This is what I think god is. I am not religious. Agnostics and believers, how can this be dismisse

Originally posted by Astyanax

No, no, none of that stuff, just the slowness of His thoughts.

Well, it seems to me that most of your arguments against this "God" hinge on time being "real" rather than just an artifact of the human mind.

discovermagazine.com...

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

And of course there are others, Julian Barbour for one, who are also questioning "time." I wish I could find all of the articles I have read on the topic, but it would make for a long post, and you may already be familiar with the arguments.

If time does turn out to be other than we assume, your criticisms begin to break down. What does slow mean without it? Or even distance? What does cruelty mean when a thing exists in all possible states at once? Alive and dead, born and unborn, happy and sad, all at once?

Thats one of the problems with trying to evaluate the actions, motives, experience, etc., of "god" from a human perspective.

In your own body, many of the things you point to happening in nature and call cruel boring, aggressive, stupid, etc., happen all the time. Cells "die" cells are "born" some cells target and assassinate other cellls, much mechanical "boring" churning out of chemicals, impulses, etc, goes on, and yet our subjective conscious experience of this "universe that is us" is far from boring. (For many of us, anyway) We do not feel grief or sadness at the recycling of our cells, nor mourn their cruel fate. We do not decry the aggression of the cells that go after others, all of this happens without our awareness.

Even in this analogy, it is a mistake to think the experience of "god" would be like our own conscious experience, as we are limited by our senses and the architecture of our minds to experience in a specific way, that "god" may not be. Most mystics point us to the idea that dualism, or judgment is a "mistake" or error, many ancient philosophers spoke about being freed from the limits of the human form, to be able to experience "truth" in a more complete way.

It is difficult to imagine what it would be like to experience "being" or consciousness without judgment, time, division, duality, fear, mortality. It wouldnt even be "thought" as we know it, because thought itself is a linear process. Actually, philosophically, it is impossible to imagine what that would be like. Even our imaginary constructs require a "frankensteining" together of things it has had experience of, rather than a true creation of something never experienced.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Fine, so long as one doesn't expect this God to actually do anything. Why not go even further, and attribute holographic properties to Him? Then you can have all of God in every cell/atom/monad what have you. See the OP's Spinoza and raise him a Liebniz.

"Do" something? Im not quite sure what you are getting at. Obviously, a God such as the one we would be discussing would not be the Christian God, always out meddling on behalf of those who pleased him most by making the right prayers and sacrifices. What would "doing" have to do with anything? I think its problematic to take all concepts the label "god" is applied to and try to argue for or against them all simultaneously, since they are not all compatible.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Why 'misfiring'? If nature can come up with something like an orgasm, I wouldn't put anything past her.

Orgasms make perfect sense in humans. Mystic experiences do not. In a species which has concealed ovulation, and requires parental input from both parents, a reward for copulation has obvious benefits. And, it is commonly experience by humans. Not only does mystic experience have no obvious evolutionary (in physical terms) advantage, (mystics dont leave behind more genes than non mystics, in fact, often it is the opposite) it also is NOT experienced by the majority of humans. (As all the derision from science will attest) It would seem silly not to hold as a possibility that this could be just some random wiring abnormality that occasionally surfaces in individuals,
(like color blindness, or perhaps schizophrenia) that alters the perception of the individual, but which says nothing about "reality" itself.

reply to post by RainCloud

(The Chinese) developed for few thousand of years without ever knowing there is a blonde/blue eyed man.

You may have heard about this. There was even an ATS thread about it. The buried shaman was Caucasian, blond and blue-eyed. The Chinese have known about blond, blue-eyed men for at least 2,700 years.

Still, that wasn't your point. This was your point:

Does a neuron/brain develop intelligence alone by itself?

The 'China Brain' didn't need to; it had, and continues to have, outside input. The OP's 'Universal Brain' doesn't have outside input, but then it contains everything--the universe--so it's got literally all the information it needs to feed and develop its intellect.

China Brain doesnt know South America exist or Egypt, yet they too have pyramid/tumulus. Comparing earth as brain, its like two part of brain knowing how to build wheel and yet they never knew each other.

Convergent evolution. Not unheard of. And I don't think the OP's analogy is meant to extend as far as actual neurophysiology, somehow.

spy66 seems to propose a better concept that I can comprehend.

Good for you. Personally, I find Spy66's posts largely incomprehensible. Not to mention, in this instance, completely off topic.

*

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Well, it seems to me that most of your arguments against this "God" hinge on time being "real" rather than just an artifact of the human mind. If time does turn out to be other than we assume, your criticisms begin to break down. What does slow mean without it? Or even distance?

Circular argument, I'm afraid. If we are an element of the Universal Cognitive Entity, our perceptions are part of it too. Either it shares our illusions or it doesn't exist.

Oh, wait, there's a third possibility; we're part of some negative-feedback subroutine that can't access the rest of the information being processed by the UCE, so we operate in a permanent state of illusion. Maybe we can transcend the illusion. Here we go, guys... one, two, three, OMMMMMM...ahhh...transcend!

>CLANGCLANGCLANGCLANG<

...yikes! The Subroutine Malfunction Alarm!

Guys, I think we just screwed up the UCE...

Nope. Won't wash, whether time exists or not.

What does cruelty mean when a thing exists in all possible states at once? Alive and dead, born and unborn, happy and sad, all at once?

Under those conditions, cruelty would mean nothing. Neither would anything else. No meaning, no value. Nihilism would rule.

Thats one of the problems with trying to evaluate the actions, motives, experience, etc., of "god" from a human perspective.

Could you suggest another perspective that is possible for a human being? No, wait, you've already answered that:

Actually, philosophically, it is impossible to imagine what (a non-human perspective) would be like. Even our imaginary constructs require a "frankensteining" together of things it has had experience of, rather than a true creation of something never experienced.

Correct.

*

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
"Do" something? Im not quite sure what you are getting at. Obviously, a God such as the one we would be discussing would not be the Christian God, always out meddling on behalf of those who pleased him most by making the right prayers and sacrifices.

Okay, then, what flavour of divinity would this be? If it doesn't intervene in history, and if it didn't create the universe or anything inside it, how does it qualify for the title God?

Maybe taking this quiz will help you answer.

All divinities arising out of traditional cultures are meddlers, not just the Christian God; see, for example, the Iliad. Only philosophers from highly sophisticated cultures come up with unmeddlesome gods. Indeed, as I am sure you know, these concepts are collectively known as the God of the Philosophers. As Spy66 or other true believers will happily explain to you at length, the God of the Philosophers is no god at all.

Orgasms make perfect sense in humans. Mystic experiences do not. (Orgasm is) is commonly experience by humans... Mystic experience... is NOT.

Fair enough. I was only being half-serious anyway. However, there is much we do not know about evolutionary biology, and things formerly regarded as evolutionary leftovers or errors are increasingly being found to have an organic function--see, for example, the recent rehabilitation of the human appendix.

Not all phenotypical anomalies (a mystical experience may be termed part of what biologists call the 'extended phenotype') are necessarily flaws or malfunctions. Some humans are tetrachromes; they have four rather than the usual three types of retinal cones attuned to different wavelengths of light, and can therefore see four instead of three primary colours. This usually manifests itself as two 'kinds' of green--not two shades, but two completely different colours. This hardly seems like a handicap, although it is a genetic anomaly. Perfect pitch in musicians, the abilities of mathematical savants and so on are all anomalies, but they are not generally thought of as handicaps (though people with unusual gifts are often handicapped in other ways). One could equally well see mystical propensities as such a gift.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Circular argument, I'm afraid. If we are an element of the Universal Cognitive Entity, our perceptions are part of it too. Either it shares our illusions or it doesn't exist.

Well, I do not see how that is a circular argument. I am not using my conclusion as a premise upon which I found my conclusion. I am not actually coming to a conclusion. I am saying something more like your third possibility except without the sarcasm.

My liver cells do not see. As far as I know. But "I" see. My eyes are not endowed with the same abilities my ears are, etc. As the overarching consciousness of my body (I assume that I am as I am aware of no other) I experience in a way my individual cells do not. It seems a bit flippant to say that the whole MUST experience exactly the same as every component. As far as we know, this is not the case in biological organisms. Although perhaps if we could learn to speak to our little cells we would find that they too want sports cars and houses in the suburbs, and that my liver cells long for a view of the ocean.

All of x is y, does not mean that all of y must be x. Being wholly contained in "God" doesnt not logically imply that all of "God" must be contained in us.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Maybe we can transcend the illusion. Here we go, guys... one, two, three, OMMMMMM...ahhh...transcend!

Personally, from my own thinking and that of others, it would be impossible to transcend the physical limits of the body while alive. No matter how loudly we shout "Ommm." At best, we could realize that what we see is not the whole thing, that we are living in an "illusion." Which is what it seems to me most of the famed mystics ask us to consider.

Science does too, by the way, ask us to accept that what we see is not the totality of all things. The visible spectrum of light is not the measurable spectrum, and the measurable spectrum may end up likewise prove to be limited by our mechanical abilities.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Nope. Won't wash, whether time exists or not.

Well, technically, I was arguing that YOUR arguments or criticisms of this "god" would not exist without time. And you agreed.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Under those conditions, cruelty would mean nothing. Neither would anything else. No meaning, no value. Nihilism would rule.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Okay, then, what flavour of divinity would this be? If it doesn't intervene in history, and if it didn't create the universe or anything inside it, how does it qualify for the title God?

It would qualify as "God" because it is the sum of all that Is.

Maybe taking this quiz will help you answer.

All divinities arising out of traditional cultures are meddlers, not just the Christian God; see, for example, the Iliad. Only philosophers from highly sophisticated cultures come up with unmeddlesome gods. Indeed, as I am sure you know, these concepts are collectively known as the God of the Philosophers. As Spy66 or other true believers will happily explain to you at length, the God of the Philosophers is no god at all.

Originally posted by Astyanax--see, for example, the recent rehabilitation of the human appendix.

I agree. Not knowing the function of a thing does not mean it doesnt have one. And, mystic experience may well turn out to have a function. But, if this is so, it MAY turn out to be a function that only makes sense if you view humanity as a collective, as all individuals do not have mystic experience. All humans do have an appendix, (well the vast majority to be sure) but only a small percent of all humans have mystic experience. It also MAY be a relic, or it MAY turn out to be a new trait gaining a foothold in the population and just having a hell of a time doing so.

Originally posted by Astyanax Perfect pitch in musicians, the abilities of mathematical savants and so on are all anomalies, but they are not generally thought of as handicaps (though people with unusual gifts are often handicapped in other ways). One could equally well see mystical propensities as such a gift.

I agree that mystical propensities may be a gift, or otherwise an anomaly. But I dont see that we can take "mistake" off the table at this point either.

And, just for general knowledge, it is beginning to seem to researchers that the "gift" of mathematical genius or other forms of "savantism" are not really a special ability in that area. In other words they dont have a magnificent portion of their brain that allows them to exceed the abilities of "normals" but rather it is their ability or need to focus intently on the one area that allows such "genius." This can result from not having other areas to choose from, if other areas of the brain do not function well.

hubpages.com...

They have found a few frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients who suddenly acquired savant syndrome with the onset and progression of FTD. Many of them did not have artistic abilities in the past but artistic abilities had emerged as FTD proceeded. They had acquired visual or musical skills but verbal and cognitive skills have deteriorated. Most of their works are meticulous copies of the original copy of the artwork. Like other savants, they develop obsessive preoccupation of their work.

Different kinds of accidents and hemorrhagic incidences to the head had been reported that had made the patients savants after their tragic accidents.

Interesting stuff.

Edit to add;

And I am aware that this sort of a "God" would be rather unsatisfying for most. I am also aware that the "God" of most cultures is indeed a busybody. However, I would argue that there were likely individuals even in these primitive cultures who were on the same page with the philosophers, and that the "God" they elaborated to the masses was a convenience, not an example of their own understanding.

Plato, for instance, hinted at the need to use religion to get people to do the things they needed to do for the good of society with his "noble lie." The Ten Commandments of Christianity are, when evaluated impassively, little more than a guide to "How to play the game of group selection and win." I suspect that as long as there have been people, there have been people who discern the true nature of things, (to varying degree) and then are faced with the difficulty of getting their group to do the things that need to be done to thrive.

I would argue that traditional Gods, (much like boogey men and Santa) are ways these cutting edge humans bribed or threatened others into behaving in ways that benefit the whole, whether they understand the underlying logic or not. If you cant get people to reason with you, you might choose to break the concept down to a level they can process to achieve your end.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Astyanax


I took the quiz, bite the bullet 3 times. The wordings of the question surely need major overhaul. Any comments on my belief ? I dont really understand what the analysis is saying by the way. Need simpler explanation.

No, I dont cheat and Yes I choose the rapist as innocent.
What a strong belief eh ?

Records

[edit on 6-8-2010 by RainCloud]

reply to post by Astyanax



I forgot to take the quiz until I read the reply by Rain.

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction.

The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

The bullet I bit was for saying lack of evidence is not grounds for disbelief. Which I would think was self evident, but apparently, it is a view most people find it "strange, incredible or unpalatable."

To me, lack of evidence is just lack of evidence, and in such cases I remain agnostic, I do not become a "disbeliever."

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by spy66

But mathematically there is no way we can tap in from a physical finite being.

Except for fractals

It is only our frame of reference that appears finite. So if you can change your frame of reference, you can see more of 'god'.

Fits nicely within the concepts of 'changing state of mind' and 'altered states of consciousness'...

---

I do think the word 'god' should be re-examined. It should not, ever refer to a male party like 'Him' or 'his' etc.

Good thread though OP, I agree with the concept that we are all neurons in the mind of the world - as it resonates with fractal systems and mathematics.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

I think i can answer all your questions. But to get you to understand what i am trying to say is harder

Hence my, somewhat, delayed reply. I have thought about this all weekend and it makes sense....but ( )

If something is infinite it must be both small and large at the same time. Infinite can't be just one: Small or Large. Only a finite can be either small or large. But never infinite.

More accurately stated, God = infinity??

Now, its easier to see that God is both infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time. And you can see that there is no finite in the image yet.

So God (which is basically infinity) is both infinitively large and infinitively small, infinitively powerful and infinitively weak, infinitively smart and infinitively dumb etc etc. It can never be one of those two options because God would then cease to exist as an infinite entity....??

It would seem more that God, by this definition, is merely the vessel that contains everything dualistic. God is merely the balance between all that is and all that isn't.

It could not have an arbitrary function in this because he is both (or all)...??

how did God create the finite? Where did God get them from?
Well there is only one explanation for how God could have created finite, which must exist within himself. And that is by a compression.

But I thought that God already was finite because, by the definition given, if God is infinite then he must also be finite. There could be no conscious "creation" process going on here because that would imply that it chooses to be either one or the other, ultimately destroying himself.

We started out by saying "God = infinity, infinite must be both small and large at the same time. Infinite can't be just one", but infinite (as a single entity??) did manage to "create" the finite so it complies with it's own definition?? That doesn't make sense. ( )

Finite must have been present from the start for infinite to become.

But since we do exist. The infinite must have wanted it, if not we would not have existed.

That, to me, would be like saying:" The dark must have wanted the light to exist else it would not exist", while the reality is that the dark would not be without the light. It might appear that infinite "choose" for the finite to exist while I believe that infinity could not exist without the finite....

But to get you to understand what i am trying to say is harder

I think you are right!! If the frustration gets to much, just let me know.

Peace

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Well, I do not see how that is a circular argument. I am not using my conclusion as a premise upon which I found my conclusion. I am not actually coming to a conclusion. I am saying something more like your third possibility except without the sarcasm.

You are right; pardon the terminological lapse. It is not circular, but instead leads to a paradox, thus:

• Time has no objective existence. It is 'just an artifact of the human mind.'
  
• The human mind partakes of the Universal Cognitive Entity, the Divine Mind. It is a part of God.
  
• Therefore God created time. It is an artifact of the Divine Mind.
  
• Therefore time has an existence beyond the human mind.
  
• Time has objective existence.

One way out of this paradox is the subroutine argument I suggested--my 'third possibility', as you put it. However, this involves messing up the subroutine, which is not likely to be very good for the health of the UCE. In trying to unite with God, we may end up seriously damaging or even destroying Him. As you say,

My liver cells do not see. As far as I know. But "I" see.

However, if your liver cells stop functioning as they are intended to and try to acquire visual powers for themselves, you would soon be seeing nothing at all.

It seems a bit flippant to say that the whole MUST experience exactly the same as every component.

Not even in the case of God? You say,

Being wholly contained in "God" doesnt not logically imply that all of "God" must be contained in us.

But that is not the point. It is that God, being God, must be aware of all things, including the activities and perceptions of His component parts or subroutines.

It's either that, or give up on divine omniscience and omnipotence. Perhaps you are willing to do this, but a God that was limited in scope of either vision or action would be a very unsatisfactory kind of God, wouldn't it? Few people would agree with you that.

it would qualify as "God" because it is the sum of all that Is.

After all, mere existence is no qualification for divinity.

I was arguing that YOUR arguments or criticisms of this "god" would not exist without time. And you agreed.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Under those conditions, cruelty would mean nothing. Neither would anything else. No meaning, no value. Nihilism would rule.

Say rather that I agreed that God could not exist without time, and therefore neither could my criticisms of Him, because they could not pertain to a nullity.

*

reply to posts by RainCloud, Illusionsaregrander

I wasn't really expecting to post up quiz results--it seems like a diversion from the thread. For what it's worth, Illusionsaregrander, I scored the same as you, and this was the 'bullet' I bit:

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

And bite the bullet I must, for I certainly believe this is true, and logical arguments about the nature of God are mere sterile game-playing. However, the world as it appears to the human mind is both self-consistent and rational; even the paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise from the dutiful obedience of quanta to the laws of their realm. There seems no reason to invoke the irrational to explain any of it.

Rain Cloud, it's not possible to interpret your 'bullets' without knowing your answers to all the questions.

reply to post by OnceReturned


Some things that came to mind as I skimmed your OP:

the Philip experiment
noosphere
global consciousness project
morphogenetic fields

Originally posted by Astyanax

You are right; pardon the terminological lapse. It is not circular, but instead leads to a paradox, thus:

• Time has no objective existence. It is 'just an artifact of the human mind.'
  
• The human mind partakes of the Universal Cognitive Entity, the Divine Mind. It is a part of God.
  
• Therefore God created time. It is an artifact of the Divine Mind.
  
• Therefore time has an existence beyond the human mind.
  
• Time has objective existence.

Tne way out of this paradox is the subroutine argument I suggested--my 'third possibility', as you put it. However, this involves messing up the subroutine, which is not likely to be very good for the health of the UCE.

I am not familiar with the terminology, (Subroutine, UCE) but, I do not think there is a paradox. You keep insisting that the limit of the human mind MUST BE reflected in the "Divine Consciousness." That if a limit exists in a component part, it must also exist in the whole.

Human beings do not perceive ultraviolet light. Some birds and insects do. Did our becoming aware of ultraviolet light mess up "God?" If limits of a component part need be reflected in the whole, why do all component parts have differing limits? Do we belong to different wholes or Gods? Even if all beings like us, (3 dimensional beings,) perceive time, why do we assume that perception would be the same to a God who may be 10 or more dimensional according to some theories in physics? (Where God=All that is) It doesnt seem paradoxical at all to me. Just difficult to grasp when our minds are locked into their limited perspective.

Originally posted by Astyanax
In trying to unite with God, we may end up seriously damaging or even destroying Him. As you say,

My liver cells do not see. As far as I know. But "I" see.

However, if your liver cells stop functioning as they are intended to and try to acquire visual powers for themselves, you would soon be seeing nothing at all.

But again, this argument requires that "time" be a real thing, not just a perceptual thing. If there is no time, nothing is changing, no matter how it appears to us. God cannot change, we cannot effect change, everything would be just exactly as it is, as it must be. The fact that it appears to be changing is irrelevant. When we watch a movie, for instance, it appears that things are happening, but they arent. Everyone of those "cell" containing a split second of action is already existent in the film can. (If they still use reels, I dont know, but assume they do) The whole movie from beginning to end is already shot, the ending is a foregone conclusion, and yet to us, it is playing out in time, because we are experiencing it one frame at a time, in a linear fashion.

Julian Barbours universe is somewhat like that, except not linear. Every possible moment exists as a "frame" and our consciousnesses run a path through them, which happens to be linear. But the God consciousness does not have to experience in that way. It can be aware of all possible frames simultaneously.

Originally posted by Astyanax
But that is not the point. It is that God, being God, must be aware of all things, including the activities and perceptions of His component parts or subroutines.

It's either that, or give up on divine omniscience and omnipotence.

In this sense, "God" would be "omniscient" and "omnipotent" nothing happens God is not aware of. And, all things, (since God is "All that is") happen under "Gods" power, (they have to, nothing exists outside of God) but such a God is not a "doer" who is "doing" things, because "doing" would not be meaningful to something that is eternal and unchanging. Even though to us it appears to be in a state of constant change.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Perhaps you are willing to do this, but a God that was limited in scope of either vision or action would be a very unsatisfactory kind of God, wouldn't it? Few people would agree with you that.

Popularity has nothing to do with truth. Not saying that I could tell the absolute truth, I doubt I could. But popularity does not dictate truth in any way. No matter how unpopular gravity may be when a group of people are driven off a cliff, gravity will still effect every one of them. Death also is highly unpopular, and much struggled against, and it too remains the truth of our perceptual existence.

Originally posted by Astyanax
After all, mere existence is no qualification for divinity.

Well, that would be open for debate. I had to take medieval philosophy too, so I have seen all the arguments for God, and what God must be like, blah blah, but all these arguments tend to be about one God. The God of Abraham. Other traditions have a One, like the one I am describing.

bulfinch.englishatheist.org...

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Say rather that I agreed that God could not exist without time, and therefore neither could my criticisms of Him, because they could not pertain to a nullity.

Why is something that exists without time be null? You forget, physics is grappling with time too, and they are not coming to the conclusion that a universe without time is "null." Not to imply they are all coming to the conclusion time is an artifact, that would be untrue, but I have not heard the argument that time must exist or all of this is null.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I wasn't really expecting to post up quiz results--it seems like a diversion from the thread. For what it's worth, Illusionsaregrander, I scored the same as you, and this was the 'bullet' I bit:

Interesting. And I doubt we can derail the thread in any meaningful way, since there are so few of us discussing.The results are relevant to our discussion, in that they illuminate the thinking of the participants. For instance,

Originally posted by Astyanax
And bite the bullet I must, for I certainly believe this is true, and logical arguments about the nature of God are mere sterile game-playing. However, the world as it appears to the human mind is both self-consistent and rational; even the paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise from the dutiful obedience of quanta to the laws of their realm. There seems no reason to invoke the irrational to explain any of it.

I did not have to invoke the irrational to make the statement "God is real" in that quiz. I just had to remain agnostic, (unknowing) about something for which there is no evidence proving or disproving it. Your argument went into irrationality because you insisted God can "do" things, which requires time as a "real" thing.

All I had to do was agree with Socrates.

I do not think there can be no logical or rational discussion of God. But I do not feel that there has to be a "right or wrong" conclusion, nor do I feel that the human mind can grasp in its fullness "Aletheie" or "well rounded truth." Our minds are not designed to facilitate that. It is, however, enjoyable to try to push against that bound. At least one physicist has proposed that our logic needs amending to take into consideration that things may not be "this or that" but rather they can be "both this and that" and "neither this or that." Much like the sages did eons ago.

So rationality itself, in our perception, has the potential for change, even if Aletheie does not.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by OnceReturned

I must admit...I was looking around for a Jesus thread that hadn't been kicked down to BTS. So I clicked here.

My reflections on God are to simply go back a couple of thousand years, lately. It's like yesterday, really, once you lose the restrictions of self and 'today'. Some nut running around with connections to the Universe, performing stunts that would forever be denied. He had to have known this would happen, even when it happened. I'm inclined to believe Jesus. I believe that he literally had quantum connections to the Universe and spoke vociferously, effectively, and even in contradictions, in response to what must have been terribly powerful and evil jews, romans, officials, anyone who thought they had power.

If you want this, plant the seed. All the god damn day the world will try to destroy what you planted, it's expected. Evil has not gone away. It is here, or this website wouldn't even exist. The connections are faster than light and make the Universe seem tiny, as we knew it, but never ends. But I think God allows sovereignty of spirit, a personal gift of it that is not likely to disperse collectively, else, one would never even notice the unusual power and glory of said gifts. I believe the 'levels' being explored in quantum mechanics are exactly what spirit is to man, and they are very capable of being reduced by what is known as a 'fall' in your journey. Hard to go up, easy to bring down. I can't see the collective brain, unless it is made up of those of it's kind.

When they decided to off Jesus, they got their answer, in a perverse way. Will they listen? Again...I keep thinking how close it was in time..so near. Just one small example of God trying to show man his workings. I don't think man will ever have it, personally. Man doesn't really want it.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I got the 2nd place award too. I believed that Evolution has proven itself to my own personal satisfaction, but that a person can't simply believe in God through faith alone.

Personally, I still don't see the contradiction. But, it's their website.

reply to post by OnceReturned


What of load of jibberish...

WHy do you "smart people" burn through so many brain cells trying to explain "God" and people belief in him?

It is like you are trying to show people "This is all you are doing. Praying to a China Brain. See...I explained it. Now stop."

Here is a thought. Relax. You ain't smarter then 1 billion Muslims/Catholics. If Plato/ Einstein and Marx can't settle it then please don't try to settle it yourself.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


I dont know where to begin. It doesn't seam like you understand the science that you read.

When you say that God is infinitely smart and infinitely dumb and so on. It tells me you dont know the difference between Finite and Infinite.

You back that up by stating the Finite must have exist before the infinite? Where did you Google that ??????????

Being smart and dumb are based on choices. What does that have to do with being infinite?

Originally posted by crmanager

Here is a thought. Relax. You ain't smarter then 1 billion Muslims/Catholics. If Plato/ Einstein and Marx can't settle it then please don't try to settle it yourself.

Depending on our individual IQs, and how those sit on the curve, it is possible that any one of us or all of us objectively ARE smarter than 1 billion Catholics Muslims etc. But really thats beside the point. Most religious people are not religious because of their deep thoughts on the issue. They are religious because their parents were, and they were trained from infancy to accept without thought the dictates of said religion. Smarts have nothing to do with most peoples belief.


The fact that three recognized historical minds failed to solve something is not a reason that no one should continue to try. Those three minds also failed to provide us with antibiotics, heart surgery, and a slew of other things we appreciate having. So speculating on things "unresolved" by those three individuals is not necessarily pointless.

And, for those of us who are by training or nature philosophers, its kinda what we do. If you dont like it, avoid forums that begin with the word "Philosophy."

Edit to add;

Oh yeah, and brain cells are not "burned up" by thinking, in case you were avoiding it out of fear of running out of brain cells. Problem solving actually seems to work to prevent the loss of brain power, it doesnt cause it.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I am not familiar with the terminology, (Subroutine, UCE) but, I do not think there is a paradox.

UCE = Universal Cognitive Entity = Divine Consciousness = God (the basic premise of this thread).

Subroutine: if the universe is a vast, single consciousness, then human consciousness must be part of its processes. A subroutine.

You keep insisting that the limit of the human mind MUST BE reflected in the "Divine Consciousness." That if a limit exists in a component part, it must also exist in the whole.

No. Come on, you're smarter than that.

I say that if the human mind is part of God, then, if the human mind creates something, it means a part of God created that something--and since God is a unity in some sense (otherwise it could not be named), it follows that God created that something. God created time.

But again, this argument requires that "time" be a real thing.

Yes, or else God doesn't exist, because nothing exists. Time is like space--it is what prevents everything from being in one big lump. It is what gives rise to what Indian sages call the 'ten thousand things'.

I don't buy the nonexistence of time. Not yet, anyway. Barbour feels that some problems in physics are easier to solve, or do not even arise, if time is assumed not to exist. Very well, but that raises an equally hairy set of questions in epistemology. It also demands a physically credible and coherent concept to replace that of time without doing violence to commonplace experience. He hasn't got that yet, or anything close to it. In other words, let alone experimental evidence, he hasn't even got a theory. It'll be a while--if ever--before physics abandons time.

Why is something that exists without time be null?

Nothing could exist without time, or some workable substitute for it.

I don't think your concept of a God that does nothing but just exist will fly, either. Maybe such a being exists, but it is unnecessary as well as unsatisfactory, so we can safely ignore its existence for all practical purposes.

I derive absolutely no pleasure in speculating idly on the existence or nature of God. I am on this thread to uphold the idea that all such speculations are futile--useless, time-wasting and easily exploded by contact with physical reality.

[edit on 8/8/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax

I derive absolutely no pleasure in speculating idly on the existence or nature of God. I am on this thread to uphold the idea that all such speculations are futile--useless, time-wasting and easily exploded by contact with physical reality.

Ok. Then I will refrain from further time wasting discussion on the subject.

You might want to discuss your topic of choice with crmanager though, he or she seems to be of the same opinion.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You might want to discuss your topic of choice with crmanager though, he or she seems to be of the same opinion.

I don't see that. Would you please explain?

Six posts up this page.

crmanager says that arguing about god is a waste of time and braincells.

Not as elegant as your phrasing, but, the same bottom line.