What is God?

[Moonstruck888]

But what are those waves and particles? And once we have found out what they are made of, what is that made of? I addressed this in the original post: Eventually we arrive at the same problem.

It doesn’t matter if the question is being investigated, or if attempts are being made to address it. There is a certain point, even in the material world, at which asking: “What is X?” is impossible to answer in the way that you want us to answer that question regarding God. That we are trying to understand matter in an empirically observable way doesn’t mean there is an answer to be found, just as the fact that we can’t empirically investigate God doesn’t mean there’s not an answer (at least not any less so than there is for Matter/energy/particles). In both cases, there may simply not be an answer any more “meaningful” than “X just is what X is.”

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

The correct answer would be that there is no answer.

 

[KindredSoul]

The correct answer would be that there is no answer.

All that I said in the text you quoted applies not only to God, but to Matter (or whatever the smallest “particles” are) as well. As long as you were taking that into account with the above response, then make of it what you will. In that case, however, this whole question, and the implications of the answer or lack thereof, really proves or implies nothing about God that it wouldn’t in turn say just as strongly about Matter (or indirectly via the particles of which Matter is made, etc.).

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[tonyrey]

I am a self motivating automaton constructed from protein, water and electrolyes, based on information contained in a self replicating nucleic acid molecule, a transitional phase in a nested cascade.

How can a mindless automaton be **self-**motivating?

What is God. In those kind of verifiable terms?

Your kind of verification is worthless because it does not do justice to the reality of being a person with consciousness, free will, a conscience, an awareness of beauty and a capacity for love… No wonder you don’t believe in God. You don’t even believe in yourself!

 

[Moonstruck888]

All that I said in the text you quoted applies not only to God, but to Matter (or whatever the smallest “particles” are) as well. As long as you were taking that into account with the above response, then make of it what you will. In that case, however, this whole question, and the implications of the answer or lack thereof, really proves or implies nothing about God that it wouldn’t in turn say just as strongly about Matter (or indirectly via the particles of which Matter is made, etc.).

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

There’s one salient difference.

Matter is observable.

God is not.

 

[Moonstruck888]

How can a mindless automaton be **self-**motivating?

I never used the word mindless, that’s how. You made that part up.

I repeat:

“I am a self motivating automaton constructed from protein, water and electrolyes, based on information contained in a self replicating nucleic acid molecule, a transitional phase in a nested cascade.”

Your kind of verification is worthless because it does not do justice to the reality of being a person with consciousness, free will, a conscience, an awareness of beauty and a capacity for love… No wonder you don’t believe in God. You don’t even believe in yourself!

That is an unsubstantiated sentimental personal opinion based on an unwarranted assumption.

 

[lemondiesel]

There’s one salient difference.

Matter is observable.

God is not.

is matter only observable when there is a conscious being, like us, to observe it?

 

[Moonstruck888]

is matter only observable when there is a conscious being, like us, to observe it?

Well, how can anything be observable without an observer?

No observer, no observation.

If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, a compression wave will still propogate in the time domain, but it can’t be observed with no observer.

 

[Shawn_Ravenfire]

I once heard an Atheist argument, that something could not be said to exist, unless that something can be defined. In other words, if I’m walking around a room, looking for a “flimbling,” and I admittedly don’t know what a “flimbling” is, then I can’t definitively say that there is one in the room or not. However, I made the argument that a caveman wouldn’t know what fire was, in terms of chemical combustion. But he’s still very much aware of what it looks like, what it feels like, and why he needs it. Similarly, today, we don’t know exactly what a superstring is comprised of, or what a brane is, and as such, we can’t absolutely define matter, but we are still willing to accept the existence of matter. So in that sense, a complete definition for God is not necessary to identify God’s existence or nonexistence. A partial definition will do.

I’ve also heard the argument that in order for something to exist, it must have dimensions, mass, volume, location, etc. I think that’s valid when defining solid objects, but there are many things which do exist, but do not have substance, such as love, fear, democracy, the economy, a joke, a war, or music. (Yes, the sound waves are atmospheric compression, but where in all those vibrations, is the emotion attatched to the song? It exists in a non-physical way.) Also, subatomic particles don’t exactly have volume or a definite location, and some types of particles don’t even have mass. And yet, they have to exist, otherwise the stuff made out of them wouldn’t be there.

So what are the defining characteristic of God? Well, that varies from culture to culture, so let’s break down what exactly is essential: “God has no beginning and no end.” This isn’t the case for everyone, as many of the Pagan gods are born or died. But I know of no culture which suggests that a god can be die of old age, or killed with conventional weaponry. So I think this brings us to the first qualification of God: God is immortal (though necessarily indestructible).

Next, there’s miracles. In order to be a god, one must be able to create miracles. What are miracles? Anything created by God. Circular definition is invalid. Some examples of miracles would be things like healing the sick, parting a sea, etc. Well, human beings can do that too, through medicine, and building dams. So we would have to be more specific, and say that God can make things happen by thought alone.

I suppose one could also suggest that God can do things which are not possible for mortals. But this would be hard to pin down, since we haven’t identified what is impossible for mortals to do. Optimistically speaking, nothing is impossible. So let’s just say that God’s power is in the controlling of the outcome of events. Example: Humans are made of electrons and up and down quarks. A pillar of salt is made of these exact same particles, arranged in a differet order. These particles are in a constant state of flux, affecting their positions. It’s only probability which keeps these particles from spontaneously changing their arrangement from human to salt pillar. Theoretically, if God could redirect the probable outcome, then a human could transform into a pillar of salt, without violating any law of physics. So the idea that God can do the impossible, is not valid, because nothing is impossible.

Next comes everyone’s favorite aspect of God – the creator of the universe. This is kind of a tricky one. Genesis describes God creating a garden and placing animals in that garden. Heck, I can do that. God having to create the space to put the garden in, and the matter to make the garden out of, and creating the animals prior to placing them, is not stated, but it’s insinuated. Of course, not all the gods of other cultures had a role in creation. In Greek mythology, Eurynome did a lot in the way of creating the world, but other gods such as Ares or Hermes weren’t born until after the world already existed. However, in the monotist philosophical movements of Pantheism, Cartesianism, Deism, Panetheism, etc., God’s role as creator is paramount, even to the exclusion of being interventionist. So for this reason, I have decided that the word “god” is a homonym, having two definitons: One being the thing that created everything, whatever that thing is. And the other being the human-like entities controlling things, regardless of whether or not they had a hand in creation.

Now, if God is described as existence itself, or life itself, or a binding force which connects all things, then God is defined out of existence. It’s sort of like if I try to prove that there is a “flimbling” by defining a “flimbling” as “nothing,” and then saying, “look, there’s nothing; that proves it’s real.” The argument just wouldn’t hold water. So let’s say that there is a force which exists everywhere, and/or is the cause of creation. What condition is needed for it to be God, as opposed to just being nothing? Conciousness! So God, as definited in the Monotist sense, can be proven to exist or to not exist, based on the answer to one simple question: “Is the universe concious?” Well, is it? Are time and space self-aware? I don’t know. But at least now we know what we’re talking about.

The same applies to non-creator gods, such as Ares. We know that war exists. But is war self-aware? If the answer is yes, then Ares is real. If not, then Ares is imaginary.

(To be continued…)

 

[Shawn_Ravenfire]

(Continued.)

Lastly, we come to the nature of God in terms of physical substance. According to Monotist and some Dharmic philosophies, God has no physical form or substance, just like music or love – real, but not material. However, many cultures have stories of gods taking physical form, i.e. avatars. The most obvious example is Jesus, which is God walking around temporarily with a physical body. Krishna is another popular example. Of course any metaphysical being, such as a god, or a demon, or an angel, in order to be seen and interact with humans, must take on physical properties – if not flesh and bone, then at least some sort of partially-material form capable of reflecting light and producing sound. But in all cases, the physical form is temporary. So I would say that the last qualification to be a god, is to be able to exist without substance (either all of the time, or at least most of the time).

So that’s my definition of God:

1. Anything sentient, capable of existing in non-physical form, with a relatively long lifespan, and is able to affect the outcome of events by thought alone.
2. The sentient process by which the universe and/or forms within the universe came into existence.

Anything which does not meet all the minimum requirements of one or the other, is not God. For example, a telekinetic person meets the condition of producing events from thought alone, but fails to meet the conditions of being non-physical or having a longer-than-normal lifespan. A sentient android meets the condition of having a long lifespan, but fails to meet the other qualifications. A collision of M-branes could meet the condition of creating the universe, but fails to meet the condition of being sentient. So none of those are gods. Thor, even though he doesn’t meet all the conditions for definition #2, does meet all the conditions for definition #1, which makes him a god. Spinoza’s god meets the conditions of definition #2. The Biblical God, meets the conditions of both definitions.

The one thing that bothers me, though, is ghosts. Ghosts meet all the conditions of definition #1, but I wouldn’t consider a ghost to be a god. So I guess there is one final requirement needed for being a god, albeit a rather flimsy one. A god must be worshipped by at least one person. But this opens up a whole can of worms, regarding what constitutes an act of worship. So for now, let’s just that a gray area.

 

[Stylites]

That is not a tautology. That’s pathetic.

That which can be defined is finite. God is infinite, and hence is beyond all definition. Perhaps a human mind which cannot grasp infinity would say that is ‘pathetic’ but all I am doing is describing Reality, and anyone can disagree with Reality if they want to.

.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Now, if God is described as existence itself, or life itself, or a binding force which connects all things, then God is defined out of existence. It’s sort of like if I try to prove that there is a “flimbling” by defining a “flimbling” as “nothing,” and then saying, “look, there’s nothing; that proves it’s real.” The argument just wouldn’t hold water. So let’s say that there is a force which exists everywhere, and/or is the cause of creation. What condition is needed for it to be God, as opposed to just being nothing? Conciousness! So God, as definited in the Monotist sense, can be proven to exist or to not exist, based on the answer to one simple question: “Is the universe concious?” Well, is it? Are time and space self-aware? I don’t know. But at least now we know what we’re talking about.

If you could demonstrate that spacetime as a whole is conscious, and not just within beings like us, that would be an arguement I’d be willing to take seriously…

 

[Stylites]

Well, how can anything be observable without an observer?

No observer, no observation.

If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, a compression wave will still propogate in the time domain, but it can’t be observed with no observer.

Ah, but God can be seen. The human soul can be the observer. Go and see for yourself, and you’ll get all the proof you need, and then some!

.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That which can be defined is finite. God is infinite, and hence is beyond all definition. Perhaps a human mind which cannot grasp infinity would say that is ‘pathetic’ but all I am doing is describing Reality, and anyone can disagree with Reality if they want to.

You are describing your version of it, which you admit is based on nothing more than your idea of how things ought to be.

That is not even wrong.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ah, but God can be seen. The human soul can be the observer. Go and see for yourself, and you’ll get all the proof you need, and then some!

.

The human soul would have to be proven to exist first.

 

[Stylites]

is matter only observable when there is a conscious being, like us, to observe it?

lemondiesel is pointing out that consciousness of something is not necessary for something to exist, unless a radical experientialist wants to try to claim that the universe ceases to exist each time he or she falls into a deep sleep.

.

 

[Stylites]

The human soul would have to be proven to exist first.

Call yourself whatever you want to. The point is, God can be seen. Go and see for yourself, assuming you adhere to scientific principles of evidence and proof, and honestly seek an answer to your question.

.

 

[GaryTaylor]

None of us have seen God though many have heard him speak and could feel his presence.

For those who doubt what is? Then maybe it would first be helpful to look at Pure Evil and see how you feel about its existance. Pretty positive you won’t have to look to far to see its trail of chaos. Do you believe that exists?

Its from this point of understanding which many come to really believe. Hope you find the answer you are looking for. I’ll say a prayer for you.

 

[KindredSoul]

There’s one salient difference.

Matter is observable.

God is not.

That is only a difference of happenstance, not of quality or objectivity. We do not at present have the necessary senses to observe God. He can, we believe, be sensed by those who have the necessary ability (Angels, saints, etc.). As for our not being able to observe Him currently, we could just as conceivably have lacked the senses needed to sense matter, and could have just been blind consciousness, with our bodies doing what we needed to survive mechanically without our minds sensing any of it at all. Matter would still exist, in such a reality. If we posited that it did not, we would quite frankly be dead wrong. Thus the difference you point out is circumstantial, not definitive.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Moonstruck888]

lemondiesel is pointing out that consciousness of something is not necessary for something to exist, unless a radical experientialist wants to try to claim that the universe ceases to exist each time he or she falls into a deep sleep.

That is not what he or she asked, which was whether or not observations on matter require an observer. If he or she meant to ask whether the existence of matter requires an observer, the question must be rephrased to take into account that important distinction.

 

[Stylites]

You are describing your version of it, which you admit is based on nothing more than your idea of how things ought to be.

That is not even wrong.

Where is this supposed ‘admission’ of mine? I described Reality, and anyone is free to disagree with Reality if they want to, but are not free to misquote without challenge nor lie with impunity about what others have said.

.