I think the problem is in a makeshift debate. We're a bunch of folks on the Internet, our possibilities are limited. Most of people here did not have the capacity to read at least a few books about spiritual realms of existence. Any information I can provide is necessarily simplified and thus distorted, because I can't copy and paste a whole book here. And I can't expect that people who care only superficially about the topic, will actually read it.
This is a big topic which must be systematically studied, before there can be any debate. Even local atheists had to read Bible thoroughly, before they became experts on refuting it. And now there is at least several books I can recommend for a beginning. And I don't threaten your freedoms unlike Christianic fundies, so there is no vital necessity of studying these books.

Will, I might be forgetting something here because it seems like you've talked me out of this line of reasoning before, but (ironically) I think Pineapple has come closest to framing an ontology for a god of any of the theists we've had here.  I don't think she's done it, but I give her props for at least trying to work within a describable universe of discourse.

There's a lot of "supposing" here, but suppose we found something in the cosmological model that allowed information to be conveyed over vast distances.  I dunno what it would be, but wormholes are theoretically possible, and there are still a lot of unknowns with black holes.  We don't really know what dark matter is yet.  There are still a lot of unanswered questions.  Anyway, supposing that some breakthrough discovery allows for the theoretical possibility of information transfer between vast distances, and suppose there is some kind of process (similar to evolution) by which groups of stars, or groups of galaxies, or whatever, transfer increasingly complex patterns of information between each other.  At the very least, this is a way to start talking about a "galactic consciousness" within a working ontology. 

Having said that, I must poop all over the concept.  First, there is no evidence for such a thing on several levels.  We don't know of any way for information to be transferred over vast distances fast enough for something like "consciousness" to be a meaningful term, as it implies dynamic interaction.  Even in cosmological terms, a computation that takes ten billion years is not a dynamic thing.  Second, we have no model for information itself having any properties that would initiate an evolution-like process, nor do we know how information (without an outside catalyst) would increase in complexity, or form any kind of discreet replicating unit.  Third, even if we discovered that there was a pattern of information exchange that had been accumulating complexity, that would not be a "god" in the sense that it would be complexity evolving from simplicity.  Fourth, it would be another huge leap to propose any way in which such an information exchange would have anything to do with biological life on Terra Firma.

In other words, I think Pineapple has proposed something that is perhaps on the outer fringes of what might be ontologically plausible, but as for calling it a god?  Nah.

 

There is something I have always claimed and I always will. I don't have beliefs. I base my opinion on ocassionally repeated, objective observations. I sense things which majority of other people can't sense, but some yes, and interactively. My observations can't be falsified, they simply are. Some are part of my moment-to-moment everyday experience. The question is not their existence, but interpretation. Either there is an exact explanation in contemporary science, or the science needs to be expanded. Most probably the second choice is true. I don't say that science is wrong, I say that it's incomplete.

But why don't I study the physics and (bio)chemistry? Because...I'm dumb on that. I'm a right-hemisphere type, good at humanistic sciences, but traumatized by maths. I can inspire people, listen and advise right from my vast memory, use my empathy and so on, but my equations are full of errors. Basically, I'm a jack of all trades, but master of none. I don't even know where to start with broadening the science, I need to define scientifically that fundamental concept, which is described below.
 

Thank you for your care. This is all fine, I don't deny that. Some of these lectures look promising and I'm tempted to watch them.
But the point is, that I've got something to say as well, and to find the words, I need someone good at physics and gifted with a serious interest and good will. I can provide all data available to me, and the physicist would try to express them in scientific terms, in ideal case as a testable hypothesis. Perhaps the most important discovery will be a special property of matter, (yet unnamed) which determines a "frequency" of it's waves, or oscillations. All matter vibrates on a similar rate, and there are whole different universes diffcult to detect, because they vibrate on a much higher rate. I have no idea how is this concept called correctly, but this is exactly how the matter behaves. Maybe it's something really simple, just with unusual parameters.

Shortly said, I need someone who will
1) chew through all the equations and special terms instead of me, answer my questions and correct me when I'm wrong.
2) interpret the esoteric concepts in scientific terms (I think I can tell if the interpretation is correct)
3) take me seriously (at least hypothetically)


Hambydammit: what about a quantum entanglement as a method of Pineapple's information transfer?

Anyway, I disagree with Deism on the idea that God is something outside, not interfering with the universe. I rather agree with Carl Sagan (I hope that's his quote) that we are the means by which the universe realizes itself. So if the universe is THE God, it looks through our eyes, hears by through our ears and creates by our hands. And not only ours.

Ah. Maybe I've misunderstood Hamby, then. Or we're just all mixed up in this crazy, mixed up world.

...

Sigh. You know the situation is bad when the ironic cliches come out.

So do you know what Hamby means? That is, have you made an argument for a something-or-other recently? Quantum computer?

Y'know, I still don't get the quantum computer thing. Maybe it just strikes me as a crappy analogue because computers do very specific, mundane, and deterministic things, whereas quantum states are individually unpredictable.

Quite easily if conciousness is not a "product" of biology as we have been supposing in our heretofore study of it.

If, say, we consider biology a function of some physical parameters; like location, electromagnetic properties, etc  then our familiar phenomenal consciousness just comes out somewhere as an ordinary characteristic element of (yes I'm going to say it) platonic structures. 

So in summary, what we think of ourselves as, then, is just really really boring (and kind of infantile in a certain manner of speaking), its the rest that secrets away all the interesting stuff about reality.

 

 

** probably should join this to my other post...

Yeah, I got that. I agree.

This is the part that I still don't get. I agree that the workings of the universe isn't less than what we are. It can't be on several levels. I still don't get calling it God. That's the piece I'm missing in my understanding of what you mean, so if you could explain that part, maybe I'd get it. If you feel like you're repeating yourself, it's because I'm probably missing something really simple, and it's just a miscommunication.

As quirks go, you can't say that one would be particularly bothersome to anyone. It's not a facial tick or refusing to bathe or something like that.

"I'd like you to meet Eloise. She likes walks on the beach, math, puppies, and calling the universe 'God'".

Hehe.

But nothing. We'd have to redefine our understanding of consciousness, which is what you've been pushing for anyway, isn't it? That's my point. If we want gods to exist, they have to exist in some special way.

I suppose that depends on what god we're talking about. Except if one perceives men (strictly speaking) to be gods, they would be different, yeah. Some religions suggest that a god could have human ontology as part of its own ontology.

I don't know anything about gods, but when you're submersed in the world illusion, you can measure, see, hear and touch only a fraction of what is there to be measured. Something can exist just as well as you, but your brain is used to filter that out of your consciousness. Broaden your consciousness and you will be able to see and touch more of the universe. Then you will understand a bit more, that our existence is illusory. We exist, but not as we think. There are other worlds, other dimensions, possibly more real than our own. And we live in a few of them at the same time, just our consciousness is focused on this one. Model of human as a multi-dimensional being is quite interesting. As one Indian mystic  expressed it, 'under the blue sky, gods are walking, clothed in skin'.

Zeus from the ancient Greek pantheon in many ways acted as humans act and even on occasion became a human himself. This sort of god would be tangible, knowable, etc. This would be a god that exists as humans exist in some ways, but not all ways. To use essentialist language, he has "humaness" as part of his ontology although his ontology was more not merely human, if that makes since.

If I'm hearing it right, you suggesting that god-talk is a slippery slope because one defines "existence" to conform  necessary ontological requirements of a given god, and such definitions do not map onto our existence.

Sort of.

Ontology requires a universe of discourse.  That is, whatever we're talking about has properties, and each of these properties can be positively described with terms that are all positively described.  If you can imagine something like a spider web, where everything is linked to something else, you're on the right track.  Any point I pick on a spider web has a link to everything else.  There is no point at which the web is floating in space with no attachment to any other thing.  So it is with concepts.  Everything we describe must be connected at all points to something that can be positively defined.

When I take "Hambydammit" and describe it, I can say, "It's the pen-name for a human who writes about atheism, science, and philosophy."  Though that description is far from complete, each term is grounded in something positively defined.  "Zeus," on the other hand, is not as well defined.  Sure, some of the words are positively defined -- he speaks, thinks, acts, feels emotions, etc.  The problem shows up when he has other properties that are "like" something else.  Analogy is one of the first signs of ontological trouble.  Saying what something is like is not saying what it is.  Zeus is "like" a human in many ways.  He "lives" in a way that is similar, but that doesn't actually tell us in what way he lives, or what he is that is somewhat similar to a human.

I am a human.  Zeus is a god.  A human is a biological organism in the primate family.  A god is... um... like a human, but not...

You see the difference?

 

Okay, given that the world is a giant illusion, which apparently my brain filters, why is it that we can have automated machines perform scientific tests?

How do you know what I think?

What would something have to do to be "more real"?

Help me out, here: if the world is an illusion, how do you know if you're not just falling for another part of the illusion?

I'm sure I don't understand what you're saying. The relatively large spaces between elementary particles has nothing to do with their solidity at the perceptual level. That is, stuff is still solid, even if we know there are spaces between its elementary particles. Solid is a state of matter. That doesn't seem illusory to me, so maybe that's not what you meant.

But those feelings are not reliable. If they were, then they'd be part of mainstream scientific study. They would be "psychology", or "neurology" and not esoteric at all. "True nature of things" is extremely vague. You might have a feeling that you understand the universe better than someone else, but unless you can contribute to the understanding, it seems a bit like you're trying an illusion yourself.

You're not really giving me much, here. I can make assertions as to how schizophrenia works involving astral-whatsits, too. That doesn't make them real (or illusory, as the case may be).

You still haven't given me a way to discern reality from things made up. If everything is made up, then it's irrelevant, but how do we tell the made up from the real in the esoteric way of looking at things?

You're feeling feisty today! Perhaps it's that second universe nihilism he's talking about: the one where "nihilism" means "people who like canvas pants".

 

 

No, that piece of information is missing. You're not missing the part where I offer justification for putting a new label on the universe, I'm not offering it.

And that's because it's not necessary to call it God, so you're stuck waiting for something that I won't say.

The reason I'm happy to identify as a Theist is that upon considering the nature of the universe of naturalism I see it has also been described and given a name in another of man's philosophical pursuits, "God". In essence that makes me a believer. Roughly, the way the books describe it is accurate enough that I am confident assigning meaning to their labels.

It is most definitely nearer the latter. And the reason to not "call it the universe and have done with it" is the 'having done with it' bit.

"Universe" reflects a certain standpoint, one assuming certain naturalistic ontologies to be absolutely given. While we don't have to rigidly assume this standpoint just to employ the term universe (we need only contingently adopt it) being done with it at that basically requires we do become rigid in a certain ontology; and then it is is a different matter altogether.  

 

everywhere huh?  

But seriously, it's not just a compliment, take it as a point. You're not easily confused, so more likely than you're missing something, is that it's not there.

 

Quite exactly, I think. In intent and purpose I have no differences with atheists and/or naturalists. I believe the question of what exists should deal in existing things, without exemption, all else is Art.

 

We can do that.

I think I probably answered this above, but for clarity - there really are entities which are valid as per the propositions of mystics, esoterics and/ortheistic visionaries.

Even so, each concept regardless of it's completion, contributes to the practical freedoms of our kind while at once taking away an assumption we used to get there (with probably the exception of string theory, though, why bring that up?). Losing a relied upon assumption seems to be the natural trade-off for pragmatic accomplishment in science. When we get sure of something, we tend to become unsure of some other, related, thing as a consequence. That the universe is patently distinct from people, similarly, is an assumption which loses all traction as we reach natural conclusions about consciousness in reality.

 

 

Again, I think I've pretty much covered this one already, so I'll just give you the summary.

I don't distinguish God from the universe, except in saying that each of these two labels reflect certain initial assumptions. Naturalistic assumptions are well known, as a result of having been well documented, unlike theistic ones, so it's far easier for me to plead the case for not becoming rigid in naturalistic ontology than the contrary (thanks to the beauty of science).

The distinction between ourselves and the universe is a documented naturalistic assumption. Essentially, "my" distinction, which you're seeking, is in employing distance from this assumption. With it, the universe is just the universe, and we get as far as we do consequently, in understanding the universe under it - then it weakens, and on inspection 'God' is an equally valid term in the resulting regime.

I'd agree, except the same problem occurs when one attempts to define one's own ontology. To ask it in essentialist language: what is "humaness"? I'm not necessarily looking for a perfect answer or even a tenable answer, but I bring this up to say that under such a paradigm we cannot discuss our own existence meaningfully if there is no clear answer for it. In short, any sort of discussion ultimately commits a Loki's Wager type fallacy.

But for arguments sake, suppose we can talk meaningfully about existence. Then how one answers this question opens up a whole other can of worms. The question here is how much of one's ontology does one allow to be a priori? Per our discussion on epistemology, at bare minimum, one has to accept that his or her senses are functioning properly, a priori. John Calvin's natural theology suggested the existence of the sensus divinitatis--a means by which we inherently know the existence of the divine.



Morpheus acts the question in the Matrix, "What is real?" Again, this is a tough question to answer, but at a minimal level, I think we can talk about some thing's existence in whatever reality one chooses to embrace. Even in an imaginary world, imaginary things exist or do not exist. Contemplating "What is real" seems to collapse into infinite regress at some point, but this is not necessarily the same thing as talking about whether something exists or does not exist in something's respective reality whatever it may be. We can factor out the imaginary qualifier and speak of these things as actual entities.

Also, I think we have to be clear with what we are talking about. Are we talking about something's essence, or are we talking about something's existence? We can speak of essence apart from that thing's actual existence. But take the coffee table in my living room for instance: could I talk about it as a table if it was still the raw sticks of wood and box of screws holding it together before I built it? I suppose I can talk about it as a concept, not as an actual entity.



Yeah..but if this is the case, then we commit a Loki's Wager sort of fallacy, because any and all discussion would be nonsensical.


There are two issues I see with this. First, these are subject to the same sorts of vague or subjective discussions as "perfection". I think our discussion per empiricism illustrated this. Second, one could permute an empirical system along with some other system and net a larger yield of knowledge. These aside, I see the point. I suppose we are contradicting ourselves by even discussing the matter. I'm not suggesting we waste our lives pining away hoping that some solution will answer all our questions, but at the same time I do not think we can write it off either. I think rational inquiry demands that these sort of discussion take place even if we have to spend most of our time converging on a definition for something.

mmm, hard question. No, I wouldn't say that, exactly.

Comparative study of religion is incorporated, I guess. It would be unavoidable when there are so many tracts claiming the same things in essence, a single ultimate being originating everything, and various species of intermediates, for example.

So there is a common ground, regardless, but, individually, theologies flesh out unique labels and definitions, it would be deceptive to call them equal so I won't.

Consequently, I'm confident with, you might say, a certain number of specific theologies having a valid referent in a natural ontology (sans aforementioned assumptions), but I couldn't rightly support much more than that presently - though I suspect a general rule could apply vis a vis the psychological framework from which all concepts generically evolve.

 

Neither. I mean, naturalism is "incomplete", decidedly, but it has an open end by design, so that's hardly a critique.

And I absolutely don't level that it is truly lacking in certain philosophical problems, challenged, perhaps, but nonetheless, a robust tool for probably anything we would want to explore.

It's really a second floor criticism which I have for the naturalists ontology. I would contend that naturalism is capable of accepting a broader contingent of propositions into inquiry. It is but for some obstructing and unnecessary secondary complications, only, that it doesn't already. I see those obstacles as basically stemming from psychological dependence on their order rather than an objective physical necessity and thus they can be weeded out to leave an intact a more progressively useful form of naturalism.

Oh, it is isn't it.

 

Should I take that as some kind of petitioning the nature of my deity?

Oooh dem is fighting words.

Well there had better be, or else I'm just wasting your time, aren't I?

In short and to the point what makes them more real than imaginary, so to speak, comes right down to the initial realisation that the identities we take for granted as the yardstick of what is real and possible are possessed of no such valid claim. When we measure reality in contrast against these identities, nothing else looks like them. Consequently then, for example, no anthropomorphic superbeings are found to exist.

On the other hand, disregarding those identities, which should be done because they are figments anyway, and replacing them with more precise parameters from pure physicalism we can form a model of the natural world which predicts superbeings. 

Once you have predictions of super-entities, it follows that you'd compare them to theology, as it predicts likewise, but that's academic. I know, you want to see the actual predictions, right?

 

Yeah, of course I agree, there's no harm. Actually theres a lot of good in it. There's no good in rigidly holding to divisions that outlive their usefulness, though, is there.

 

Well to be pedantic, I said I wasn't offering a justification for the label to be necessary. That justifies it's fit, not any necessity for making the fit.

Otherwise, I'm glad it suffices.

Basically, that they are rooted in a psychological dependence on particular orders, is what sucks. You know the list from previous conversations we've had:

A transcendent linear axis of time underlying the evolution of events,

every compound assumption which relies on the above, such as causality.

And the supervenient intellect which is just the circularity of the lensing ego producing gawdy, boorish self-glorification.

These are the orders that the development of our psychology is limited to, not reality.