Theoretical God

RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Theoretical God

I posited this position in an earlier conversation but never carried it out to its proper conclusion nor received any opinion on it-- so here it goes. This is not what I NECESSARILY believe, yet, for arguments sake it seems to be useful as well as not, NECESSARILY, contradictory to my beliefs.

So here we go:

God is everything. This is not to say that everything is God. A proper analogy would be this:

"In the same way that a group of particles creates a sentient thing known as 'your brain', all things create a sentient thing known as 'God'."

In the same way that one would not consider a sodium ion a 'brain' it is part of the 'brain'.

So, thus, I say again, God is everything. For further clarification, I am using the word 'everything' for a very particular purpose for while we may consider matter and energy, now, to be all there is, this may not always be the case. Yet, for the purpose of this discussion I will combine matter and energy into the word 'particle'. Scientifically this may not be accurate, yet for the purpose of this summary it will be helpful.

The analogy between a 'brain' and this 'God' are not perfect, for while control of ones own brain is limited (e.g. you can't stop the flow of ions through conscious thought), 'God' would not be. 'Everything' would be controlled by the conscious will of the sentience existent because 'everything' exists.

Furthermore, the analogy does not apply to any relationship as to "what" makes a brain sentient. So, to say that anything is "necessary" for sentience besides a sufficient amount of ordered particles.

(Clarification: I use the word "order" as baised language since the word is rather subjective. Yet, I realize one might argue that the brain is "specifically ordered particles" which bring about sentience. So, the premise is that on a larger scale, SOME specific order exists which brings about sentience.

Since this 'specific order' is not defined, it is as possible that it existed a 'singularity' as it does in a 'non singularity'.

And yes, according to an earlier premise regarding 'God' power over 'everything', 'God' can change this 'order' so that he does not exist anymore-- to what logical end however, I cannot posit since the 'order' is not defined-- nor does it need to be defined.)

Continued:

So? What problems does this solve?

1.) 'God' is not supernatural. He is as natural as the 'universe' or 'multiverse' are.

2.) 'God' is not atemporal. He is as constrained to time as the 'universe' or 'multiverse' are.

3.) 'God' is not infinite. He is as finite as the 'universe' or 'multiverse' are.

4.) 'God' is not omnipotent. He is as potent as conscious control over everything allows one to be. (i.e. If you think that things that are 'logical impossible' cannot be done and they cannot, in fact, be done, then he cannot do it.)

5.) 'God' is not omniscient. He is only as knowledgeable as a sentient being can be about that which is. (i.e. "Groundhog Day God", quote: "Maybe God isn't all powerful, maybe he's just been around so long he knows a lot of stuff."

6.) 'God' is omnipresent. Defined as, present everywhere in a particular point and time.

Now, the funny thing about this concept is that it turns the "oh so commonly used" jab, towards theist, on its head. For in it, God is not the imaginary friend, we are. Yet, who would blame him? To exist without any other sentience or surprise, would be a very uninteresting existence in my view. Yet, this is projection of course. Heh.

By extension, God cares for us-- even as one would care for an 'imaginary friend'. (e.g. "Cast Away": Wilson!!!)

Does this make God crazy? No. Not necessarily. Unless one considers children crazy for 'imaginary friends'. One might consider a 34 year old man with 'imaginary friends' crazy yet, I would argue, that this is ONLY because we suspect that the 34 year old man has been given sufficient time to discover there is more to the world than his mental creations. Would this be true for 'God'? Hmm..

Continued:

Could this 'God' form 'freewilling entities', sustained by him (since he is everything and has control over everything) and yet not him: Yes.

Analogy: Dreams. If a character in your dream ever surprises you, this is evidence for a seemingly 'freewilling entity'. While the 'dream entity' is dependent upon functions of the brain, one does not NEED to be consciously controlling these functions and while the entity may be sustained by the brain, it is NOT the brain.

Could this 'God' form an alter ego, 'God' in all senses except size? Yes.

Analogy: Picture yourself in your head. There you have it.

Can 'God' feel emotions? Yes. As much as any other sentient being that's been around for awhile can feel emotions.

Can 'God' affect thoughts and moods? Yes. If thoughts and moods are functions of the material world, then a sentient entity who can control all material can affect thoughts and moods.

Continued:

So, is this theistic construct logical? Yes. Is it reasonable? Let's see.

Evidence that THIS 'God' MIGHT exist:

Everything. This includes but is not limited to: matter, energy, apparent order in universe, you, me, and a bottle make three.

Are these things evidence exclusively indicative of THIS 'God'? No.

Would there be such thing as evidence which is exclusively imdicative of THIS 'God'? Yes.

Is it possible that THIS 'God', in his non-omniscient knowledge, considers the withholding of aforementioned evidence as the best way to bring about a freewilling society to 'love' him? Yes.

Is it possible that THIS 'God', is the 'God' of the Bible? Yes.

..of the Koran? Yes.

..of the OT? Yes.

Specifically to these books, and others like them, which do not seek to define 'God' other than through his actions and statements he is said to have given.

Is it possible these writings are imperfect? Yes.

Does THIS 'God' NECESSITATE (logical term) the existence of a 'Hell'? No.

Does THIS 'God' NECESSITATE (logical term) the non-existence of 'Hell'? No.

Is the existence of genetic imperfection possible? Yes.

Can it be thus because God wills it? Yes.

Could it be because Man asked for imperfection at some preexistent time? Yes.

Is our concept of morality NECESSITATED by THIS 'God'? Not necessarily.

Can our morality have some higher authority within this concept? Yes.

Does it matter whether our morality has some higher authority? No.

Can a person claim to be 'acting in accordance with God's will' and not be? Yes.

Can a person claim to be 'acting in accordance with God's will' and really be? Yes.

Can that person know? Only in so far as he is willing to know (IF he is a free willing entity) and God is willing to let him. ANALOGY: A student doesn't learn by 'willing', he must also be presented with 'something to learn'.

Continued:

And now, I need to stop, and do some other things.

In closing:

What is the reason for believing in this God?

IF he is real and reveals himself, then belief is of little consequence and 'most' might hope to 'get to know him' even as 'most' hope to 'get to know' the processes of the universe.

IF he is not real, then belief is only 'of consequence' to the extent that one wishes to not believe that one's self is sufficient.

IF he is real and does not objectively reveal himself (at this time), then belief is only 'of consequence' to the extent of subjective reasoning.

---

Well.. that was fun. Now onto evolution.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
This sounds like one of my

This sounds like one of my topics here:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7137

[MOD EDIT - fixed link... please be sure to hit return after posting a link] 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Heh. Yes, so it is however,

Heh. Yes, so it is however, I used more colloquial language. Heh.

Um.. I also tried to tie it back in with common theistic religions. We'll see how it turns out... I'm gonna finish reading up your thread now.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
The definition of god or

The definition of god or deity is the creator of everything.

You are trying to change that definition, but in doing so you admit evolution is true, god is not all-powerful, knowing, or anything of god. He is not the Christian god, or any other god, and may not even reveal himself to us.

Your suggesting matter just formed a collective consious, and you want us to admit it's possible, which it is(Us for example) however it is not god, or a deity. It is not yahweh, not Jesus, it would simply be a being of high evolution, but may well be dumb as a stump. Is there any proof of this being however? No, so we take the stance, like god it does not exist. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The definition of

Quote:
The definition of god or deity is the creator of everything.

Okay.

Quote:
You are trying to change that definition,

No I'm not.  Unless you are interpreting "everything" to include "oneself". I hope you are not doing so.. because that would just be weird and a bit literal on a very colloquial term.

God created everything except himself.  He just 'was'.. even as you, I believe, believe that matter and energy 'just were'.

Quote:
but in doing so you admit evolution is true

I never stated that God evolved-- so why would this be the case? In fact, I'm pretty sure I specifically stated that this God could have equally existed within the "eternal" point singularity that big bang theorist are so fond of. (Forgive me if my terminology of this theory is a bit liberal or off. Sticking out tongue Heh.)

Quote:
god is not all-powerful, knowing, or anything of god.

I'm pretty sure I defined these things within the argument.  Once again.  The definition is "creator of everything" NOT "omnipotent and omniscient".

Quote:
He is not the Christian god, or any other god, and may not even reveal himself to us.

He may not be-- however, I made sure to clear this up in the original argument.. so you're just skimming over.  THIS 'God' is not, necessarily, contradictory to the Christian God or the Jewish God or the Muslim God.. or.. some other ones I'd imagine.

Quote:
Your suggesting matter just formed a collective consious, and you want us to admit it's possible, which it is(Us for example) however it is not god, or a deity.

Naked assertion.  Whose to say that there is no collective consciousness on a universal scale? And.. if there is.. whose to say it is not the 'god' so often referred to be theists, however imperfect there referrences might be.

Quote:
It is not yahweh, not Jesus, it would simply be a being of high evolution, but may well be dumb as a stump.

I made sure to clear this all up in my original thread.  THIS god does not necessitate that it is NOT yahweh and/or not Jesus.

Quote:
Is there any proof of this being however?
Proof as in evidence? or proof as in 'something that proves'?

Yes. There is evidence. No, nothing that proves it. However... prove to me that you exist outside of a dream I'm having.

You can give me proof.. and evidence.. but you can't prove it to me.  You see.. the ability to 'prove' is highly subjective-- especially on things as philisophical as the conversations we have on this board.

So.. 'proving' isn't really important.. the acceptance of 'evidence' as indicative of something, however, is.

Quote:
No, so we take the stance, like god it does not exist.

To take a stance that something does not exist because it does not have 'proof' or does not have 'evidence' is about as foolish as taking the stance that life other than here on earth doesn't exist because there is no 'proof' or 'evidence'.

It is a foolish position to take.

It would, however, be a wise one.. if belief in a God is illogical. Which, in this case, doesn't seem to be.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Bumpity Bump.

Bumpity Bump.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
So, you're thinking of

So, you're thinking of ditching theism in favour of pantheism? Tongue out
You're right that the pantheist doesn't have supernatural based problems. What the pantheist does struggle with is making his/her God relevent. For instance, many pantheists deny that God has 'intelligence' or 'personality', and the more you take pantheism to it's logical conclusion, the harder it is to reconcile with the anthropomorphic God of the Bible.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Why call it God? Basically

Why call it God?

Basically this is just a renaming of something. It's been done by many people. But it means nothing. I used to call my TV God as a joke when I was a young teenager. If I were to call my laptop God, then I would say look clearly God exists! I'm typing on God now!


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
First let me say, do you

First let me say, do you even know what you wrote? Or was it something you found on a website?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
The definition of god or deity is the creator of everything.

Okay.

Quote:
You are trying to change that definition,

No I'm not. Unless you are interpreting "everything" to include "oneself". I hope you are not doing so.. because that would just be weird and a bit literal on a very colloquial term.

No, definition of god is someone who created all matter\energy\space\time. You stated that maybe the matter formed a collective consious being, meaning mass-energy created god, therefore he can not create it(Matter energy can not be created).

Quote:
God created everything except himself. He just 'was'.. even as you, I believe, believe that matter and energy 'just were'.

There is a difference. I don't have to say "I have faith" or "I believe" because I have evidence. You HAVE to say that, or your being irrational. Since matter can not be created, and exists, it had to exist eternally. If something can not be created, it has no creation point.

Quote:
Quote:
but in doing so you admit evolution is true

I never stated that God evolved-- so why would this be the case? In fact, I'm pretty sure I specifically stated that this God could have equally existed within the "eternal" point singularity that big bang theorist are so fond of. (Forgive me if my terminology of this theory is a bit liberal or off. Sticking out tongue Heh.)

You said matter/energy FORMED GOD. That is evolution i'm afraid. Oh, and who said there was an eternal singularity? No one I know of.

Quote:
Quote:
god is not all-powerful, knowing, or anything of god.

I'm pretty sure I defined these things within the argument. Once again. The definition is "creator of everything" NOT "omnipotent and omniscient".

You mistook what I said, try again.

Quote:
Quote:
He is not the Christian god, or any other god, and may not even reveal himself to us.

He may not be-- however, I made sure to clear this up in the original argument.. so you're just skimming over. THIS 'God' is not, necessarily, contradictory to the Christian God or the Jewish God or the Muslim God.. or.. some other ones I'd imagine.

God of all religions has stated they do not lie, and know everything, and created everything. Meaning if god formed as you suggest, he would not be the god of any religion known(Well he could fit into 1 or 2... but yeah).

Quote:
Quote:
Your suggesting matter just formed a collective consious, and you want us to admit it's possible, which it is(Us for example) however it is not god, or a deity.

Naked assertion. Whose to say that there is no collective consciousness on a universal scale? And.. if there is.. whose to say it is not the 'god' so often referred to be theists, however imperfect there referrences might be.

Scientists? See the thing is, this universe may be a giant rainbow bunny with eyes of acid, and nipples for pupils. Whos to say it isn't? Like I stated before, it does not matter WHAT might be, or WHAT is, if there is no proof, it can be said to be false. It might exist sure, however to say it exists without proof, and argue for it makes you mentally retarded.

Quote:
Quote:
It is not yahweh, not Jesus, it would simply be a being of high evolution, but may well be dumb as a stump.

I made sure to clear this all up in my original thread. THIS god does not necessitate that it is NOT yahweh and/or not Jesus.

Still I was just stating your definition of this "god" would not fit any of them.

Quote:
Quote:
Is there any proof of this being however?
Proof as in evidence? or proof as in 'something that proves'?

Did you seriously just say that?

Quote:
Yes. There is evidence. No, nothing that proves it. However... prove to me that you exist outside of a dream I'm having.

Anyone want to tell him he just contridicted himself, made a falacy, and is retarded in all but 3 sentences?

Quote:

You can give me proof.. and evidence.. but you can't prove it to me. You see.. the ability to 'prove' is highly subjective-- especially on things as philisophical as the conversations we have on this board.

No. All evidence is equal and enough for anyone. If it is repeatable, and retestable it is proof that is to be accepted by everyone. Except the retarded of course. You just stated I could never, as well as anyone prove to you something does or does not exist. Meaning your being ignorant, close minded, and you fail.

Quote:

So.. 'proving' isn't really important.. the acceptance of 'evidence' as indicative of something, however, is.

There is no "acceptance" of evidence. Maybe in fantasy land, but if you have evidence and someone else can repeat, and retest it, it can not be refuted(Until later if new factors are found). If a person then tries and denies it, they are regarded as ignorant, retarded, and close minded. They would also be thrown out of any real scientific research.

Quote:

Quote:
No, so we take the stance, like god it does not exist.

To take a stance that something does not exist because it does not have 'proof' or does not have 'evidence' is about as foolish as taking the stance that life other than here on earth doesn't exist because there is no 'proof' or 'evidence'.

No, it's not. There is proof for life outside of earth. However does it mean intelligent? No. We are very crude in our understanding of evolution, factors that actually affect life forming etc. I take the stance there is no intelligent, or normal life on other planets until proven. There was bacteria like structures found on mars, so we can say there is cellular structures on other planets, but to say there is intelligent beings, or normal animals etc is retarded. Until proven of course.

Quote:

It is a foolish position to take.

It would, however, be a wise one.. if belief in a God is illogical. Which, in this case, doesn't seem to be.

Keep telling yourself that.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't think the hassling

I don't think the hassling over the use of the word god is justified, especially considering the work here done as regards to the word 'atheism.' Using the bible as one's source for defining the concept of god or a god, the definition you provide, James, is not necessarily accurate.

Gods were quite often not considered to be those traits. Some of today's gods don't have those traits. Yahweh was, first and foremost, an entity. The squabbling about infinite this and absolute that does not apply. Fighting about use of the word god when the context and intent is clear does nothing productive.

Mike Gravel for president!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
I leave for lunch and when I

I leave for lunch and when I get back I get three responses.. sweet.

Quote:
So, you're thinking of ditching theism in favour of pantheism?

Heh. No. I made sure to clarify this in the original post.

Pantheism (at least some forms) assert that everything is God not that God is everything.

The semantical difference is related in this:

Dogs are mammals. Mammals are Dogs.

The first is true.. however.. just because the first is true does that mean its reversal is true? No.

So.. I am not being pantheistic. Because to say "God is the culmination of everything" or "God is everything" is not the same as the pantheist position.

Quote:
You're right that the pantheist doesn't have supernatural based problems. What the pantheist does struggle with is making his/her God relevent.

I agree.. which is why I'm not a pantheist.

Quote:
For instance, many pantheists deny that God has 'intelligence' or 'personality', and the more you take pantheism to it's logical conclusion, the harder it is to reconcile with the anthropomorphic God of the Bible.

Once again.. not a pantheist position I am taking nor stated.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why call it

Quote:
Why call it God?

Because "it" would be.

Quote:
Basically this is just a renaming of something. It's been done by many people. But it means nothing. I used to call my TV God as a joke when I was a young teenager. If I were to call my laptop God, then I would say look clearly God exists! I'm typing on God now!

"God" is defined as the one supreme being.

"Being", I believe, is defined as something of some sentience.

To say that God is everything.. is not the same as saying your TV is God.. unless you believe that your TV is a "being", and if it is, is the "one supreme being".

To say your TV is God is to use the word "God" incorrectly.. (according to prescriptive linguistics), however, I, am not.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
Why call it God?

Because "it" would be.

Quote:
Basically this is just a renaming of something. It's been done by many people. But it means nothing. I used to call my TV God as a joke when I was a young teenager. If I were to call my laptop God, then I would say look clearly God exists! I'm typing on God now!

"God" is defined as the one supreme being.

"Being", I believe, is defined as something of some sentience.

To say that God is everything.. is not the same as saying your TV is God.. unless you believe that your TV is a "being", and if it is, is the "one supreme being".

To say your TV is God is to use the word "God" incorrectly.. (according to prescriptive linguistics), however, I, am not.

If his laptop/TV IS the best TV/laptop in the universe we know of, then by your definition, it is god. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: First let me say, do

Quote:
First let me say, do you even know what you wrote? Or was it something you found on a website?

Yes, I know what I wrote.  No, I did not find it on a website. Smiling

Quote:
No, definition of god is someone who created all matter\energy\space\time.

If thats how you want to define it.. fine-- I'm using the dictionary, and the dictionary defines it just as I did.

Quote:
You stated that maybe the matter formed a collective consious being, meaning mass-energy created god, therefore he can not create it(Matter energy can not be created).

No, I stated that there is a conscious, sentient, being within the culmination of all matter. Perhaps I used "created" at one point.. yet, within the exposition of the theory I clearly defined that "created" in the sense that you are using it, is not the sense that I was meaning-- and, in fact, specifically defined against.

Quote:
There is a difference. I don't have to say "I have faith" or "I believe" because I have evidence.

You have evidence that exclusively indicates that matter/energy "just was"? AMAZING! Please tell me what it is.. and I will be sure to pass it along to some scientist.

Quote:
You HAVE to say that, or your being irrational.

Okay.....

Quote:
Since matter can not be created, and exists, it had to exist eternally.

Really? It had to? Only if your assuming atemporal laws of physics.  The laws we now have are applicable only in this universe.. after the suppose "creation" of this universe.  Scientist, I don't believe, will touch the moments before "big bang" or other likewise formulation of this universe-- and thus, there is no reason to believe (or deduce) that the laws of this universe (approx. 6 billion years ago) applied to the moments before this universe..  If you say the "universe always was".. this is a philosophical statement.. not, I don't believe, a scientific one.

Quote:
If something can not be created, it has no creation point.

Once again.. you're trying to apply a scientific concept to a non-scientific one.

Quote:
You said matter/energy FORMED GOD. That is evolution i'm afraid. Oh, and who said there was an eternal singularity? No one I know of.

Quote me. I don't believe I did.  I may have said that all matter and energy together, form what we could be called "God" (if this was a sentient thing). This is not the same as what you said..

I gave examples.. specifically to cotradict this argument.

Did all the particles of my brain form my brain? or is my brain the form of all these particles?

Semantics.  You're being very liberal.

Quote:
You mistook what I said, try again.

Okay.

Quote:
God of all religions has stated they do not lie, and know everything, and created everything. Meaning if god formed as you suggest, he would not be the god of any religion known(Well he could fit into 1 or 2... but yeah).

They state on in the sense that their respective religious text state they stated.  I argued against this point even before you stated this by saying the religious text are not necessarily perfect representations of this God.. yet, it is not so contradictory that they cannot be one in the same.

A bibliography about Ronald Reagan would not be a perfect representation of who God is.. especially if that person loved Ronald Reagan.  Furthermore, an autobibliography about Ronald Reagan would not necessarily be a perefct representation of who Ronald Reagan is... but thats a different issue.

Quote:
Scientists? See the thing is, this universe may be a giant rainbow bunny with eyes of acid, and nipples for pupils. Whos to say it isn't?

This is a ridiculous point.  I don't believe you're serious.  And if you are.. then you're ridiculous.  Bunnies, rainbows, acid, nipples, eyes, pupils, all have specific definitions from which none can apply to the "universe"-- once again, you're making the same mistakes as you did earlier by falling into a very liberal, descriptive, use of linguistics.

Quote:
Like I stated before, it does not matter WHAT might be, or WHAT is, if there is no proof, it can be said to be false.

Once again.. a ridiculous point.  And this is why no one will defend this particular one (and if they do.. then I will argue them to)..

To say that something with no proof can be said to be false is ridiculous.

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Quote:
It might exist sure, however to say it exists without proof, and argue for it makes you mentally retarded.

I'm not saying that it exists.. I'm saying that it might, even as you might contend that matter/energy are eternal (going back to the beginning. Sticking out tongue).

Induction.

Quote:
Still I was just stating your definition of this "god" would not fit any of them.

Not true.

Quote:
Did you seriously just say that?

Yup.

Quote:
Anyone want to tell him he just contridicted himself, made a falacy, and is retarded in all but 3 sentences?

No one will.

proof     
–noun
1.    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.    anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

ev·i·dence
–noun
1.    that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

prove   
–verb (used with object)
1.    to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.
2.    Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.

va·lid·i·ty
–noun
1.    the state or quality of being valid: to question the validity of the argument.

Use a dictionary before you contend retardation regarding definitions.

Quote:
No. All evidence is equal and enough for anyone. If it is repeatable, and retestable it is proof that is to be accepted by everyone. Except the retarded of course. You just stated I could never, as well as anyone prove to you something does or does not exist. Meaning your being ignorant, close minded, and you fail.

I've had this argument to many times to count.

Read the dictionary.  Evidence means only the "basis for a belief".. you are defining it as "scientific evidence".

So sit down.

Quote:
There is no "acceptance" of evidence. Maybe in fantasy land, but if you have evidence and someone else can repeat, and retest it, it can not be refuted(Until later if new factors are found). If a person then tries and denies it, they are regarded as ignorant, retarded, and close minded. They would also be thrown out of any real scientific research.

I'm sure many of the great legal minds would disagree with you.  

If an eyewitness says that he saw A kill B, this is "evidence" accepted in the legal sense.  Now, if a person says that he saw God on day A, at time B, this is not "evidence" accepted in the scientific sense.

So.. once again, clarity of language, stop making brash generalizations.

Quote:
No, it's not. There is proof for life outside of earth. However does it mean intelligent?

There is? What exactly? Maybe I'm wrong. Or perhaps a couple of microbes were found on mars.. perhaps I'm incorrect about this one.

Quote:
No. We are very crude in our understanding of evolution, factors that actually affect life forming etc. I take the stance there is no intelligent, or normal life on other planets until proven.

To take a stance that there is "no X" because of lack of proof for against is much different than "I don't know, maybe" because of lack of proof for or against.

The former is not a wise stance to take.. the latter, I would contend, is.

Quote:
There was bacteria like structures found on mars, so we can say there is cellular structures on other planets, but to say there is intelligent beings, or normal animals etc is retarded. Until proven of course.

"Bacteria like structures"? Or living bacteria? or just fossils? I don't know what to make of this.  Source?

Oh.. and bacteria an animal.  What is a "normal animal"? Does it have to have fur? or lungs? a brain maybe? Just trying to clarify. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
Keep telling yourself that.

I will.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
If his laptop/TV IS the best TV/laptop in the universe we know of, then by your definition, it is god.

It might be considered the laptop God.

This is the purpose of adjectives.. they are relatively important within the english language.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Heh.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Heh. No. I made sure to clarify this in the original post.

Pantheism (at least some forms) assert that everything is God not that God is everything.

Pantheism can be either. Infact, 'everything is God' is supposed to be synonymous with 'God is everything' in the pantheistic context.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Pantheism can be

Quote:
Pantheism can be either. Infact, 'everything is God' is supposed to be synonymous with 'God is everything' in the pantheistic context.

Quote:
God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God".

Strafios.. I'm going to, have to, argue semantics again.

""God is all" and "All is God"" is not the same as stating ""God is all" or "All is God"".

The wikipedia defines it as an "and" relationship.. not "or".

You say that it can be "either", yet this is not what is necessitated by the language.. nor is it supported by the language.

Yet.. perhaps upon more reading I will find that this concept is appliable.  I do not believe so though.. and if it is.. I do not believe one runs into the same problems of relevance.. since, at least according to my understanding of pantheism, pantheist consider all things equally "God" as "God" "everything" is.  Which is why I specifically argued against this.

In pantheism.. I am God, the tree is God, and we are equally God as anything else.  My construct it is not the case-- there is only one God, all else is just a part of him.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
So, rephrasing to make sure

So, rephrasing to make sure I understand your argument. If, in doing so, I have created a strawman (always a risk with rephrasing), please point out where my rephrasing differs from the original meaning.

"The universe itself is God: a universe-god. The unideity is sentient."

So... to fit with "God created the universe", it created itself... but how? If it didn't exist, how did it wish itself into being? But origin questions are always hard, and there's an awful lot of fuzzy around the non-theistic explanations too, so maybe skip that.

But, anyway, if the universe is sentient, how is that manifested?

If it does nothing with it, then it is nonsentient by Occam.

If it creates life and nothing else, well, that's Deism by another name.

If it creates life and then does Judaeo-Christian pillar-of-salt, sea-parting stuff, then that's Christianity by another name.

So, the hypothesis doesn't seem to answer or offer anything, other than proposing one possible seat for the mind of God.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Heya Rhad, glad to see

Heya Rhad, glad to see you're back.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
"God is all" and "All is God" is not the same as stating "God is all" or "All is God".

How can there be a part of a natural god that is not a part of "all"? Are you positing another separate natural universe (part of a different "all"), or some sort of supernatural (and therefore problematic) thing? It seems to me it must be one or the other.

If so, I believe you've arrived at pantheism.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So, rephrasing to

Quote:
So, rephrasing to make sure I understand your argument. If, in doing so, I have created a strawman (always a risk with rephrasing), please point out where my rephrasing differs from the original meaning.

"The universe itself is God: a universe-god. The unideity is sentient."

So... to fit with "God created the universe", it created itself... but how? If it didn't exist, how did it wish itself into being? But origin questions are always hard, and there's an awful lot of fuzzy around the non-theistic explanations too, so maybe skip that.

I've made a distinction between the "universe" and whatever came before the "universe".  I believe scientist make this very distinction.. for the "age" the universe at 6+ billion years old (correct me if I'm wrong).. yet, before the universe..?

"Everything itself is God: an everything-god. The unideity is sentient."

Perhaps that would be better.

So, whatever was before the "universe", God was there also.. sentient in whatever form was then as well.

Quote:
But, anyway, if the universe is sentient, how is that manifested?

How is the sentience manifested? In the same way universal evolution is manifested.. through everything.

For instance, while evolutionist might posit that "religion" came about for evolutionary reasons.. a believer in this God may posit that "religion" came about because "God" revealed himself in some way, for some purpose, at some time. (Depends on the religion I suppose).

Quote:
If it does nothing with it, then it is nonsentient by Occam.


Quote:
If it creates life and nothing else, well, that's Deism by another name.

If it creates life and then does Judaeo-Christian pillar-of-salt, sea-parting stuff, then that's Christianity by another name.

So, the hypothesis doesn't seem to answer or offer anything, other than proposing one possible seat for the mind of God.

I would agree that I am trying to create a judaeo-christian-muslim God by unorthodox description.

And it purpose.. is not to "answer" to a certainity things.. but rather to posit that those "God" attributes (omniscience, supernatural, etc) so many times considered "illogical" or "irrational" or creating of problems.. do not necessarily have to exist within the construct.

Furthermore, in order to go a step further in the how the "sentience" is manifested.. it is manifested, also, in


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
Why call it God?

Because "it" would be.

Ok so you call everything God, or everything is God or whatever. Saying there is a semantic difference is a fallacy. The Universe is a living breathing entity.

You also say though quite rightly that dogs are mammals is not the same as saying mammals are dogs. Correct. However it is different when you start saying everything is God, God is everything are different semantically. Not all mammals are dogs because a dog is a denomination of mammals. So is everything a denomination of God, or God a denomination of everything? Indeed when you use such terms as God is everything then it equals everything is God

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
Basically this is just a renaming of something. It's been done by many people. But it means nothing. I used to call my TV God as a joke when I was a young teenager. If I were to call my laptop God, then I would say look clearly God exists! I'm typing on God now!

"God" is defined as the one supreme being.

"Being", I believe, is defined as something of some sentience.

So the universe can feel pain? I wasn't aware the universe had a nervous system? Or are you confusing sentience with intelligence. Intelligence perhaps, but conscious intelligence maybe not. Let me use an analogy, taken from Dan Dennet and placed in a slightly different, but equally fitting argument. Boat makers in primitive cultures will make symetrical boats. It is the way their ancestors made boats. Now obviously with some understanding of aquadynamics, we know that a symetrical boats will be easier to control. It is an intelligent design for a boat, however ask the boat maker why symetrical boats are better it is quite likely he will not be able to answer, he is not conscious of the intelligence of his product.

By definition God is a being, a consciousness, awake and alive, there may be intelligence in the way the universe works, a systematic system of laws, but to give this a consciousness is not necessary.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Heya Rhad, glad to

Quote:
Heya Rhad, glad to see you're back.

For a day or so.  Thanks. Smiling

Quote:
How can there be a part of a natural god that is not a part of "all"?

The statement is not stating this.. at least it was not constructed for this purpose.

I am saying the "natural God" is the "product" of "all parts", this does not necessitate that "one part" is the "natural God".

Pantheist take on the latter concept (still under dispute.. may be wrong on this one.. but there is a distinction if I am correct on pantheism).

Pantheism takes the position that everything is equally God and that nothing is more God than anything else. "All is God and God is All".

This is different then what I have presented.

Quote:
Are you positing another separate natural universe (part of a different "all&quotEye-wink, or some sort of supernatural (and therefore problematic) thing? It seems to me it must be one or the other.

Nope. Not positing either.

The problem resides in our use of language..

"God is all" and "All is God" can be interpreted to mean:

"God is the sentient entity created by all things and all things are a part of God"

or

"God is the abstract entity created by all things and all things are God in the abstract sense."

"God is all and all is God" can be interpreted in both these ways.. but I have been, very deliberately, trying to imply the former and exclude the latter.

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Ok so you call

Quote:
Ok so you call everything God, or everything is God or whatever. Saying there is a semantic difference is a fallacy. The Universe is a living breathing entity.

You also say though quite rightly that dogs are mammals is not the same as saying mammals are dogs. Correct. However it is different when you start saying everything is God, God is everything are different semantically. Not all mammals are dogs because a dog is a denomination of mammals. So is everything a denomination of God, or God a denomination of everything? Indeed when you use such terms as God is everything then it equals everything is God

"God is a sentient denomination of everything" would be an accurate understanding of what I have been saying.

I tried to clarify in my original post that "God is everything is not to say that everything is God"... although I used the "God is everything" statement.. was merely for rheteorical purposes.. and I further expanded on the concept to deal with any ambiguity regarding pantheism.

Quote:
So the universe can feel pain? I wasn't aware the universe had a nervous system?

Are you concluding that pain can only be felt through what you constitute as a nervous system? On a very fundamental level your nervous system is just a construct of matter and energy.  Why is it unreasonable to believe that there can be another construct of matter and energy that can produce pain in the same for or another?

Quote:
Or are you confusing sentience with intelligence. Intelligence perhaps, but conscious intelligence maybe not.

Perhaps. Yet, sentience, intelligence, doesn't matter in this construct.. not yet at least.

Quote:
Let me use an analogy, taken from Dan Dennet and placed in a slightly different, but equally fitting argument. Boat makers in primitive cultures will make symetrical boats. It is the way their ancestors made boats. Now obviously with some understanding of aquadynamics, we know that a symetrical boats will be easier to control. It is an intelligent design for a boat, however ask the boat maker why symetrical boats are better it is quite likely he will not be able to answer, he is not conscious of the intelligence of his product.

By definition God is a being, a consciousness, awake and alive, there may be intelligence in the way the universe works, a systematic system of laws, but to give this a consciousness is not necessary.

Granted. It is not necessary.  Neither, is this construct, however, necessarily irrational, illogical, or incoherent... in fact, it is definitely the inverse of all those things. (IMO) Smiling


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Pantheism can be either. Infact, 'everything is God' is supposed to be synonymous with 'God is everything' in the pantheistic context.

Quote:
God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God".

Strafios.. I'm going to, have to, argue semantics again.

""God is all" and "All is God"" is not the same as stating ""God is all" or "All is God"".

The wikipedia defines it as an "and" relationship.. not "or".

You say that it can be "either", yet this is not what is necessitated by the language.. nor is it supported by the language.


Remember I said that they were synonymous under the Pantheistic context? That means that when Pantheists say "All is God" they mean it in a way that means "God is all" so your "Dogs are mammals" analogy didn't match.
Your previous idea of pantheism was erroneous.
That was why I quoted Wiki to set you straight.

Wikipedia wrote:
More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract 'god'.

There we go! Tongue out


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: I am

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I am saying the "natural God" is the "product" of "all parts", this does not necessitate that "one part" is the "natural God".

So, the distinction you are making is that you are saying that any given part of god isn't god itself? Only the sum of all the parts is god?

Still, it really seems like pantheism to me. Let me know if I'm still missing what you mean.

I guess my problem with this is that you claim that this god is both the universe and sentient. So far, there is no clear evidence that I'm aware of that the universe is sentient, so I see no reason to believe in this.

Furthermore, there are some pretty big problems with it. For information to get from one end of the universe to another would take billions of years, so just imagine how slowly this god would have to think and act. He couldn't intervene in the evolution of a species, let alone any one person's life. It would take too long. By the time a decision was made, and the signal was sent to interact, that person would have been dead for billions of years.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
By extension, God cares for us-- even as one would care for an 'imaginary friend'. (e.g. "Cast Away": Wilson!!!)

I don't see this. Or, at least, it seems like we would be no greater in the eyes of the god you describe than a commet, or a bit of dust. We came about by the same sorts of natural processes as everything else, so we are no more special than anything else.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Could this 'God' form 'freewilling entities', sustained by him (since he is everything and has control over everything) and yet not him: Yes.

I think the concept of freewill is basically meaningless from a purely naturalistic perspective, which is what you are advocating with a completely natural god. Our brains are just complex chemical reactions, and if you understand the reactions well enough, you should be able to predict them. And, the notion that god could create things that are not part of himself seems to defy the definition of god you gave earlier.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
If a character in your dream ever surprises you, this is evidence for a seemingly 'freewilling entity'.

Actually, I can't say for sure that I've ever been surprised in a dream....

Those entities are still a part of your brain, whether you are consciously aware of that or not. The could be a lot of things, but they can't be separate entities. Another way of thinking of this is that there's always more going on in the brain than consciousness.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Could this 'God' form an alter ego, 'God' in all senses except size? Yes.
Analogy: Picture yourself in your head. There you have it.

Picturing yourself in your head is a gross oversimplification. You may be able to picture what you look like, just as you can remember any other image (and even this would be hard if you were the totality of everything), but you simply can't encapsulate all your thoughts, all your memories, in some sort of mental jail and examine them externally. Besides, anything that is not everything would not be god by definition.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm surprised in my dreams

I'm surprised in my dreams fairly often. It and disbelief(or realization) are the only things that jar me from dreams that I can think of.

Mike Gravel for president!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Remember I said that

Quote:
Remember I said that they were synonymous under the Pantheistic context?

I apologize then. Smiling I missed it.

Quote:
That means that when Pantheists say "All is God" they mean it in a way that means "God is all" so your "Dogs are mammals" analogy didn't match.

Just because it doesn't apply in the pantheist context.. does not mean that it is a universal context.  In my original text I explicitly stated that within my usage of "God is everything" I did not mean "Everything is God"-- nor is a synonymous relationship necessitated through linguistics (?) (or semantics?). I need to study the usage of those words more...

Quote:
Your previous idea of pantheism was erroneous.
That was why I quoted Wiki to set you straight.


I believe you are refering to this:

Quote:
Pantheism (at least some forms) assert that everything is God not that God is everything.


You were right to set me straight.. once again, oh wise one. Heh.

Quote:
There we go!

Still.. I think your comparisson to my construct and pantheism is missing a couple of points I tried to make.  In the sense that pantheism uses the "all is god, god is all" type of deal.. seems to reduce God to a meaningless abstract concept.

"God" is not a thing, merely everything.  To present my understanding of pantheism at this juncture would be to say.. "God" in the pantheistic sense cannot speak to me face to face.. even IF "it" COULD want or IF "it", in fact, wanted to.

Because "it" has none of these characteristics.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So, the distinction

Quote:
So, the distinction you are making is that you are saying that any given part of god isn't god itself? Only the sum of all the parts is god?

Still, it really seems like pantheism to me. Let me know if I'm still missing what you mean.

As I stated in the post reply to Strafios.. I think the distinction lies within whether "God" has "will", "want", or.. is sentient in its own respect at all.

Please look above for a clearer explanation (or at least I tried.)

Quote:
I guess my problem with this is that you claim that this god is both the universe and sentient. So far, there is no clear evidence that I'm aware of that the universe is sentient, so I see no reason to believe in this.

This is based upon what you would consider "clear evidence" that the universe is sentient.  If you accept that the universe COULD have been created by a sentient thing, then by extension, all the universe would be evidence of that sentient thing.. albeit, not evidence exclusively applicatory to the aforementioned sentient thing.

Quote:
Furthermore, there are some pretty big problems with it. For information to get from one end of the universe to another would take billions of years, so just imagine how slowly this god would have to think and act. He couldn't intervene in the evolution of a species, let alone any one person's life. It would take too long. By the time a decision was made, and the signal was sent to interact, that person would have been dead for billions of years.

Why exactly would God be required to get from one end of the universe to the other?  It's all him, so, he's not necessarily required to move at all.. your assuming that the "universal brain" works in the same way as yours does.. in that decisions are made in specific locations and sent to another for action-- there is nothing to say that this is the case in all decision making of all "brain-type entities".

Quote:
I don't see this. Or, at least, it seems like we would be no greater in the eyes of the god you describe than a commet, or a bit of dust. We came about by the same sorts of natural processes as everything else, so we are no more special than anything else.

True.. yet, if God created a rock that could not "interact" with him.. and a person that could, would there be a valid distinction?

Quote:
I think the concept of freewill is basically meaningless from a purely naturalistic perspective, which is what you are advocating with a completely natural god. Our brains are just complex chemical reactions, and if you understand the reactions well enough, you should be able to predict them.

True perhaps. Yet, the illusion both to self and to any entity that may have created it.. is all that's impossible.  If I create a video game with A.I... does the fact that everything could be predicted by me, destroy my ability to enjoy it?

Quote:
And, the notion that god could create things that are not part of himself seems to defy the definition of god you gave earlier.

He can create things that are "seemingly" independent sentients.. not that they are, in fact, independent sentients.

Quote:
Actually, I can't say for sure that I've ever been surprised in a dream....

Those entities are still a part of your brain, whether you are consciously aware of that or not. The could be a lot of things, but they can't be separate entities. Another way of thinking of this is that there's always more going on in the brain than consciousness.

To us, all thats important is that we perceive independence.. to God, all that is important is that there the "thing" has an illusion of acting independently.

In much the same as a dream.. you may know looking in hindsight that the entity is merely a function of your brain and is really "just a part of you", mean that the "thing" does not have real effects on your life?

Quote:
Picturing yourself in your head is a gross oversimplification. You may be able to picture what you look like, just as you can remember any other image (and even this would be hard if you were the totality of everything), but you simply can't encapsulate all your thoughts, all your memories, in some sort of mental jail and examine them externally. Besides, anything that is not everything would not be god by definition.

"In all senses except for size"..

As for limiting the mental ability of God to what is your mental ability is.. hm.. well I don't know what it is.. doesn't seem right.

Merely that to "some extent" you can picture yourself in your mind.. is reason enough to consider the possibility that a "greater extent" is "possible".

I can through a ball into the air.. by extension.. (all things being equal) I have reason to believe that there is a possibiliity to throw the ball to a "greater extent" into the air.

Perhaps a bad analogy.. but I'm getting tired.  And it's time to take my leave again.. heh, this was a one day thing. Smiling


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
So, the distinction you are making is that you are saying that any given part of god isn't god itself? Only the sum of all the parts is god?

Still, it really seems like pantheism to me. Let me know if I'm still missing what you mean.

As I stated in the post reply to Strafios.. I think the distinction lies within whether "God" has "will", "want", or.. is sentient in its own respect at all.

Please look above for a clearer explanation (or at least I tried.)

I think I understand.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
I guess my problem with this is that you claim that this god is both the universe and sentient. So far, there is no clear evidence that I'm aware of that the universe is sentient, so I see no reason to believe in this.

This is based upon what you would consider "clear evidence" that the universe is sentient.  If you accept that the universe COULD have been created by a sentient thing, then by extension, all the universe would be evidence of that sentient thing.. albeit, not evidence exclusively applicatory to the aforementioned sentient thing.

The existence of stuff (matter/energy) does not suggest in any way that I can see, the existence of an all-encompassing sentience. There must be more. Signs of large-scale thought-process, purpose. What evidence is there of that?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Why exactly would God be required to get from one end of the universe to the other?  It's all him, so, he's not necessarily required to move at all.. your assuming that the "universal brain" works in the same way as yours does.. in that decisions are made in specific locations and sent to another for action-- there is nothing to say that this is the case in all decision making of all "brain-type entities".

We've already assumed that this god is natural, by identifying it with the natural world. So, it would have to be bound to natural laws, and work through natural processes, and you can't have information flying around the universe breaking the universal speed limit. I'm not saying the sentience has to work like a human brain, it's just that it must work by some physical mechanism to remain a natural thing.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
I don't see this. Or, at least, it seems like we would be no greater in the eyes of the god you describe than a commet, or a bit of dust. We came about by the same sorts of natural processes as everything else, so we are no more special than anything else.

True.. yet, if God created a rock that could not "interact" with him.. and a person that could, would there be a valid distinction?

You can interact with a rock. You can collide with it, shine a light on it, try to swallow it....Ok, it's really not that much fun to play with a rock. But, how much more fun could it be to play with people when you're the totality of everything?

The real problem I have with the concept is that it's just too conveniently what we need. Socialization is an evolved trait in humans; it has a survival advantage, and can be seen in many species in the animal kingdom. There's no clear reason why a solitary superbeing would need or even want it. Isn't it just a little to presumptuous to say that whatever the Ultimate might be, it must be like us.

Consider how much of the mass, the energy, and the space of the universe is devoted to life, compared to how much is not. Just in our solar system, there are all these other things that are much, much bigger, and seem to serve no purpose to the life on Earth. Isn't it more likely to assume that if there is a purpose behind the universe, it's that god likes space? The vast vacuum could be god's vaulted ceiling, the stars his lighting fixtures, and the planets could be the dust that accumulates around the fixtures, which needs to be swept away every few billion years. And life, a mere spec of mold growing in the dust, to be swept away without care or notice. Anyway, it seems more plausible to me then the idea that we are special or important to any such god, or the universe at large.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
I think the concept of freewill is basically meaningless from a purely naturalistic perspective, which is what you are advocating with a completely natural god. Our brains are just complex chemical reactions, and if you understand the reactions well enough, you should be able to predict them.

True perhaps. Yet, the illusion both to self and to any entity that may have created it.. is all that's impossible.  If I create a video game with A.I... does the fact that everything could be predicted by me, destroy my ability to enjoy it?

You're right; I'm just saying that free will is an illusion.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
To us, all thats important is that we perceive independence.. to God, all that is important is that there the "thing" has an illusion of acting independently.

I'm not ready to believe that there is any independence in such a situation, illusion or not. Recalling a dream after it's over (which, for me has been rare for a long time), I never feel that I was in control of anything, but all the elements are clearly derived from me.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
"In all senses except for size"..

As for limiting the mental ability of God to what is your mental ability is.. hm.. well I don't know what it is.. doesn't seem right.

It's not at all a matter of magnitude, it's a matter of plain ability. I can imagine my face, and know how I would react under a given set of circumstances, but none of that is even slightly independent. To react to a situation, even an imagined one, I have to think, and my imaginary image does nothing but yield to my manipulation.

But it occurs to me that my objection to this, and to the dream stuff above, is mostly related to the analogies rather than the idea itself. Maybe a vast consciousness could simulate subconsciousnesses, I don't know.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Perhaps a bad analogy.. but I'm getting tired.  And it's time to take my leave again.. heh, this was a one day thing. Smiling

Hope to see you again.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Rhad, a pantheist is anyone

Rhad, a pantheist is anyone who identifies the universe itself as God.
Some believe in sentience, others don't.
Spinoza did what you're doing, started by looking for a ontology and then worked logically and came to the conclusion of a non-personal God, that nature itself was divine and worthy of worship.

Maybe you'll come to a different conclusion?
Although Spinoza has a strong reputation as one of the finest logicians of his time so it might be a difficult project.

Looking forward to your next 'pop in'. Smiling


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:


Quote:
So the universe can feel pain? I wasn't aware the universe had a nervous system?

Are you concluding that pain can only be felt through what you constitute as a nervous system? On a very fundamental level your nervous system is just a construct of matter and energy.  Why is it unreasonable to believe that there can be another construct of matter and energy that can produce pain in the same for or another?

*Stabs the desk* Fuck you God/Universe.


Quote:
Or are you confusing sentience with intelligence. Intelligence perhaps, but conscious intelligence maybe not.

Perhaps. Yet, sentience, intelligence, doesn't matter in this construct.. not yet at least.

Quote:
Let me use an analogy, taken from Dan Dennet and placed in a slightly different, but equally fitting argument. Boat makers in primitive cultures will make symetrical boats. It is the way their ancestors made boats. Now obviously with some understanding of aquadynamics, we know that a symetrical boats will be easier to control. It is an intelligent design for a boat, however ask the boat maker why symetrical boats are better it is quite likely he will not be able to answer, he is not conscious of the intelligence of his product.

By definition God is a being, a consciousness, awake and alive, there may be intelligence in the way the universe works, a systematic system of laws, but to give this a consciousness is not necessary.

Granted. It is not necessary.  Neither, is this construct, however, necessarily irrational, illogical, or incoherent... in fact, it is definitely the inverse of all those things. (IMO) Smiling

What the fuck are you on about?

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
*Stabs the desk* Fuck you God/Universe.

Hahahahaha.

Heh.

My "return for a day debate" has ended some time ago.. but I just had to respond to this when I saw it.

Hilarious. Hah and Hahah. Heh. Oh man. Hilarious. So much so I cannot express perfectly in words. Hahah. Oh man.....


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:

Strafio wrote:
So, you're thinking of ditching theism in favour of pantheism? Tongue out
You're right that the pantheist doesn't have supernatural based problems. What the pantheist does struggle with is making his/her God relevent. For instance, many pantheists deny that God has 'intelligence' or 'personality', and the more you take pantheism to it's logical conclusion, the harder it is to reconcile with the anthropomorphic God of the Bible.

 

I don't see it as harder to reconcile, it's the same issue that has always been the issue with reconciling : anthropomorphic god, spiritual god, historical god.. the intent is to reconcile definitions with definitions, simulacra with simulacrum, even things considered 'well defined' end up throwing curveballs at us eventually and we all rearrange our stance accordingly.

Pantheism doesn't need to reconcile with the simulacra definitions of an anthropomorphic God, the materialist definition of that term (anthropomorphic) has literally begun to change (see Bells theorem) hence pantheism is a reconciliation of the new simulacra of the image of man with the 'ordained' terms of god, and there actually isn't any contradiction there.

Are intelligence and personality ultimately well defined already? Experience would suggest No way, we are redefining such things all the time as we discover more congruence between the extremes of sentient traits in our human collective day by day. So in short I think that construes as no reason to dismiss such traits in a pnatheistic God.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: [MOD EDIT - fixed

Quote:

[MOD EDIT - fixed link... please be sure to hit return after posting a link]

 

That's odd, it worked for me when I first posted it. Undecided


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: I don't see

Eloise wrote:

I don't see it as harder to reconcile, it's the same issue that has always been the issue with reconciling : anthropomorphic god, spiritual god, historical god.. the intent is to reconcile definitions with definitions, simulacra with simulacrum, even things considered 'well defined' end up throwing curveballs at us eventually and we all rearrange our stance accordingly.


So you mean that the idea of God is to be re-interpreted in order to fit the nature of the universe the pantheist has identified it with?

Quote:

Pantheism doesn't need to reconcile with the simulacra definitions of an anthropomorphic God, the materialist definition of that term (anthropomorphic) has literally begun to change (see Bells theorem) hence pantheism is a reconciliation of the new simulacra of the image of man with the 'ordained' terms of god, and there actually isn't any contradiction there.


Right... you're using way too many abstract terms here in ways I'm not familiar with. Could you use more laymen terms or atleast explain things more slowly...
I looked up Bell's theorem and it seems to show that an assumption of classical physics is incompatable with quantum results, so I'm guessing you're using that to show that the universe isn't as mechanistic as we thought. But what's that got to do with the definition of anthropomorphic? And do materialists have a special definition of anthropomorphic?

And what do you mean by 'ordained' terms of God?

Quote:

Are intelligence and personality ultimately well defined already? Experience would suggest No way, we are redefining such things all the time as we discover more congruence between the extremes of sentient traits in our human collective day by day. So in short I think that construes as no reason to dismiss such traits in a pnatheistic God.


Um... although intelligence and personality are being 'fine tuned', it would take more than 'fine tuning' than to reconcile the universe with our idea of intelligence. It would take a complete redefinition and the concepts are easily strong enough to resist that.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:

Strafio wrote:
Eloise wrote:

I don't see it as harder to reconcile, it's the same issue that has always been the issue with reconciling : anthropomorphic god, spiritual god, historical god.. the intent is to reconcile definitions with definitions, simulacra with simulacrum, even things considered 'well defined' end up throwing curveballs at us eventually and we all rearrange our stance accordingly.

So you mean that the idea of God is to be re-interpreted in order to fit the nature of the universe the pantheist has identified it with?

 

No, but almost a yes.

The "revealing" of God is in a Book. And just to make it simple, one of those 'revealings' says Man is in the image of God. Now the book itself does not declare 'this is the idea of an image of man you must adhere to and it is the historical understanding of anthropomorphic superficially known physicality of man' it simply says what man is; is the image of God. So henceforth whatever we discover man is should rationally be applied to your undestanding of this 'revealing' of God, provided you care to understand that, which you can just as easily and rationally choose not to do.

 

Strafio wrote:
Eloise wrote:

Pantheism doesn't need to reconcile with the simulacra definitions of an anthropomorphic God, the materialist definition of that term (anthropomorphic) has literally begun to change (see Bells theorem) hence pantheism is a reconciliation of the new simulacra of the image of man with the 'ordained' terms of god, and there actually isn't any contradiction there.

Right... you're using way too many abstract terms here in ways I'm not familiar with. Could you use more laymen terms or atleast explain things more slowly... I looked up Bell's theorem and it seems to show that an assumption of classical physics is incompatable with quantum results, so I'm guessing you're using that to show that the universe isn't as mechanistic as we thought. But what's that got to do with the definition of anthropomorphic? And do materialists have a special definition of anthropomorphic? And what do you mean by 'ordained' terms of God?

 

 

Okay, to simplify 'ordained terms' I basically mean what the books/doctrines declare. Not to be confused with the ideas drawn from those books, by readers, which are not necessarily coherent with the books; moreover in most cases the books even seem incoherent with each other a fact which you can rationally take either in the way an atheist would go and assume that simply proves the books false, or alternatively you can predict that perhaps some of our understanding is false and not so immutable as we might want it to be. Which ever way you go the idea of 'ordained terms' is that if there is a revealed God as the stories/tracts say; then the stories/tracts are the most accurate definition of such an entity. The only definition of any value to compare your knowledge with if you are looking for said God.

Sorry, that wasn't quite as simple as I wanted to make it, I hope it helps.

Secondly, what Bells theorem has to do with the definition of anthropomorphic is the theory of locality. No where you find matter will you find it exclusively to be a particle, even human matter, nothing is separate from the system you find it in. Man is, in an oversimplified way (so please, scientific members, don't bite me for tending superficial here), not just the body / mind conglomerate but also the reality it is in. It's all part of the same whole.

Strafio wrote:
Eloise wrote:

Are intelligence and personality ultimately well defined already? Experience would suggest No way, we are redefining such things all the time as we discover more congruence between the extremes of sentient traits in our human collective day by day. So in short I think that construes as no reason to dismiss such traits in a pnatheistic God.

Um... although intelligence and personality are being 'fine tuned', it would take more than 'fine tuning' than to reconcile the universe with our idea of intelligence. It would take a complete redefinition and the concepts are easily strong enough to resist that.

Well I think we will probably best agree to disagree here. I'm fairly certain our understanding of intelligence hasn't grouped under the normal curve well enough to say that the most widely held concept won't be shaken from it's tree.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com