What is God?

[blü 2]

If I may please ask, How are we to distinguish between photos of objects situated in a virtual reality by comparison to photos of objects situated in base reality?

Good point. You'd better demonstrate the real thing, then.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In other words you agree that God isn't present in reality, and accordingly is not a real entity.The only other way [he] can exist is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain.

Yes, God is not present in reality, that implies reality and God are two different things, reality the container and God inside it. Try to understand, God is reality! The ONE that is ALL.

Perhaps it will help you if you understand that any and all concepts of God are not God. A concept is a mental creation of the brain, a concept is meant to represent something real, but it itself is merely a mental creation, that which it is represents however may be real. To apprehend God, the mind must cease thinking, no concept in the mind, the mind must be totally quiet, then what is present to apprehend is reality.

 

[blü 2]

The question of 'how' is a different question than the question of 'if.' You can't know nothing in the universe is omniscient without yourself being omniscient - which is self-defeating.

It's a reasonable conclusion that omniscience exists only in imagination.

For example, omniscience is brainbendingly inefficient, since it requires the subject to have present knowledge of not only a, b and c, but all relationships of a, b and c, that is, a, b, c / ab, ac, bc / ba, ac, bc / ab, ca, bc ... and so on. If the radius of the universe is (say) 4.57 e +10 light years, then the volume of the universe in cubes of Planck length side is 8.022 e +175 Planck cubes. So the omniscient being not only has to know of each of those cubes (leaving aside the question of whether in an omniscient understanding there are more data inside them) but the relationship between any cube and any other cube, every possible grouping within the totality of the cubes, the dynamics of the universe as they affect each cube in each case, on and on and on without regard to relevance.

And not only of every thought every thinking critter will ever have, but every possible thought it might have had and every thought it could not have had.

Nor is there any hypothesis as to how this information could be obtained, stored, retrieved, kept up to date, and so on.

A real omniscient God would of course know the answers, and exactly how inefficient such a system of knowledge actually is.

Except that [he] could never be certain there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know.

(Nor, come to think of it, could [he] show [he] and the universe didn't spring into being ex nihilo last Thursday.)

 

[blü 2]

Lol. It doesn't describe magic, rather motion, sound and emergence.

No, it describes magic, the bringing into existence of either all the EM spectrum, or the missing visible part of it, by wishing. The alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality is what magic is.

Do not turn to those "wizards" and the "Knowers". Do not ask for their "impure" to stick to you. I am Y your God.

Exactly as [he] spells out in the Garden story and again in the Babel tale, [he] really really hates competition.

That's not true actually.
Its like saying hot cannot be in cold because they are contradicting terms.

A non-spatial realm is by definition nowhere. The prosecution rests.

 

[Suave]

Good point. You'd better demonstrate the real thing, then.

Nick Bostrom's simulation argument posits that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:

At least one of the following propositions must be true:

1. The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “post-human” stage;
2. Any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Since there is a significant chance that a future generation of technologically advanced post-humans will run ancestor-simulations by powerful computers, then we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

 

[Left Coast]

It's a reasonable conclusion that omniscience exists only in imagination.

For example, omniscience is brainbendingly inefficient, since it requires the subject to have present knowledge of not only a, b and c, but all relationships of a, b and c, that is, a, b, c / ab, ac, bc / ba, ac, bc / ab, ca, bc ... and so on. If the radius of the universe is (say) 4.57 e +10 light years, then the volume of the universe in cubes of Planck length side is 8.022 e +175 Planck cubes. So the omniscient being not only has to know of each of those cubes (leaving aside the question of whether in an omniscient understanding there are more data inside them) but the relationship between any cube and any other cube, every possible grouping within the totality of the cubes, the dynamics of the universe as they affect each cube in each case, on and on and on without regard to relevance.

And not only of every thought every thinking critter will ever have, but every possible thought it might have had and every thought it could not have had.

Nor is there any hypothesis as to how this information could be obtained, stored, retrieved, kept up to date, and so on.

A real omniscient God would of course know the answers, and exactly how inefficient such a system of knowledge actually is.

Except that [he] could never be certain there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know.

(Nor, come to think of it, could [he] show [he] and the universe didn't spring into being ex nihilo last Thursday.)

The idea that something is inefficient is not a demonstration that it doesn't exist, of course. Lots of inefficient things exist. Nor am I sure that what you're describing is actually inefficient. An omniscient being, if one exists, would know all things simultaneously, so there is no need for linear a --> b--> c sequential reasoning. That is only necessary for beings that learn. An omniscient being has no need to learn.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, God is not present in reality, that implies reality and God are two different things, reality the container and God inside it. Try to understand, God is reality! The ONE that is ALL.

Then why do we need the word 'God'? Why not just say 'the universe'?

Perhaps it will help you if you understand that any and all concepts of God are not God.

What real thing is God then? Please describe [him] to me so that if I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's God or not.

 

[PruePhillip]

What real thing is denoted by the word "God"?

Qualities like

omniscient,
omnipotent,
omnipresent,
perfect,
eternal,
infinite,
spiritual,
supernatural,
immaterial​

aren't qualities of real things, only of imaginary things.

So given a God who's found in reality ─ by which I mean the world external to the self, nature, where things with objective existence are found ─ in what form does that God exist?

How could we tell whether we'd found a real one or not?

Or do gods only exist as a set of individual notions within a tradition?

How do I place a thread on this forum page? So far I can only add a thread to a specific topic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then why do we need the word 'God'? Why not just say 'the universe'?

Sure Universe is fine, so is Allah, Brahman, 'All that is', etc.. Names are just like 'signposts' to point the mind in the right direction as to what the name represents. When I see 'blu 2', my mind knows that 'blu 2' represents you, a real person.

What real thing is God then? Please describe [him] to me so that if I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's God or not.

But I've already explained that concepts can never be any more than a mental picture to represent that which it is meant to represent. All the words in the universe can never describe the reality represented by the concept God.
Just imagine that God is all there is, whatever exists is an aspect or expression of God. You are an expression of God, no less than a Star and no more than a flower, but obviously not equal expressions. God in fact is you, but you are obviously not God for God is the whole, there is nothing that is not God,.

 

[blü 2]

Nick Bostrom's simulation argument posits that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:

At least one of the following propositions must be true:

1. The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “post-human” stage;
2. Any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Since there is a significant chance that a future generation of technologically advanced post-humans will run ancestor-simulations by powerful computers, then we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

*Chuckle* Nice!

 

[blü 2]

The idea that something is inefficient is not a demonstration that it doesn't exist, of course.

Indeed. But the absence of any evidence that any such thing does exist, and the lack of any hypothesis as to how it might exist as an element of reality, are not encouraging.

Lots of inefficient things exist. Nor am I sure that what you're describing is actually inefficient. An omniscient being, if one exists, would know all things simultaneously

How?

so there is no need for linear a --> b--> c sequential reasoning. That is only necessary for beings that learn. An omniscient being has no need to learn.

The absence of a need to learn means the explanation for the omniscience is magical, which is to say, imaginary.

And you didn't clear up the point how the omniscient being knows there's nothing it doesn't know it doesn't know.

 

[blü 2]

How do I place a thread on this forum page? So far I can only add a thread to a specific topic.

I'd start with a link to the OP of the thread in question.

 

[blü 2]

Sure Universe is fine, so is Allah, Brahman, 'All that is', etc.. Names are just like 'signposts' to point the mind in the right direction as to what the name represents. When I see 'blu 2', my mind knows that 'blu 2' represents you, a real person.

But the universe isn't a person. We have not the slightest reason to think it has a mind, intentions, concerns, desires.

And God is an expanding region of at least one temporal and three spatial dimensions, containing an unknown number of suns roughly estimated at 20-22 septillion in number, and apparently obedient to rules which can be formulated by empiricism, experiment and induction.

But I've already explained that concepts can never be any more than a mental picture to represent that which it is meant to represent. All the words in the universe can never describe the reality represented by the concept God.

A quasi-human alpha male with magical powers and a relationship with humans based on a craving for worship? (That's off the top of my head.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But the universe isn't a person. We have not the slightest reason to think it has a mind, intentions, concerns, desires

And God is an expanding region of at least one temporal and three spatial dimensions, containing an unknown number of suns roughly estimated at 20-22 septillion in number, and apparently obedient to rules which can be formulated by empiricism, experiment and induction.

I keep reminding you, thoughts can not realize the real, whatever exists is God.

No matter how many dimensions mortal calculate, no matter how many stars they estimate, no matter what mortals conceptualize, theorize, hypothesize, or imagine, God is the One that is all.

A quasi-human alpha male with magical powers and a relationship with humans based on a craving for worship? (That's off the top of my head.)

That conceptualization which arose in your mortal mind is a measure of your not understanding that concepts don't mean anything when it come to actual universal reality. Cease thinking altogether as a religious practice and you will come to realize what is represented by the concept of God.

 

[Left Coast]

Indeed. But the absence of any evidence that any such thing does exist, and the lack of any hypothesis as to how it might exist as an element of reality, are not encouraging.
How?
The absence of a need to learn means the explanation for the omniscience is magical, which is to say, imaginary.

And you didn't clear up the point how the omniscient being knows there's nothing it doesn't know it doesn't know.

Again, you're asking 'how' questions.

The answer is, I have no clue. I have no clue about many things. But the fact that we don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People have believed in magic for millenia because they constantly observed things they didn't understand and didn't think were possible. And we still discover such things. None of them turned out to be 'magic,' they turned out to have naturalistic explanations that we didn't even think were possible before. We've explored less than 1% of the visible universe. Vastly less. We don't even know what questions we have yet to ask about what we don't know.

So until such time as you find exhaustive knowledge of reality, we have no way to rule out that somewhere, somehow, there is someone omniscient. We don't know.

 

[PruePhillip]

But the universe isn't a person. We have not the slightest reason to think it has a mind, intentions, concerns, desires.

And God is an expanding region of at least one temporal and three spatial dimensions, containing an unknown number of suns roughly estimated at 20-22 septillion in number, and apparently obedient to rules which can be formulated by empiricism, experiment and induction.
A quasi-human alpha male with magical powers and a relationship with humans based on a craving for worship? (That's off the top of my head.)

And a world that appeared from nowhere and for reason is off the top of my head too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And a world that appeared from nowhere and for reason is off the top of my head too.

What was the reason you say a world appeared from nowhere?

 

[PruePhillip]

What was the reason you say a world appeared from nowhere?

That's the Big Question - why DID the universe just appear out of nowhere,
in violation of the physcial laws which state every effect has a cause and there
is no free lunch.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's the Big Question - why DID the universe just appear out of nowhere,
in violation of the physcial laws which state every effect has a cause and there
is no free lunch.

The big bang is a theory, if you believe it represents actual reality, no problem, but that which is represented by the concept of God is everything eternally, no beginning and no end, conceived of and not conceived of by the mortal mind.

 

[firedragon]

No, it doesn't seem to, does it. That's my point.

Correct. Maybe you should try a bottom up approach. And exploratory.