In your opinion, who/what is God ?

Xylo · Jul 16, 2011

In my opinion, "god" or "gods" are the result of several different mythos that were used to explain and track natural processes, astronomical procession and explain events for which there was no knowledge base.

It's not so easy to remember all the stars in the sky, but if those stars are given names and stories they become much easier to remember. It's important to know where those stars are at different times of the year and different times of the day. Further, the biggest star (our sun,) provides this planet with almost all of it's energy, and the consistencies in stories of gods dying and being reborn tells that tale many times over.

I cannot, in my logical mind, assign a "god" to the first cause because then there would have to be a cause to the first cause. It's a logical conundrum that would certainly be easier to assign to a god or gods, but then logic would have me explain the cause of the first causers.

PararealitySaint · Jul 16, 2011

God to me is the Lord Jesus Christ. I am called a "primitive" on this site and I carry that badge with honor in knowing I am not ashamed to say so.

I believe in the miracle of his resurrection and the Glory of his grace. I respect other peoples opinions on their personal religious feelings and am someone who will not force my belief system on others, nor will I cover it over with anything but the honest truth as far as I see it.

Michael Allen · Jul 16, 2011

Following Ufology's thread:

There's a couple of things that I've been thinking about (brainstorming really) of late concerning the nature of the interaction of light and matter. Regarding this I've thought about the way an electron presents itself to scientific measurement as an effect cause by the constant appearance of virtual photons (from vacuum fluctuations near the naked electron "em-singularity") Theoretically the repulsive force between two electrons approaches infinity as the distance between them approaches zero. This repulsive field near whatever string accounts for the presence of the electron -- i.e. for its main properties communicated by the actual virtual photon field surrounding. Likewise it is impossible to experimentally verify the existence of the presumed cause (whatever the point electron is) in isolation from its effects (the virtual photon field--as photons are the carrier's of the EM force)

So I imagined a grid of stationary objects we often refer to as the cause of the virtual photon field (which experimentally show as "electrons") and proposed a theory by which the actual virtual photons jump from one grid point to another (cf. -- if related -- "Feynman Propagators"). So the effect of electronic motion occurs via the jumping of virtual photon clouds from one grid point to another. I.e. what moves is the carrier of the force, not the object--all of the what we know experimentally as "electron" perhaps is nothing more than a passage of information through a grid according to very specific rules.

I see that trickster elements can be found in this framework

E.g
Uncertainty principle
Young's Experiment refactored using a beam of electrons
Quantum Entanglement

Etc.

TClaeys · Jul 17, 2011

PararealitySaint said:
God to me is the Lord Jesus Christ. I am called a "primitive" on this site and I carry that badge with honor in knowing I am not ashamed to say so.

I believe in the miracle of his resurrection and the Glory of his grace. I respect other peoples opinions on their personal religious feelings and am someone who will not force my belief system on others, nor will I cover it over with anything but the honest truth as far as I see it.

I can respect that. At least you're not afraid to say what you really feel. In the end it doesn't matter really at all. Either you're thrown into heaven or hell or simply the lights go out. You're either judged or not. If it makes your life better somehow, ... if it makes you behave in a way that betters your life and others lives then I don't see any harm, in fact I see only good.

Don't get me wrong, ... there seems to be a lot of corruption, misbehavior, hypocrisy, and what some people might call evil all in the name of religion. But for the average person to believe in and practice forgiveness, tolerance, equality, kindness, and compassion because that is what your religion preaches, then it affects everyone positively. God then seems to become irrelevant and is never actually in the picture (until perhaps the end). But the behavior while living is enhanced and thus your personal life and outlook is much different. So, in a lot of cases, just the idea of a god lurking behind the scenes keeping people accountable seems to have positive connections.

For me though it's just common sense to have the same qualities. What comes around goes around. I don't need or believe in any kind of personal god that meddles in my matters or even cares what I do. Wouldn't they let themselves be known if it was so important that I believe in them?? If there is a personal God like the Christian God, then why does "he" give me logic that I should blatently forego to have blind faith that he is there?? Seems like faith is perilously close to gullibility. I don't mean to offend anyone, but sheeesh a little sign, whisper, burining bush or something would be good enough for me. Why the elusiveness and at the same time the strict commandment that I should have no other gods before him??

Michael Allen · Jul 17, 2011

TClaeys said:
I can respect that. At least you're not afraid to say what you really feel. In the end it doesn't matter really at all. Either you're thrown into heaven or hell or simply the lights go out. You're either judged or not. If it makes your life better somehow, ... if it makes you behave in a way that betters your life and others lives then I don't see any harm, in fact I see only good.

Don't get me wrong, ... there seems to be a lot of corruption, misbehavior, hypocrisy, and what some people might call evil all in the name of religion. But for the average person to believe in and practice forgiveness, tolerance, equality, kindness, and compassion because that is what your religion preaches, then it affects everyone positively. God then seems to become irrelevant and is never actually in the picture (until perhaps the end). But the behavior while living is enhanced and thus your personal life and outlook is much different. So, in a lot of cases, just the idea of a god lurking behind the scenes keeping people accountable seems to have positive connections.

For me though it's just common sense to have the same qualities. What comes around goes around. I don't need or believe in any kind of personal god that meddles in my matters or even cares what I do. Wouldn't they let themselves be known if it was so important that I believe in them?? If there is a personal God like the Christian God, then why does "he" give me logic that I should blatently forego to have blind faith that he is there?? Seems like faith is perilously close to gullibility. I don't mean to offend anyone, but sheeesh a little sign, whisper, burining bush or something would be good enough for me. Why the elusiveness and at the same time the strict commandment that I should have no other gods before him??

This gets back to the Euthyphro dilemma:

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Often paraphrased in other terms, i.e. "is God good because he is God or God because he is good"

softbeard · Jul 17, 2011

If it has any meaning, I think God is us. By 'us' I mean all consciousness, wherever it is. And so, by that definition, God is not omniscent and He/She doesn't know itself. Some parts of 'God' are self-conscious, others are not. I'm sure this concept is not original, but I think it's silly to consider 'God' as a seperate disparate entity as many religions do.

Randall · Jul 17, 2011

Michael Allen said:
Following Ufology's thread:

So the effect of electronic motion occurs via the jumping of virtual photon clouds from one grid point to another. I.e. what moves is the carrier of the force, not the object--all of the what we know experimentally as "electron" perhaps is nothing more than a passage of information through a grid according to very specific rules.

I see that trickster elements can be found in this framework

E.g
Uncertainty principle
Young's Experiment refactored using a beam of electrons
Quantum Entanglement

Etc.

Amazing how the computational model addresses so many of these paradoxes and problems found in quantum experiments ... duality, quantum entaglement, cosmic speed limit. It actually gets quite spooky the more you contemplate it.

Thanks for that post.

j.r.

softbeard · Jul 17, 2011

ufology said:
Amazing how the computational model addresses so many of these paradoxes and problems found in quantum experiments ... duality, quantum entaglement, cosmic speed limit. It actually gets quite spooky the more you contemplate it.

Yeah... I don't think the idea of the universe as a computer is quite new. Unfortunately, some aspects related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle have been shown to be non-computable on a fundamental level. God does play dice; probably a few more games too.
But it's good you're thinking about this stuff

.

Michael Allen · Jul 17, 2011

No it is definitely not new--and some may yet be surprised how old the idea really is.

Richard L. Thompson:

Over the years, many analogies have been used to describe the universe. thus the Aristotelians compared the universe to a living organism, and the early mechanistic philosophers compared it to a gigantic clock. To understand Vedic conception of the universe, the modern idea of a computer with a multilevel operating system is useful...The parallel betwen the Vedic conception of the univers and a computer can be made more explicit by introducing the concept of a virtual reality system.

Source: Alien Identities: Ancient Insights into Modern UFO Phenomena

The Uncertainty Principle is precisely what one would expect if a portion of the system built with the very virtualized blocks tried to compute the whole. It would be akin to a virtual machine inside a host trying to fully determine the host's properties. The world of human designed computers would be built from the very blocks of this greater information storage and retrieval system.

Another way of looking at it is to try to see the vanishing point between two facing mirrors...the observer's own physical presence must impede the vanishing point.

I suspect the universe is computable--but not by computers that are embedded in the system itself(universe).

The problem is one of self-reference and recursion.

Terjarv · Jul 17, 2011

TClaeys said:
In the end it doesn't matter really at all. Either you're thrown into heaven or hell or simply the lights go out.

Well said, what a contrast between possibilities. I would assume that everyone wants there to be an afterlife...but is this wanting/yearning for an afterlife the only reason many believe it to be true?

With that said, how would the co-hosts feel about having a NDE (near death experience) researcher on the show. Its certainly a thought provoking topic, and would engender some fierce debating in the forum...

softbeard · Jul 17, 2011

Michael Allen said:
I suspect the universe is computable--but not by computers that are embedded in the system itself(universe).

Unfortunately that concept really has no meaning because the universe is everything, so nothing can exist 'outside' of it. It's very difficult for humans not to think in this way; I have a lot of trouble with the concept myself, but the universe is assumed infinite. If you're trying to imagine something 'outside' the universe, even in higher dimensions; it's still part of the universe. It's still part of 'the system'.
If you truly do go to an 'alternate universe' to set up your computer, then that still doesn't help you because there is absolutely no communications with our universe; by definition. That means no magic wormholes allowed, nothing. It`s exactly the same as if the `alternate` universe does not exist.
Any communincation wih our universe means, by definition, that it`s part of our universe.

Angel of Ioren · Jul 19, 2011

TClaeys said:
I can respect that. At least you're not afraid to say what you really feel. In the end it doesn't matter really at all. Either you're thrown into heaven or hell or simply the lights go out. You're either judged or not. If it makes your life better somehow, ... if it makes you behave in a way that betters your life and others lives then I don't see any harm, in fact I see only good.

Don't get me wrong, ... there seems to be a lot of corruption, misbehavior, hypocrisy, and what some people might call evil all in the name of religion. But for the average person to believe in and practice forgiveness, tolerance, equality, kindness, and compassion because that is what your religion preaches, then it affects everyone positively. God then seems to become irrelevant and is never actually in the picture (until perhaps the end). But the behavior while living is enhanced and thus your personal life and outlook is much different. So, in a lot of cases, just the idea of a god lurking behind the scenes keeping people accountable seems to have positive connections.

For me though it's just common sense to have the same qualities. What comes around goes around. I don't need or believe in any kind of personal god that meddles in my matters or even cares what I do. Wouldn't they let themselves be known if it was so important that I believe in them?? If there is a personal God like the Christian God, then why does "he" give me logic that I should blatently forego to have blind faith that he is there?? Seems like faith is perilously close to gullibility. I don't mean to offend anyone, but sheeesh a little sign, whisper, burining bush or something would be good enough for me. Why the elusiveness and at the same time the strict commandment that I should have no other gods before him??

That makes me think of what Ricky Gervais said at the end of the Golden Globes:

tyder001 · Jul 19, 2011

That's what she said!

Oops, wrong office. 8)

trainedobserver · Jul 19, 2011

softbeard said:
Any communincation wih our universe means, by definition, that it`s part of our universe.

A ramble ...
Logically, there seems only room for one thing which has one event happening to it. I think our perspective or position is such that this can only be inferred and deduced through system theory. I think the implication is that complex subsystems exist (solar systems, composed of other subsystems for example, atoms are another) in some infinite progression in both the macro and micro directions, but there again we are prisoners of our fixed perspective which is a function of our position within the overall system itself. Whatever the case may be we must acknowledge that while we perceive of ourselves as individuals, logically and functionally we are the universe not something in it or apart from it. (good grief, what is in this coffee?)

PararealitySaint · Jul 19, 2011

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> So with all these really cool modern physicists and humanists and theological existentialists out there on this forum, is anyone actually able to discuss God as an individual, singularly different than an enjoined part of one's own flawlessly kept possessive disposition?

Please don't get me wrong on this point, but everything that I have read so far seems to be so self empowered, that the very idea of a deity is dummy downed by the sheer lack of any super natural "other" in the slightest figment of consideration.

It's like peering through a kaleidoscope at all the many different colors of the prism and instead of witnessing “in awe” at the many reflections of coloration facilitating such a beautiful pattern, shirking off the exquisiteness for the mechanics of the science behind it instead.

Is God so easily explained away as this? And this as some notion of a conscious separation within man’s need to picture a structured generality, instead of faithfully acknowledging the infinite possibility which is in fact a vast unknown. An Unknown, where this humanly driven compartmentalized explanation is impossible otherwise?

Please tell me that out there in this wide body of an intellectual forum, there isn’t someone who has developed a theory, which in and of itself explains God in a form by which he (or she or it) has in fact a potency relegated outside of humanities limited understanding of the universe and thus the scientifically driven and all to lacking, "finite" explanation.

I would much rather believe in my “primitive” God than in a human being’s awareness of microbes and particle movement, because when I do begin to enclose my conjecture for lack of really knowing ALL the cosmos, I begin to see the exact personification of the generality I imposed upon the name, “primitive” for others in the first place.

I dare anyone to say, “I have no idea what God truly is, I just know he’s out there and he’s out there for me.”

Angel of Ioren · Jul 19, 2011

PararealitySaint said:
 So with all these really cool modern physicists and humanists and theological existentialists out there on this forum, is anyone actually able to discuss God as an individual, singularly different than an enjoined part of one's own flawlessly kept possessive disposition?

Please don't get me wrong on this point, but everything that I have read so far seems to be so self empowered, that the very idea of a deity is dummy downed by the sheer lack of any super natural "other" in the slightest figment of consideration.

It's like peering through a kaleidoscope at all the many different colors of the prism and instead of witnessing “in awe” at the many reflections of coloration facilitating such a beautiful pattern, shirking off the exquisiteness for the mechanics of the science behind it instead.

Is God so easily explained away as this? And this as some notion of a conscious separation within man’s need to picture a structured generality, instead of faithfully acknowledging the infinite possibility which is in fact a vast unknown. An Unknown, where this humanly driven compartmentalized explanation is impossible otherwise?

Please tell me that out there in this wide body of an intellectual forum, there isn’t someone who has developed a theory, which in and of itself explains God in a form by which he (or she or it) has in fact a potency relegated outside of humanities limited understanding of the universe and thus the scientifically driven and all to lacking, "finite" explanation.

I would much rather believe in my “primitive” God than in a human being’s awareness of microbes and particle movement, because when I do begin to enclose my conjecture for lack of really knowing ALL the cosmos, I begin to see the exact personification of the generality I imposed upon the name, “primitive” for others in the first place.

I dare anyone to say, “I have no idea what God truly is, I just know he’s out there and he’s out there for me.”

How about this one:
If you have a god, that's great. Just don't look down on someone that doesn't make it a part of his or her life. I'm super happy without worrying about religion.

trainedobserver · Jul 19, 2011

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

PararealitySaint said:
I dare anyone to say, “I have no idea what God truly is, I just know he’s out there and he’s out there for me.”

I couldn't do that because of the number of assumptions required. I must assume some definition for the word "God." I would have to assume this definition that I have arrived at is somehow correct and that it exists. The greatest assumption seems to be that this would then be interested in me personally in some way.

There just isn't any reason to believe that.

I dare anyone to say, "We exist and don't have a clue why and on top of that we don't have the resources to even begin to suss it out."

softbeard · Jul 19, 2011

PararealitySaint said:
So with all these really cool modern physicists and humanists and theological existentialists out there on this forum, is anyone actually able to discuss God as an individual, singularly different than an enjoined part of one's own flawlessly kept possessive disposition.

God as a disparate being, to me just makes no sense unless you start bending the definition of 'God'. I have no problems believing in a finite super-intelligence exisiting within our universe, but it cannot be omniscent.

Randall · Jul 19, 2011

Michael Allen said:
I suspect the universe is computable--but not by computers that are embedded in the system itself(universe).

The problem is one of self-reference and recursion.

Yes absolutely, the problem is with recursion when considering the universe as a philosophical whole. However this discussion is about the existence of God, and until recent times the concept of multiverses and ultraverses[SUP]1[/SUP] simply didn't exist in the context of monotheistic religion. It was assumed that this univerese was infinite, and in a certain perspective it is. It was also assumed that God created it, but there was no context for where God was other than in some great void.

As we've learned more about the nature of our universe, religion has constantly moved the goalposts claiming they were there first, when in actual fact they had no idea. Many of them refused to believe the world wasn't flat. Then they refused to believe the Earth orbited the Sun. So religion cannot fairly claim that their God is always the the creator of "everything" new that is discovered. All the Bible seems to talk about is the creation of this universe, and that's as good as it's gonna get.

So returning to your point in the quote above. You are seeing it in the intended context so we are on the same page. I propose that it isn't necessary to go beyond the immediate ultraverse for now. Just establishing that we are contained within one would be amazing enough. It would open up many possibilities for exploration and travel that are beyond most people's wildest dreams ( Stargate/Sliders type stuff ). It would also open up the plausibility for a creator, or if you feel the need to worship it, a "God".

1. I'll take credit for this one here in the context of this discussion ( not the comic book by the same name ), unless someone else has already defined it elsewhere. Ultraverse: The concept of another universe as a shell or wrapper for another universe model including any multiverses it may contain. GEnerally this would be used in the context of computational models of the universe.

tyder001 · Jul 19, 2011

The more I've thought about this question the more I've come to realize that I don't know who or what "I am." Once I get that then I think I might be able to start to understand God/cosmos/universe better. I hear some people say that I'm the by product of a chemical process and a happy little accident. Naahhh, I'm not buying that. I hear others say God formed dust from the earth and breathed into it. I buy that on a symbolic basis but not on a young earth creationist basis. So, really and truly I don't know what or who I am. I may be the happy little by product of brain chemistry. But, truly (from what I've read) which is very little really. Anyway, truly from what I've read you can take it either way. I heard (and I agree) a scientist say not long ago, that there is equal reason to beleive the earth was planned and that the earth is a coincedence. He (if it matters) is an athiest but not a religious one. By that I mean that he had no axe to grind and really didn't try to use "science" as a hammer to "prove or disprove" what it isn't equiped to prove or disprove. So, I am that I am. That works for me. I honestly do have some reasons for thinking I've been here before. But, that (and I freely admit it) could be bullshit. I honestly don't think we begin at birth or end at death. That means I think I am a conscious being and this body is my earth suit. But, I'm not gonna put a gun to my head to prove it or rush out and dive off a tall building.

So, that means I'm not sure. I don't know why so many people have such a problem saying "I don't know." That doesn't mean you don't keep searching. It doesn't mean you can't know or will never know. It just means right now "I don't know." But, if I didn't beleive then I wouldn't take the time to pray or meditate or even consider my "beingness." Anyway, just my ramble. As I said somewhere else, the truth is the truth. Yelling louder and beating people over the head with the bible or the koran or the musings of your favorite scientist doesn't make you the winner of the debate. It just makes you louder. As for Christainty: While I don't see the world like Trained Observer does let me say this. It's a hard thing to live your whole life and give everything you have to a faith. To define yourself as a being and your self worth as a product of that faith. Then to slowly come to the realization that you no longer "hold" that faith. It's upsetting and knocks your whole world askew. I speak from personal experience and in the end I speak only for myself. Nobody, who was raised in a secular enviroment can truly understand the battle those of us who were raised religious fight within our selfs to find our own idenity. I still idenify as Christain in that I truly believe the idea of God becoming man and taking part in the grief and lust and hope and anxiety of man is the best and highest example of love there is. However, I no longer have faith in the "religion" or the church or the bible as infallible. So, even though we took different roads out of Eden I do "tip" my hat to you T.O. Peace.

Steve.

In your opinion, who/what is God ?

Paranormal Adept

An Open Minded Skeptic

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

J. Randall Murphy

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Friendly Skeptic

Paranormal Adept

Paranormally Disenchanted

An Open Minded Skeptic

Friendly Skeptic

Paranormally Disenchanted

Skilled Investigator

J. Randall Murphy

Paranormal Adept