I believe in God. Taking qs

[Robert]

OK, but do you recognise that the concept of a boundary (or lack of a boundary) implies some sort of dimensionality? It might be three dimensional space, in which lack of boundaries means that space extends infinitely in all directions, or it might be the dimension of time, in which lack of boundaries means that time has no beginning and no end, or it might the imaginary "dimension" in which ideas exist, where lack of boundaries means that there are an unlimited number of ideas, etc. Do you see where I'm coming from now? I'm asking you which of these dimensions you intend when you write of the Infinite.

I honestly can't see where you're coming from. It appears more to me that you're holding to a definition of each concept as infinite yet somehow separate from each other. For example, imagine some physicists' current description of 11 dimensional space. You could define them as separate and bounded in one sense, as they each have their own characteristics and attributes, like being thought of as individually infinite. Yet it's also possible (necessary) to think of them as being part of a larger whole, whilst still keeping their identity as infinite individual dimensions but related to each other just as anything else is through identifying what it is from what it's not (e.g dimension 5 from dimension 7). In order to conceptualise, it's necessary to think of infinite dimensions (of whatever) as like finite things. Our descriptions, our differentiating and naming is a result of our function of consciousness identifying whatever is presented to it.

From this, it's not a huge leap of logic to describe the ensemble of all this as the Absolute. But it's a pointer, not a thing. It's the All since it points to all things, yet is the void since "it" isn't all things.

[Dan Rowden]

It's mentally retarded to think of dimensions - however many of them are assumed to exist - to be separate in other than a conventional sense (i.e. in the same sense we grant anything identity). For them to be really separate they would have to constitute realities unto themselves and we could not have any knowledge of them at all, which means we wouldn't assert their existence in the first place.

[guest_of_logic]

Robert, Sapius and Dan,

I split our discussion out into a new thread, so as to keep this one on topic:
The meaning of 'the Infinite' [from: 'I believe in God'].

[Blair]

It's mentally retarded to think of dimensions - however many of them are assumed to exist - to be separate in other than a conventional sense (i.e. in the same sense we grant anything identity). For them to be really separate they would have to constitute realities unto themselves and we could not have any knowledge of them at all, which means we wouldn't assert their existence in the first place.

Well, what about ultraviolet light, infrared etc, what are they if not other dimensions beyond the senses? Are they not overlaps to dimensional realms beyond this one? Can you see directly these aspects of light and sound Dan?

[Dan Rowden]

Um, I do believe that is utterly irrelevant to the point I made. We know about such things because we are able to experience them (in whatever way that happens). If they were truly separate we could not have any form of knowledge about them at all.

[Blair]

But isn't that to say, there are realms of experience which are currently obscured?

Did you know about ultraviolet light before it was explained and made apparent with scientific knowledge?

True separation of dimensions is not possible, given that all is one. Right?

[Anders Schlander]

as I understand we could say the ALL is one dimension - This means that everything in it is part of this dimension, and is not part of another dimension, otherwise the two dimensions would be linked, they would not be seperate in the first place.

So, the only way different dimensions exist is if they are seperate.
If they are seperate as such, there would be no portals linking the dimensions, nor things in the first dimension causing effects in other dimensions. Otherwise, they would be linked by cause and effect like anything else in the universe. Then anything we please could be different dimensions, like our house, and another, the outdoors.

So even if there was 10 seperate ALLS there would never be more than one. We can't be outside our own universe, anything outside our universe has no relevence whatsoever, any relevance would make it part of our own universe, cause and effect willing.




Question relating to thread that I am very curious of...

Is an infinite god yourself?
or is god everything but yourself?
and can god have meaning if he is seperate from you...?

If he is infinite and he is not seperate from you, why does god have qualities of ONLY GOOD when god is part of all people, and some people are bad..

if God = infinite, he is not seperated from men, thus he flows in good men and in bad men and he must be bad aswell.

Wouldn't it be insane to say that god is seperate to some people and not to others?

Because are people themselves not connected? so if god affects a person, but not another, the person still affects the other person. Thus god may affect the just person but the just person affects the unjust person... god thus affects the unjust person.

God cannot be 'only good' if he is part of 'bad men' he cannot renounce bad men as infinite, and even then, if he associates with good men, bad men breath out the air that good men breath in.

Only the ideas about god can be good if you see what is contrary to these ideas as bad. Those who think of an only good god are often troubled by evil.

Omnipotence also seems unlikely given that if he is supposedly all these qualities no matter what, thus he has no control over the fact that he is always good and always omniscient. If he can easily change his characteristics then how can we define god as anything in particular? hmmz.

[Blair]

Question relating to thread that I am very curious of...

Is an infinite god yourself?
or is god everything but yourself?

Its both. Each the inverse.

and can god have meaning if he is seperate from you...?

No, god has meaning and connection in direct relation to how you 'see' yourself.

It's just you, (or me) leaving messages to myself reminding me that I am god, as l like to lose myself in what is, its the only source of amusement there is.

[Sapius]

Laird: Agreed wholeheartedly, Sap, except that I don't believe that faith and logic are mutually exclusive. Welcome back from another of your many adventures too.

My bad.. I think I should say sound reasoning or faith… however…

In my books, actually ‘logic’ is fundamentally the core ingredient of existence itself (or say the Totality, the Absolute, the Infinite, God, Tao or whatever one feels comfortable with; for me ‘existence’ is already good enough), for without consciousness, which is necessarily based in and off logic (sense of recognition/actions/reactions: causality, etc,), no thing could be said to exist, but faith, although emerging from the same core existence, need not necessarily be based in sound reasoning. Now what exactly is sound reasoning is of course debatable, and I don’t want to go there.

Robert: From this, it's not a huge leap of logic to describe the ensemble of all this as the Absolute. But it's a pointer, not a thing. It's the All since it points to all things, yet is the void since "it" isn't all things.

The Absolute, with a capitol A which helps emphasize its profound stature, obviously points to all things because one has chosen that word and means to define it so, and is itself not the All to which the word points to, but the things that the word points to always remain as ‘something’, and so does the word Absolute and what it means itself, just like the word tree is itself not what it points to, but however it is yet something that one means, and surely that is not nothing; So how and why and when does the Absolute turn into the Void, or take up a different meaning or status would be my question?

Dan: It's mentally retarded to think of dimensions - however many of them are assumed to exist - to be separate in other than a conventional sense (i.e. in the same sense we grant anything identity). For them to be really separate they would have to constitute realities unto themselves and we could not have any knowledge of them at all, which means we wouldn't assert their existence in the first place.

Conventional or non-conventional sense, unless things were not already identifiably separate in the first place, we couldn’t grant anything any identity, could we? So things must necessarily already have boundaries, i.e. identifiably separate. Now something existing independently, as in ‘NOT interdependently’, is a different matter, but if one does not experience separation of any kind, then that is not mentally retarded, but unconscious; actually non-existent to make it clear enough, and non-existence is not possible, so no-separation is not possible either, except for wishful thinking in my opinion.

[yana]

I believe in an eternal , everlasting God that exists beyond our universe. Atheists are merely denying the truth. The actual word "God" exists for a reason. Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy saves the day once more.

By the way, do you reckon the people employed at NASA believe in god? I do, for sure. The greater the man, the greater the souls agony. Without a soul, no god. Admit that you have an eternal soul and face reality.

Or be a truth-denyer like the Atheists. They will still be sent to bahamas / paradise when they die.

All geniuses believe in god, they just dont know it yet.

[Ryan Rudolph]

If god is infinite, then there could only be one thing - god, and nothing else. However, we know that the universe is comprised of an infinite number of finite things, human beings being one of them, and we are merely temporary forms doomed to be extinguished. And so the dilemma the becomes - How can god be infinite in a world of finite things that are not god?

And some may say, "oh well, god is all finite things as well, but most finite things are not conscious, and most define god as being some sort of supreme consciousness, so that doesn't fit as well. Others may say, well, human beings are all pieces of god, but if that is your running definite then it must follow that if we are the only gods there is, then there is nothing worth talking about there because we are clearly finite, imperfect, limited and powerless in many ways.

[Carl G]

If god is infinite, then there could only be one thing - god, and nothing else. However, we know that the universe is comprised of an infinite number of finite things, human beings being one of them,

The answer is obvious: we (as well as all other things) are part of God. Duh.

and we are merely temporary forms doomed to be extinguished.

This is your opinion and has in no way been established as fact. Besides, it has no bearing on the case. The temporality of bodies or personalities is not a criteria in deciding whether or not something is part of the Totality.

And so the dilemma the becomes - How can god be infinite in a world of finite things that are not god?

In what way are the parts of God not God? Is a molecule of apple not apple?

And some may say, "oh well, god is all finite things as well, but most finite things are not conscious, and most define god as being some sort of supreme consciousness, so that doesn't fit as well.

Why not? Do all parts of a computer possess the full computing power of the whole?

Others may say, well, human beings are all pieces of god, but if that is your running definite then it must follow that if we are the only gods there is, then there is nothing worth talking about there because we are clearly finite, imperfect, limited and powerless in many ways.

That is nonsensical. Being "Pieces of god" does not imply that we are "the only gods there is", therefore it would not follow that we would be all-powerful.

[Cory Duchesne]

And so the dilemma the becomes - How can god be infinite in a world of finite things that are not god?

The boundaries of those finite things are illusory, so when you experience one finite thing, you are actually experiencing everything, indirectly. All things are actually one whole undivided continuum.

And some may say, "oh well, god is all finite things as well, but most finite things are not conscious, and most define god as being some sort of supreme consciousness, so that doesn't fit as well.

Just because most people do things a certain way, doesn't mean that's the right way to do it.

For instance, to prevent global warming, there are an overwhelming number of proposed solutions, some are being implemented, but everyone is missing the obvious one: find a way to cool the gas emissions emitting from the cast of "the View".

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

The boundaries of those finite things are illusory, so when you experience one finite thing, you are actually experiencing everything, indirectly. All things are actually one whole undivided continuum.

I can accept all that as truth, but if you define the whole undivided continuum as god, it does not automatically follow that the continuum is "conscious". That seems like a logical heap and assumption. Believers will state with conviction that the continuum is all knowing, all seeing, all-powerful, the whole package so to speak....

However from where I stand, if we were drops of water in the ocean, the drops of water seem to have degrees of consciousness, but from inside looking out, the ocean doesn't seem conscious as a whole, it has seaweed, dirty boots, sunken ships, old rusty Russian submarines, oil drums, you follow?

Carl,

Why not? Do all parts of a computer possess the full computing power of the whole?

no, but some things inside a computer do not contribute to the computing power of the computer, some things actually affect the computer in negative ways. For instance: Dust or cat hair.

In what way are the parts of God not God? Is a molecule of apple not apple?

ok, you can state that a molecule of apple is part of the apple, but my point is that defining all things as god doesn't allow you to assume that all things are somehow conscious at some higher level... it is an assumption. An assumption that all believers make.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

The boundaries of those finite things are illusory, so when you experience one finite thing, you are actually experiencing everything, indirectly. All things are actually one whole undivided continuum.

I can accept all that as truth, but if you define the whole undivided continuum as god, it does not automatically follow that the continuum is "conscious".

I'm not saying that it automatically follows. Pantheism, as an idea, has been around for a long time (perhaps since the dawn of civilization), and pantheism basically says that nature is God, and that nature is blind. It need not be regarded as sentient. So yeah, the continuum is not sentient, yet we can regard it as God, because, well...why not? It's logically sound. It is without form (without limitation, infinite), eternal, immortal...and if we want to get metaphorical, we can say it is all forgiving, heavenly and creative.

Believers will state with conviction that the continuum is all knowing, all seeing, all-powerful, the whole package so to speak....

Yeah, but that's them.

However from where I stand, if we were drops of water in the ocean, the drops of water seem to have degrees of consciousness, but from inside looking out, the ocean doesn't seem conscious as a whole, it has seaweed, dirty boots, sunken ships, old rusty Russian submarines, oil drums, you follow?

Of course, you don't need to consider anything as having consciousness except for the things that obviously are conscious (e.g., humans and animals). Again, we're basically talking pantheism here. Nature is mostly blind causation. However, when a human being acknowledges the universe as himself, then that's basically the universe (God) becoming conscious of itself. So God can be conscious, after all. We just have to put things in a rational context. Now, you can say we are just playing silly word games, and in a sense I might agree, because I would say that such harmless playing is more virtuous than getting really serious about things you can't know for certain.

[Nick]

The Infinte still blows me away whenever I think deeply about it. It's dizzying.

[Animus]

Heh, this whole conscious universe subject is on my mind.

So here is the thing, if we are saying that causation is true and we need not describe things in terms of forms, then we are accepting that causation itself is the basis of consciousness. Nothing other than causation is required for something to be conscious. Whatever brains do a whirling tornado could -- in all possible worlds -- contain the same dynamics. So it is really causation that grounds consciousness in physicality, the physicality is simply a way of looking at the phenomena. Does this mean that the universe, indeed all reality is conscious?

The answer depends on how you define conscious. If you define it as a point-of-view then the answer is no. It is insofar as the perspectival entities within it are, but outside of them it is not conscious. If you define conscious as causal then yes it is, but it has no point-of-view and no discriminatory aspect outside of localized phenomena. The brain acts as a physical representation of a causally integrative dynamic that simulates a perspective. The fact that it is a simulation is also important, consciousness is never epistemically direct. As such we aren't really conscious of reality we are conscious of a simulated reality approximating reality. Without this causally integrative dynamic there is no point-of-view. A light-switch is "aware" of two states but its not aware of itself. As a result it is not aware that it is aware of two states. There is no depth to its causal dynamic. You can say there are plenty of other forces causally interfering with the light switch, but none of this constitute anything integrative, no point-of-view. You could say the light is on but no "one" is home.

[Cory Duchesne]

Now, you can say we are just playing silly word games, and in a sense I might agree, because I would say that such harmless playing is more virtuous than getting really serious about things you can't know for certain.

I just want to add that my "harmless playing", while harmless to healthy people, is quite disturbing and offensive to almost everyone, each having their own allergic reactions to certain words and ideas. And like Nick said, the truth is indeed dizzying and amazing.

But using the word God for "the whole", or referring to a wise person as a conscious God does have a certain playfulness to it, and can't be taken completely literally, as it inspires a more metaphorical outlook.

[Foreigner]

No one else have any questions?

Yeah, i do, all these details about god, did you come up with them on your own or did someone teach you as such?