Defining God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2013, 03:18 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 03:25 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 03:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 02:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I was making a point at your expense. The algorithm that describes any human being is going to be toward the bottom. While you may be toward the bottom, I'm there with you but just an impreceptiable amount higher.

Sorry, it would be difficult for you to do anything at my expense, and you have deflected yet again. Provide some evidence, please that the algorhythm BS has any validity. (BTW, have you ever thought about getting help for your poor self-esteem ?) That business of you standing in front of your mirror telling yourself you are crap is really disturbed.

The mirror/crap was a joke....a bad one...I apologize for making it.

Anyways about the algorithms. If human beings are just collections of particles behaving in accordence with physical laws, then in principle it should be possible to write an algorithm that describes any particular human being. Once you have that algorithm you could modify it so that it describes the same human except that it knows one more fact or can do one more thing. Repeat that process for infinity and you get God.

Humans are just finite versions of God.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:42 AM
RE: Defining God.
HJ throws infinities around like they're a real thing and not just a concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
05-03-2013, 04:58 AM
RE: Defining God.
Ability, willingness and the gumption to stop all suffering in the world I think would be a start for the god I would want. The property of existence is also crucial.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge can be given, Understanding must be earned
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 05:33 AM
RE: Defining God.
I would define a god as any being who can alter his environment on at least a planetary scale through thought manipulation of the molecules around him or her.
This being could have sway over life and death and impose his or her will upon the masses, making worshiping servants of all those around him.

I define a god as a totalitarian despot of which no biological human being could stand against.

It's a good thing they are only imaginary creatures.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 09:34 AM
 
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 03:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Anyways about the algorithms. If human beings are just collections of particles behaving in accordence with physical laws, then in principle it should be possible to write an algorithm that describes any particular human being. Once you have that algorithm you could modify it so that it describes the same human except that it knows one more fact or can do one more thing. Repeat that process for infinity and you get God.

Humans are just finite versions of God.

Things get very dubious when you start doing them infinitely--that is they have a tendency to never get done.

In the case of your algorithm, one never reaches God. So, in a way, your algorithm is saying that God doesn't exist.

When it comes to arguing for the existence of God, we have to have a definition of God. I define God in this way:

God is the fundamental monistic consciousness.

He is fundamental, in that He has always existed.
He is fundamental in that all other things derive their existence from Him.


He is monistic in that He is the only substance that really exists.
He is monistic in that all other things are made from his substance.
He is monistic in that there is nothing in existence that is not Him

He is conscious in that He has volition, awareness, memory, and creative ability

The best model for God is a dream. Take for example a dream that you are sailing in a boat. In that dream, you have a body, a mind, there is water and waves, there is the hull of the boat, the sail, the rigging and the sheets. There is air, wind, sky, the sun. There is gravity and motion, and all the laws of physics. But in "reality" all those things are of the substance of the dreamer's mind. All those things are made from consciousness. In the case of that dream, the dreamer's mind is the fundamental monistic consciousness.

For those who have experienced a lucid dream, a lucid dream is an even more exact model.

So, there is God. There is only God. There has always been only God. There really isn't anything else. Everything else is a mode of his consciousness. God is alone and has created a universe in His mind.

If you take a rock and crush it, then take the resulting pebbles and crush one to dust, then a partical of that dust to molecules, then to atoms, then to protons, then to quarks and then you bust open the quark, you will find you will find the consciousness of God.
Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 09:44 AM
 
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 05:33 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I would define a god as any being who can alter his environment on at least a planetary scale through thought manipulation of the molecules around him or her.
This being could have sway over life and death and impose his or her will upon the masses, making worshiping servants of all those around him.

I define a god as a totalitarian despot of which no biological human being could stand against.

It's a good thing they are only imaginary creatures.

It's funny you should put it that way, because a lot of atheists believe that God is immoral and they would never bow down to such a God. But in emotional appeals like that, they make a categorical mistake. God has the capabilities you mentioned above, but not because he is powerful. He has those abilities because he is real and everything else is sub-real. Everything else is a construction in his mind.

So, when an atheist shakes their first at God. It's not that God would have to torture them to get them to submit, all he has to do is imagine the atheist doing something else. The atheist thinks he or she has some power of defiance, because they think God is like a super-human. But they really don't have any power--or thought for that matter--that God didn't give them.

Now, God is up to something kind of funny (funny strange, not funny LOL). And to an old fogey like me it reminds me of the following music video from way way back in the early days of MTV:




I'll let it speak for itself. Yes
Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 11:23 AM
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 05:33 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I would define a god as any being who can alter his environment on at least a planetary scale through thought manipulation of the molecules around him or her.
This being could have sway over life and death and impose his or her will upon the masses, making worshiping servants of all those around him.

I define a god as a totalitarian despot of which no biological human being could stand against.

It's a good thing they are only imaginary creatures.
So what about Arther C Clarke's Law that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

In this case alien came to our planet and passed your test. Would this then feel sufficient for you to call this E.T. god?

Just an outsider looking inn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: Defining God.
Hey, Egor.

Nice dream analogy.

Hey, Bucky.

You're not using "evidence" correctly.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:40 PM
RE: Defining God.
So God is in the quarks now. I thought the devil was in the details.....

Anyway, back to the OP question: I agree that Clarke's observation rings true here. I would, however, ask this being to override some of the simpler and most basic laws of physics as well as to manipulate time. Make me a jurassic park to play around in and hell, I'll worship them even if they aren't a god. A god should be able to make me a millenium falcon so I can travel the galaxy at greater than light speed.

As I write this, I am arriving at less of a definition of god and more as a needle to pass through. If this being is constrained by any natural law, any law of physics, then indeed they are NOT a god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 01:26 PM
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 03:42 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  HJ throws infinities around like they're a real thing and not just a concept.




The universe can be infinitely large and there can be a multiverse which can contain an infinite number of daughter universes. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is infinitely large.

You are wrong to claim that infinties are just concepts.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: