God definition

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
God definition

I posted this as part of a response in antohter thread. Bring out the cannons ...

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

I am not concerned with proof of existence only issues with the definition itself.


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: God is a

wavefreak wrote:

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

Replace "God" with "Nature," remove "sentient" and add "almost" at the end; and it becomes a definition of nature:

 

Nature is an entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have almost no recourse.

By this definition, Nature IS God.

As far as the "almost no recourse" part, we have recourse against some natural disasters. For example:

  • Running away from a hurricane
  • Hiding in your basement or under a highway overpass during a tornado
  • Avoiding earthquakes by not building your house on a faultline ( cough, cough, California, cough)
  • Going indoors during a thunderstorm

And before anyone says I'm a pagan/druid/earth worshipper: I'm NOT. I don't believe there is anything supernatural about nature.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
HOw does a setnient being

HOw does a setnient being have non-local control of another sentient bineg?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God is a sentient

Quote:
God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

Do you mean sentient in the sense that we say organic terrestrial life is sentient?  If not, what does it mean?

Define entity further.

How does it exert its will?  (In other words, can we observe it in action?)

By no recourse, do you mean that it is a permanent condition, or that at present we have no recourse, but with sufficient evolution, or whatever, that we might one day?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

Replace "God" with "Nature," remove "sentient" and add "almost" at the end; and it becomes a definition of nature:

 

Nature is an entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have almost no recourse.

By this definition, Nature IS God.

As far as the "almost no recourse" part, we have recourse against some natural disasters. For example:

  • Running away from a hurricane
  • Hiding in your basement or under a highway overpass during a tornado
  • Avoiding earthquakes by not building your house on a faultline ( cough, cough, California, cough)
  • Going indoors during a thunderstorm

And before anyone says I'm a pagan/druid/earth worshipper: I'm NOT. I don't believe there is anything supernatural about nature.

 

I'm not offering a definition of nature so I'm not sure what your point is. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: HOw does a

zntneo wrote:
HOw does a setnient being have non-local control of another sentient bineg?

 

Quantum entanglement? Time bombs?  


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Do you

Hambydammit wrote:


Do you mean sentient in the sense that we say organic terrestrial life is sentient? If not, what does it mean?

At this point I am being purposely abstract. By sentient, I mean in some way intelligent, self-aware, and able to process infomation.

Quote:

Define entity further.

Anything with an actual referent in physical reality.

Quote:

How does it exert its will? (In other words, can we observe it in action?)

Important question, but irrelevant just yet. I tend towards some sense of observability.

Quote:

By no recourse, do you mean that it is a permanent condition, or that at present we have no recourse, but with sufficient evolution, or whatever, that we might one day?

My initial thinking is permanent. Unless we evolve into something no longer human (likely, I think).

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

Njet. Sentient is a scientific quantifiable term. Remember this?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_relationship_between_matter_and_information_is_a_crisis_for_the_existence_of_god

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

Njet. Sentient is a scientific quantifiable term. Remember this?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_relationship_between_matter_and_information_is_a_crisis_for_the_existence_of_god

 

Nein.

I do not hold to the idea that god is necessarily an infinite being. 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
i assume this "god" is also

i assume this "god" is also natural?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: i assume this

zntneo wrote:
i assume this "god" is also natural?

Aye, cap'n! 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Nein. I do not hold

Quote:

Nein.

I do not hold to the idea that god is necessarily an infinite being.

Deluded was not talking about infinite.  He was talking about what sentience is.  His essay provides evidence that speaking of sentience outside of these parameters is incoherent.

In other words, he's pointing out the same thing I was with my question of what you meant by sentience.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Ooooh, then we've got some

Ooooh, then we've got some math to work with.

If God is such a vastly powerful being as you describe, it logically follows by basic information laws, that, if described as a sentient entity, that hence he must be immensely complex (I did consider Dawkins, then, to be more accurate than Plantinga). Look at humans. Countless quadrillions of yes/no microsystem variables are taking place as DNA is transcribed into RNA, bases are inserted into phosphoribose templates, VGICs are opening, sphingolipids are accepting transductive messages, cytokines are relaying chemical signals, kinases are switching ADP/ATP. It is one colossal molecular/micro/macro machine which culminates in a conscious, sentient entity of a mere 13 SQ units. If God is omni-max, then according to my calculations, he is 50 SQ units or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as powerful as the human engine, which means that that number multiplied by the natural logarithm e, multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant should give you the probability of God existing.

A sentient entity on the order of magnitude of God would have to have tremendous computational power, as already outlined, and would be devastatingly complex. The mere act of a single yes/no microstate fluctuation within a system that would have an estimate 10^100 microsystems would expend more free energy than the universe is in possession of! This is given by the formula Rlog pA/pB. We are talking about powers far, far beyond the Kardashev scale, we are talking about a being so tremendous in complex dynamics that it would be of truly ghastly probabilities . A macrosystem capable of supporting a 50 SQ omni-max entity would be so utterly tremendous that its entropy generation would be self-destructive in a matter of microseconds in a universe of this order. The probability of the God entity, hence, is simply too large to calculate. The best I can do is calculate a single entropy-decreasing microstate yes/no variable within the system of that size. And the answer to that is a probability of almost 1/10^900, which is almost 10^820 times the number of protons in the universe.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavrefreak wrote: God is a

wavrefreak wrote:

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

How much scope is sufficient to exert its will on another sentient being without  another sentient being's consent?  And by scope do you mean power to affect the will of the other sentient being or to just move the physical body of the sentient being against iits will?  If, by your definition, God can move one's will, it is plausible for this being to move other sentient beings with their consent unless you are appealing to something else other than will with consent.  Are you appealing to something else other than will with consent?

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I'm not

wavefreak wrote:
I'm not offering a definition of nature so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that the definition you gave for "God" is basically the same as the definition I gave for "Nature." God, as you've defined him, is basically Nature, except he is aware of what's going on around him and does stuff in nature against which we are defenseless.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
WTF. Wave, I had a point by

WTF.

Wave, I had a point by point response to your answers, and hit post, and it's not here.  I dunno.

I have to go now.  Maybe deluded will hit all my points for me and I won't have to worry about it.

Suffice it to say that your definition contains many assumptions that need epistemological backing.

I'll check on this again tomorrow.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Let me make sure i

Let me make sure i undersatnd this def right by rephrasing it.

god is a almost omni-anal-rentivie "sentient entity" powerful enough that we can't do anything about it's anal-rentivivness ?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Ooooh,

deludedgod wrote:

Ooooh, then we've got some math to work with.

If God is such a vastly powerful being as you describe, it logically follows by basic information laws, that, if described as a sentient entity, that hence he must be immensely complex (I did consider Dawkins, then, to be more accurate than Plantinga). Look at humans. Countless quadrillions of yes/no microsystem variables are taking place as DNA is transcribed into RNA, bases are inserted into phosphoribose templates, VGICs are opening, sphingolipids are accepting transductive messages, cytokines are relaying chemical signals, kinases are switching ADP/ATP. It is one colossal molecular/micro/macro machine which culminates in a conscious, sentient entity of a mere 13 SQ units. If God is omni-max, then according to my calculations, he is 50 SQ units or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as powerful as the human engine, which means that that number multiplied by the natural logarithm e, multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant should give you the probability of God existing.

A sentient entity on the order of magnitude of God would have to have tremendous computational power, as already outlined, and would be devastatingly complex. The mere act of a single yes/no microstate fluctuation within a system that would have an estimate 10^100 microsystems would expend more free energy than the universe is in possession of! This is given by the formula Rlog pA/pB. We are talking about powers far, far beyond the Kardashev scale, we are talking about a being so tremendous in complex dynamics that it would be of truly ghastly probabilities . A macrosystem capable of supporting a 50 SQ omni-max entity would be so utterly tremendous that its entropy generation would be self-destructive in a matter of microseconds in a universe of this order. The probability of the God entity, hence, is simply too large to calculate. The best I can do is calculate a single entropy-decreasing microstate yes/no variable within the system of that size. And the answer to that is a probability of almost 1/10^900, which is almost 10^820 times the number of protons in the universe.

 

So what you have demonstrated is a sort of upper bounds to SQ. Not a strict mathematical upper bounds, but within the confines of the space/time of our universe, a practical limit.

Two questions.

If information is part of whatever existed "before" the big bang, isn't this part of the pool of resources from which such an entity could arise?

Limiting it to our universe, at what SQ does an entity become of sufficient scope that it can fuck with us whether we like it or not? 


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: Let me make

zntneo wrote:
Let me make sure i undersatnd this def right by rephrasing it.

god is a almost omni-anal-rentivie "sentient entity" powerful enough that we can't do anything about it's anal-rentivivness ?

 

Sounds sexy.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If information is

Quote:

If information is part of whatever existed "before" the big bang, isn't this part of the pool of resources from which such an entity could arise?

An impressive number of physics paradoxical impossibilites for such a small sentence!

-According to BB cosmology, the singularity state has a perfectly aligned entropy distribution, extremely low. Which means it has no information to speak of, anything with a perfectly flat gradient of entropy has no information QED.

-I hate the phrase "before BB"

Quote:
 

 Limiting it to our universe, at what SQ does an entity become of sufficient scope that it can fuck with us whether we like it or not?

Well, to do that it would have to have control over essentially I would say every particle in the universe. This is not permitted by system dynamics. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:     God

wavefreak wrote:

 

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

God is an enraged elephant?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: wavefreak

todangst wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

 

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

God is an enraged elephant?

 

If you meet him soon, let me know how it works out. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

-According to BB cosmology, the singularity state has a perfectly aligned entropy distribution, extremely low. Which means it has no information to speak of, anything with a perfectly flat gradient of entropy has no information QED.

Until the symmetry is broken, of course.  


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
I'm not offering a definition of nature so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that the definition you gave for "God" is basically the same as the definition I gave for "Nature." God, as you've defined him, is basically Nature, except he is aware of what's going on around him and does stuff in nature against which we are defenseless.

 

Awareness is a frickin big difference. By removing sentience you completely change the definition. How are you justifying removing that part? 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:
wavrefreak wrote:

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

How much scope is sufficient to exert its will on another sentient being without another sentient being's consent? And by scope do you mean power to affect the will of the other sentient being or to just move the physical body of the sentient being against iits will? If, by your definition, God can move one's will, it is plausible for this being to move other sentient beings with their consent unless you are appealing to something else other than will with consent. Are you appealing to something else other than will with consent?

 

Interesting. With the defintion offered, there is nothing that dissalows said entity from consensual interaction with other sentient entities. But I am concerned with it's capabilites in relation to humans. Note also that because it can act without our consent, the definition does not require it.  


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: todangst

wavefreak wrote:
todangst wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

 

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

God is an enraged elephant?

 

If you meet him soon, let me know how it works out.

A really smart guy with an atomic bomb fits your description. Seeing as you concede that your definition relies on naturalism, I'm not quite sure what theological value it has.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: An

deludedgod wrote:

An impressive number of physics paradoxical impossibilites for such a small sentence!

 

This does nothing ti clarify my thinking. An impressive waste of ascii characthers. 

 

 

Quote:

-According to BB cosmology, the singularity state has a perfectly aligned entropy distribution, extremely low. Which means it has no information to speak of, anything with a perfectly flat gradient of entropy has no information QED.

-I hate the phrase "before BB"

 

There was something from which the BB emanated. I'm not sure what language you would like me to attach to the concept, hence the "before" in quotes.

 

Are you suggesting that infornation did not exixt until the BB? 

 

Quote:
 

Well, to do that it would have to have control over essentially I would say every particle in the universe. This is not permitted by system dynamics.

On what to you base this assertion? Seems to me Type III Kardeshev civilization could pretty much fuck with ua any way it wants. THis only requires the energy consumption of a single galaxy.


ATOMIC SKUNK
ATOMIC SKUNK's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Definition of "God" with a

Definition of "God" with a capitol...Laughing 

 

 ...most peoples' idea of the "unknown", the creative force of all; The cause.

"Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." (Jesus triad)

"So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey" (The Donkey) Numbers Chapter 22:30


ATOMIC SKUNK
ATOMIC SKUNK's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Agdistis Ah Puch Ahura

"Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." (Jesus triad)

"So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey" (The Donkey) Numbers Chapter 22:30


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: wavefreak

todangst wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
todangst wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

 

 

God is a sentient entity of sufficient scope that it can exert its will upon us without our consent and against which we have no recourse.

 

God is an enraged elephant?

If you meet him soon, let me know how it works out.

A really smart guy with an atomic bomb fits your description. Seeing as you concede that your definition relies on naturalism, I'm not quite sure what theological value it has.

You're really being obtuse. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ATOMIC SKUNK

ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Definition of "God" with a capitol...Laughing

 

...most peoples' idea of the "unknown", the creative force of all; The cause.

 Creator was not a requirement of the defintion.

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ATOMIC SKUNK

ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Agdistis

Ah Puch

Ahura Mazda

Alberich

Allah

Amaterasu

An

Anat

Andvari

Anshar

Anu

Aphrodite

Apollo

Apsu

Ares

Artemis

Asclepius

Asherah

Athena

Athirat

Athtart

Atlas

Baal

Ba Xian

Bacchus

Balder

Bast

Bellona

Bergelmir

Bes

Bixia Yuanjin

Bragi

Brahma

Brigit

Camaxtli

Ceres

Ceridwen

Cernunnos

Chac

Chalchiuhtlicue

Charun

Chemosh

Cheng-huang

Crom

Cybele

Dagon

Damkina (Dumkina)

Davlin

Demeter

Diana

Di Cang

Dionysus

Ea

El

Enki

Enlil

Epona

Ereskigal

Farbauti

Fenrir

Forseti

Freya

Freyr

Frigg

Gaia

Ganesha

Ganga

Garuda

Gauri Geb

GeebaDeeba

Geong Si

God

Great KuKu

Hades

Hanuman

Helios

Heng-o (Chang-o)

Hephaestus

Hera

Hermes

Hod

Hoderi

Hoori

Horus

Hotei

Hestia

Huitzilopochtli

Hsi-Wang-Mu

Hygeia

Inanna

Inti

Ishtar

Isis

Ixtab

Izanaki

Izanami

Jesus

JingaJanga

Juno

Jupiter

Kagutsuchi

Kartikeya

Khepri

Ki

Kingu

Kinich Ahau

Kishar

Krishna

Kukulcan

Lakshmi

Liza

Loki

Lugh

Magna Mater

Marduk

Mars

Medb

Mercury

Mimir

Minerva

Mithras

Morrigan

Mot

Mummu

Nammu

Nanna

Nanna (Norse)

Nanse

Nature

Nemesis

Nephthys

Neptune

Nergal

Ninazu

Ninhurzag

Nintu

Ninurta

Njord

Nut

Odin

Og

Ohkuninushi

Ohyamatsumi

Orgelmir

Osiris

Ostara

Pan

Parvati

Poseidon

Quetzalcoatl

Rama

Ravana

Re

Rhea

Sabazius

Sarasvati

Shiva

Seshat

Seti

Shachar

Shalim

Shamash

Shapsu

Shen Yi

Shiva

Shu

Si-Wang-Mu

Sin

Sirona

Sol

Surya

Susanoh

Tawaret

Tefnut

Tezcatlipoca

Thanatos

Thor

Tiamat

Tlaloc

Tonatiuh

Toyo-Uke-Bime

Tyche

Tyr

Uugg

Unknown

Unknown Omnipotent Being

Utu

Uzume

Venus

Vesta

Vishnu Vulcan

Xenu

Xipe

Xi Wang-mu

Xochipilli

Xochiquetzal

Yahweh

Yam

Yaw

Yarikh

Ymir

Yu-huang

Yum Kimil

Zeus

 

This is so deep I think I broke my neck when I dove in.

 

Where did you cut and paste this from? Or is it an original thought? 


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: But I am

wavefreak wrote:
But I am concerned with it's capabilites in relation to humans. Note also that because it can act without our consent, the definition does not require it.

 

SO this entity can move our will as well as our physical bodies?  And why aren't you concerned with animals?  Surely they are as effected by what this sentient being does as humans are.  Also, does this being act arbitrarily or does it have some sort of plan?  So far, your definition does not rule out the possibility of a being that does things willy nilly for no real reason.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavfreak wrote: Creator was

wavfreak wrote:
Creator was not a requirement of the defintion.

 

So there is something else out there more powerful than this sentient being of yours?

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
atumic skunk

atumic skunk wrote:
Bellona

 

That weird al yankovic song finally makes sense to me! Sticking out tongue


ATOMIC SKUNK
ATOMIC SKUNK's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: ATOMIC

wavefreak wrote:
ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Definition of "God" with a capitol...Laughing

 

...most peoples' idea of the "unknown", the creative force of all; The cause.

 Creator was not a requirement of the defintion.

 

 

I attempted a definition, that would cover the broadest terms of acceptance. You saying creator is not a requirement, is wrong. Many people with their different religions and cultures, consider their idea of "God" (with a capitol), to be the creative force; this cannot be denied. There are more ideas, requirements, and concepts, for "God" (with a capitol), than you can imagine.

"Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." (Jesus triad)

"So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey" (The Donkey) Numbers Chapter 22:30


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
But I am concerned with it's capabilites in relation to humans. Note also that because it can act without our consent, the definition does not require it.

 

SO this entity can move our will as well as our physical bodies? And why aren't you concerned with animals? Surely they are as effected by what this sentient being does as humans are. Also, does this being act arbitrarily or does it have some sort of plan? So far, your definition does not rule out the possibility of a being that does things willy nilly for no real reason.

THe definition is purposely austere. I don't like the notion of such an entity being capricious and arbitrary, but the definitionas stateddoesn't dis-allow it. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ATOMIC SKUNK

ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
ATOMIC SKUNK wrote:

Definition of "God" with a capitol...Laughing

 

...most peoples' idea of the "unknown", the creative force of all; The cause.

Creator was not a requirement of the defintion.

 

 

I attempted a definition, that would cover the broadest terms of acceptance. You saying creator is not a requirement, is wrong. Many people with their different religions and cultures, consider their idea of "God" (with a capitol), to be the creative force; this cannot be denied. There are more ideas, requirements, and concepts, for "God" (with a capitol), than you can imagine.

Why is the role of creator required? Just because other theists believe in it? And I personally don't care one whit for the broadest terms of acceptance. If that was my motivation I'd become a politician.

Also, the use of a capital "g" in my definition was soley because it was the first word of the sentence. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavfreak wrote:
Creator was not a requirement of the defintion.

 

So there is something else out there more powerful than this sentient being of yours?

 

Could be. Neither required nor disallowed. My feeling is that I would have no way of telling the difference between the two.  


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: THe

wavefreak wrote:
THe definition is purposely austere. I don't like the notion of such an entity being capricious and arbitrary, but the definitionas stateddoesn't dis-allow it.

 

Ok.  So you have a natural intelligent force that seemingly has absolute power over us, if it wishes, but did not create us.  Does this force serve a function other than to fit your very weak notion of God? 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Could be.

wavefreak wrote:
Could be. Neither required nor disallowed. My feeling is that I would have no way of telling the difference between the two.

 

So now this definition allows for polytheism as well as monotheism.  Actually, unless your definition specifies that this is the only sentient intelligence to exist, your definition would require some sort of polytheism for it to make any sense unless you specify that this sentient intelligence has always been independantly of the universe which has also always been.  

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
THe definition is purposely austere. I don't like the notion of such an entity being capricious and arbitrary, but the definitionas stateddoesn't dis-allow it.

 

Ok. So you have a natural intelligent force that seemingly has absolute power over us, if it wishes, but did not create us. Does this force serve a function other than to fit your very weak notion of God?

 

It is not required to be a creator, but the definition doesn't prevent it.

And what makes this definitionweak as opposed to just different? By invoking weak, you are implying that any definition of god must be more in tune with calssical ideas. Why is this a requirement? 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
Could be. Neither required nor disallowed. My feeling is that I would have no way of telling the difference between the two.

 

So now this definition allows for polytheism as well as monotheism. Actually, unless your definition specifies that this is the only sentient intelligence to exist, your definition would require some sort of polytheism for it to make any sense unless you specify that this sentient intelligence has always been independantly of the universe which has also always been.

 

Poly theism isn't required. But yes, possible. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
You know what I like best

You know what I like best about this definition? Nobody likes it.

Theists - especially fundies, can't stomach it becuase it doesn't require omniscience or omnipotence. It doesn't require the role of creator even monotheism. All of their pet ideas are not required.

Atheists don't like it because the "easy" proofs against god are voided. Because supernatural is not invoked it sidesteps the non-cognitivist position. Because it does not require any omni properties it avoids all the logical contradictions those create. Because it does ot invoke creation, argumens of first cause are irrelevant.

 

So what DOES this definition give us? I'm wondering if anybody really gets the main point of it or if so far am I getting standard reactions. The main point is that it places this entity into a heirarchy of sentience and addresses our position within that heirarchy. And to me, this is the one common element in all theistic thinking. Strip away all of the doctirine, dogma and theology and what you have is the idea that humanity is not alone and that we are not supreme. You do not need any of the stereotypical ideas about god to see this commonality.

 

To me, the question of god is a functional one. What difference does it make if such an entity is infinite or not if within this heirarchy of sentience it functions as god relative to humanity? 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:You know

wavefreak wrote:

You know what I like best about this definition? Nobody likes it.

Sounds like you are more interested in being the contrarian than being correct.

Quote:
Theists - especially fundies, can't stomach it becuase it doesn't require omniscience or omnipotence. It doesn't require the role of creator even monotheism. All of their pet ideas are not required.

You mean the actual meaning of the term you stole?

Quote:
Atheists don't like it because the "easy" proofs against god are voided. Because supernatural is not invoked it sidesteps the non-cognitivist position. Because it does not require any omni properties it avoids all the logical contradictions those create. Because it does ot invoke creation, argumens of first cause are irrelevant.

This atheist doesn't like it 1.) because it steals the term god from its common usage 2.) it is still completely unevidenced 3.) the argument for or against such an entity is the stuff of drunken bar room conversations not of actual intellectual inquiry. 

Quote:
So what DOES this definition give us?

Nothing. 

Quote:
 I'm wondering if anybody really gets the main point of it or if so far am I getting standard reactions. The main point is that it places this entity into a heirarchy of sentience and addresses our position within that heirarchy.

And the point of placing us in a subordinate position in the heirarchy of sentience beneath a fictional entity would be what? 

 

Quote:
And to me, this is the one common element in all theistic thinking. Strip away all of the doctirine, dogma and theology and what you have is the idea that humanity is not alone and that we are not supreme. You do not need any of the stereotypical ideas about god to see this commonality.

I would call that a superficial commonality. The only reason that there is this commonality is because it arises from the actual common basis of all theistic thinking which is answering the creation (the nature of existence) question and looking for some means by which to make sense of what can at times be a less than desirable existence.

Quote:
To me, the question of god is a functional one. What difference does it make if such an entity is infinite or not if within this heirarchy of sentience it functions as god relative to humanity? 

Why should anyone accept the actual eixstence of an entity which resembles your newly created definition for the term god? If there is no reason to, then why bother to make up definitions? This is nothing more than creating a character for a novel.

 You are basically taking characteristics of actually existing entities and ascribing them to a manufactured entity for the sole purpose opf placing that entity into a heireachy above the actually existing entities fromwhich you took the characteristics. Why should we assume humans are not the top tier of any heirarchy of sentience?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Sounds like

Vessel wrote:

Sounds like you are more interested in being the contrarian than being correct.

I was being tongue in cheek. You apparantly missed that.

 

Quote:

You mean the actual meaning of the term you stole?

You can't just wave it away like that. Where is the stolen term? THe definition offered fits a primary characteristic of god - god's place in the universe releative to us.

 

Quote:

This atheist doesn't like it 1.) because it steals the term god from its common usage 2.) it is still completely unevidenced 3.) the argument for or against such an entity is the stuff of drunken bar room conversations not of actual intellectual inquiry.

1) It is not a stolen term. It is a definition stripped of irrelevancy.

2) Evidence was not offered. You can't offere evidencxe of soemthing without first having a coherent definition.

3) Opinion

 

Quote:

Nothing.

 

Opinion

Quote:

And the point of placing us in a subordinate position in the heirarchy of sentience beneath a fictional entity would be what?

This is a primary attribute of all thesim. Humanity as it stands today is of lower stature than any deity.

Quote:

I would call that a superficial commonality. The only reason that there is this commonality is because it arises from the actual common basis of all theistic thinking which is answering the creation (the nature of existence) question and looking for some means by which to make sense of what can at times be a less than desirable existence.

Opinion.

Quote:

Why should anyone accept the actual eixstence of an entity which resembles your newly created definition for the term god? If there is no reason to, then why bother to make up definitions? This is nothing more than creating a character for a novel.

You cannot seek evidence for anything defined incoherently. If you insist on god as a supernatural being then you go ahead and look for that.

Quote:

You are basically taking characteristics of actually existing entities and ascribing them to a manufactured entity for the sole purpose opf placing that entity into a heireachy above the actually existing entities fromwhich you took the characteristics. Why should we assume humans are not the top tier of any heirarchy of sentience?

I must take characteristics of existing entities. We form all of our ideas of reality based on what we know to currently exist. In fact, atheists regularly complain about inventing ideas based on things outside of the observable. So when I chose to start from the observable you say I'm stealing from nature. If I start from the supernatural I am incoherent. You can't have it both ways.

And how do you justify the claim that we are at the top? At most we can say that we are at the top of sentient life forms on this planet.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I was

wavefreak wrote:

I was being tongue in cheek. You apparantly missed that.

I did miss that.

 

Quote:

You can't just wave it away like that. Where is the stolen term? THe definition offered fits a primary characteristic of god - god's place in the universe releative to us.

God is the stolen term. And I don't mean that your definition does not, or can not, fit under the term god in the way that one might when saying one must steal from naturalism to discuss the supernatural.

Since god is, for all purposes, devoid of any actual referent there would be nothing contradictory about using god as a name for the being/s you suggest. The problem is that, if what you are suggesting is a natural material sentient lifeform that simply has capabilities 'above' those of humans, then no one else is using the term in this way. To use common words in a way, not only different, but all but antithetical to the way others use them makes the use of words pointless.

 

Quote:
1) It is not a stolen term. It is a definition stripped of irrelevancy.

The problem is that the parts you strip are the very heart of the common definition of the term. That the term is irrelevant with its common definition does not mean that one is justified in simply redefining the term to anything they want in an attempt to make it relevant.

Quote:
2) Evidence was not offered. You can't offere evidencxe of soemthing without first having a coherent definition.

What? Why do you want to try and define something for which there is no evidence? Should I try and define a curple? Shouldn't we first have evidence of some existence and then attempt to follow the evidence to whatever actually exists and not until that point worry ourselves with a definition or a term (name). To make definitions for terms and then look for evidence to support our the existence for our terms as defined seems to me to be working backwards. We would have no reason to think the definitions for our terms would turn out to correspond to reality.

Quote:
3) Opinion

Yes.

 

 

 

Quote:

This is a primary attribute of all thesim. Humanity as it stands today is of lower stature than any deity.

By lower stature do you mean at the whim of? Powerless against? Or do you mean reliant upon and endebted to?

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I would call that a superficial commonality. The only reason that there is this commonality is because it arises from the actual common basis of all theistic thinking which is answering the creation (the nature of existence) question and looking for some means by which to make sense of what can at times be a less than desirable existence.

Opinion.

Call, it opinion. Theism is founded in answering questions for which answers are or were not readily available and providing foundations for things such as morality and existence. That we must end up in a subordinate position to any entity to which these things are attributed seems to simply arise from the nature of what it would mean for a god to be the creator and the supreme justification.  

Quote:
You cannot seek evidence for anything defined incoherently. If you insist on god as a supernatural being then you go ahead and look for that.

I see no reason to look for what there is no evidence of. I wouldn't even know how to start. The fact that the term god is defined incoherently is not my fault. It is the way the term is used. I did not define it.

Quote:

I must take characteristics of existing entities. We form all of our ideas of reality based on what we know to currently exist.

Yes. 

Quote:
In fact, atheists regularly complain about inventing ideas based on things outside of the observable. So when I chose to start from the observable you say I'm stealing from nature. If I start from the supernatural I am incoherent. You can't have it both ways.

But to start from the observable and attempt to define something which has not been observed is no better than to start from a incoherent foundation, if you are attempting to make a claim about reality. 

Quote:
And how do you justify the claim that we are at the top? At most we can say that we are at the top of sentient life forms on this planet.

I did not say we are at the top. I asked why we should assume we are not.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:   God is the

Vessel wrote:
 

God is the stolen term. And I don't mean that your definition does not, or can not, fit under the term god in the way that one might when saying one must steal from naturalism to discuss the supernatural.

I will admit I am stretching the use of the word god to it's limits but it still encapsulates what is to me, at least, a primary characteistic of a god-like entity

Quote:
 

Since god is, for all purposes, devoid of any actual referent there would be nothing contradictory about using god as a name for the being/s you suggest. The problem is that, if what you are suggesting is a natural material sentient lifeform that simply has capabilities 'above' those of humans, then no one else is using the term in this way. To use common words in a way, not only different, but all but antithetical to the way others use them makes the use of words pointless.

But here you are reamining attatched to already invalidated notions of deity. Why is it unreasonable that the description of a god class entity should not evolve as our understanding and language evolves? There was a point in history where supernatural was an accepted idea. Now, in the most rigourous sense, it is practically meaningless. What this tells us is that a supernatural deity is nonsensical. Not that there is no entity in existence that fits the role of a deity. The same goes for the properties of omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. We can successfully argue that these properties give rise to logocal contradictions. So they are invalid concepts for describing ANY entity, not just a deity.  From this it follows that that the concept of a deity MUST evolve to accept some form of materialism and it MUST abandon attempts at  including absolutes such as "perfect", omniscient and omnipotent. The very terms themselves are useless so why apply them? The difference is that an atheist  will take the invalid nature of these terms and conclude that no god exists. While a theist would conclude that it is our languge and description of god that must change.To not allow this evolution of theistic thought is tantamount to insisting  that we adhere to  Newtonian physics rather than let our understanding of physics evolve to  fit our  observations of rality.

 

Regarding evidence or proof of such an entity, in my opening post I specifically said this would not be addressed.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wave, Todangst was not

Wave, Todangst was not being obtuse.  He was showing you that your definition is so vague that an elephant or a man with a bomb fit it.

What you think you mean by it has no bearing on the fact that linguistically, it can apply to literally thousands of natural things on this very planet.

You need to refine your language to eliminate the possibility of it referring to things you don't intend.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Wave,

Hambydammit wrote:

Wave, Todangst was not being obtuse. He was showing you that your definition is so vague that an elephant or a man with a bomb fit it.

What you think you mean by it has no bearing on the fact that linguistically, it can apply to literally thousands of natural things on this very planet.

You need to refine your language to eliminate the possibility of it referring to things you don't intend.

 

 

I have recourse against an angry elephant - it's called a large gun. My recourse against an angry man with a nuclear warhead is a deep bunker.  An angry man with a nuke riding an enraged elephant? I guess I'm screwed.

What sentience exists on earth against which we have no potential to resist? Is recourse perhaps the wrong term?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I have recourse

Quote:

I have recourse against an angry elephant - it's called a large gun. My recourse against an angry man with a nuclear warhead is a deep bunker.  An angry man with a nuke riding an enraged elephant? I guess I'm screwed.

What sentience exists on earth against which we have no potential to resist? Is recourse perhaps the wrong term?

You're thinking way too far into the boxes you've put your concept into.

The point is that your definition is vague enough to allow us to define pretty much all of your terms for you, such that an angry man with a nuke riding an enraged elephant would fit.

For that matter, I can imagine a man with muscular distrophy, sitting in a wheelchair inside a reinforced titanium fortress, surrounded by a mote full of sulfuric acid and the entire Chinese army.  The man in the wheel chair has the movement of only his left pinky, but his pinky is situated atop a button that will detonate a nuclear bomb.

You are utterly powerless to stop this man from exerting his will upon you.  He is sentient, and the scope of his existence is such that you are powerless to affect his will in any way whatsoever.

Again, the point you're missing is that you're trying to create a definition for god, but you're allowing things that are not god to be possible answers for the definition.  You must refine it such that we cannot imagine anything except what you mean for god to be.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism