurate and consistent with reality than others.  In order to do this, we must employ a process of discernment of that which is true, versus that which is not true.  Even this does not free us from our illusions - it only allows us to create illusions that are more consistent with reality.

So, again, God or no God, you're no better, or worse off.  You're still functioning under illusion, and not reality.  So, "God" remains a personal choice, and you're decision to embrace it, or not, has nothing to do with its tenability or anyone else's choice to embrace it.

Put another way, the question could be asked of you, "why not employ a construct of God in reference to the Creation of the Universe?"  And, your answer would be no more correct or incorrect than the theist who chooses to embrace "God."  It's just a chosen perspective.

The question of whether a perspective is tenable, or not, can be discerned through the use of logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof.  But, regardless of the outcome, you will remain ensnared by illusions of your own making.

lifewhispers wrote:
I have endeavored to provide a definition of "God" that permits either perspective without disqualifying the other.

HisWillness wrote:

You've given a definition of "God" that involves intent and desire to create a universe, and pretended that all you're saying is that it's the set of all things true.

How so?

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?

lifewhispers wrote:
What "extra attributes of God?"

HisWillness wrote:

That whole creator of the universe thing - see above.

That's not an extra attribute.  It is a natural and logical extension and axiomatic statement that can be made about All that is True in the Universe.  It is clear that All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God, is Creating the Universe - unless, you can come up with something else that is not All that is True in the Universe that could do it.  Can you?

Your problem seems to be the word, "God."  Is that what's giving you trouble, here?  Is there any other word in the English language, or any other, for that matter, that describes the fullness of what I intend to convey, given my examples of non-tangible, non-real truths that actually do have an influence on physicality?  "Universe" doesn't do it.  "Reality" doesn't do it.  Do you have any other suggestions of terms I might use in the place of "God" to communicate that which is responsible for giving rise to (or, Creating)  the Universe in all of its most intricate detail?

lifewhispers wrote:
A piece of artwork is compelling evidence of the existence of the image of that artwork in the imagination of the artist who Created it.

HisWillness wrote:

I've seen paintings, and I've hung out with artists. Both can be perceived without difficulty or special instruments. 

 

But, what of the images in their imaginations that have not been made manifest in their art?  They ARE there, but you cannot discern them.  My point is that those images are a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God - even if they cannot be discerned by empirical evidence or logic.  Therefore, they should not be summarily dismissed as "not true" - even if they are not real.

lifewhispers wrote:
Of what value is empirical evidence in answering that question?

HisWillness wrote:

Same answer. Artists and paintings both exist.

That addresses nothing about images that exist in imaginations that are not manifest in physicality, like art work.   The images are there.  Therefore, they are a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.  You cannot simply dismiss those images.  Why?  Because, despite their lack of physicality and ontological status, they STILL can have an influence on physicality. Truth goes beyond reality.  Truth goes beyond physicality.

lifewhispers wrote:
Can logic determine whether it is true that a particular image exists in the imagination of someone?

HisWillness wrote:

Artwork is evidence that we can represent what is otherwise an image in our brains. It's just reasonable to say that the neurons are firing to make that happen.

That does not answer the question.

lifewhispers wrote:
Can the image exist, despite our inability to prove that it is there?  Can such a thing that we cannot prove its existence have an influence on physicality?

HisWillness wrote:

Certainly there is evidence in the form of a drawing.

What drawing?  I am referring to an image in someone's imagination, not an image on paper.  Can empirical evidence establish its existence?  Can logic establish its existence?  Does the inability of empirical evidence and logic to discern it invalidate it as not true?

This has philosophical implications that seem to be eluding you.  This example allows for non-real, non-physical, abstract constructs to be true and have real, physical impact on the Universe, as it is.   To dismiss such things, simply because there is no empirical evidence or logic to support them, would be a gross error. 

In order to fully understand the Universe, we must necessarily take into account the effects that our illusions have on ourselves and the Universe around us.  For example, even if Jesus is merely an imaginary character from a book, He has had FAR more impact on the human race than virtually any other human that has ever lived.  He does not even have to be real, and He's had more impact than any of the rest of us.  So, is that a part of All that is True in the Universe? 

lifewhispers wrote:
What about experiences?  Is experience a physically tangible thing that is supported by empirical evidence or logic?

HisWillness wrote:

Sure - our brains change significantly over time. The physical explanation is still more reasonable than an extra-physical one.

I'm speaking of subjective experience, here.  Is it physically tangible?  Is it supported by empirical evidence or logic?  And, once we have experienced something, the essence of the experience is gone.  It cannot be measured, quantified, tested, compared, inferred, or implied by empirical evidence, physicality, or logic.  But, it has an impact on reality. 

What is unreasonable about the notion that non-real, non-physical, abstract constructs can have a real and tangible effect on reality?  And, if they can, how is empirical evidence and logic sufficient for understanding the Universe around us?  How can it be reasonable to dismiss the non-real and the non-physical, when we can provide infinite examples of how the non-real and the non-physical CAN have an impact on our reality?

The only thing that I've found that even comes close to encompassing all of that which has impact on reality is the concept of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.  Did you have an alternative term that works as well?


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:BMcD

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Just out of curiousity... why does the universe need to have a creator?

It's not a matter of the Universe "needing" a creator.  It is a matter that billions of people have chosen the perspective that the Universe is a Creation - and, therefore, must have a Creator.

BMcD wrote:

Why are the facts subject to what people believe? Shouldn't we seek the truth, and mold beliefs to that, rather than attempting the opposite?

What I am saying is that you can seek the truth and either believe in God or not believe in God and still be correct either way.  You need only embrace a tenable definition of the construct of "God," rather than an untenable definition of the construct of "God."

I have provided the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  That means that, to believe in God, as I have defined "God,"  is to believe in the truth.

This isn't an arbitrary choice  I've made, here, to define God as All that is True in the Universe.  Most definitions of God also include God as being the truth.  The problem seems to be that most people just don't have a clue about what that is or how to discern it - or, they seem to forget that "truth" implies a process of discernment, and not just blind acceptance of that which has had the label, "truth" slapped on it.

BMcD wrote:

You've said that all of the laws and processes of the physical universe weren't present at the Big Bang. I say to you: They were present, the conditions for them to be demonstrated were not. Rather like the physical laws that make a modern nuclear aircraft carrier work were present in the 1600s, but the conditions (people being able to build one, for example) to demonstrate the weren't.

You are confusing physical laws with physical processes.  They are not the same thing.  Physical laws give rise to new processes - that were NOT extant at the beginning of the Big Bang.

BMcD wrote:

You also say that it's clear the universe is creating itself. Under the definition you've chosen to use for 'create', this is probably not inaccurate, but as common usage for 'create' implies the initial conversion from 'concept' to 'object', might it not be better to use 'develop'? I'm not asking you to abandon 'create', I'm simply asking if you can agree that other terminology might better convey your point for others with a more inflexible view of the usage of 'create'?

I need only demonstrate that I am using the term, "Create," in accordance with its widely accepted definition to justify my usage of it.  I've done that.  I am unconcerned with the preferences of others who might have made a different choice of words to use.  For MY purposes, the word, "create," works much better.

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

And... just to doublecheck a few things with you now that I've had some time to think about this stuff w/out the other things that were erupting in my life the first time through...

A)Are you or are you not ascribing any supernatural abilities to 'God'?

No, absolutely not!  In fact, I am saying that, by all observations and evidence, it is impossible to violate the physical laws of the Universe - rendering the "supernatural" and "miracles" to be completely untenable.

BMcD wrote:

Shiny.

And, what might you mean by that?  I find it interesting that you would employ a vagary, such as this, in the face of your own objections to the words I have chosen to use to communicate my own ideas.  Is it a modern colloquialism?  Does it imply agreement with me?

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

B)Are you or are you not asserting any facet to the existence of 'God' beyond the physical reality of the universe, including all accurate (even if currently unknown by humanity) data about the universe?

Of course!  You have an imagination. (snipped a few paragraphs that develop from this idea.)

BMcD wrote:

Could it not be said that my imagination, indeed, all thoughts, are simply the firing of synapses in specific order, and so a physical process?

Certainly, there is a physical process behind our imaginations and our thoughts.  But, the image on the TV screen is not the TV, is it?  Neither is it the circuitry that is responsible for it showing up on the screen, is it?  But, the image is why we watch, and not because of the TV or the circuitry that allows us to watch.  And, the image on the screen can have an influence on us that the TV itself cannot have.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

C)Are you or are you not asserting an intelligence/consciousness/awareness to the aggregate physical processes of the universe beyond whatever intelligence/consciousness/awareness exists in discrete segments of those physical processes (example: Human beings are discrete segments of the aggregate physical processes of the universe, being distinct and easily separable subsets of those processes.) ie: When you say the universe interprets and acts upon the total knowledge it possesses, are you advocating the idea of actual universal consciousness, or are you instead meaning it more in the sense of the universe as a tabulator or Babbage machine processing the physical reality of itself, which can be describe with, and so thought of as, information?

Well, that really depends on what you consider to be "awareness" "consciousness" and "intelligence." (snipped more stuff that develops on the basic premise here. Again, if people want to, they can look up what you said, it just makes for a REALLY long post.)

BMcD wrote:

So what do you consider "awareness", "consciousness" and "intelligence" to be? My question, I suppose, would be better phrased as 'do you think the Universe expreses intent, or is merely processing its contents mechanically in adherance to the nature of its internal machinery? Does the universe have a choice?'

In the context of the discussion, I fail to see how it matters.  Either position could be successfully argued.  But, it is certainly not necessary to argue either position, for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable - and, that is the point of the thread.  So, it is a red herring to this discussion.

lifewhispers wrote:

For my purposes, it does not matter.  For me, it is sufficient to define God as All that is True in the Universe, and then, go about figuring out what that is.  So, "God" answers no questions (in that it does not, in and of itself, explain anything) - but, provides all answers (in that, All that is True in the Universe implies a process of discerning what is the truth, and stands as evidence of itself).

So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?

That certainly seems reasonable enough.  But, it would not be ideal for my purposes in dealing with irrational theists who maintain  faith-based notions about God.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:BMcD

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Why are the facts subject to what people believe? Shouldn't we seek the truth, and mold beliefs to that, rather than attempting the opposite?

What I am saying is that you can seek the truth and either believe in God or not believe in God and still be correct either way.  You need only embrace a tenable definition of the construct of "God," rather than an untenable definition of the construct of "God."

I have provided the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  That means that, to believe in God, as I have defined "God,"  is to believe in the truth.

This isn't an arbitrary choice  I've made, here, to define God as All that is True in the Universe.  Most definitions of God also include God as being the truth.  The problem seems to be that most people just don't have a clue about what that is or how to discern it - or, they seem to forget that "truth" implies a process of discernment, and not just blind acceptance of that which has had the label, "truth" slapped on it.

So as I understand it, you're not concerned with whether or not the divine exists, you're simply saying that if someone is to venerate something, it should be the truth?

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

You've said that all of the laws and processes of the physical universe weren't present at the Big Bang. I say to you: They were present, the conditions for them to be demonstrated were not. Rather like the physical laws that make a modern nuclear aircraft carrier work were present in the 1600s, but the conditions (people being able to build one, for example) to demonstrate the weren't.

You are confusing physical laws with physical processes.  They are not the same thing.  Physical laws give rise to new processes - that were NOT extant at the beginning of the Big Bang.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the processes are expressions of the physical laws' effects on matter and energy over time. By that standard, the processes could be said to exist as long as the physical laws that govern them exist, they simply weren't actively operating until conditions invoked them.

lifewhispers wrote:

I need only demonstrate that I am using the term, "Create," in accordance with its widely accepted definition to justify my usage of it.  I've done that.  I am unconcerned with the preferences of others who might have made a different choice of words to use.  For MY purposes, the word, "create," works much better.

Ok. I'll accept that for your framework to be valid for you, you need only demonstrate to yourself that the definition you're using is a valid one. My point is that, as you are presenting the framework to others, would it not facilitate clearer communication, and prevent pointless argument over semantics, to at least stipulate that an alternative term could be used without loss or corruption of meaning?

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Shiny.

And, what might you mean by that?  I find it interesting that you would employ a vagary, such as this, in the face of your own objections to the words I have chosen to use to communicate my own ideas.  Is it a modern colloquialism?  Does it imply agreement with me?

Ah, yes, my bad. 'Shiny' is indeed a colloquialism picked up from a specific subcultulre (specifically, the Browncoats, or fans of the short-lived series Firefly), which basically means 'cool'. Usage would be in the sense of a mechanic. ie: the (engine/mechanism) is fixed and cleaned up, thus, it is 'shiny'. My apologies.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

Could it not be said that my imagination, indeed, all thoughts, are simply the firing of synapses in specific order, and so a physical process?

Certainly, there is a physical process behind our imaginations and our thoughts.  But, the image on the TV screen is not the TV, is it?  Neither is it the circuitry that is responsible for it showing up on the screen, is it?  But, the image is why we watch, and not because of the TV or the circuitry that allows us to watch.  And, the image on the screen can have an influence on us that the TV itself cannot have.

Except the image itself is a physical construct: it is a pattern of photon emissions.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

So what do you consider "awareness", "consciousness" and "intelligence" to be? My question, I suppose, would be better phrased as 'do you think the Universe expreses intent, or is merely processing its contents mechanically in adherance to the nature of its internal machinery? Does the universe have a choice?'

In the context of the discussion, I fail to see how it matters.  Either position could be successfully argued.  But, it is certainly not necessary to argue either position, for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable - and, that is the point of the thread.  So, it is a red herring to this discussion.

Except that it's not. Instead, it's a tangential issue to help the people you're conversing with better understand what you're saying, by illustrating other angles and viewpoints in regard to your position. It's like a cube: if all you see is one side, you can't really understand the totality of it, because all you perceive... is a square.

In this, I'm trying to phrase my question in a way that gets you and everyone else somewhat less confrontationally aligned. So: would it be fair to say that for your framework to be valid, the universe does not require intent or choice, but can be functioning purely under mechanical laws? (Note: I'm pretty sure you've just answered that already, but this way we just have it said so that others can see it clearly.)

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?

That certainly seems reasonable enough.  But, it would not be ideal for my purposes in dealing with irrational theists who maintain  faith-based notions about God.

More than understandable. However, right now you're dealing with us, not irrational theists. The substitution can be reversed from "Tt" to "God" later just as easily.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:BMcD

lifewhispers wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Why are the facts subject to what people believe? Shouldn't we seek the truth, and mold beliefs to that, rather than attempting the opposite?

What I am saying is that you can seek the truth and either believe in God or not believe in God and still be correct either way.  You need only embrace a tenable definition of the construct of "God," rather than an untenable definition of the construct of "God."

I have provided the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  That means that, to believe in God, as I have defined "God,"  is to believe in the truth.

This isn't an arbitrary choice  I've made, here, to define God as All that is True in the Universe.  Most definitions of God also include God as being the truth.  The problem seems to be that most people just don't have a clue about what that is or how to discern it - or, they seem to forget that "truth" implies a process of discernment, and not just blind acceptance of that which has had the label, "truth" slapped on it.

BMcD wrote:

So as I understand it, you're not concerned with whether or not the divine exists, you're simply saying that if someone is to venerate something, it should be the truth?

That's fair enough.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

You've said that all of the laws and processes of the physical universe weren't present at the Big Bang. I say to you: They were present, the conditions for them to be demonstrated were not. Rather like the physical laws that make a modern nuclear aircraft carrier work were present in the 1600s, but the conditions (people being able to build one, for example) to demonstrate the weren't.

You are confusing physical laws with physical processes.  They are not the same thing.  Physical laws give rise to new processes - that were NOT extant at the beginning of the Big Bang.

BMcD wrote:

I'm not sure I agree. I think the processes are expressions of the physical laws' effects on matter and energy over time. By that standard, the processes could be said to exist as long as the physical laws that govern them exist, they simply weren't actively operating until conditions invoked them.

But, we exhibit the ability to bring processes into existence in accordance with physical laws, as a product of free agency.  That must also be accounted for in All that is True in the Universe - not just other natural processes that seem to have naturally arisen from physical laws.  In any event, the processes in question did not exist at the birth of the Universe, but have arisen over time - which was my original point in defense of my position that the Universe represents an ongoing Creation, and not merely the product of some discreet event in the past.  The "event" is not yet over and Creation is definitely a part of it. 

lifewhispers wrote:

I need only demonstrate that I am using the term, "Create," in accordance with its widely accepted definition to justify my usage of it.  I've done that.  I am unconcerned with the preferences of others who might have made a different choice of words to use.  For MY purposes, the word, "create," works much better.

BMcD wrote:

Ok. I'll accept that for your framework to be valid for you, you need only demonstrate to yourself that the definition you're using is a valid one. My point is that, as you are presenting the framework to others, would it not facilitate clearer communication, and prevent pointless argument over semantics, to at least stipulate that an alternative term could be used without loss or corruption of meaning?

Words are typically ambiguous without the author providing context.  And, it would not matter if I stipulated such as that - there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree with my word choices, as well as the ideas that I am trying to communicate with them.  So, I will stick with the words I have chosen and simply clarify as necessary - just like everyone else.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

Could it not be said that my imagination, indeed, all thoughts, are simply the firing of synapses in specific order, and so a physical process?

Certainly, there is a physical process behind our imaginations and our thoughts.  But, the image on the TV screen is not the TV, is it?  Neither is it the circuitry that is responsible for it showing up on the screen, is it?  But, the image is why we watch, and not because of the TV or the circuitry that allows us to watch.  And, the image on the screen can have an influence on us that the TV itself cannot have.

BMcD wrote:

Except the image itself is a physical construct: it is a pattern of photon emissions.

But, the pattern of photon emissions is not what gives the image its meaning - we give it its meaning.  And, its meaning is not something that is real or physical - but, it's there - and, therefore, a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

So what do you consider "awareness", "consciousness" and "intelligence" to be? My question, I suppose, would be better phrased as 'do you think the Universe expreses intent, or is merely processing its contents mechanically in adherance to the nature of its internal machinery? Does the universe have a choice?'

In the context of the discussion, I fail to see how it matters.  Either position could be successfully argued.  But, it is certainly not necessary to argue either position, for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable - and, that is the point of the thread.  So, it is a red herring to this discussion.

BMcD wrote:

Except that it's not. Instead, it's a tangential issue to help the people you're conversing with better understand what you're saying, by illustrating other angles and viewpoints in regard to your position. It's like a cube: if all you see is one side, you can't really understand the totality of it, because all you perceive... is a square.

In this, I'm trying to phrase my question in a way that gets you and everyone else somewhat less confrontationally aligned. So: would it be fair to say that for your framework to be valid, the universe does not require intent or choice, but can be functioning purely under mechanical laws? (Note: I'm pretty sure you've just answered that already, but this way we just have it said so that others can see it clearly.)

No, actually, that's not a fair assessment.  Even if the Universe does not require intent or choice, there are parts of it that do engage in intent and choice.  And, intentions and choices can be influenced heavily by non-real, non-physical factors that "functioning purely under mechanical laws" does not address.  And, we must also consider those factors, in order to come to a complete understanding of All that is True in the Universe.

lifewhispers wrote:
BMcD wrote:

So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?

That certainly seems reasonable enough.  But, it would not be ideal for my purposes in dealing with irrational theists who maintain  faith-based notions about God.

BMcD wrote:

More than understandable. However, right now you're dealing with us, not irrational theists. The substitution can be reversed from "Tt" to "God" later just as easily.

But, atheists can be just as irrational as theists.  And, my  purpose for providing a tenable definition of God was not to get atheists to concede it, but to get theists to concede it.  The theists are the ones causing the problems, more so than the atheists.  I would have thought it easier to get atheists to concede it than the theists; but, my experiences, here, have taught me otherwise.  The problem is not the words I have chosen, but the ego invested in a contrary position on the existence of a tenable definition of "God."  If for no other reason, I think that a valid enough reason to stand steadfast in my choice of wording.  The atheists who have a problem with what I am presenting can just have me clarify it - or, they can continue to debate with me about it.  Either way, what is needed is a more critical look at the subject on the part of anyone who would ever consider the construct of "God" from either perspective.  And, debate  does that.  If I can accomplish that small goal, I will have achieved the desired result.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:But, we

lifewhispers wrote:

But, we exhibit the ability to bring processes into existence in accordance with physical laws, as a product of free agency.  That must also be accounted for in All that is True in the Universe - not just other natural processes that seem to have naturally arisen from physical laws.  In any event, the processes in question did not exist at the birth of the Universe, but have arisen over time - which was my original point in defense of my position that the Universe represents an ongoing Creation, and not merely the product of some discreet event in the past.  The "event" is not yet over and Creation is definitely a part of it.

But if our consciousness is simply a side-effect of the processes which produce it, then even this 'free agency' (which, in the end, we cannot show is actually free at all, only that we lack the ability to predict it reliably) is part of the physical, mechanical universe. And, as time itself is a quality of the universe, and not something the universe itself moves through (but rather, something the contents of the universe move through), then just as the entirety of the universe contains all space, it contains all time, and so, all of the processes that have ever, and will ever, exist, are all present at the inception of the universe from the perspective of the universe itself, because, with time being a property of the universe, the universe itself could not have existed at any single point in time, but must have existed at all of them. It's hard to explain just what I mean there without using words that imply points in time, but as an analogy, if we imagine the universe as a three-dimensional construct, then when it comes into existence (in whatever external axis of progression it follows, as three-dimensionally it would time), it simultaneously exists at all sizes and states that it will ever exist at. All at once, all the time. It's only our perception of time that appears to limit the universe's processes. And I have no idea if that makes sense outside of my own head. Smiling

lifewhispers wrote:

Words are typically ambiguous without the author providing context.  And, it would not matter if I stipulated such as that - there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree with my word choices, as well as the ideas that I am trying to communicate with them.  So, I will stick with the words I have chosen and simply clarify as necessary - just like everyone else.

Fair enough, but I think you'll find a little flexibility there might short-circuit much of the confusion.

lifewhispers wrote:

But, the pattern of photon emissions is not what gives the image its meaning - we give it its meaning.  And, its meaning is not something that is real or physical - but, it's there - and, therefore, a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.

But we've established that what we call our consciousness is quite possibly a physical process. Thus, thee amalgam of stored data that is accessed through the physical process of our consciousness to give that image meaning, is a physical construct. And the meaning itself is stored through physical process (again, our consciousness) as a physical construct (in this case, again, specific synapse firing sequences).

lifewhispers wrote:

No, actually, that's not a fair assessment.  Even if the Universe does not require intent or choice, there are parts of it that do engage in intent and choice.  And, intentions and choices can be influenced heavily by non-real, non-physical factors that "functioning purely under mechanical laws" does not address.  And, we must also consider those factors, in order to come to a complete understanding of All that is True in the Universe.

But again, if our consciousness is, in fact, a physical process, then all of those non-real, non-physical factors are physical, either as part of the process or as stored constructs for the process to operate upon. That we are such incredibly complex cascading sequences of chemical reactions that we can actually contemplate our own nature as incredibly complex cascading sequences of chemical reactions does not in any way make us anything more than cascading sequences of chemical reactions.

lifewhispers wrote:

But, atheists can be just as irrational as theists.  And, my  purpose for providing a tenable definition of God was not to get atheists to concede it, but to get theists to concede it.  The theists are the ones causing the problems, more so than the atheists.  I would have thought it easier to get atheists to concede it than the theists; but, my experiences, here, have taught me otherwise.  The problem is not the words I have chosen, but the ego invested in a contrary position on the existence of a tenable definition of "God."  If for no other reason, I think that a valid enough reason to stand steadfast in my choice of wording.  The atheists who have a problem with what I am presenting can just have me clarify it - or, they can continue to debate with me about it.  Either way, what is needed is a more critical look at the subject on the part of anyone who would ever consider the construct of "God" from either perspective.  And, debate  does that.  If I can accomplish that small goal, I will have achieved the desired result.

Oh, I won't even try to claim that we aren't often as irrational as theists. Just ask my family! Eye-wink And yes, many atheists will oppose such a definition on emotional grounds because of their opposition to the idea of a tenable definition of 'God', precisely because of the supernatural baggage that term entails. However, if you can get them to look at the reversal, that what you are, in effect, doing, is defining in the supernatural right out of 'God' and (to the theistic viewpoint) reducing 'God' to nothing more than reality itself, I think you might have more success.

In other words, tell them you're taking God away from the theists, that what you're presenting is actually, in a way, a kind of foundation for turning the tables on the theists and refusing to let them define the terms of the debate any more. If 'God' can be defined to be purely the actual extant universe, then the theist cannot claim 'God exists', but rather must defend why 'my God is right and yours isn't'. They must then defend supernature. Because as far as I can see, that's the logical development of presenting this idea in larger context.

From what I can see, your strategy would eventually mean the theists would have to defend magic.

It's worth considering, though, that the theists will not view any proposal that uses the word 'God' as atheistic or a-religious. If anything, using the term, due once again to the supernatural baggage, will only foment the continued belief that science is just another religion.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Xlint writing guys. I agree

Xlint writing guys. I agree with lifewhispers "goal", and he makes alot of xlint points. I just personally think including the common ambiguous creator and creation words are often confusing.  

I share Lifewhispers goal, and that is what I have been trying to do ever since I got into god discussions, and why I post the way I do, and a big part of why many don't understand me. I was surprised when I made my first rrs post , "to heal the christians give them god", and got WTF replies. That was a wake up call, that I must persist with my simple message.

God of abe, or God cosmos?, I often ask. All is ONE = God etc I often say. The eastern ideas are helpul concepts to defeating God abe superstition dogma. God is simply reality. 

God of abe type followers are truly the enemy to love/heal.

Because the 'god' word is not going away, fix it's definition, as I've said a zillion times. Most all my posts are to that "goal".

That is the only way I can see making progress to defeating religious superstition, dogma and division. The atheists are "saved", but need to work more on being caring clever healers, as so many in the world foolishly and needlessly suffer. Rich young Buddha looked out his castle and was appalled ...... Jesus wept ......

Good luck, I AM almost dead .... teach the children well. I love you all, and so I also yell too.   and P.S. ,  We are ONE, all Is Gawed !  shezzzzz     

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:The term,

lifewhispers wrote:

The term, "God" holds, as its most widely held definition,  the meaning, "Creator of the Universe. "  In order for that to be true, "God" must also be All that is True in the Universe.

And, if you have any suggestions for improvements to the definition of God, I'm certainly open to entertaining them.  Do you have any?

How could I? You're the one making the rules for this game, considering the idea of extra-physical entities is ridiculous to me. I was just trying to follow your definition. So your God is creator of the universe and "all that is true in the universe". The first part is one of an infinite number of possibilities, and the second doesn't really make sense. Does God then not include what is "false"? Or are "true" and "false" given special meanings here.

lifewhispers wrote:
The perspective of the Universe as a Creation with a Creator is a tenable one - but, it is certainly not a necessary one.

You haven't really made the case that it's tenable yet.

Theists believe in God.  You will not unseat that belief by summarily dismissing an otherwise valid perspective.   I'm speaking from experience, here.  If you dismiss God, the theists will dismiss you.  And, if you have been dismissed, you can no longer have an influence on them.

I thought we were discussing your idea of God. I don't care if I'm dismissed by your hypothetical theists.

lifewhispers wrote:
I guess that only goes to illustrate that people who embrace either perspective with emotion and ego blind themselves to any other valid perspectives.

Still trying to validate your position, irrespective of emotion and ego. We're stuck on your definition of God. I can't have one, since I have been presented with no reasonable evidence of one. I couldn't tell you what God smells like, for instance.

lifewhispers wrote:
Atheists do not think it reasonable to embrace God.

Provide more God. It's reasonable to embrace what exists.

lifewhispers wrote:
I'm not positing about what is possible.  What actually is DOES support both perspectives - even if it does not support the nonsensical ideas that theists typically have about "God."  But, for theists to see that, they need to see a tenable definition of "God" that allows their perspective about God being Creator of the Universe to be true.

I'm dying for you to present the evidence that supports your definition of God. Well, maybe we should make sure we define your God first.

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Your "everything that is true" should be enough to argue that the set of all truth values constitutes a creator of the universe (including false values). But that slips into the nonsensical.

How so?

Like this: God created the universe, therefore God is the set of all truth values. I don't know how to understand that. Help me ... help you.

lifewhispers wrote:
I've not offered any explanations.  The explanations remain the same, regardless of whether you embrace the construct of "God," or not.  It is merely a chosen perspective.  Virtually everything about our understandings of the Universe around us boils down to the perspectives we choose for ourselves.

Um ... so electrons are real only from a certain perspective, then? What do you mean here? Do you mean embracing the God construct is irrelevant? Because that's what I've been saying.

lifewhispers wrote:
Why?  Because, reality is made up of an infinite number of different possible perspectives

Sorry, you're losing me. Are you suggesting there is no objective reality?

lifewhispers wrote:
If you look at this mathematically

P/R

Where, "P" is our one perspective and "R" represents an infinite number of possible perspectives of reality the way it is.  So, we each have 1 Perspective/infinite Perspectives - or, ILLUSION.

Hahahaha! ... haha ... whoo ... sorry, what were you saying?

lifewhispers wrote:
So, again, God or no God, you're no better, or worse off.  You're still functioning under illusion, and not reality.  So, "God" remains a personal choice, and you're decision to embrace it, or not, has nothing to do with its tenability or anyone else's choice to embrace it.

Put another way, the question could be asked of you, "why not employ a construct of God in reference to the Creation of the Universe?"  And, your answer would be no more correct or incorrect than the theist who chooses to embrace "God."  It's just a chosen perspective.

Hehe ... oh, you're being serious. Okay, stop right there. You know we're using "computers" to communicate, right? That's heavy evidence that there's a lot of objective reality between the two of us, and we even have witnesses. So don't even try that "it's all an illusion" stuff.

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

You've given a definition of "God" that involves intent and desire to create a universe, and pretended that all you're saying is that it's the set of all things true.

How so?

Well ... you said God was "all that is true in the universe" and then made God a much more complicated proposition. So ...

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?

That's not an extra attribute.  It is a natural and logical extension and axiomatic statement that can be made about All that is True in the Universe.  It is clear that All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God, is Creating the Universe - unless, you can come up with something else that is not All that is True in the Universe that could do it.  Can you?

No, since it's not clear at all that the universe is a creation. You made that part up.

lifewhispers wrote:
Your problem seems to be the word, "God."

No. My problem is that you have invented a creator without any reason for one. Even if there was an intentional agent for the creation of the universe, you'd be lying if you said you know anything about it.

lifewhispers wrote:
Is there any other word in the English language, or any other, for that matter, that describes the fullness of what I intend to convey, [...]  "Reality" doesn't do it.

No kidding. You're again assuming a creator. It's an assumption. Even lacking knowledge of how the universe started, the best guess wouldn't be a magic creator entity.

lifewhispers wrote:
I am referring to an image in someone's imagination, not an image on paper.  Can empirical evidence establish its existence?  Can logic establish its existence?  Does the inability of empirical evidence and logic to discern it invalidate it as not true?

Read some Oliver Sacks for entertaining descriptions of the loss of imaging in the brain caused by injury. The capacity to imagine is physical.

lifewhispers wrote:
What is unreasonable about the notion that non-real, non-physical, abstract constructs can have a real and tangible effect on reality?

If you mean "ideas", they are, in themselves, physical. Again, brain injury cases are the best example of that.

lifewhispers wrote:
How can it be reasonable to dismiss the non-real and the non-physical, when we can provide infinite examples of how the non-real and the non-physical CAN have an impact on our reality?

Because what you're interpreting as non-physical is actually physical, and no other reasonable explanation exists. Non-physical things are, by definition non-existent. Oh, except in metaphysics, where it seems like everything exists and doesn't exist, depending on which school of thought you entertain.

lifewhispers wrote:
The only thing that I've found that even comes close to encompassing all of that which has impact on reality is the concept of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.  Did you have an alternative term that works as well?

As soon as I figure out what the hell you're talking about, I'm sure we can find another word. Your God idea as creator and "all-truth" needs serious development. Where does God get its arbitrary seperation from things that are false?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:But, we

lifewhispers wrote:

But, we exhibit the ability to bring processes into existence in accordance with physical laws, as a product of free agency.  That must also be accounted for in All that is True in the Universe - not just other natural processes that seem to have naturally arisen from physical laws.  In any event, the processes in question did not exist at the birth of the Universe, but have arisen over time - which was my original point in defense of my position that the Universe represents an ongoing Creation, and not merely the product of some discreet event in the past.  The "event" is not yet over and Creation is definitely a part of it.

BMcD wrote:

But if our consciousness is simply a side-effect of the processes which produce it, then even this 'free agency' (which, in the end, we cannot show is actually free at all, only that we lack the ability to predict it reliably) is part of the physical, mechanical universe. And, as time itself is a quality of the universe, and not something the universe itself moves through (but rather, something the contents of the universe move through), then just as the entirety of the universe contains all space, it contains all time, and so, all of the processes that have ever, and will ever, exist, are all present at the inception of the universe from the perspective of the universe itself, because, with time being a property of the universe, the universe itself could not have existed at any single point in time, but must have existed at all of them. It's hard to explain just what I mean there without using words that imply points in time, but as an analogy, if we imagine the universe as a three-dimensional construct, then when it comes into existence (in whatever external axis of progression it follows, as three-dimensionally it would time), it simultaneously exists at all sizes and states that it will ever exist at. All at once, all the time. It's only our perception of time that appears to limit the universe's processes. And I have no idea if that makes sense outside of my own head. Smiling

Well, I couldn't understand it.  Sorry.

 

lifewhispers wrote:

But, the pattern of photon emissions is not what gives the image its meaning - we give it its meaning.  And, its meaning is not something that is real or physical - but, it's there - and, therefore, a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.

BMcD wrote:

But we've established that what we call our consciousness is quite possibly a physical process. Thus, thee amalgam of stored data that is accessed through the physical process of our consciousness to give that image meaning, is a physical construct. And the meaning itself is stored through physical process (again, our consciousness) as a physical construct (in this case, again, specific synapse firing sequences).

That in no way invalidates the intangible nature of images in our imagination.   You would not declare an image in my imagination to be "real," would you?  Even if it is there, it is still only an image in my imagination, right?  If you would declare that an image in my imagination is real, then you may as well concede the reality of the Christian God, right?  Where do we draw the line?

lifewhispers wrote:

No, actually, that's not a fair assessment.  Even if the Universe does not require intent or choice, there are parts of it that do engage in intent and choice.  And, intentions and choices can be influenced heavily by non-real, non-physical factors that "functioning purely under mechanical laws" does not address.  And, we must also consider those factors, in order to come to a complete understanding of All that is True in the Universe.

BMcD wrote:

But again, if our consciousness is, in fact, a physical process, then all of those non-real, non-physical factors are physical, either as part of the process or as stored constructs for the process to operate upon. That we are such incredibly complex cascading sequences of chemical reactions that we can actually contemplate our own nature as incredibly complex cascading sequences of chemical reactions does not in any way make us anything more than cascading sequences of chemical reactions.

Then, by that logic, the Christian God is in fact physical, even if it only exists as an image in our imaginations.  Where, then,  do we draw the line between imagination and reality?  You seem to be pretending that there is no line.

I assure you, it is much easier to simply concede the non-real, non-physical nature of images in our imagination.  Even if they are the result of physical processes, they are no more real than an image on a TV screen is real.

lifewhispers wrote:

But, atheists can be just as irrational as theists.  And, my  purpose for providing a tenable definition of God was not to get atheists to concede it, but to get theists to concede it.  The theists are the ones causing the problems, more so than the atheists.  I would have thought it easier to get atheists to concede it than the theists; but, my experiences, here, have taught me otherwise.  The problem is not the words I have chosen, but the ego invested in a contrary position on the existence of a tenable definition of "God."  If for no other reason, I think that a valid enough reason to stand steadfast in my choice of wording.  The atheists who have a problem with what I am presenting can just have me clarify it - or, they can continue to debate with me about it.  Either way, what is needed is a more critical look at the subject on the part of anyone who would ever consider the construct of "God" from either perspective.  And, debate  does that.  If I can accomplish that small goal, I will have achieved the desired result.

BMcD wrote:

Oh, I won't even try to claim that we aren't often as irrational as theists. Just ask my family! Eye-wink And yes, many atheists will oppose such a definition on emotional grounds because of their opposition to the idea of a tenable definition of 'God', precisely because of the supernatural baggage that term entails. However, if you can get them to look at the reversal, that what you are, in effect, doing, is defining in the supernatural right out of 'God' and (to the theistic viewpoint) reducing 'God' to nothing more than reality itself, I think you might have more success.

That's fine, except that I'm not reducing God to nothing more than reality itself.  I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  That transcends reality to include the conceptual, non-real, and non-physical.

BMcD wrote:

In other words, tell them you're taking God away from the theists, that what you're presenting is actually, in a way, a kind of foundation for turning the tables on the theists and refusing to let them define the terms of the debate any more. If 'God' can be defined to be purely the actual extant universe, then the theist cannot claim 'God exists', but rather must defend why 'my God is right and yours isn't'. They must then defend supernature. Because as far as I can see, that's the logical development of presenting this idea in larger context.

It does get the debate past the point of shouting, "God exists!" and, "No, God does NOT exist!"  It forces the theist to prove their concept of God against another concept of God that can be proven to exist - when theirs can't.

BMcD wrote:

From what I can see, your strategy would eventually mean the theists would have to defend magic.

Yes, they must end up defending magic and all manner of other silliness that they seldom get around to discussing; because, they are so busy trying to support the notion that their God exists.

BMcD wrote:

It's worth considering, though, that the theists will not view any proposal that uses the word 'God' as atheistic or a-religious. If anything, using the term, due once again to the supernatural baggage, will only foment the continued belief that science is just another religion.

Except, that I've had success with this approach.   In every case that it has been effective, the Christian had never before been presented with a tenable definition of God that required no faith or belief.  To see one in print really opened their eyes.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Ok. This time I'm gonna

Ok. This time I'm gonna rearrange the response orders, because one in particular deserves the last place so as to discuss it in depth without taking away from the others.

lifewhispers wrote:

Except, that I've had success with this approach.   In every case that it has been effective, the Christian had never before been presented with a tenable definition of God that required no faith or belief.  To see one in print really opened their eyes.

Really? Good! In my experience, though, folks like that don't realize how 'on the fence' they already were... they subscribe to a generally rational worldview, but believe because it's what they were taught to do. Still, every success counts, right? Smiling

lifewhispers wrote:

That in no way invalidates the intangible nature of images in our imagination.   You would not declare an image in my imagination to be "real," would you?  Even if it is there, it is still only an image in my imagination, right?  If you would declare that an image in my imagination is real, then you may as well concede the reality of the Christian God, right?  Where do we draw the line?

and

 

lifewhispers wrote:

Then, by that logic, the Christian God is in fact physical, even if it only exists as an image in our imaginations.  Where, then,  do we draw the line between imagination and reality?  You seem to be pretending that there is no line.

I assure you, it is much easier to simply concede the non-real, non-physical nature of images in our imagination.  Even if they are the result of physical processes, they are no more real than an image on a TV screen is real.

It is easier. It's also easier to believe in a spiritual parent figure than to set off on one's own toward intellectual adulthood. I would, in fact, declare the image in your imagination 'real', as a real piece of data, just as a drawing of it, set on paper, is 'real'. That does not give it, or the Christian God, who shares the same level of reality as other concepts, images, and abstractions, any existence beyond that image, any more than the paintings of the Sistine Chapel do. They, after all, are 'real', are they not? It's all representations of data. The data is real. The information expressed is real. That the information exists is necessarily true. The information itself need not be.

 

lifewhispers wrote:

That's fine, except that I'm not reducing God to nothing more than reality itself.  I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  That transcends reality to include the conceptual, non-real, and non-physical.

Ok, let me ask you this: IF (and I'm not saying you have to) we were to accept the train of thought that I've put forth, that data, including concepts, is stored physically, and thus is physical, what would you consider 'non-real but true'? See, I think at this point, with a little more groundwork on this side of the theism/atheism divide, your framework could be used for really promising common ground through which to have more meaningful discussion.

Ok, now for the other bit...

 

lifewhispers wrote:
lifewhispers wrote:

But, we exhibit the ability to bring processes into existence in accordance with physical laws, as a product of free agency.  That must also be accounted for in All that is True in the Universe - not just other natural processes that seem to have naturally arisen from physical laws.  In any event, the processes in question did not exist at the birth of the Universe, but have arisen over time - which was my original point in defense of my position that the Universe represents an ongoing Creation, and not merely the product of some discreet event in the past.  The "event" is not yet over and Creation is definitely a part of it.

BMcD wrote:

But if our consciousness is simply a side-effect of the processes which produce it, then even this 'free agency' (which, in the end, we cannot show is actually free at all, only that we lack the ability to predict it reliably) is part of the physical, mechanical universe. And, as time itself is a quality of the universe, and not something the universe itself moves through (but rather, something the contents of the universe move through), then just as the entirety of the universe contains all space, it contains all time, and so, all of the processes that have ever, and will ever, exist, are all present at the inception of the universe from the perspective of the universe itself, because, with time being a property of the universe, the universe itself could not have existed at any single point in time, but must have existed at all of them. It's hard to explain just what I mean there without using words that imply points in time, but as an analogy, if we imagine the universe as a three-dimensional construct, then when it comes into existence (in whatever external axis of progression it follows, as three-dimensionally it would time), it simultaneously exists at all sizes and states that it will ever exist at. All at once, all the time. It's only our perception of time that appears to limit the universe's processes. And I have no idea if that makes sense outside of my own head. Smiling

Well, I couldn't understand it.  Sorry.

Requoting that just so we have the... er... clear? point to refer back to.

Objects within our four-dimensional universe (3 spacial, 1 temporal) present to our immediate observation their 3 spacial characteristics. You can see the physical size of an object, feel it texture, taste it, etc etc. They don't automatically present their temporal characteristics. We don't know, for example, looking at a painting, how 'big' it is in time. Not until we pass its end-point in time, and we can't go back to look at its other end-point (ie: its beginning), because we can't travel in that direction along that axis of movement. However, the size of the painting along its temporal axis never changed. We simply weren't aware of it.

The universe, taken from outside as a discrete object/set, does not exist within the boundaries of 'time', because 'time' exists as a quality of the universe. Thus, if the universe, as a discrete object, has an axis of progression that corresponds for its external existence to 'time' for our existence. For the moment, let's call that axis Time'. Time and Time' are completely separate and do not interact in any way.

At the point along the Time' axis where the discrete object/set that is our universe begins, the whole thing exists, including every complete measurement of all things along the Time axis, and all of that remains the same for it's entire length along the Time' axis. From the perspective of the universe itself, the 'beginning' and 'end' of Time are like the surface of a balloon. All of it was always there, it's just not always perceivable in the same way.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:The term,

lifewhispers wrote:

The term, "God" holds, as its most widely held definition,  the meaning, "Creator of the Universe. "  In order for that to be true, "God" must also be All that is True in the Universe.

And, if you have any suggestions for improvements to the definition of God, I'm certainly open to entertaining them.  Do you have any?

HisWillness wrote:

How could I? You're the one making the rules for this game, considering the idea of extra-physical entities is ridiculous to me. I was just trying to follow your definition. So your God is creator of the universe and "all that is true in the universe". The first part is one of an infinite number of possibilities, and the second doesn't really make sense. Does God then not include what is "false"? Or are "true" and "false" given special meanings here.

No, if God is defined as Creator of the Universe, that is the only possibility.  The only thing left, then, is to determine exactly what that is that is God, Creator of the Universe.  I have determined it to be the set of All that is True in the Universe.  I tried other definitions, and they all fell apart, when it came to non-real, non-physical constructs that have a real and physically tangible effect on reality.  All that is True in the Universe is the only thing I have found that encompasses everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  If you can come up with something different, I would be glad to discuss it.

 

lifewhispers wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:
The perspective of the Universe as a Creation with a Creator is a tenable one - but, it is certainly not a necessary one.

HisWillness wrote:

You haven't really made the case that it's tenable yet.

Pardon the correction, but, yes, I have.  It sits at the top of this thread.  What has not been done, however, is the presentation of any logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that it isn't tenable.  Can you explain why it isn't tenable?

lifewhispers wrote:
I guess that only goes to illustrate that people who embrace either perspective with emotion and ego blind themselves to any other valid perspectives.

HisWillness wrote:

Still trying to validate your position, irrespective of emotion and ego. We're stuck on your definition of God. I can't have one, since I have been presented with no reasonable evidence of one. I couldn't tell you what God smells like, for instance.

The evidence for God is the same evidence that is against God.  The task, therefore, is to come up with a tenable definition of God.  I've done that - unless, you can describe a way that the Universe could come into existence in all of its most intricate detail by way of anything other than All that is True in the Universe.  Can you do that?

HisWillness wrote:

lifewhispers wrote:
Atheists do not think it reasonable to embrace God.

Provide more God. It's reasonable to embrace what exists.

I've provided a definition of God that includes that which exists.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
I'm not positing about what is possible.  What actually is DOES support both perspectives - even if it does not support the nonsensical ideas that theists typically have about "God."  But, for theists to see that, they need to see a tenable definition of "God" that allows their perspective about God being Creator of the Universe to be true.

HisWillness wrote:

I'm dying for you to present the evidence that supports your definition of God. Well, maybe we should make sure we define your God first.

Umm, it sits at the top of this thread.  I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  And, it stands on its own with no requirement of faith or belief.  And, it encompasses anything and everything responsible for the existence of the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  What more do you want?  Proof that anything is true?  Proof that that which is true is indeed responsible for the Universe in all of its most intricate detail?  Is that not obvious enough for you?  Is that not testable and verifiable enough for you?  Can you even conceive of any other way the Universe could come into existence in all of its most intricate detail in any other way than through All that is True in the Universe?

 

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Your "everything that is true" should be enough to argue that the set of all truth values constitutes a creator of the universe (including false values). But that slips into the nonsensical.

How so?

HisWillness wrote:

Like this: God created the universe, therefore God is the set of all truth values. I don't know how to understand that. Help me ... help you.

You have misrepresented the syllogism.  Here, I'll present it to you:

God is defined as Creator of the Universe

All that is True in the Universe is Creator of the Universe

therefore,

God is All that is True in the Universe.

or,

A = C

B = C

therefore,

A = B

lifewhispers wrote:
I've not offered any explanations.  The explanations remain the same, regardless of whether you embrace the construct of "God," or not.  It is merely a chosen perspective.  Virtually everything about our understandings of the Universe around us boils down to the perspectives we choose for ourselves.

HisWillness wrote:

Um ... so electrons are real only from a certain perspective, then? What do you mean here? Do you mean embracing the God construct is irrelevant? Because that's what I've been saying.

Yes, embracing the God construct or not embracing the God construct is irrelevant.  The Universe remains the same, regardless of whether, or not, you choose to embrace the construct of God.

lifewhispers wrote:
Why?  Because, reality is made up of an infinite number of different possible perspectives

HisWillness wrote:

Sorry, you're losing me. Are you suggesting there is no objective reality?

No, what I am saying is that you can only have a limited perspective of it.  Why?  Because, you are not the Universe - only a part of it.  Reality encompasses everything in the Universe

lifewhispers wrote:
If you look at this mathematically

P/R

Where, "P" is our one perspective and "R" represents an infinite number of possible perspectives of reality the way it is.  So, we each have 1 Perspective/infinite Perspectives - or, ILLUSION.

HisWillness wrote:

Hahahaha! ... haha ... whoo ... sorry, what were you saying?

Funny, but true.

lifewhispers wrote:
So, again, God or no God, you're no better, or worse off.  You're still functioning under illusion, and not reality.  So, "God" remains a personal choice, and you're decision to embrace it, or not, has nothing to do with its tenability or anyone else's choice to embrace it.

Put another way, the question could be asked of you, "why not employ a construct of God in reference to the Creation of the Universe?"  And, your answer would be no more correct or incorrect than the theist who chooses to embrace "God."  It's just a chosen perspective.

HisWillness wrote:

Hehe ... oh, you're being serious. Okay, stop right there. You know we're using "computers" to communicate, right? That's heavy evidence that there's a lot of objective reality between the two of us, and we even have witnesses. So don't even try that "it's all an illusion" stuff.

It is all an illusion.  You see yourself as one person with one life.  But, that is just an illusion.  The truth is that you are a collective of many different lifeforms that are organized into what you consider to be one "being."  Furthermore, you see objects as "solid" when they are made up mostly of space.   What you like and dislike are based on illusions you have chosen.  What you think you know about other people are merely illusions that you have chosen.  How you feel about yourself is based on illusions you have chosen.  The way you perceive time and space are illusions. Your comprehension of virtually everything is illusory.  Even your sense of self is illusory. 

Despite the existence of objective reality, you have no choice but to interpret  it in such a limited way as to render your perceptions of it merely illusions.  Why?  Because, objective reality is made up of an infinite number of different possible perspectives and you have but one - your own.  Even if you could broaden yourself to be able to see things from multiple perspectives, you still could never approach being able to see all possible perspectives.

But, don't feel bad - we're all in the same boat in that regard.  While we are objectively real, we simply lack the ability to perceive ourselves in any other way than through illusions we choose for ourselves.  We can choose illusions that are consistent repeatable, testable, and in accordance with what we know or think we know to be true.  But, choose them, we must.  We cannot even perform mathematics without engaging in illusion.  Why?  Because, mathematics is an illusory construct we have chosen for ourselves in an attempt to better understand objective reality.

Objective reality is there; but, we have no choice but to perceive it through illusions.  Why are they illusions?  Because, they are not objective reality - they merely attempt to interpret objective reality.

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

You've given a definition of "God" that involves intent and desire to create a universe, and pretended that all you're saying is that it's the set of all things true.

How so?

HisWillness wrote:

Well ... you said God was "all that is true in the universe" and then made God a much more complicated proposition. So ...

I did no such thing. 

lifewhispers wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?

That's not an extra attribute.  It is a natural and logical extension and axiomatic statement that can be made about All that is True in the Universe.  It is clear that All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God, is Creating the Universe - unless, you can come up with something else that is not All that is True in the Universe that could do it.  Can you?

HisWillness wrote:

No, since it's not clear at all that the universe is a creation. You made that part up.

Umm, I beg to differ with you - and, so does dictionary.com:

cre·a·tion      /kriˈeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1.the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2.the fact of being created.
3.something that is or has been created.
4.the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5.the world; universe.
6.creatures collectively.
7.an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
8.a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations.

 

It's right there, in definition 5.  You may not like it; but, you'll just have to accept it.  I'm using the word in its proper context and in full accordance with its accepted definition.

lifewhispers wrote:
Your problem seems to be the word, "God."

HisWillness wrote:

No. My problem is that you have invented a creator without any reason for one. Even if there was an intentional agent for the creation of the universe, you'd be lying if you said you know anything about it.

Nonsense!  I have not invented a Creator - I am DESCRIBING IT.  There IS a Creator of the Universe, by virtue of the existence of the Universe.  SOMETHING is giving rise to, or Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  I am calling that "God" in accordance with its ACCEPTED DEFINITION as Creator of the Universe.  That, in and of itself, says nothing about methods or intentions.  I am saying that the Universe is being Created by All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God, Creator of the Universe.  I gave you the syllogism.  Study it.

And, you are reasoning yourself into absurdity, here.   I have given the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  By what stretch of logic do you arrive at the conclusion that I have invented a creator with intent?  At least, try to be serious and honest in your dialogue.  It may be difficult, but please make the effort.  OK?  Enough silliness.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
Is there any other word in the English language, or any other, for that matter, that describes the fullness of what I intend to convey, [...]  "Reality" doesn't do it.

HisWillness wrote:

No kidding. You're again assuming a creator. It's an assumption. Even lacking knowledge of how the universe started, the best guess wouldn't be a magic creator entity.

Straw man.   Enough said about that.  I refuse to spend any more time addressing that silliness.  Just put a lid on it.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
I am referring to an image in someone's imagination, not an image on paper.  Can empirical evidence establish its existence?  Can logic establish its existence?  Does the inability of empirical evidence and logic to discern it invalidate it as not true?

HisWillness wrote:

Read some Oliver Sacks for entertaining descriptions of the loss of imaging in the brain caused by injury. The capacity to imagine is physical.

Straw man.  I never said the capacity to imagine was not physical.  I said that the images in our imagination are not real.    Therefore, they are not members of the set of all things that are real.   But, they DO have an impact on physicality, even if we cannot discern that effect.  And, that effect can be non-real and non-physical, too.

The whole point of this tangent was to illustrate why I did not define God as "reality."  Reality does not encompass everything that is responsible for Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail - but, All that is True in the Universe DOES.

lifewhispers wrote:
What is unreasonable about the notion that non-real, non-physical, abstract constructs can have a real and tangible effect on reality?

HisWillness wrote:

If you mean "ideas", they are, in themselves, physical. Again, brain injury cases are the best example of that.

Sorry, but ideas are not real, even if they are maintained physically.  When we communicate an idea to another person over the computer, how much  physical mass is moved from one place to the other?  How much does an idea weigh?  How big is it?  How small is it?  How might we measure an idea?  It's physical, right?  Then, we should be able to measure it and study it and containerize it, right?  Do you still want to persist with this absurd line of reasoning?

lifewhispers wrote:
How can it be reasonable to dismiss the non-real and the non-physical, when we can provide infinite examples of how the non-real and the non-physical CAN have an impact on our reality?

HisWillness wrote:

Because what you're interpreting as non-physical is actually physical, and no other reasonable explanation exists. Non-physical things are, by definition non-existent. Oh, except in metaphysics, where it seems like everything exists and doesn't exist, depending on which school of thought you entertain.

How much mass does mathematics have?   How do we measure it?  It's physical, right?<rolling my eyes>

lifewhispers wrote:
The only thing that I've found that even comes close to encompassing all of that which has impact on reality is the concept of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.  Did you have an alternative term that works as well?

As soon as I figure out what the hell you're talking about, I'm sure we can find another word. Your God idea as creator and "all-truth" needs serious development. Where does God get its arbitrary seperation from things that are false?

Because, All that is False in the Universe could never Create the Universe in All of its most intricate detail - but, All that is True in the Universe, or God, could.  That's where.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:The term,

lifewhispers wrote:

The term, "God" holds, as its most widely held definition,  the meaning, "Creator of the Universe. "  In order for that to be true, "God" must also be All that is True in the Universe.

And, if you have any suggestions for improvements to the definition of God, I'm certainly open to entertaining them.  Do you have any?

  yeah , drop the words creator, and true. Creator will never cut it, as it implies a beginning. Maybe this will fly better,

"All that IS the Universe", ummm but what about what is not?,  some would say. (giggles) , so better yet . God the Universe ( Cosmos ) , then some will say, but what about what is not the Cosmos.

Geezzz I love all you guys ....  

We all agree that god ain't, the god of abe , and that is maybe the most important message today ..... keep teaching , defeat superstition ..... thanks .... I can hear the kids laughing, .... sincerely, me GOD .....  

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:No, if

lifewhispers wrote:
No, if God is defined as Creator of the Universe, that is the only possibility.  The only thing left, then, is to determine exactly what that is that is God, Creator of the Universe.

But you still require a creator god, which is a massive and unfounded assumption.

lifewhispers wrote:
All that is True in the Universe is the only thing I have found that encompasses everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  If you can come up with something different, I would be glad to discuss it.

I'm really just trying to understand what "all that is true in the universe" is even supposed to mean.

lifewhispers wrote:
Pardon the correction, but, yes, I have.  It sits at the top of this thread.  What has not been done, however, is the presentation of any logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that it isn't tenable.  Can you explain why it isn't tenable?

Yeah, it's arbitrary to the point of eliminating itself as a reasonable explanation. We don't know exactly how the universe started, nor do we even know what to call the process of our portion of the universe's initiation ... therefore it was created? What? That doesn't follow at all.

lifewhispers wrote:
The evidence for God is the same evidence that is against God.

No. The evidence for God is the same evidence available for unicorns. None. 

lifewhispers wrote:
I've done that - unless, you can describe a way that the Universe could come into existence in all of its most intricate detail by way of anything other than All that is True in the Universe.

This "all that is true in the universe" is still so vague as to limit the possibility that I'll ever understand what you're talking about.

lifewhispers wrote:
I've provided a definition of God that includes that which exists.

Plus the desire and capacity to create the universe and disappear. Attributes you gloss over every time, or place into an assumption or definition. 

lifewhispers wrote:
I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.

lifewhispers wrote:
Can you even conceive of any other way the Universe could come into existence in all of its most intricate detail in any other way than through All that is True in the Universe?

I still don't know what "all that is true in the universe" means. I think you may be the only person who does. 

lifewhispers wrote:
You have misrepresented the syllogism.  Here, I'll present it to you:

God is defined as Creator of the Universe

All that is True in the Universe is Creator of the Universe

therefore,

God is All that is True in the Universe.

Since you're defining God as creator of the universe from the start ... now you're just going in circles.

lifewhispers wrote:
Yes, embracing the God construct or not embracing the God construct is irrelevant.  The Universe remains the same, regardless of whether, or not, you choose to embrace the construct of God.

I'll give you that one, for sure. Makes you wonder why it's necessary to embrace the construct of God, doesn't it?

lifewhispers wrote:
Funny, but true.

You just used math to manipulate two variables that you made up. It's pretty much the same as the syllogism above where you manipulated two unfounded assumptions.

lifewhispers wrote:
It is all an illusion.  [...] Your comprehension of virtually everything is illusory.  Even your sense of self is illusory [...] mathematics is an illusory construct we have chosen for ourselves in an attempt to better understand objective reality.

Objective reality is there; but, we have no choice but to perceive it through illusions.  Why are they illusions?  Because, they are not objective reality - they merely attempt to interpret objective reality.

It's amazing how well our mathematical illusions work when we're firing artillery shells at each other. The meeting of math and reality there is pretty sharp. If you're suggesting a kind of "we'll never understand everything, therefore we don't understand anything", I can't say I'm going to give up trying. That's pretty nihilistic of you.

lifewhispers wrote:
Umm, I beg to differ with you - and, so does dictionary.com:

cre·a·tion      /kriˈeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1.the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2.the fact of being created.
3.something that is or has been created.
4.the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5.the world; universe.
6.creatures collectively.
7.an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
8.a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations.

 

It's right there, in definition 5.  You may not like it; but, you'll just have to accept it.  I'm using the word in its proper context and in full accordance with its accepted definition.

This, so far, is my favourite argument. People who speak English (and most likely are of a Judeo-Christian upbringing) have historically used this word to refer to the universe, therefore it is a 100% accurate idea of the initiation of all that exists. You're showing me the cultural bias of an English dictionary, that's all.

lifewhispers wrote:
Nonsense!  I have not invented a Creator - I am DESCRIBING IT.  There IS a Creator of the Universe, by virtue of the existence of the Universe. SOMETHING is giving rise to, or Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  I am calling that "God" in accordance with its ACCEPTED DEFINITION as Creator of the Universe.  That, in and of itself, says nothing about methods or intentions.  I am saying that the Universe is being Created by All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God, Creator of the Universe.  I gave you the syllogism.  Study it.

In the above, you give the cosmological argument (so what created the creator?) and then saying that the universe is created by a subset of the universe (all that is true). Do you see why I might find that on the wacky side?

lifewhispers wrote:
And, you are reasoning yourself into absurdity, here.   I have given the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  By what stretch of logic do you arrive at the conclusion that I have invented a creator with intent?

Because you keep saying it. You define God as a creator by virtue of the cosmological argument. Is your argument then that your god created the universe by accident? And what created the creator?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote:No, if

lifewhispers wrote:
No, if God is defined as Creator of the Universe, that is the only possibility.  The only thing left, then, is to determine exactly what that is that is God, Creator of the Universe.

HisWillness wrote:

But you still require a creator god, which is a massive and unfounded assumption.

No, it is an axiomatic truth.  SOMETHING IS CREATING THE UNIVERSE IN ALL OF ITS MOST INTRICATE DETAIL - PERIOD. 

I've already addressed this very objection multiple times.  I really don't give a fuck whether you like my use of the words "Create," "Creator," or "Creation."  If you don't like them, substitute them for words you like.  I just don't fucking care.  Got it?  Your dislike of them and your straw man representations of my use of them are completely irrelevant to the point.

I know you like to pretend that NOTHING is doing anything in the Universe - otherwise, you would not object so strenuously to my pointing out that it is an ongoing process, and not something that just happened about 14 billion years ago.  But, that doesn't change the FACT that NEW processes and NEW CREATIONS are forming throughout the Universe.  I cannot even conceive of any stream of logic that would lead to any other conclusion.  And, you certainly have not provided one.  All you've done is commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretend that I haven't pointed them out to you.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
All that is True in the Universe is the only thing I have found that encompasses everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  If you can come up with something different, I would be glad to discuss it.

HisWillness wrote:

I'm really just trying to understand what "all that is true in the universe" is even supposed to mean.

No, I don't believe you.  I think you are being purposely obtuse  - or, this whole subject is so beyond your abilities to comprehend that you should just walk away from it.  It's not that difficult to understand.  And, I'm growing weary of explaining it over and over, again.

lifewhispers wrote:
Pardon the correction, but, yes, I have.  It sits at the top of this thread.  What has not been done, however, is the presentation of any logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that it isn't tenable.  Can you explain why it isn't tenable?

HisWillness wrote:

Yeah, it's arbitrary to the point of eliminating itself as a reasonable explanation. We don't know exactly how the universe started, nor do we even know what to call the process of our portion of the universe's initiation ... therefore it was created? What? That doesn't follow at all.

What doesn't follow at all is your response to the challenge.  You tossed out a straw man.  I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you - you knew better when you did it.

lifewhispers wrote:
The evidence for God is the same evidence that is against God.

HisWillness wrote:

No. The evidence for God is the same evidence available for unicorns. None. 

And, again, you go out of your way to avoid the explanations I have already given.  I explained this in the original proof that sits at the top of the thread.  Read it, again.  The existence of God is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE DEFINITION OF GOD YOU ARE EMPLOYING.

Your response is another idiotic straw man.  *I* have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  MY definition is under discussion.  Therefore, your comment translates as, "No. The evidence for All that is True in the Universe is the same as the evidence for Unicorns.  None."  That is a patently absurd assertion and one you knew better than to toss out in the first place.  I'm just not going to buy that you're that fucking stupid.  And, do yourself a favor and don't pretend to be that stupid, either.

lifewhispers wrote:
I've done that - unless, you can describe a way that the Universe could come into existence in all of its most intricate detail by way of anything other than All that is True in the Universe.

HisWillness wrote:

This "all that is true in the universe" is still so vague as to limit the possibility that I'll ever understand what you're talking about.

Then, it sucks to be you; because, it's not that difficult to understand.  And, if you really don't understand it, how can you ever hope to refute it?

lifewhispers wrote:
I've provided a definition of God that includes that which exists.

HisWillness wrote:

Plus the desire and capacity to create the universe and disappear. Attributes you gloss over every time, or place into an assumption or definition. 

Where are you getting this nonsense?  Where have I implied desire on the part of All that is True in the Universe?

lifewhispers wrote:
I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.

lifewhispers wrote:
Can you even conceive of any other way the Universe could come into existence in all of its most intricate detail in any other way than through All that is True in the Universe?

HisWillness wrote:

I still don't know what "all that is true in the universe" means. I think you may be the only person who does. 

If you cannot conceive of what the truth is, then just walk away from this thread.  It's WAY over your head.  Let the grown ups debate it.

But, for what it's worth (probably nothing, in your case), you don't have to know, conceive of, or understand All that is True in the Universe for that to be a tenable definition of God.  And, for the definition to be tenable, the only requirement is that the Universe contain truth.  It does.

lifewhispers wrote:
You have misrepresented the syllogism.  Here, I'll present it to you:

God is defined as Creator of the Universe

All that is True in the Universe is Creator of the Universe

therefore,

God is All that is True in the Universe.

HisWillness wrote:

Since you're defining God as creator of the universe from the start ... now you're just going in circles.

No, I presented you with a syllogism that expresses what I've done to provide a tenable definition of God.  It's just unfortunate, for you, that you cannot seem to comprehend it.

lifewhispers wrote:
Yes, embracing the God construct or not embracing the God construct is irrelevant.  The Universe remains the same, regardless of whether, or not, you choose to embrace the construct of God.

HisWillness wrote:

I'll give you that one, for sure. Makes you wonder why it's necessary to embrace the construct of God, doesn't it?

It's not necessary.  I even said that in the original proof.  It's just a chosen perspective - but, that does not mean it is not tenable.

lifewhispers wrote:
Funny, but true.

HisWillness wrote:

You just used math to manipulate two variables that you made up. It's pretty much the same as the syllogism above where you manipulated two unfounded assumptions.

But, they are not unfounded.  You can ignore what I've explained to you, if you like.  I'm not explaining it, again.

 

lifewhispers wrote:
It is all an illusion.  [...] Your comprehension of virtually everything is illusory.  Even your sense of self is illusory [...] mathematics is an illusory construct we have chosen for ourselves in an attempt to better understand objective reality.

Objective reality is there; but, we have no choice but to perceive it through illusions.  Why are they illusions?  Because, they are not objective reality - they merely attempt to interpret objective reality.

HisWillness wrote:

It's amazing how well our mathematical illusions work when we're firing artillery shells at each other. The meeting of math and reality there is pretty sharp. If you're suggesting a kind of "we'll never understand everything, therefore we don't understand anything", I can't say I'm going to give up trying. That's pretty nihilistic of you.

Another straw man - and a silly one, at that.

lifewhispers wrote:
Umm, I beg to differ with you - and, so does dictionary.com:

cre·a·tion      /kriˈeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1.the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2.the fact of being created.
3.something that is or has been created.
4.the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5.the world; universe.
6.creatures collectively.
7.an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
8.a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations.

 

It's right there, in definition 5.  You may not like it; but, you'll just have to accept it.  I'm using the word in its proper context and in full accordance with its accepted definition.

HisWillness wrote:

This, so far, is my favourite argument. People who speak English (and most likely are of a Judeo-Christian upbringing) have historically used this word to refer to the universe, therefore it is a 100% accurate idea of the initiation of all that exists. You're showing me the cultural bias of an English dictionary, that's all.

And, you're just tossing out another straw man.  What is relevant, here, is that my usage of the words I have chosen is correct and in accordance with their accepted definitions.  This was in response to  your accusation that I just "made up" the idea that the Universe is a Creation.   I didn't make it up.  And, I proved that I did not make it up.  Any other discussion on that point is merely a red herring.

lifewhispers wrote:
Nonsense!  I have not invented a Creator - I am DESCRIBING IT.  There IS a Creator of the Universe, by virtue of the existence of the Universe. SOMETHING is giving rise to, or Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.  I am calling that "God" in accordance with its ACCEPTED DEFINITION as Creator of the Universe.  That, in and of itself, says nothing about methods or intentions.  I am saying that the Universe is being Created by All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God, Creator of the Universe.  I gave you the syllogism.  Study it.

HisWillness wrote:

In the above, you give the cosmological argument (so what created the creator?) and then saying that the universe is created by a subset of the universe (all that is true). Do you see why I might find that on the wacky side?

The Cosmological Argument posits a first cause - I'm not positing any such thing.  Why?  Because, it isn't relevant to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  That there was something that was responsible for the initiation of the Universe is patently obvious - even if we never figure out what it is.  It really doesn't matter what it was, except to satisfy idle curiosity on our part.

Furthermore, All that is True in the Universe is not a subset of the Universe, it is a superset of the Universe.  All that is True in the Universe transcends the mere physicality of the Universe, even if it includes it.  It is a larger set than just the Universe.

lifewhispers wrote:
And, you are reasoning yourself into absurdity, here.   I have given the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  By what stretch of logic do you arrive at the conclusion that I have invented a creator with intent?

HisWillness wrote:

Because you keep saying it. You define God as a creator by virtue of the cosmological argument. Is your argument then that your god created the universe by accident? And what created the creator?

No, you're just being purposely obtuse by repeatedly tossing out that straw man that has already been incinerated.

And, it does not matter whether the initiation of the Universe was accidental or purposeful.  Whatever it was, it is a part of All that is True in the Universe.  One day, we may actually figure out what it was.  But, not today.  And, that has NOTHING to do with the tenability of my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  So, it is a red herring.

Look, it's real simple:

Demonstrate either:

A - That there is no truth in the Universe

or

B - That the Universe is being Created (developed, formed, changed, whatever word that doesn't make you fuckiing crazy) by something other than All that is True in the Universe.

That is what you must do to unseat my proof of God as All that is True in the Universe at the top of this thread.  If you think you can do that, get to it.

Yes, I am growing impatient and weary of the dishonest tactics being employed by you and others on this site.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Geezz friends, I

   Geezz friends,

I thought we were just honestly trying to come up with the "best-est" god definition, to the cause of healing the theists god.

Lots of great ideas here. Let's all go have a beer , and try again ..... as we will ..... It's just trying to get the best words ..... yeah FUCKING words ! 

GOD IS WHAT IS !  .... ummm, seems nothing will cure the theists .... But we can say, "God ain't the god of abe .... Gawed is much much more ..... as science is our highest explanation .....  L O L    ..... Let's have another round to killing religion dogma ! ......  RRS rocks , so godly it is ......

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hi lifewhispers,I've been

Hi lifewhispers,

I've been really struggling with your definitions, so when I misunderstand, don't say I've set up a straw man. I just misunderstood. That's all. Some of your ideas are novel, but others historically based. Since you have a mix, the definitions get confusing because at one moment I think you're using a historical definition, and the next, one that you're presenting as part of a new concept.

lifewhispers wrote:
No, it is an axiomatic truth.  SOMETHING IS CREATING THE UNIVERSE IN ALL OF ITS MOST INTRICATE DETAIL - PERIOD.

I think I'm getting closer to understanding what you mean here. Do you mean that all the processes of the universe are controlled by a single entity? Is that what you mean by "created"?

lifewhispers wrote:
I know you like to pretend that NOTHING is doing anything in the Universe - otherwise, you would not object so strenuously to my pointing out that it is an ongoing process, and not something that just happened about 14 billion years ago.

No, I get the ongoing proces bit, but I'm just having trouble connecting the dots. 

lifewhispers wrote:
The existence of God is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE DEFINITION OF GOD YOU ARE EMPLOYING.

The funny thing is that's true. But your definition of God is the one I'm trying to figure out. It's still not clear.

lifewhispers wrote:
The Cosmological Argument posits a first cause - I'm not positing any such thing.  Why?  Because, it isn't relevant to my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe.  That there was something that was responsible for the initiation of the Universe is patently obvious - even if we never figure out what it is.  It really doesn't matter what it was, except to satisfy idle curiosity on our part.

Here's where I get confused. You're not positing a first cause, you're just saying that something was responsible for the initiation of the universe. Why are those not the same thing?

lifewhispers wrote:
Furthermore, All that is True in the Universe is not a subset of the Universe, it is a superset of the Universe.  All that is True in the Universe transcends the mere physicality of the Universe, even if it includes it.  It is a larger set than just the Universe.

Oh. It's just that you said, "in the universe", so I got confused. So the truth in the universe is a superset of the universe? Then is what is false in the universe also a superset? Do they converge as the universe, maybe?

lifewhispers wrote:
Look, it's real simple:

Demonstrate either:

A - That there is no truth in the Universe

You're aware that human beings are the only creature we know of who determine truth, right? So we say there's truth, and there is. If you mean something else here, please tell me, because I don't want to make straw men out of your arguments, I really just want to understand.

lifewhispers wrote:
B - That the Universe is being Created (developed, formed, changed, whatever word that doesn't make you fuckiing crazy) by something other than All that is True in the Universe.

It's exactly this action of truth upon the universe that I don't understand. The idea that truth is creative (or developmental) is novel - you must admit that. You're saying that there's some process by which truth forms the universe here that I'm not getting, but bear with me. You're saying that truth created (and now forms) the universe by its influence. You're not talking about "fact" for truth, as in "that cat is black", you have a truth that is the motivator of all the processes in the universe. Is your truth like a vector? I mean in the physics sense. That would be a direction and magnitude of processes. Or is this truth like a function or equation? The universe behaves fairly consistently, so do you mean truth as in the ideal to which we strive with the equations of physics?

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
So, lifewhispers, whether

So, lifewhispers, whether the beginning of everything was a natural process or intelligent act, you are calling it "God".

 

Of course, since you don't know what you are naming, you aren't distinguishing anything - that is, NAMING anything.

 

I've never seen someone get so excited about trying to keep a definition so open that it is meaningless, and then declare he has proved/discovered something.

 

You don't know if you are naming a process, a concept, a vegetable, animal or mineral.

 

Here is your argument: "A thing exists in the Amazon that has not been discovered yet. Whatever it is, it is a unicorn, by the nature of my defining it a unicorn.  Therefore, unicorns exist." 

 

Certainly we don't know what it is that hasn't been discovered, but surely something hasn't been discovered.

 

There, using your "brilliant" argument I have proved unicorns exist.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Rev sez a lot of

BMcD wrote:

Rev sez a lot of shit that I'm too tired to read right now while, I think, reading lifewhispers' statements a little bit too critically (All that is true in the universe != all in the universe is true, Rev. Sorry, man. Much as I'd like to say otherwise, all he's saying is that he's defining Ultimate Truth as The-Sum-of-All-Truths-Including-The-Truth-That-All-That-Is-Not-True-Is-False. ie: It Is What It Is. It's a tautology. It's like defining '1' as '1+1-1'. That doesn't necessarily give it any weight beyond it being accurate with relation to itself... but I digress).

But there was or is three definitions, not just the one

ie, God = all that is true in the universe + god = omniscience / omnipresent / omnipotent + God/truth existed before the universe existed

Although one part can be looked upon as a tautology, with no weight. the second part containing omniscience this is based upon out of context word manipulation. the third part is based upon assumption and speculation

BMcD wrote:

Lifewhispers sez a lot of other shit that I'm too tired to read while he seems to think Rev's not quite getting what he's saying, or is intentionally misinterpreting him.

 

Lifewhispers wrote:

Nothing in my discussion implied consciousness.

 

Lifewhispers wrote:

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness; but, it isn't

 

Lifewhispers wrote:

you will not find "consciousness" anywhere in my original post - not once.   You have simply decided that I meant to imply consciousness

Lifewhispers wrote:

Well, it was intended to look like consciousness

 

No not misinterpreting him, just just playing with him

From this point,  I realized I was chatting with a prize bull-shit-er


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:I've never

daedalus wrote:

I've never seen someone get so excited about trying to keep a definition so open that it is meaningless, and then declare he has proved/discovered something.

In LW's defence, he's excited more about the prospect of having a definition of God that is acceptable to both atheists and theists. At least, that's how I understand it. He realizes that "the God-word isn't going away," and proposes an alternate definition to the myth-laden God in general use right now.

Did I get that right, LW?

My issues are both with the tautological nature of the definition, and also the duality of the God. It won't represent the same thing when talked about from a theistic standpoint, as when discussed from an atheistic standpoint. Therefore, it accomplishes nothing. A theist may agree with the definition, but then will silently add all kinds of "truths" to the universe to bring the definition back in line with their previous theistic beliefs. Meanwhile, and atheist will just wonder why we call it "God," when there are perfectly acceptable terms for each orthogonal concept.

As with the mirror of Erised, it gives neither knowledge, nor wisdom. All it does is reflect back our own views of God. (Yeah, it's a Harry Potter reference. So what? Wanna make something of it?)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
There has to be something wrong with my line of reasoning, but..

I've always had a problem with the big three attributes of god.

Omnipotence: All powerful

Omniscience: Al knowing (past, present future)

Omnipresence: In all places at once.

A being that is omnipotent would have no desire, want or need that was not instantly manifested. Presumably, this would apply to the other attributes, meaning that this being exists in a constant state of 'perfect' being at all times.

Thus, this being would be incapable of actually DOING anything, as anything it 'needs' done is already manifested. Even thought would impossible, as it would imply change from one 'perfect' mental state to another.

Am I wrong in saying that the common definition of god renders god a logical impossibility???

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I think re-defining god

  I think re-defining god is helpful in that it puts a new realistic twist to interpreting the bible hero big J  ,  .... like "I AM  one with the  father"  =  God  =  Cosmos, and Ye are gods too.   Now that declaration becomes non-superstitious. 

Sure the theists will still argue but I think it is a better approach than saying , God and Jesus are just lame ideas .....   That's why I do it and push even further and say , geezzz, Jesus was an atheist like Buddha etc etc .....

I like turning religion up side down so to speak ..... so I do. It works over here where people know me up close personally. I AM a huge Jesus fan, which was basically an atheistic philosophy crushed by the likes of bible Paul, I tell them ..... 

Ask a Buddhist for a god definition, and many will just smile ..... and add , Oh, you are a westerner I take it .....   

I will say, there are 2 god concepts. God = Cosmos , God = Religion concepts. I say Jesus was not religious but moral, and his God was not a religious superstitious one.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
lifewhispers wrote: What

lifewhispers wrote:

What about experiences? Is experience a physically tangible thing that is supported by empirical evidence or logic? Can they be true, even if we cannot prove anything about them? Is it logical for me to experience a roller coaster as exhilerating, while others might experience it as terrifying? Does one experience preclude the truth of the other?

ZOMG please don’t use lowlier physics ! I’m still waiting until the courts get their minds around the concept of a “solid object” (You wooden believe how a professor of Lowe danced around tiring to explain a solid object like concept in Lowe , I almost LOLD). So lets upgrade you to Newton Physics 1.0 OK ?

Now if you mean if thinking is made of matcher them YES your thoughts are physical like a basked bal or a rock ! Surprised ? Please your data is represented buy a pattern on the HDD and every calculation in it is similar represented on this material. NOW Your thoughts are a similar patterns in your neurons ! And yes you can see pictures in people minds if you can scan their brains and register it making a brain picture. OK You don’t believe me ? Remember kid there are multiple devises that can be control true peoples thoughts (mostly for disabled people or experimental ). Your essence isn’t in another dimension it is on a biological HDD with processor and we name this brain.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:a biological HDD

carx wrote:
a biological HDD with processor and we name this brain.

I prefer to think of it as a biological processor with a massive L1 cache of flash RAM Eye-wink

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:carx wrote:a

BMcD wrote:

carx wrote:
a biological HDD with processor and we name this brain.

I prefer to think of it as a biological processor with a massive L1 cache of flash RAM Eye-wink

Not the way my memory works. It's more like an old archive of 1/2" tapes, in which a drunk BOFH gets a call once in a while to swap out tapes.

But maybe that's just me.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:carx wrote:a

BMcD wrote:

carx wrote:
a biological HDD with processor and we name this brain.

I prefer to think of it as a biological processor with a massive L1 cache of flash RAM Eye-wink

And it's twin core, with integrated graphics and sound


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
One step at a time.

I don't mean to come off condescending, Lifewhispers, but I think we should probably go one step at time one trying to understand your logic.

Please just stick to the point and answer the question and we'll see if we can find some common ground:

 

First question:

Do you believe that the universe requires a creator (yes or no)?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Lifewhispers, is a caring

Lifewhispers,  a caring Atheist, a NO fan of God of Abe crap,  is just saying go with the common "creator, creation" theist religious words ,  ..... and work from there,   ...... I think ??? 

And so we are , and so we Shout,  NO CREATOR !  NO CREATION !  No beginning  NO Master .... No PLAN .....

, getting down on our language is evolutionary progress ! ummmm , who is in control

   I AM ,  Me GOD  as You     but what is that ? Creation ? ummm, as a noun okay, as a verb , why not ?  All is indeed changing .....

The NO IS,  Because words are evolving and changing .....  We are getting more picky ,  are we not ????  More aware ??? Well I AM , digesting my infinite past.

The best GOD definition I can come up with this moment is, "God is ONE" ..... but I admit , that is an old one !            

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Thus,

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Thus, this being would be incapable of actually DOING anything, as anything it 'needs' done is already manifested. Even thought would impossible, as it would imply change from one 'perfect' mental state to another.

Am I wrong in saying that the common definition of god renders god a logical impossibility???

There's a lot of material on the site about this, since I think everyone on here came to this realization at around nine years old, and never had anyone else to discuss it with! It feels good to articulate it, doesn't it? You're absolutely on the money.

What interests me is what kind of person doesn't find this an easy proof? What must happen to someone (or not happen) so that they accept the omnipotent God as a "good idea"?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  RRS is like a public

  RRS is like a public microscope , where all are invited to look at OURSELVES  more closely  ..... our Humanity ..... a Godly GOOD idea of FREEDOM !  .....