its the same with the ants single not much together collective intelligence 

also panentheism is a different thing and is plausible not the christian god  

What, you don't think the Universe and whatever processes by which the Universe, and everything in it, came to exist is just the most awesome thing out there?!?

Our disagreements all center around my claim that my personal experience gives me good reason to believe in God. You argue that it does not, because people believe in other religions based on personal experience. But that only makes all religions equally well-supported from an objective perspective. Subjectively, I have experiences "towards Christianity" that I don't have "towards Islam" or "towards Hinduism." So I have good reason to be a Christian, but not a Muslim or Hindu. I grant that you cannot reasonably become a Christian based on my personal experiences, since you have not had them. I admitted that earlier, however, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again.

Since I have good reason to be a Christian, I can dispatch the rest of your case summarily. How does God interact with the physical? Well, I know he does, so I don't need to know exactly how. He does. This may be a brute fact. Genesis was mistranslated? You provided no reason to believe that, so I'll ignore the claim for now. You want a definition of "God"? But why? You already admitted that you have an understanding of the concept by arguing against it. You can't argue against a concept you don't understand.

P.S. You failed to address my criticism that your argument begs the question against the Christian. Please refer to my previous post.

ok heres 2 link 

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic-1911218.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100013261/just-because-genesis-is-a-myth-doesnt-mean-its-untrue/

Makes you wonder what else was mistranslated 

aslo a god who is self contradicting is impossible 

heres another link

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

There's a lot going on here, but I like physics so I'll chime in.

First, in order to cause an effect, one must do something that precedes the effect.  That is, causes occur before the effects that they produce.  Thus, if some god were to create the universe (as in cause it to exist) then it must have done so at some time before the universe existed.  However, spacetime, and thus time, is part of the universe.  Without the universe there is no spacetime and thus no time, so there is no before the universe in which a cause could exist.

Secondly, superposition is only one of several metaphysical interpretations of quantum mechanics.  My understanding is that superposition posits that particles actually assume all possible attributes simultaneously when unobserved, collapsing into a single attribute upon measurement.  This doesn't seem to pose any information problems, as the particle itself contains the information.  The Copenhagen interpretation, which posits that particles have no attributes when unobserved, only probabilities of attributes, might be a better example.  Still, the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't necessarily deny the existence of the particle itself, merely of the particle's attributes.  Thus the particle could carry the information containing its probability of being measured with a particular attribute value.  There are more interpretations too.  Most notable here is the many worlds interpretation, in which information would be stored in parallel universes.

Thirdly, using superposition to argue against theological claims is not "moving the goalposts."  Why should theological claims get away with meeting evidence that is thousands of years old, but not evidence that occurred since then?  I understand that the claims were maid a long time ago, but that's no defense.  Old claims that fly in the face of new evidence should not be regarded as true simply because the evidence came after the claim, nor is applying such standards "moving the goalposts."  If a theory becomes outdated because new evidence contradicts it, then the theory should be dismissed.

Fourthly, dark matter/energy is a poor analogy because according to the theories that posit their existence, they actually interact with non-dark matter/energy and thus can convey information.  As far as I can tell, the only thing "dark" about this form of matter/energy is that it's difficult to detect, possibly because it's not radiating light in all directions. 

"The second is that any form of energy that doesn't interact with what we've got isn't going to provide us with information either... But if there is 'something else out there' (Dark Matter and Dark Energy being two candidates at the moment), we're likewise out of luck."

  -FuzzyCatHerder

I've never heard dark matter/energy posited as some literally new form of matter/energy that doesn't interact with current forms.  In fact, the reason the concept came up at all is because we see an interaction but not its source, so scientists posited a source.

Fifthly, I would not argue that a mind without a brain is impossible.  More clearly, I would argue that a mind without a specific functional organization is impossible, because minds are essentially functional organizations.  Thus, if a god were to have a mind then it must be made up of functionally organized stuff.  The only such stuff we know of is matter and energy.

"I am panentheist. My god is the universe and in the universe."

  -Eloise

These are two separate claims, so I'll tackle them one at a time.

E:  My god is the universe

Me:  That's not much of a god.  In fact, why use the word god when we already have the word universe?

E: My god is in the universe

Me:  Okay, where?  And made of what?  Lets go find this god thing and demonstrate its god-like properties.

Also, taken together you've effectively claimed that your god is in itself.  While this could be true in some subset-like definition of "in" (all sets are subsets of themselves), it's certainly paradoxical when we use the more linguistic definition of "in."  Even in the case of the subset-like definition, the first claim is all that's really necessary.  The second becomes superfluous because everything would be "in" itself, so the second claim does nothing to differentiate god from non-god.

"But that only makes all religions equally well-supported from an objective perspective."

-Ctrl Y

But that only makes all religions equally well-unsupported from an objective perspective.  If something supports both A and B equally, then it doesn't help us determine between A and B.  Hence the dismissal of personal experience.

I essentially agree with you here.

Actually, superposition, in this context, is a property of waves. Basically, when two waves meet in space the resulting wave is the sum of both waves.

The fundamental equation of Quantum mechanics is the Schroedinger equation which employs a wavefunction to describe the material world as it is detectable at the quantum level, and superposition is a direct result of this equation.  For each configuration of the universe there is an associated wavefunction. Where-ever there are two separate configurations of the universe, there are two wavefunctions, one for each. So when there are two (or more) states of configuration that the universe can possibly be in, there also exists a combination of those states, a superposition. 

Superposition has been tested on various quantum size objects and proven. You can.... well you probably can't cause you don't have a vaccuum chamber and optical tweezers to do it with, but scientists have turned atoms in opposite directions at once to demonstrate that superposition is real.

Once, superposition of matter was barely more than an interpretation physicists had to forcibly accept because of the uncertainty principle but since then it has accumulated too much evidence to ignore. This is one reason why the many worlds interpretation of Quantum theory has gained so much ground in recent decades, because we have detected real superpositions of real matter, it's not so much just math anymore.

You've got two theories mixed together in there. The first one is Quantum Superposition, and the second is the collapse interpretation which is basically a convention which has been around for many years.

The collapse interpretation was proposed because the mathematics of going from quantum scale reality to macro-reality where observation takes place, is quite literally impossible to do with the fundamental equations of Quantum theory, there are uncountable interactions in that gap. Thus collapse is/was a reasonable simplifying assumption which could be taken from the information that had been gathered at the time. There was a clear dichotomy in the evidence -- undetected a quantum object would act as though in superposition, detected, it would not -- therefore, we can assume detection plays the key role.

More recently the convention has moved from assuming a singular collapse for one macro-scale interaction, to counting multiple smaller changes in a quantum state over many quantum interactions (ie decoherence).

I'm glad you understand that.

Theological claims do meet the evidence that has been discovered since then, so a moving the goalposts fallacy definitely occurs when someone says "well light is material because relativity has drawn the connection between matter and energy, so there is nothing that is not material", in this case science has redefined "material" thus excluding itself from the language employed by theological claims, it doesn't invalidate the claims, it just moves the goal post so that when theology says "X is immaterial, like light" it doesn't make sense anymore.

Just to be clear. The defense is that science has very significantly redefined the parameters of the original claim, not that the claim has simply aged. A very clear and distinct event of redefinition occurred in the recent history of science. In other words science re-established it's position relative to theology with a BIG MOVE, if you're just doing science and not considering theology then it doesn't matter, but if you are talking about theology then this must be taken into account.

They don't fly in the face of the evidence, if you'll read what I originally posted again you'll see, they are getting confirmation from the evidence. 

These are two different things. dark matter is matter you cannot detect using light and dark energy is the hypothetical force behind the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Superposition states actually interact with the real world too. But at any rate, the essential point is that the types of things theology claimed exist (invisible worlds and forces) do exist, just because science reclassifies them when they are found does not invalidate the claims of theology. You have to be more specific to actually logically invalidate theological claims, and that's all there is to it.

Yep, that's right.

i figured that.  i was just being facetious.

btw, along the lines of the idea of worship and how to worship, especially by not worshipping, i tried to pm you a few days ago to recommend a book but then i figured out you might not be "qualified" to receive pm's, so i guess this is as good a place as any to bring it up.  i'm in the middle of reading foucault's pendulum by umberto eco and i really think you'd like it, if you haven't already read it.  i recall we had an exchange a few months ago about jewish mysticism, and you said you weren't very familiar with it.  this novel is actually a fairly good introduction.  the chapters are organized around the zoharic conception of the sefirot, or the different manifestations of god.  it also very cleverly utilizes the ecstatic mysticism of abraham abulafia, in which new insights are acquired by manipulating the words and letters of the torah. 

it's been called the "thinking man's da vinci code," but i think even this appellation does it a grave injustice.  anyway, just a friendly recommendation.

equipped to be described as a god or do you mean you approach the universe in a worshipful way?

How do you mean 'god'? Do you mean god god or just well - the universe is my god.

Yeah, I have a 1 next to "my inbox" on my navigation bar but I'm not allowed to access it. I was wondering what it was. 

No I Haven't read that, I don't read a lot of fiction anymore and I'm really selective, but I was a big fan of Name of the Rose (one of my all time favourites as a teen) so I think I would probably like it and I've just ordered a copy from my library to look at.

You know, that does sound like my kind of fiction. thanks for recommending.

Sort of...

You're not being slow, the difficulty is that it's easy to be vague with the word 'universe', it does, after all apply to something quite immense and partially beyond our scope of conception. But mind that it is also an entity with a dynamic range of being. 

There is really no referent for 'pre-universe' unless by 'universe' you mean, more precisely, to refer to some finite range of universal states delineated along some apparent time continuum (a season, say). In which case there might be a state which is accurately described as 'pre-universe', however, in the terms of the more generic definition of universe, it's the same entity. (ie pre-universe=post-pre-universe=universe)

Yeah, it is unlike the mainstream of contemporary theism which IMnsHO is a vulgarity.

My belief is grounded in reality, and open to scrutiny. It's not the most important thing in the world to me that you, or anyone, believe the universe is God, that is probably my most major point of difference with typical religion.

Respect for truth is important to me, and that tends to put me on the side of atheists, the major point of difference in my beliefs compared to atheism is the regard given to distinguishing ourselves from the universe. An atheist regarding it as mere convention (or establishment) would be a panentheist of my flavour, basically.

Ok - I think I get you. I was talking pre-big bang when i talked about pre-universe but as you say there's not much we can say about that. It's a common thing to find first cause traditional theists who maintain the "where did it come from position" who opt for a pre-universe 'time' and an external creator who presided over the BB or something similar. But as you say, from the point of our evidence, it's all the same universe regardless of expansion states/timelines.

My godly upbringing has loaded me with a particular concept of god, with associated feelings of worship, guilt and so forth that probably don't apply very well to looking at the universe itself as god.  It's an elegant concept in any case, given star nurseries and us being starpeople and such.

One of the things about atheism that's challenging is that open-ended position of not so much believing in nothing but waiting to believe in something. Thinking about this further, it possibly relates to waiting to understand something. Even oblique comprehensions of the universe, to me, are far too much to contain in a coherent thought. It's interesting to consider that the anthro-god represents a not unexpected simplification given the volume of the data and the inadequacy of the processor. 

The universe itself is far greater than any god we could possibly conceive.

Hey East Kentucky, I stopped by this thread to mention I'm reading Focault's Pendulum (in context) and I noticed I didn't answer your question. I must have forgotten, Sorry. 

So how did I arrive at Panentheism? Well, it was a windy road taking me from native american spirituality through moderate judeo-christianity and on to practicing esoteric arts, the three spiritual traditions that I was born into, and my keen interest in everything about them eventuated in, yeah you guessed it, an intuitive experience.

I'd like to say I didn't do anything too irrational in reaction to said experience... but I'd be lying. Radical experiences are easily misinterpreted.  But I did eventually find a calm and rational way to investigate it and this lead me to studying Rosicrucian Alchemy, The Vedas, other various creation legends, and, most recently, Tertiary Math and Science.

It took over a decade of investigating and studying to come to the understanding I presently have of my experience, which can be roughly described as the conclusion that I had perceived the 'soul' of the universe - it was not unlike looking in a mirror.  

I can state the same quite scientifically, as I have done on this forum more than once, however it is barely distinguishable from atheism to most atheists. What I said earlier in this thread sums it up well, the only real difference between my beliefs and atheism is how seriously one takes the convention of regarding our personage as above nature. It's pretty much the sum total of my theism that I do not regard myself or my consciousness as a thing above nature. 

So in summary, an experience lead me to question what the universe is made of, and what makes a 'person', and the answers I found to those questions lead me to panentheism. 

This is the first time I've seen someone on here describing a belief system that sounds suspiciously similar to mine.

Adventfred,

I appreciate your post.  You are a *little* bit wrong on a few things, but the most important issue is that your premise itself has a simpler disproof for the standard conception of a creator god.

1. Intelligence is an emergent property
2. A creator god did not emerge

Therefore:

3. An intelligent creator god is impossible



Of course, that only covers an *intelligent* deity which is said to be the uncreated originator.

This makes up the majority of god-belief, but doesn't disprove the minority which doesn't hold that the deity is intelligent, or doesn't hold it to be the creator of all.



As to the minor issues:



1. Information is what we're talking about- matter is a kind of perception of that information, but not necessarily the only kind.

The reason this is not fatal to your argument:

Information needs a logistical source.  As zero can not equal one, neither can objective information be created from nothing.  Information still follows the postulated rules, just in a potentially different context.

You just need to clarify this.



2. Intelligence, as you defined it, is similar to awareness/responsiveness, and is a gradational thing.

You are correct in your requirements, but different things meet those to different *degrees*.

A plant is only intelligent to the extent that it meets those requirements- which is a very small, but non-zero extent.

That is, a plant's intelligence is inconsequential, but not necessarily non-existent by your definition.


The reason this is not fatal to your argument:

The postulated god doesn't meet these requirements at all- not even to the extent of a plant- ergo, zero intelligence.


My suggestion: consider intelligence quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.

As to the nature of intelligence, though, this may help:



Intelligence can be considered in numerous ways.

1.

The most liberal approach is to consider anything that can react to stimulus intelligent- since stimulus are just physical interactions that yield results, this includes, to varying degrees, "non-living" chemicals.

One can react to a particular stimulus, or in different ways to more complex stimuli.

The more advanced forms of this involve multidimensional sets of reactions, where combinations of stimuli provide different reactions than the independent stimuli alone.

Still accounted for in simple Chemistry.
This can also be represented mathematically, by equations of varying complexity.

2.

Take a step up, and those multi-dimensional sets of reactions become more complicated, as the 'intelligent' body becomes more complicated.

A single reaction, in this case, can yield more stimuli that act hold that information longer than the immediate presence of that stimulus.

That is, a few cells can produce a hormone, or a certain set of proteins can produce an enzyme of catalyst, that hangs around and augments the reaction to other stimuli in any near time frame.

This is a kind of "working memory", and can actually become very complex.  This is basically what plants do, but in a rather simplistic way.

This is easy to produce programmatically with a little scripting, wherein variables can be stored.

These are commonly known as AI, or artificial intelligence.



3.

Take another step up, and we get adapting/evolving neural networks.  These are done by changing the rules "randomly" (whether truly random, or simply chaotic), and then using other rules to evaluate the suitability of the change in the rule set (kind of like natural selection).  It is this static rule set which *is* the very nature of pleasure and pain, and the evolution of the dynamic rule set which is thought- without these, any hormones involved are merely chemical signals that augment simple reactions (in potentially complex, but thoughtless ways).

These can emerge naturally from cellular systems, and can be emulated programmatically- and when they are, it *is* real intelligence, insofar as any intelligence can be real.

The term becoming more common for these programmatic systems is SI, or synthetic intelligence- as there's nothing artificial about it.

This is what everything from insects to humans use- though *possibly* not very small mites, which may not have enough brain cells to achieve the effect.

In order to demonstrate this kind of intelligence, the ability to be conditioned is needed- that is, controlling the evolution of the intelligence rules by making use of the static rule set which evaluates those changes; generally an effect of pleasure and pain, which guides extreme changes in the original state of behavior.

This exists as a gradation in adaptability found in intelligent animals.  It is unlikely that plants have this, and it has not been demonstrated that all animals have it (some of the simpler ones).  True computer-based intelligences do have this.


4.

The final qualifier some use is "self-consciousness", which is esoteric bullshit set arbitrarily by its proponents, and implied by any static set of self-evaluation rules necessary for the process of an evolving neural-net.

"Self recognition", such as the mirror test, is a gradation of response to stimuli which mirror one's actions (stimuli arriving from an unexpected source, such as a mirror), and is found in the most intelligent animals. [not all humans pass the mirror test]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of intelligence, but is a kind of expression of it.








I believe the definition you *really* want is #3, the evolving neural-net (as the most common/mature definition).


This has an even simpler proof against many concepts of a god:

In short, an evolving neural net is a changing, adapting thing; an omniscient god would be fundamentally incapable of this, because its knowledge and reactions are already "perfect".  And without intelligence, this god doesn't process or understand the information; it is merely a force of nature.

But, of course, omniscience already has plenty of disproofs.

thanks  glad i got that cleared up

I don't know how you can think that is relevant, my argument is simply that the redefinition of material relies on the discovery about the nature of material (ie that it is essentially indistinct from energy). In the absence of such knowledge or, equivalently, in a context that does not assume such knowledge, it is perfectly resonable to refer to light as an example of substance which is 'immaterial' (ie not possessing certain evident characteristics of a material thing). It just means that your reference for the term "material" is unscientific.

As a general rule, theological tracts are unscientific so we can apply the above reasoning to them.

So, generalising - to expect that theistic tract, penned in a prescientific era, will speak contemporarily to science rather than the definitions and customs of its time, is moving the goal posts. If the theology accurately addresses materialism on its own terms then it can be considered validated.

In my opinion this can often be attributed to the theists moving the goalposts themselves for fear that science touching their conception of god somehow makes it less "godly",  or they don't have the level of knowledge required to fully understand scientific arguments against their conception of god so try to exempt themselves from having to answer them.

Indeed. I'd have to agree with that, but there are definitely traditional thesitic claims in existence that are not such a case.

I will have to disagree with you here. The claims about properties and funcions of the 'invisible' stuff do not fly in the face of scientific discovery. I would contend they are actually quite intriguing in light of it.