Defining God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 09:34 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(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.
Egor!
You seem to have relegated the usual view of god to that of a vivifying initial force.
As for god's creative mind, I do not see this term as making sense.
The god as good notion seems lost in this alleged creativity.
For what ultimate purpose would this god have in mind? Self glorification?
Could the great suffering of this world (forget original sin)ever be worth any
potential "something grand"?
To risk, boring repetition, on my part, an absolute " perfect god nature", beyond us, would have no relevance to the way we understand phenomena and all the conflicting written doctrines would be neutral, at best.
As for adoration, devotion, and love for this ineffable "thing", and educating others how best to do so,and best gain access to the 'thing' is misplaced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 07:42 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 01:39 AM by StorMFront.)
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 02:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 01:33 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  The universe cannot be infinitely large, I will explain why later. And infinities between integers are a creation of math, a human construct; concepts used to better understand and predict what we view as reality.

I look forward to seeing this explaination. I have heard from many cosmologists that it is possible that the universe is infinitely large. I'm not saying you are wrong or can't make the argument, you certainly can and there is nothing wrong with arguing against the prevailing veiw. It should be interesting.
The best thing, to understand what happened when the universe came into existence. Is to imagine, a old style tv,where in the middle of the tv, the image starts but then jumps to the whole screen. Yet dont stop there, that everywhere you look is the start of the universe, is/and the center of the screen when you first turn it on. That little white dot, at the start of turning on the tv, is everywhere as far as we know. We cant say for sure if its not infinite because there is no evidence saying the universe isnt or is, yet for what we see and know by physics its so large, it might as well be.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
08-03-2013, 07:18 AM
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 12:06 AM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  It is a common topic to talk about what a god should or should not be. Especially when done from a philosophical angle. We talk about whether god is omnipotent and/or omniscient. Whether or not god is eternal . Whether god is omni-benevolent or not, and so on. While the moral angle of god is definitely capable of being accessed, at least in my opinion. What I've come to think over is whether the same can be said for the other attributes of god.

Of course we can point out the contradictions of certain claims. Like how a strict omnipotence leads to the rock paradox or how omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible with one another. Yet outside of that we really don't have a means of determining who we would call god or how we could determine that this god was...well god.

For instance, say that a being came to our attention and claimed that it was god. Now our reaction might be to say that it needed to prove so. So it made a planet appear out right next to us in space without effecting our orbit. Would this be enough to say that this being was in fact a god? After all while extraordinary, this could just be a exceptionally powerful being. One that can make planets appear in space but not affect other planets around it. Such a being could do even greater things potentially and yet, with our only definitions of god being omnipotent, we might have a hard time drawing a line between a exceptionally powerful being and a non contradictory all-powerful being. We could keep demanding greater test but so long as it could pass them then we would still not know where we could draw that line between omnipotent and exceptional power.

This is just my thoughts and I hope that I could put them clearly. I also would like to hear what your's are. How would you define god?
This thought experiment falls to pieces when you realise that humankind has "had" several thousands of gods in its relatively short history. The Egyptians had minor gods literally for every aspect of their lives that they could observe (including water, grass, etc.).

So really, what kind/which god?

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 09:34 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(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.

And you have no evidence for any of this, just your revelation. Meh. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Defining God.
God is merely a shared identity function. Like republican. People get to flapping their gums about it, get to build their own party platform. Get teabagged. Ideally, the heights are unassailable; the most unassailable heights are the ones that don't exist. So a proxy is used. It's proxies all the way down, and you can be catholic or protestant, or silent, which means you don't exist...

Are you afraid of not existing?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
08-03-2013, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 10:40 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Defining God.
(05-03-2013 02:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Step 1: Write an algorithm that describes a being who knows one fact from the set of all facts and can do one thing from the set of all doable things.
Step 2: Take that algorithm and modify it so that it describes a being that it knows one additional fact from the set of all facts and can do one additional thing from the set of all doable things.
Step 3: Repeat step 2 an infinite number of times.

So God is an ongoing process which can never be completely realized. Think I could be down with that. Thumbsup

(08-03-2013 09:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  God is merely a shared identity function. Like republican. People get to flapping their gums about it, get to build their own party platform. Get teabagged. Ideally, the heights are unassailable; the most unassailable heights are the ones that don't exist. So a proxy is used. It's proxies all the way down, and you can be catholic or protestant, or silent, which means you don't exist...

Are you afraid of not existing?

Never not existing is a far more terrifying prospect. That'd be hell. I think God's in hell.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 10:54 AM
RE: Defining God.
(08-03-2013 07:18 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 12:06 AM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  It is a common topic to talk about what a god should or should not be. Especially when done from a philosophical angle. We talk about whether god is omnipotent and/or omniscient. Whether or not god is eternal . Whether god is omni-benevolent or not, and so on. While the moral angle of god is definitely capable of being accessed, at least in my opinion. What I've come to think over is whether the same can be said for the other attributes of god.

Of course we can point out the contradictions of certain claims. Like how a strict omnipotence leads to the rock paradox or how omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible with one another. Yet outside of that we really don't have a means of determining who we would call god or how we could determine that this god was...well god.

For instance, say that a being came to our attention and claimed that it was god. Now our reaction might be to say that it needed to prove so. So it made a planet appear out right next to us in space without effecting our orbit. Would this be enough to say that this being was in fact a god? After all while extraordinary, this could just be a exceptionally powerful being. One that can make planets appear in space but not affect other planets around it. Such a being could do even greater things potentially and yet, with our only definitions of god being omnipotent, we might have a hard time drawing a line between a exceptionally powerful being and a non contradictory all-powerful being. We could keep demanding greater test but so long as it could pass them then we would still not know where we could draw that line between omnipotent and exceptional power.

This is just my thoughts and I hope that I could put them clearly. I also would like to hear what your's are. How would you define god?
This thought experiment falls to pieces when you realise that humankind has "had" several thousands of gods in its relatively short history. The Egyptians had minor gods literally for every aspect of their lives that they could observe (including water, grass, etc.).

So really, what kind/which god?
I realize that. My question was oriented towards what qualities you think that god should have in order to justify calling him god. I'm not talking about abstract things like, god is ( or is in) that rock.
My question is, if a being showed itself to us and said that it was god, what qualities would it need in order for you to be convinced that it was god and not just a exceptionally powerful ( or advanced) being. And yes, I don't know is a legitimate answer.

Just an outsider looking inn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 03:29 PM
RE: Defining God.
(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So God is an ongoing process which can never be completely realized. Think I could be down with that. Thumbsup

One day I will do a thread that expands that line of thinking. The implications are quite frightful.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: Defining God.
(08-03-2013 03:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So God is an ongoing process which can never be completely realized. Think I could be down with that. Thumbsup

One day I will do a thread that expands that line of thinking. The implications are quite frightful.

Pffft, doubt it. At least not to anyone with even a little bit of training and education.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: