Proof that God exists
Offline While debating on YouTube a guy told me he had proof that God exists. I was intrigued and he seemed like a decent fellow so I asked for his proof. This is what I was sent. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s views.
“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.
"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean. When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination. When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is. And, so do atheists.
But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.
Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.
And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim. Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.
For the purposes of establishing a workable definition of God, we must first familiarize ourselves with some integral terms and their definitions and conditions that ensure that the God we define is worthy of the title, "God."
So, what sort of characteristics must an entity have in order to qualify for the title of "God?"
First, and foremost, any entity qualified for the title of "God" must be provably able to Create the Universe. Anything less would, at most, make such an entity only one of possibly many gods. So, what qualities must an entity have in order for it to be able to Create the Universe?
Such a being must be:
Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.
Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.
Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.
These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God." If the being lacks omnipotence, it will be unable to Create the Universe. If it lacks omniscience, it will be unable to Create the Universe. And, if it lacks omnipresence, it will be unable to Create the Universe.
This seems like a tall order, until we realize that the Universe IS being Created - so, we can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something meets the criteria we just listed - otherwise, we would not be here to contemplate the question. This entity may possess other characteristics about which we may have no knowledge; but, it absolutely will possess these three characteristics.
Now, let's review some standard definitions of words that will be integral to the process of proving God's existence, shall we? (source: www.dictionary.com)
knowl·edge -
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
om·nis·cient -
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.
omniscience
noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
omnipotent -
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.
omnipresent -
--adjective present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.
It should be noted that, included within the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is a direct reference to God - indicating general consensus on the characteristics we have ascribed to God. We're not just making up God as we go along and just for ourselves. These characteristics really are the bare minimum requirements for God.
Interestingly enough, the bare minimum requirements for God also point us to exactly who and what God really is. Let's analyze this by looking at one of the characteristics, shall we?
Omnipresent -
In order for God to be omnipresent, God must be at all places and at all times. This would necessarily include the actual space and time occupied by everything in the Universe - and, the space between everything in the Universe. This tells us, quite clearly, that God IS the Universe and that everything in the Universe is representative of Parts of God, in Partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe. In the instant that anything extant or non-extant (space) in the Universe is not God, God ceases to be omnipresent - and, ceases to be God. Because, omnipresence is a requirement for God, remember?
But, how can God be space? How can God be something that isn't? Well, you are mostly made up of space, aren't you? There is far more space between the subatomic particles in the atoms that make up your body than the space they actually occupy - by an enormous margin. Actual matter represents a minuscule portion of the Universe. But, still, the existence of the Universe depends on the space that holds things Here and There. Therefore, the existence of God depends on space, too.
Omnipotence also carries the same implication - the only way you can do anything and everything there is to do attendant to the Creation of the Universe is to BE the Universe and all the processes involved in its Creation. In the instant that anything in the Universe that is not God does anything, God is rendered non-omnipotent - and, therefore, not God. Because, omnipotence is a requirement for God, remember?
To further clarify this point: If I throw a rock at a wall at 2:00PM EST, and I'm not God, then I did something God could not do - throw that particular rock at that particular wall at that particular time and place. That renders God neither omnipotent, nor omnipresent. And, the fact that God could not experience the throwing of the rock at the wall at that time and place, means that He also could not know about it - because, knowledge is acquired through experience - an experience He didn't have; because, something that was not God had it, instead.
This brings us to omniscience. For clarity, I'll repeat the definitions of knowledge, omniscient, and omniscience:
knowl·edge -
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
om·nis·cient -
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.
omniscience -
noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
If God IS the Universe and all of the processes involved in its Creation, as is required by the characteristics of omnipotence and omnipresence(which we have already established), then God is necessarily experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - and, therefore, able to acquire the acquaintance or familiarity attendant to meeting the definition of knowledge.
And, since God IS the Universe, and all knowledge of any kind is contained within it, God, by definition, possesses all knowledge of any kind, and is, therefore, omniscient.
Of course, these three simplistic terms do an injustice to God - the reality of God is far more complex than the simple acknowledgement of three fundamental characteristics. It would be more accurate and meaningful to say that God is All that is True in the Universe. That necessarily includes all of the matter in the Universe, as well as the space in between. It also necessarily includes all of the processes, circumstances, and events that take place anywhere and at any time in the Universe.
There, I've given you a proof for the existence of God and three of His/Her/Its fundamental characteristics. But, I would point out that, for every characteristic you would ascribe to God, you must be able to prove it - otherwise, you render the being to which you refer non-existent. That means that, as soon as you say something like, "God has promised that all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will spend eternity in Heaven with Him, " you render God non-existent. Why? Because, you cannot prove that He made any such promise or that He could or would follow through with it - and, if you would assert that He did, then you MUST be referring to a different entity that cannot be proven to exist.
So, you can choose to accept a provable definition of God and one that requires no faith or belief; because, He/She/It makes no promises or threats and is self-evident and is provably Creating the Universe. Or, you can choose to believe in a God of your imagination, or the imaginations of others, that requires faith and belief. Or, you can choose to believe in no God at all. The choice is yours - and, God doesn't care one way, or another, which way you would choose. Any and all choices you make are attendant to God experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - which is attendant to God's omniscience.
The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.
Please, let me know what you think.”
- Login to post comments
Offline BMcD wrote:Why are the facts subject to what people believe? Shouldn't we seek the truth, and mold beliefs to that, rather than attempting the opposite?
What I am saying is that you can seek the truth and either believe in God or not believe in God and still be correct either way. You need only embrace a tenable definition of the construct of "God," rather than an untenable definition of the construct of "God."
I have provided the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe. That means that, to believe in God, as I have defined "God," is to believe in the truth.
This isn't an arbitrary choice I've made, here, to define God as All that is True in the Universe. Most definitions of God also include God as being the truth. The problem seems to be that most people just don't have a clue about what that is or how to discern it - or, they seem to forget that "truth" implies a process of discernment, and not just blind acceptance of that which has had the label, "truth" slapped on it.
So as I understand it, you're not concerned with whether or not the divine exists, you're simply saying that if someone is to venerate something, it should be the truth?
BMcD wrote:You've said that all of the laws and processes of the physical universe weren't present at the Big Bang. I say to you: They were present, the conditions for them to be demonstrated were not. Rather like the physical laws that make a modern nuclear aircraft carrier work were present in the 1600s, but the conditions (people being able to build one, for example) to demonstrate the weren't.
You are confusing physical laws with physical processes. They are not the same thing. Physical laws give rise to new processes - that were NOT extant at the beginning of the Big Bang.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the processes are expressions of the physical laws' effects on matter and energy over time. By that standard, the processes could be said to exist as long as the physical laws that govern them exist, they simply weren't actively operating until conditions invoked them.
I need only demonstrate that I am using the term, "Create," in accordance with its widely accepted definition to justify my usage of it. I've done that. I am unconcerned with the preferences of others who might have made a different choice of words to use. For MY purposes, the word, "create," works much better.
Ok. I'll accept that for your framework to be valid for you, you need only demonstrate to yourself that the definition you're using is a valid one. My point is that, as you are presenting the framework to others, would it not facilitate clearer communication, and prevent pointless argument over semantics, to at least stipulate that an alternative term could be used without loss or corruption of meaning?
BMcD wrote:Shiny.
And, what might you mean by that? I find it interesting that you would employ a vagary, such as this, in the face of your own objections to the words I have chosen to use to communicate my own ideas. Is it a modern colloquialism? Does it imply agreement with me?
Ah, yes, my bad. 'Shiny' is indeed a colloquialism picked up from a specific subcultulre (specifically, the Browncoats, or fans of the short-lived series Firefly), which basically means 'cool'. Usage would be in the sense of a mechanic. ie: the (engine/mechanism) is fixed and cleaned up, thus, it is 'shiny'. My apologies.
BMcD wrote:Could it not be said that my imagination, indeed, all thoughts, are simply the firing of synapses in specific order, and so a physical process?
Certainly, there is a physical process behind our imaginations and our thoughts. But, the image on the TV screen is not the TV, is it? Neither is it the circuitry that is responsible for it showing up on the screen, is it? But, the image is why we watch, and not because of the TV or the circuitry that allows us to watch. And, the image on the screen can have an influence on us that the TV itself cannot have.
Except the image itself is a physical construct: it is a pattern of photon emissions.
BMcD wrote:So what do you consider "awareness", "consciousness" and "intelligence" to be? My question, I suppose, would be better phrased as 'do you think the Universe expreses intent, or is merely processing its contents mechanically in adherance to the nature of its internal machinery? Does the universe have a choice?'
In the context of the discussion, I fail to see how it matters. Either position could be successfully argued. But, it is certainly not necessary to argue either position, for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable - and, that is the point of the thread. So, it is a red herring to this discussion.
Except that it's not. Instead, it's a tangential issue to help the people you're conversing with better understand what you're saying, by illustrating other angles and viewpoints in regard to your position. It's like a cube: if all you see is one side, you can't really understand the totality of it, because all you perceive... is a square.
In this, I'm trying to phrase my question in a way that gets you and everyone else somewhat less confrontationally aligned. So: would it be fair to say that for your framework to be valid, the universe does not require intent or choice, but can be functioning purely under mechanical laws? (Note: I'm pretty sure you've just answered that already, but this way we just have it said so that others can see it clearly.)
BMcD wrote:So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?
That certainly seems reasonable enough. But, it would not be ideal for my purposes in dealing with irrational theists who maintain faith-based notions about God.
More than understandable. However, right now you're dealing with us, not irrational theists. The substitution can be reversed from "Tt" to "God" later just as easily.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline BMcD wrote:Why are the facts subject to what people believe? Shouldn't we seek the truth, and mold beliefs to that, rather than attempting the opposite?
What I am saying is that you can seek the truth and either believe in God or not believe in God and still be correct either way. You need only embrace a tenable definition of the construct of "God," rather than an untenable definition of the construct of "God."
I have provided the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe. That means that, to believe in God, as I have defined "God," is to believe in the truth.
This isn't an arbitrary choice I've made, here, to define God as All that is True in the Universe. Most definitions of God also include God as being the truth. The problem seems to be that most people just don't have a clue about what that is or how to discern it - or, they seem to forget that "truth" implies a process of discernment, and not just blind acceptance of that which has had the label, "truth" slapped on it.
So as I understand it, you're not concerned with whether or not the divine exists, you're simply saying that if someone is to venerate something, it should be the truth?
That's fair enough.
BMcD wrote:You've said that all of the laws and processes of the physical universe weren't present at the Big Bang. I say to you: They were present, the conditions for them to be demonstrated were not. Rather like the physical laws that make a modern nuclear aircraft carrier work were present in the 1600s, but the conditions (people being able to build one, for example) to demonstrate the weren't.
You are confusing physical laws with physical processes. They are not the same thing. Physical laws give rise to new processes - that were NOT extant at the beginning of the Big Bang.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the processes are expressions of the physical laws' effects on matter and energy over time. By that standard, the processes could be said to exist as long as the physical laws that govern them exist, they simply weren't actively operating until conditions invoked them.
But, we exhibit the ability to bring processes into existence in accordance with physical laws, as a product of free agency. That must also be accounted for in All that is True in the Universe - not just other natural processes that seem to have naturally arisen from physical laws. In any event, the processes in question did not exist at the birth of the Universe, but have arisen over time - which was my original point in defense of my position that the Universe represents an ongoing Creation, and not merely the product of some discreet event in the past. The "event" is not yet over and Creation is definitely a part of it.
I need only demonstrate that I am using the term, "Create," in accordance with its widely accepted definition to justify my usage of it. I've done that. I am unconcerned with the preferences of others who might have made a different choice of words to use. For MY purposes, the word, "create," works much better.
Ok. I'll accept that for your framework to be valid for you, you need only demonstrate to yourself that the definition you're using is a valid one. My point is that, as you are presenting the framework to others, would it not facilitate clearer communication, and prevent pointless argument over semantics, to at least stipulate that an alternative term could be used without loss or corruption of meaning?
Words are typically ambiguous without the author providing context. And, it would not matter if I stipulated such as that - there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree with my word choices, as well as the ideas that I am trying to communicate with them. So, I will stick with the words I have chosen and simply clarify as necessary - just like everyone else.
BMcD wrote:Could it not be said that my imagination, indeed, all thoughts, are simply the firing of synapses in specific order, and so a physical process?
Certainly, there is a physical process behind our imaginations and our thoughts. But, the image on the TV screen is not the TV, is it? Neither is it the circuitry that is responsible for it showing up on the screen, is it? But, the image is why we watch, and not because of the TV or the circuitry that allows us to watch. And, the image on the screen can have an influence on us that the TV itself cannot have.
Except the image itself is a physical construct: it is a pattern of photon emissions.
But, the pattern of photon emissions is not what gives the image its meaning - we give it its meaning. And, its meaning is not something that is real or physical - but, it's there - and, therefore, a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.
BMcD wrote:So what do you consider "awareness", "consciousness" and "intelligence" to be? My question, I suppose, would be better phrased as 'do you think the Universe expreses intent, or is merely processing its contents mechanically in adherance to the nature of its internal machinery? Does the universe have a choice?'
In the context of the discussion, I fail to see how it matters. Either position could be successfully argued. But, it is certainly not necessary to argue either position, for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable - and, that is the point of the thread. So, it is a red herring to this discussion.
Except that it's not. Instead, it's a tangential issue to help the people you're conversing with better understand what you're saying, by illustrating other angles and viewpoints in regard to your position. It's like a cube: if all you see is one side, you can't really understand the totality of it, because all you perceive... is a square.
In this, I'm trying to phrase my question in a way that gets you and everyone else somewhat less confrontationally aligned. So: would it be fair to say that for your framework to be valid, the universe does not require intent or choice, but can be functioning purely under mechanical laws? (Note: I'm pretty sure you've just answered that already, but this way we just have it said so that others can see it clearly.)
No, actually, that's not a fair assessment. Even if the Universe does not require intent or choice, there are parts of it that do engage in intent and choice. And, intentions and choices can be influenced heavily by non-real, non-physical factors that "functioning purely under mechanical laws" does not address. And, we must also consider those factors, in order to come to a complete understanding of All that is True in the Universe.
BMcD wrote:So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?
That certainly seems reasonable enough. But, it would not be ideal for my purposes in dealing with irrational theists who maintain faith-based notions about God.
More than understandable. However, right now you're dealing with us, not irrational theists. The substitution can be reversed from "Tt" to "God" later just as easily.
But, atheists can be just as irrational as theists. And, my purpose for providing a tenable definition of God was not to get atheists to concede it, but to get theists to concede it. The theists are the ones causing the problems, more so than the atheists. I would have thought it easier to get atheists to concede it than the theists; but, my experiences, here, have taught me otherwise. The problem is not the words I have chosen, but the ego invested in a contrary position on the existence of a tenable definition of "God." If for no other reason, I think that a valid enough reason to stand steadfast in my choice of wording. The atheists who have a problem with what I am presenting can just have me clarify it - or, they can continue to debate with me about it. Either way, what is needed is a more critical look at the subject on the part of anyone who would ever consider the construct of "God" from either perspective. And, debate does that. If I can accomplish that small goal, I will have achieved the desired result.
- Login to post comments
Offline But, we exhibit the ability to bring processes into existence in accordance with physical laws, as a product of free agency. That must also be accounted for in All that is True in the Universe - not just other natural processes that seem to have naturally arisen from physical laws. In any event, the processes in question did not exist at the birth of the Universe, but have arisen over time - which was my original point in defense of my position that the Universe represents an ongoing Creation, and not merely the product of some discreet event in the past. The "event" is not yet over and Creation is definitely a part of it.
But if our consciousness is simply a side-effect of the processes which produce it, then even this 'free agency' (which, in the end, we cannot show is actually free at all, only that we lack the ability to predict it reliably) is part of the physical, mechanical universe. And, as time itself is a quality of the universe, and not something the universe itself moves through (but rather, something the contents of the universe move through), then just as the entirety of the universe contains all space, it contains all time, and so, all of the processes that have ever, and will ever, exist, are all present at the inception of the universe from the perspective of the universe itself, because, with time being a property of the universe, the universe itself could not have existed at any single point in time, but must have existed at all of them. It's hard to explain just what I mean there without using words that imply points in time, but as an analogy, if we imagine the universe as a three-dimensional construct, then when it comes into existence (in whatever external axis of progression it follows, as three-dimensionally it would time), it simultaneously exists at all sizes and states that it will ever exist at. All at once, all the time. It's only our perception of time that appears to limit the universe's processes. And I have no idea if that makes sense outside of my own head. 
Words are typically ambiguous without the author providing context. And, it would not matter if I stipulated such as that - there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree with my word choices, as well as the ideas that I am trying to communicate with them. So, I will stick with the words I have chosen and simply clarify as necessary - just like everyone else.
Fair enough, but I think you'll find a little flexibility there might short-circuit much of the confusion.
But, the pattern of photon emissions is not what gives the image its meaning - we give it its meaning. And, its meaning is not something that is real or physical - but, it's there - and, therefore, a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.
But we've established that what we call our consciousness is quite possibly a physical process. Thus, thee amalgam of stored data that is accessed through the physical process of our consciousness to give that image meaning, is a physical construct. And the meaning itself is stored through physical process (again, our consciousness) as a physical construct (in this case, again, specific synapse firing sequences).
No, actually, that's not a fair assessment. Even if the Universe does not require intent or choice, there are parts of it that do engage in intent and choice. And, intentions and choices can be influenced heavily by non-real, non-physical factors that "functioning purely under mechanical laws" does not address. And, we must also consider those factors, in order to come to a complete understanding of All that is True in the Universe.
But again, if our consciousness is, in fact, a physical process, then all of those non-real, non-physical factors are physical, either as part of the process or as stored constructs for the process to operate upon. That we are such incredibly complex cascading sequences of chemical reactions that we can actually contemplate our own nature as incredibly complex cascading sequences of chemical reactions does not in any way make us anything more than cascading sequences of chemical reactions.
But, atheists can be just as irrational as theists. And, my purpose for providing a tenable definition of God was not to get atheists to concede it, but to get theists to concede it. The theists are the ones causing the problems, more so than the atheists. I would have thought it easier to get atheists to concede it than the theists; but, my experiences, here, have taught me otherwise. The problem is not the words I have chosen, but the ego invested in a contrary position on the existence of a tenable definition of "God." If for no other reason, I think that a valid enough reason to stand steadfast in my choice of wording. The atheists who have a problem with what I am presenting can just have me clarify it - or, they can continue to debate with me about it. Either way, what is needed is a more critical look at the subject on the part of anyone who would ever consider the construct of "God" from either perspective. And, debate does that. If I can accomplish that small goal, I will have achieved the desired result.
Oh, I won't even try to claim that we aren't often as irrational as theists. Just ask my family! 
And yes, many atheists will oppose such a definition on emotional grounds because of their opposition to the idea of a tenable definition of 'God', precisely because of the supernatural baggage that term entails. However, if you can get them to look at the reversal, that what you are, in effect, doing, is defining in the supernatural right out of 'God' and (to the theistic viewpoint) reducing 'God' to nothing more than reality itself, I think you might have more success.
In other words, tell them you're taking God away from the theists, that what you're presenting is actually, in a way, a kind of foundation for turning the tables on the theists and refusing to let them define the terms of the debate any more. If 'God' can be defined to be purely the actual extant universe, then the theist cannot claim 'God exists', but rather must defend why 'my God is right and yours isn't'. They must then defend supernature. Because as far as I can see, that's the logical development of presenting this idea in larger context.
From what I can see, your strategy would eventually mean the theists would have to defend magic.
It's worth considering, though, that the theists will not view any proposal that uses the word 'God' as atheistic or a-religious. If anything, using the term, due once again to the supernatural baggage, will only foment the continued belief that science is just another religion.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline Xlint writing guys. I agree with lifewhispers "goal", and he makes alot of xlint points. I just personally think including the common ambiguous creator and creation words are often confusing.
I share Lifewhispers goal, and that is what I have been trying to do ever since I got into god discussions, and why I post the way I do, and a big part of why many don't understand me. I was surprised when I made my first rrs post , "to heal the christians give them god", and got WTF replies. That was a wake up call, that I must persist with my simple message.
God of abe, or God cosmos?, I often ask. All is ONE = God etc I often say. The eastern ideas are helpul concepts to defeating God abe superstition dogma. God is simply reality.
God of abe type followers are truly the enemy to love/heal.
Because the 'god' word is not going away, fix it's definition, as I've said a zillion times. Most all my posts are to that "goal".
That is the only way I can see making progress to defeating religious superstition, dogma and division. The atheists are "saved", but need to work more on being caring clever healers, as so many in the world foolishly and needlessly suffer. Rich young Buddha looked out his castle and was appalled ...... Jesus wept ......
Good luck, I AM almost dead .... teach the children well. I love you all, and so I also yell too. and P.S. , We are ONE, all Is Gawed ! shezzzzz
- Login to post comments
Offline The term, "God" holds, as its most widely held definition, the meaning, "Creator of the Universe. " In order for that to be true, "God" must also be All that is True in the Universe.
And, if you have any suggestions for improvements to the definition of God, I'm certainly open to entertaining them. Do you have any?
How could I? You're the one making the rules for this game, considering the idea of extra-physical entities is ridiculous to me. I was just trying to follow your definition. So your God is creator of the universe and "all that is true in the universe". The first part is one of an infinite number of possibilities, and the second doesn't really make sense. Does God then not include what is "false"? Or are "true" and "false" given special meanings here.
The perspective of the Universe as a Creation with a Creator is a tenable one - but, it is certainly not a necessary one.
You haven't really made the case that it's tenable yet.
Theists believe in God. You will not unseat that belief by summarily dismissing an otherwise valid perspective. I'm speaking from experience, here. If you dismiss God, the theists will dismiss you. And, if you have been dismissed, you can no longer have an influence on them.
I thought we were discussing your idea of God. I don't care if I'm dismissed by your hypothetical theists.
I guess that only goes to illustrate that people who embrace either perspective with emotion and ego blind themselves to any other valid perspectives.
Still trying to validate your position, irrespective of emotion and ego. We're stuck on your definition of God. I can't have one, since I have been presented with no reasonable evidence of one. I couldn't tell you what God smells like, for instance.
Atheists do not think it reasonable to embrace God.
Provide more God. It's reasonable to embrace what exists.
I'm not positing about what is possible. What actually is DOES support both perspectives - even if it does not support the nonsensical ideas that theists typically have about "God." But, for theists to see that, they need to see a tenable definition of "God" that allows their perspective about God being Creator of the Universe to be true.
I'm dying for you to present the evidence that supports your definition of God. Well, maybe we should make sure we define your God first.
HisWillness wrote:Your "everything that is true" should be enough to argue that the set of all truth values constitutes a creator of the universe (including false values). But that slips into the nonsensical.
How so?
Like this: God created the universe, therefore God is the set of all truth values. I don't know how to understand that. Help me ... help you.
I've not offered any explanations. The explanations remain the same, regardless of whether you embrace the construct of "God," or not. It is merely a chosen perspective. Virtually everything about our understandings of the Universe around us boils down to the perspectives we choose for ourselves.
Um ... so electrons are real only from a certain perspective, then? What do you mean here? Do you mean embracing the God construct is irrelevant? Because that's what I've been saying.
Why? Because, reality is made up of an infinite number of different possible perspectives
Sorry, you're losing me. Are you suggesting there is no objective reality?
If you look at this mathematicallyP/R
Where, "P" is our one perspective and "R" represents an infinite number of possible perspectives of reality the way it is. So, we each have 1 Perspective/infinite Perspectives - or, ILLUSION.
Hahahaha! ... haha ... whoo ... sorry, what were you saying?
So, again, God or no God, you're no better, or worse off. You're still functioning under illusion, and not reality. So, "God" remains a personal choice, and you're decision to embrace it, or not, has nothing to do with its tenability or anyone else's choice to embrace it.Put another way, the question could be asked of you, "why not employ a construct of God in reference to the Creation of the Universe?" And, your answer would be no more correct or incorrect than the theist who chooses to embrace "God." It's just a chosen perspective.
Hehe ... oh, you're being serious. Okay, stop right there. You know we're using "computers" to communicate, right? That's heavy evidence that there's a lot of objective reality between the two of us, and we even have witnesses. So don't even try that "it's all an illusion" stuff.
HisWillness wrote:You've given a definition of "God" that involves intent and desire to create a universe, and pretended that all you're saying is that it's the set of all things true.
How so?
Well ... you said God was "all that is true in the universe" and then made God a much more complicated proposition. So ...
HisWillness wrote:Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?
That's not an extra attribute. It is a natural and logical extension and axiomatic statement that can be made about All that is True in the Universe. It is clear that All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God, is Creating the Universe - unless, you can come up with something else that is not All that is True in the Universe that could do it. Can you?
No, since it's not clear at all that the universe is a creation. You made that part up.
Your problem seems to be the word, "God."
No. My problem is that you have invented a creator without any reason for one. Even if there was an intentional agent for the creation of the universe, you'd be lying if you said you know anything about it.
Is there any other word in the English language, or any other, for that matter, that describes the fullness of what I intend to convey, [...] "Reality" doesn't do it.
No kidding. You're again assuming a creator. It's an assumption. Even lacking knowledge of how the universe started, the best guess wouldn't be a magic creator entity.
I am referring to an image in someone's imagination, not an image on paper. Can empirical evidence establish its existence? Can logic establish its existence? Does the inability of empirical evidence and logic to discern it invalidate it as not true?
Read some Oliver Sacks for entertaining descriptions of the loss of imaging in the brain caused by injury. The capacity to imagine is physical.
What is unreasonable about the notion that non-real, non-physical, abstract constructs can have a real and tangible effect on reality?
If you mean "ideas", they are, in themselves, physical. Again, brain injury cases are the best example of that.
How can it be reasonable to dismiss the non-real and the non-physical, when we can provide infinite examples of how the non-real and the non-physical CAN have an impact on our reality?
Because what you're interpreting as non-physical is actually physical, and no other reasonable explanation exists. Non-physical things are, by definition non-existent. Oh, except in metaphysics, where it seems like everything exists and doesn't exist, depending on which school of thought you entertain.
The only thing that I've found that even comes close to encompassing all of that which has impact on reality is the concept of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God. Did you have an alternative term that works as well?
As soon as I figure out what the hell you're talking about, I'm sure we can find another word. Your God idea as creator and "all-truth" needs serious development. Where does God get its arbitrary seperation from things that are false?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
And, you don't see that either way means the same thing? Sucks to be you.
Oh, it's done. You just cannot seem to come up with a valid logical argument against it. But, you are welcome to continue trying.
You have reasoned yourself into absurdity - again. There are exactly two possibilities:
A - Whatever brought the Universe into existence is true
or,
B - Whatever brought the Universe into existence is not true
If "A," then the Universe can exist.
If "B," then the Universe cannot exist, and we cannot discuss it.
We're discussing it; therefore, "A." It proves itself by deductive reasoning and empirical evidence (the existence of the Universe).
It still stands at the top of this thread. You might consider reading it.
Well, I call it foolishness and unresponsive to the issues.
Of course, we disagree on this point - you think it's not possible to deduce the truth of that which brought the Universe into existence (and, therefore, unable to safely assume its truth). That is a patently absurd position on its face - to any rational trier of fact.
Unresponsive to the question. I'll ask, again:
If whatever initiated the Big Bang is not true (not a part of All that is True in the Universe), how are we able to discuss it?
I'm proving to you that your position that it's possible for whatever is responsible for bringing the Universe into existence to be not true is patently absurd - by getting you to notice, for yourself, that you cannot come up with any alternative explanation, or even a theory about how something not true could bring the Universe into existence. Now, answer the question, or concede that you can't.
I haven't presented any hypotheses. It is patently obvious that whatever is responsible for bringing the Universe into existence is true. It's not an assumption. It is a logical deduction. It proves itself by virtue of the existence of the Universe.
In the context of this discussion, ALL OF THEM. They were not here at the beginning of the Universe; but, they are here, now. And, there will be more new processes as time goes on that are not here, now. What is responsible for them, if not All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God? And, how is it not reasonable to refer to the formation of new processes as creation? It's entirely consistent with the definition, and the intended use of the word.
You may now continue your tap dance.
Just out of curiousity... why does the universe need to have a creator?
And... just to doublecheck a few things with you now that I've had some time to think about this stuff w/out the other things that were erupting in my life the first time through...
A)Are you or are you not ascribing any supernatural abilities to 'God'?
B)Are you or are you not asserting any facet to the existence of 'God' beyond the physical reality of the universe, including all accurate (even if currently unknown by humanity) data about the universe?
C)Are you or are you not asserting an intelligence/consciousness/awareness to the aggregate physical processes of the universe beyond whatever intelligence/consciousness/awareness exists in discrete segments of those physical processes (example: Human beings are discrete segments of the aggregate physical processes of the universe, being distinct and easily separable subsets of those processes.) ie: When you say the universe interprets and acts upon the total knowledge it possesses, are you advocating the idea of actual universal consciousness, or are you instead meaning it more in the sense of the universe as a tabulator or Babbage machine processing the physical reality of itself, which can be describe with, and so thought of as, information?
D)I am way too drunk for this shit right now. I am way too tired to be awake when I am this drunk. Why the fuck can't I get to sleep tonight?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Oh no you di-ent.
Scientific "theory" is the best available explanation based on fact. Take note of the terms "the best" and "fact". You're talking "hypothesis". Since Einstein's relativity worked out almost all of the kinks in Newton's already amazing physics, you're belittling something that is very well founded in evidence.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
As far as we have information available, it goes back about 14 billion years, yeah. But are you introducing a guiding hand into "processes"?
Is "All that is True in the Universe" contrasted against "All that is False in the Universe" or simply all that does not exist?
Just because we don't know something doesn't mean the best way of dealing with that is to introduce a magic creature.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Please don't take this as the teenage version of "what is truth?", but help me out with what you mean by "true". Are we talking true and false, or true and non-existent, or ... something?
While this exercise of determining the definition of something for which you have no reference to define is ... well, it's weird, I'm willing to go along for the ride.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It's counter-intuitive, but alcohol actually disrupts sleep instead of doing what it seems to do, which is help. Valerian root and a glass of milk work better.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Can someone explain this ---->
I would like to have a full explanation please ......
Atheism Books.
I believe you mean the bounciferous nature of blue boggley-eyed blobs? The key is to define the letter "b" as all that is true in the universe.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
yo Will , "as all that is true in the universe", .... yeah, as if that is an answer !
.... and as if we need one ..... a definition of Gawed,
thanks , your fan, me , GOD.
Atheism Books.
It's not a matter of the Universe "needing" a creator. It is a matter that billions of people have chosen the perspective that the Universe is a Creation - and, therefore, must have a Creator.
There is nothing "wrong" with that perspective. The complexity and beauty of the Universe justifies the perspective that it is a Creation with a Creator - it just does not justify the idea that the Creator is anything like Earth religions have posited (as an anthropomorphic being with human-like characteristics, qualities, desires. etc.).
What is clear is that the Universe is Creating itself. Therefore, it is its own Creator. As dichotomous and strange as it may seem, that is what is consistent with the evidence at hand.
So, how do we describe that which is Creating the Universe? I have chosen to describe it as All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God.
No, absolutely not! In fact, I am saying that, by all observations and evidence, it is impossible to violate the physical laws of the Universe - rendering the "supernatural" and "miracles" to be completely untenable.
Of course! You have an imagination. It is capable of conceiving that which is not real. In fact, it is through your imagination that you can make things that are not real (imagined things) into things that are real (Creations of your own). Everything you have ever actively Created started as a thought and an image in your imagination. It was then followed by intent and action to produce the result that is your Creation. This is TRUE. It is a PART of All that is True in the Universe, or God, as I have defined God. But, it started out as something that was not real (an image in your imagination). So, we HAVE "something"(your Creation) coming from "nothing" (an image in your imagination).
And, my definition also necessarily includes all mathematical truths, logical truths, and inferred truths, based on the nature of the Universe - even if they are not physically real.
The non-physical in the Universe MUST be taken into account, in order to explain the physical Universe. How else does one explain the appearance of a Creation that was the result of an image in someone's imagination? Did it evolve into existence? No. Are there any natural processes responsible for it that did not require some agency on the part of a sentient being? No. Did it just appear on its own? No. Did it spring from nothing (an image in someone's imagination)? Yes. How do we account for that without considering the non-physical in the equation?
The Universe has already demonstrated its ability to produce something real (a Creation) through the use of something that is not real (an image in someone's imagination). This has far reaching implications - going all the way back to the very beginning of the Universe (if WE can Create something real from something that is not real, then some other being could, as well - even if we know nothing about that being). It opens up a possibility that only considering physicality leaves shut - even if it does remain indeterminate. But, we stand as evidence of why we should not just consider the physicality of the Universe in consideration of what is giving rise to it.
Well, that really depends on what you consider to be "awareness" "consciousness" and "intelligence."
Wikipedia defines Consciousness as:
Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.
Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself, and access consciousness, which refers to the universal availability of information to processing systems in the brain.[1] Phenomenal consciousness is being something and access consciousness is being conscious of something.
It can be argued that evolution exhibits phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness, by virtue of its being able to take all lifeforms in a given system into consideration and adapt them dynamically in accordance with experience and changes in environment and other circumstances. Those that cannot be adapted will be eliminated. Those that can be adapted will evolve, or change, in order to continue their existence. Evolution even takes aesthetics into consideration (i.e. - physical attraction between the sexes, in order to facilitate procreation).
Now, that is not to imply that evolution, or the Universe on the whole, actively "cares" about the outcome or influences it in accordance with independent will - only that it exhibits consciousness (awareness of all information in a system) and intelligence (able to employ that information in its systems), as is evident through the existence of balanced ecosystems and is generally "motivated" towards survival, rather than extinction, as is evident by adaptability. If there was no "motivation" for survival and the continuance of life, there would be no driving force behind evolution.
But, am I positing an anthropomorphic being that pulls levers and pushes buttons behind a curtain? No.
Of course, there remains the question of whether the consciousness of the Universe has always been there, or whether it has developed, or is developing over time? The evidence seems to imply the latter. Perhaps, at some point in the distant future, the Universe WILL become truly conscious and aware of itself, even if it is not, now.
For my purposes, it does not matter. For me, it is sufficient to define God as All that is True in the Universe, and then, go about figuring out what that is. So, "God" answers no questions (in that it does not, in and of itself, explain anything) - but, provides all answers (in that, All that is True in the Universe implies a process of discerning what is the truth, and stands as evidence of itself).
In some cases, the answer is clearly, "yes." In some cases, maybe not.
WE are a part of the processes that are responsible for the creation of the Universe, as it is. So, yes, we act as a "guiding hand" into processes. Evolution acts as a "guiding hand" in its processes. "Gravity" works as a "guiding hand" in its processes.
But, let it suffice that I am not making any extraordinary claims, or positing anything that is not consistent with the evidence that we have available at this time.
In the context that a process of discernment will reveal one against the other.
Of course, not. And, I have done no such thing. I thought that, at least, that much was clear.
Then why introduce the extra variable of "God"? Why not just stick to the evidence that we have available at this time?
Wait, what? Logic with evidence is the best process we have so far for discerning fact from fantasy. Are you saying your God is only things that are coincidentally true? Or "valid"? Maybe you're going for "valid"? Or just the set of facts that are true?
Not really, since you seem to bring in the extra attributes of God instead of saying "the set of all facts" or "the set of all things true". You'll have to give me the precise description of the set before I understand what you mean. Your original definition seems to have changed.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I am sticking to the evidence that we have available at this time. I'm not positing anything "new." God is simply a label I have slapped onto All that is True in the Universe. Why? Because, that allows God, as Creator of the Universe, to be a tenable construct.
So, why might I care about that? Because, billions of people already believe that there is such a Creator; and, their non-sensical ideas about who and what "God" is are creating all manner of problems for everyone. So, by presenting a tenable definition of God, I am providing the theists with a means whereby they can compare their nonsensical ideas about God to a tenable definition of God that proves itself to be true. Atheists are certainly not about to do any such thing - therefore, atheists are impotent to solve the problems created by theists. Only someone willing to entertain their perspective of the Universe being a Creation and having a Creator can effectively persuade them to abandon their faith-based ideas about who and what God might be.
The existence of God is merely a chosen perspective. The evidence that we have available to us supports both the idea that there is a God that is responsible for the Creation of the Universe and the idea that there is no God responsible for the Creation of the Universe. It all boils down to a matter of the choice to embrace the construct of "God," and the tenability of the definition of "God" being employed. I have endeavored to provide a definition of "God" that permits either perspective without disqualifying the other. In other words, it does not matter which perspective you might choose - unless, it does to you.
I don't think I understand your question.
What "extra attributes of God?"
I've tried to provide examples that illustrate the context of my definition. Clearly, it is not sufficient to only consider matters of "fact" as the only things worthy of a truth value of "1." Is an image in your imagination a "fact?" Is it worthy of being considered true by virtue of its existence as an image in your imagination, rather than a physically tangible thing? I would say that it is true that an image exists in your imagination - making it a part of All that is True in the Universe, or God, without making it a tangible part of physicality or even a logical conclusion from any stream of logic. But, the image in your imagination can have an influence on physicality, even if only an indirect influence as is evident by your possible choice of making the image in your imagination represented by something physical, or a Creation of your own making.
A piece of artwork is compelling evidence of the existence of the image of that artwork in the imagination of the artist who Created it. Does the physicality of the piece of artwork give the image of it in the artist's imagination its truth? Or, is it possible for an image to exist in the imagination of the artist that has not been translated into a physical piece of artwork?
Of what value is empirical evidence in answering that question? What about logic? Can logic determine whether it is true that a particular image exists in the imagination of someone? Can the image exist, despite our inability to prove that it is there? Can such a thing that we cannot prove its existence have an influence on physicality? Is it reasonable to dismiss the possibility of it? What if the image in the imagination has an impact on the behavior of the person harboring the image? Must the image even be in reference to something that could be physically manifest for it to be "true?"
What about experiences? Is experience a physically tangible thing that is supported by empirical evidence or logic? Can they be true, even if we cannot prove anything about them? Is it logical for me to experience a roller coaster as exhilerating, while others might experience it as terrifying? Does one experience preclude the truth of the other?
This was actually my master plan. Are you saying it can't be done? I mean, I even have the laugh down. It's more of a MU-hahaha than an AH-hahaha, but other than that ...
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
There, you did it again! God is simply "all that is true in the universe" (oh, also, God's the creator of the universe). You keep adding that extra part outside the definition. That introduces a whole bunch of other attributes, including the intention of creating and the means to create a universe. That's huge! If you mean that God is a self-creating truth (that also creates falsehood?) ... there are some things to work out with the definition.
Was this your version of "Luke, join the dark side"? Conceding that
1) the universe was created, and
2) something named God is the creator
would be a long way off from reasonable. Traditional, maybe, but be serious.
Not so fast there. What evidence we have points only to what is. What could possibly be is not the realm of fact, but of fiction. Your "everything that is true" should be enough to argue that the set of all truth values constitutes a creator of the universe (including false values). But that slips into the nonsensical.
But your construct isn't exactly clear. I recall earlier that you had an eternal "everything that is true, and constantly creating" concept. Please clarify where I'm wrong. This still leaves me to ask why you would introduce this thing that is constantly creating the evidence that stays consistent. If the omnipresent God controlling everything results in exactly the same behaviour as the universe without this God, why try to explain it with the extra God layer?
You've given a definition of "God" that involves intent and desire to create a universe, and pretended that all you're saying is that it's the set of all things true.
That whole creator of the universe thing - see above.
I've seen paintings, and I've hung out with artists. Both can be perceived without difficulty or special instruments.
Same answer. Artists and paintings both exist.
Artwork is evidence that we can represent what is otherwise an image in our brains. It's just reasonable to say that the neurons are firing to make that happen.
Certainly there is evidence in the form of a drawing.
Sure - our brains change significantly over time. The physical explanation is still more reasonable than an extra-physical one.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Ok. Gonna take this a bit at a time, and not alwys quote your answers, because they are long and spammy as quotes, and people can just come back to page... 7? to look at them.
Why are the facts subject to what people believe? Shouldn't we seek the truth, and mold beliefs to that, rather than attempting the opposite?
You've said that all of the laws and processes of the physical universe weren't present at the Big Bang. I say to you: They were present, the conditions for them to be demonstrated were not. Rather like the physical laws that make a modern nuclear aircraft carrier work were present in the 1600s, but the conditions (people being able to build one, for example) to demonstrate the weren't.
You also say that it's clear the universe is creating itself. Under the definition you've chosen to use for 'create', this is probably not inaccurate, but as common usage for 'create' implies the initial conversion from 'concept' to 'object', might it not be better to use 'develop'? I'm not asking you to abandon 'create', I'm simply asking if you can agree that other terminology might better convey your point for others with a more inflexible view of the usage of 'create'?
Shiny.
Could it not be said that my imagination, indeed, all thoughts, are simply the firing of synapses in specific order, and so a physical process? What I find very interesting is that while evidence of many physical processes, corrosion, electromagnetic radiation, etc, all can be viewed in an image, that is to say, a representation of spacial dimensions at a particular point in the temporal dimension, the processes themselves exist only in motion through time. Consciousness seems to me to be like this: a physical process that exists only in time, but the effects and state of the affected physical components might be observable in an image.
So what do you consider "awareness", "consciousness" and "intelligence" to be? My question, I suppose, would be better phrased as 'do you think the Universe expreses intent, or is merely processing its contents mechanically in adherance to the nature of its internal machinery? Does the universe have a choice?'
So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
The term, "God" holds, as its most widely held definition, the meaning, "Creator of the Universe. " In order for that to be true, "God" must also be All that is True in the Universe.
And, if you have any suggestions for improvements to the definition of God, I'm certainly open to entertaining them. Do you have any?
The perspective of the Universe as a Creation with a Creator is a tenable one - but, it is certainly not a necessary one. Theists believe in God. You will not unseat that belief by summarily dismissing an otherwise valid perspective. I'm speaking from experience, here. If you dismiss God, the theists will dismiss you. And, if you have been dismissed, you can no longer have an influence on them.
The reverse also seems to hold true - if you embrace "God," atheists will dismiss you. And, if you have been dismissed, you can no longer have an influence on them. And, it does not even seem to matter what your definition of God might be.
I guess that only goes to illustrate that people who embrace either perspective with emotion and ego blind themselves to any other valid perspectives.
Atheists do not think it reasonable to embrace God. Theists do not think it reasonable to reject the idea of God. Neither side seems to be able to see that BOTH perspectives can be correct at the same time. I'm just glad that's not my problem.
I'm not positing about what is possible. What actually is DOES support both perspectives - even if it does not support the nonsensical ideas that theists typically have about "God." But, for theists to see that, they need to see a tenable definition of "God" that allows their perspective about God being Creator of the Universe to be true.
You are welcome to a perspective that does not include "God." I've not said that your perspective is not valid.
How so?
I've not offered any explanations. The explanations remain the same, regardless of whether you embrace the construct of "God," or not. It is merely a chosen perspective. Virtually everything about our understandings of the Universe around us boils down to the perspectives we choose for ourselves.
Why? Because, reality is made up of an infinite number of different possible perspectives, and we have but one - our own. If you look at this mathematically, it reduces down to:
P/R
Where, "P" is our one perspective and "R" represents an infinite number of possible perspectives of reality the way it is. So, we each have 1 Perspective/infinite Perspectives - or, ILLUSION.
So, we are all functioning within illiusion - even if some of our perspectives can be demonstrated to be more or less accurate and consistent with reality than others. In order to do this, we must employ a process of discernment of that which is true, versus that which is not true. Even this does not free us from our illusions - it only allows us to create illusions that are more consistent with reality.
So, again, God or no God, you're no better, or worse off. You're still functioning under illusion, and not reality. So, "God" remains a personal choice, and you're decision to embrace it, or not, has nothing to do with its tenability or anyone else's choice to embrace it.
Put another way, the question could be asked of you, "why not employ a construct of God in reference to the Creation of the Universe?" And, your answer would be no more correct or incorrect than the theist who chooses to embrace "God." It's just a chosen perspective.
The question of whether a perspective is tenable, or not, can be discerned through the use of logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof. But, regardless of the outcome, you will remain ensnared by illusions of your own making.
How so?
What I am saying is that you can seek the truth and either believe in God or not believe in God and still be correct either way. You need only embrace a tenable definition of the construct of "God," rather than an untenable definition of the construct of "God."
I have provided the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe. That means that, to believe in God, as I have defined "God," is to believe in the truth.
This isn't an arbitrary choice I've made, here, to define God as All that is True in the Universe. Most definitions of God also include God as being the truth. The problem seems to be that most people just don't have a clue about what that is or how to discern it - or, they seem to forget that "truth" implies a process of discernment, and not just blind acceptance of that which has had the label, "truth" slapped on it.
You are confusing physical laws with physical processes. They are not the same thing. Physical laws give rise to new processes - that were NOT extant at the beginning of the Big Bang.
I need only demonstrate that I am using the term, "Create," in accordance with its widely accepted definition to justify my usage of it. I've done that. I am unconcerned with the preferences of others who might have made a different choice of words to use. For MY purposes, the word, "create," works much better.
And, what might you mean by that? I find it interesting that you would employ a vagary, such as this, in the face of your own objections to the words I have chosen to use to communicate my own ideas. Is it a modern colloquialism? Does it imply agreement with me?
Certainly, there is a physical process behind our imaginations and our thoughts. But, the image on the TV screen is not the TV, is it? Neither is it the circuitry that is responsible for it showing up on the screen, is it? But, the image is why we watch, and not because of the TV or the circuitry that allows us to watch. And, the image on the screen can have an influence on us that the TV itself cannot have.
In the context of the discussion, I fail to see how it matters. Either position could be successfully argued. But, it is certainly not necessary to argue either position, for my definition of God as All that is True in the Universe to be tenable - and, that is the point of the thread. So, it is a red herring to this discussion.
So, would it be fair to say that we could substitute the word "God", which has deific and supernatural baggage, for an unknown variable constant of "Tt" (which is probably taken, all the simple ones are) and then say that approaching an understanding of Tt is, in fact, the goal of science? To understand the fundamental nature of reality around us and be able to make extrapolations and predictions that would then describe all aspects of it, even those we have yet to perceive firsthand?
That certainly seems reasonable enough. But, it would not be ideal for my purposes in dealing with irrational theists who maintain faith-based notions about God.