God In a Few Words or More

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Right. It has been argued (by Wittgenstein, Derrida and others) that language is all we can really know. It is the limit of our minds. I'm beginning to think that that is the case. All knowledge is a compilation of written and oral language passed down from generation to generation. In this sense, only language can be God, and our faith can only be in language as an expression of reality.

Good thoughts.

Thanks, Interesting and agreeable examples about helen keller and noam chomskys work.

When you say all knowledge is a compilation of written and oral language, I do not agree. This is where I bring up the idea that reality, is a more primal more physical language, and language is an attempt to map reality, in symbols/words.

Our senses are more primal then our language. Our sensual existence is communication between our physicality and the physical processes subtle and fierce that surround us. Quadrillions of 'particles' of light bouncing around every second all around you and entering your eye, telling you information of the items that lay around you. You dont need to learn a language to know after experimenting a few times, that when you push the boulder to the edge of a hill and then some more, it will roll down the hill. A cat doesnt need to know language to know how far and high it needs to jump to get onto a window sill, yet I would still call this activity by the cat an act of 'knowing'.

But yes language is a very main quality that separates us, and separated us to begin with from the other animals. our ability to break reality down into a symbolic map, to use and command with one another and understand whats going on internally and externally. To make plans, and to learn about nature.

Everything we perceive with the senses are internal representations. What we define as real is pretty much what we need to stay alive, our ability to perceive allows us to interact, locate food and learn from our mistakes.

What is Jesus Christ was an example of punctuated equilibrium in relation to evolutionary theory. A type of human that will be common place in say about 1 billion years. The reason he should do what is described in the Holy Bible is due to him being able to perceive that he is quantum entangled with reality.

Religions state with emphasis that paranormal abilities are possible and further that this is due to a
Deity that created everything.

As an example God as Love is God is Love and God exist then love is a substance, modern physics has not yet identified as such. Given Gods is love then heaven could be place. Where what we treat as objective is subjective a place where emotions take up space/time and representable as what in such a place has mass.

Insofar as claiming that God should be negated because God is just a thought dismisses the potential of conscious life existing in reality because reality is conscious.

Again LM you are applying some "out of sight, out of mind" logic to your position and as is clear your only basis for that is an internal representation.

Humans evolve so LM what do you think they will be able to do in 1 billion years?

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

Insofar as claiming that God should be negated because God is just a thought dismisses the potential of conscious life existing in reality because reality is conscious.

I'm not sure of your logic here. God is a thought because conscious life conceived of it.

I never said god should be negated. I think it should be understood. How does god manifest? What is it we actually put our faith in? In words only. Language should be understood, then we will understand God.

Again LM you are applying some "out of sight, out of mind" logic to your position and as is clear your only basis for that is an internal representation.

I agree. However, some apply "out of sight, in mind" logic, which really makes zero sense. Even the most idea-oriented philosophers (those that believe everything is idea rather than substance, philosophical idealism) admit that what they perceive is from outside themselves. So there has to be something, namely sense data, before it can be computed into a perception.

The interesting thing is that out of something such as language, one can create "infinite possibilities with finite means", meaning that out of 26 letters and 10 numbers, one can create an unlimited number of ideas, even ideas that go beyond reason and common sense. For instance, I can conceive of a golden mountain as if there was such a thing, but only because I have first perceived gold and mountains. Once again, "infinite possibility (golden mountains) out of finite means (gold, mountains)". God is one like the golden mountain.

Also, I can conceive the possibility of infinity, that one number can be placed after another an infinite amount of times, yet it would take an infinite amount of years to find anything willing to take the time to do so. So infinity exists only in language, as a "possibility", and there it shall remain. God is like infinity, a placeholder for "possibility", and as that possibility diminishes, so does the idea God.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Kashai

 

Insofar as claiming that God should be negated because God is just a thought dismisses the potential of conscious life existing in reality because reality is conscious.

I'm not sure of your logic here. God is a thought because conscious life conceived of it.

I never said god should be negated. I think it should be understood. How does god manifest? What is it we actually put our faith in? In words only. Language should be understood, then we will understand God.

Again LM you are applying some "out of sight, out of mind" logic to your position and as is clear your only basis for that is an internal representation.

I agree. However, some apply "out of sight, in mind" logic, which really makes zero sense. Even the most idea-oriented philosophers (those that believe everything is idea rather than substance, philosophical idealism) admit that what they perceive is from outside themselves. So there has to be something, namely sense data, before it can be computed into a perception.

The interesting thing is that out of something such as language, one can create "infinite possibilities with finite means", meaning that out of 26 letters and 10 numbers, one can create an unlimited number of ideas, even ideas that go beyond reason and common sense. For instance, I can conceive of a golden mountain as if there was such a thing, but only because I have first perceived gold and mountains. Once again, "infinite possibility (golden mountains) out of finite means (gold, mountains)". God is one like the golden mountain.

Also, I can conceive the possibility of infinity, that one number can be placed after another an infinite amount of times, yet it would take an infinite amount of years to find anything willing to take the time to do so. So infinity exists only in language, as a "possibility", and there it shall remain. God is like infinity, a placeholder for "possibility", and as that possibility diminishes, so does the idea God.

Energy cannot be destroyed, that consciousness serves a purpose in reality cannot be determined without knowing reality. One cannot in my opinion simply be dismissive of a phenomenon because of ones personal experiences.

And given that the indigenous of this planet have never been explored in relation to this phenomenon. I see little reasons to support the position that this phenomenon can be dismissed.

Scientism or for that matter any other form of extremism is essentially an exercise in politics.

Altogether Gravity Theory is a theory because it is impossible for us to form any real determination that it absolute. With respect to the nature of Religion the paranormal seems apparent with citations to rules that exist in relation to how reality is organized that way. With the paranormal the issue is similar to that of gravity in relation to modern science, this being that any real proof in science requires a test of an entire population.

Otherwise this conclusion that thoughts are not significant can be expressed but only as another belief.

With respect to quantum entanglements the processes related to consciousness are non-random. I mean even if one only considers physical movement from place to place it certainly is non-random. As Materialist often insist the Universe is the result of a random event if so that why are not all processes random.?

Human as well animal activity is not random.

Outside of consciousness the only real non-random event we have observed is in relation to EPR Paradox and Bells Theorem.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

Energy cannot be destroyed, that consciousness serves a purpose in reality cannot be determined without knowing reality. One cannot in my opinion simply be dismissive of a phenomenon because of ones personal experiences.

And given that the indigenous of this planet have never been explored in relation to this phenomenon. I see little reasons to support the position that this phenomenon can be dismissed.

Scientism or for that matter any other form of extremism is essentially an exercise in politics.

Altogether Gravity Theory is a theory because it is impossible for us to form any real determination that it absolute. With respect to the nature of Religion the paranormal seems apparent with citations to rules that exist in relation to how reality is organized that way. With the paranormal the issue is similar to that of gravity in relation to modern science, this being that any real proof in science requires a test of an entire population.

Otherwise this conclusion that thoughts are not significant can be expressed but only as another belief.

With respect to quantum entanglements the processes related to consciousness are non-random. I mean even if one only considers physical movement from place to place it certainly is non-random. As Materialist often insist the Universe is the result of a random event if so that why are not all processes random.?

Human as well animal activity is not random.

Outside of consciousness the only real non-random event we have observed is in relation to EPR Paradox and Bells Theorem.

Any thoughts?

How is consciousness energy? That's a new one to me. Energy is the ability to do work. And how is consciousness a phenomena when there's nothing of consciousness to perceive? A phenomena is an object of a person's perception. Show me this energy and phenomena called consciousness. I've been asking this since I started writing here, still no answer. I dismiss it because there is nothing there we can give that name to.

All your ideas are deduced from this "phenomena" which you cannot produce nor observe. There's only one reason you can have faith in such a particular—you've read it somewhere, you enjoyed the feeling of power it gave you, and you have believed it ever since. Faith in words. Or perhaps you've seen it?

This has nothing to do with "scientism", quantum mechanics or materialism. This has to do with faith in words, which everyone is guilty of.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope


How is consciousness energy? That's a new one to me. Energy is the ability to do work. And how is consciousness a phenomena when there's nothing of consciousness to perceive? A phenomena is an object of a person's perception. Show me this energy and phenomena called consciousness. I've been asking this since I started writing here, still no answer. I dismiss it because there is nothing there we can give that name to.

All your ideas are deduced from this "phenomena" which you cannot produce nor observe. There's only one reason you can have faith in such a particular—you've read it somewhere, you enjoyed the feeling of power it gave you, and you have believed it ever since. Faith in words. Or perhaps you've seen it?

This has nothing to do with "scientism", quantum mechanics or materialism. This has to do with faith in words, which everyone is guilty of.

Everything is technically energy. I dont know much about sciences view of consciousness, but if its thought to be neuron brain firings and connections, that all requires energy, and the action of constant brain firings and signals to the brain from all over the body in the form of senses, is energy;thermal,chemical,electrical. So consciousness it seems is the sum of this activity. If you stopped getting energy into your body for a few weeks your consciousness would stop working. Other then that consciousness is completely baffling. How you are so lucid right now, how those millions of firings a second result in a cohesive stream of awareness, and you are aware of this awareness. So I think the reason for the elusiveness of consciousness is the quick rate at which it processes, Its an action, activity, a transfer, not a particle or object or thing.

Say we have a tub of water and know the exact amount of water; then I take a piece of wood and wave it back and forth in the water creating waves; Even though there is the same amount of water in the tub (maybe less if the wood took some out) there is more energy, because the transfer of momentum from the wood to the water from my motions. If we took a picture of the bath tub with waving water, im not sure if people would be able to know the energy. I think this is a similar problem with consciousness; In that if we try to just disect and take pictures of this complex subtle process, we only get half the true story, and if we try to observe not pictorially but over time; Well I think we can get the transfers of energy, but I guess its just not yet known how the physical processes we observe equate to the result we are familiar with experiencing.

Its an action, activity, a transfer, not a particle or object or thing. I said that above. Something interesting to think about it, and potentially the reason for the particle/wave ideas. Due to the existence of time (or change, instability, non invincibility of matter), It is only a matter of perspective that objects or things exist. If we take a picture, yes that seems like a particle. but in reality it is like a billion pictures a second, and in time that particle will have changed, and in time, it shall change more and more, so what is the true nature of that particle. The same could be said for a rock or tree...or anything we are familiar with as an object right now. And this is as even atoms, something that are considered particles of matter, are composed of 'things' that appear to be particles, but are made of waves or particles of energy. Plot a particles trajectory over time and it just might appear as a wave. But how can an object be a wave?

Here are a few definitions:

God is a Spirit - The all-powerful creator of all things.
God is Omnipresence - Space - Filling all things with openness, peace, and unconditional love.
God is Omniscience - Mind - All knowing intelligence.
God is a combination of all three.
God is Goodness.
God is Love.
God is All.
God is The Universe.

God is All seems to be the best definition in my opinion because it encompasses all of these things. It would also make sense with how God is omnipresent (everywhere).