Define God

neo wrote:

Explain, if you will, why the concept of an all powerful God must exclude the ability to apply his power selectively.

Because if the application of power selectively were to exclude an option or course of action, he would no longer be all powerful.

But as I've already said, to say that God is onmiprecent, omnicient and omnipotent, is not the same as saying there is a supreme consciousness in perfect control. So there's no need to exclude anything.

God is indeed omniscient, and there's no mystery about it as long as 'God' is properly defined.
Thing is, all knowledge comes from 'the living everything' or God. For us to know something about atoms, there need to be atoms for us to study. The source of this knowledge is not in man, nor is it in the atom, because one alone is not capable of knowing. God, being 'the thing in which all knowledge takes place' is in that respect ominscient.

Come to think, 'omnipotent' pretty much sums it up, don't you think? The parts about knowledge and precence are but elaborations. Unlimited potential surely includes these things.

0 Replies

It seems to me that much of what is being done here is the construction of a hypothetical model of "a god." I don't think Cyracuz, for example, is arguing that God IS in fact omniscient, omnipotent (omnicompitent), omnipresent, omnicompotent (and omnivorous?). He is merely postulating as an intellectual exercize that IF there were a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent it would be worthy of the label, God.
Is that so, Cyracuz?

0 Replies

Almost JL. But I see no IF.

The hypothetical entity 'everything as a singularity', can be said to posess the attributes in question regardless of the issue of wether or not this entity is a consious entity.

I'm just trying to figure our what to put into the term 'God' based on logical interpretations of what is said about it in all areas of usage.

I believe the result will be an idea of God that is consistent with science, logic and the human spirit. The absence of a definition of the term 'God' is what empowers mainiacal priests and sect leaders of all religions, and so I can't help but think that solving this problem would be a vital step towards worldwide reconciliation.

0 Replies

I sympathize with you, Cyracuz, but religionists seem to believe in a personal god, unlike the "living everything" concept.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

It seems to me that much of what is being done here is the construction of a hypothetical model of "a god." I don't think Cyracuz, for example, is arguing that God IS in fact omniscient, omnipotent (omnicompitent), omnipresent, omnicompotent (and omnivorous?). He is merely postulating as an intellectual exercize that IF there were a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent it would be worthy of the label, God.
Is that so, Cyracuz?

bloody hell i've started something now. How many more omni bus t not think about it. Where's spendy when you need him?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

. . . So God is omnipotent but not omniscient. I thought the third omni that went with those two was omnipresent. Is God omnipresent, or does she go on holiday like everyone else occasionally?

That God is not omnipresent should be evident in Biblical understanding by Jesus referring several times to his father 'who is in heaven'. Apparently, Jehovah, whose name means 'he who causes to become', manages his organization from a central place.

echi wrote:

hey, neo-

I am trying to understand what you mean. If God can have limited knowledge of the future, then he can also have limited knowledge of the past. If he had complete knowledge of the past, then he would have complete knowledge of the future, as well. What am I missing?

Assuming time is linear:
Why would his knowledge of the past be any more an indication of future knowledge than would your knowledge of the past?

Steve 41oo wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
It seems to me that much of what is being done here is the construction of a hypothetical model of "a god." I don't think Cyracuz, for example, is arguing that God IS in fact omniscient, omnipotent (omnicompitent), omnipresent, omnicompotent (and omnivorous?). He is merely postulating as an intellectual exercize that IF there were a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent it would be worthy of the label, God.
Is that so, Cyracuz?
bloody hell i've started something now. How many more omni bus t not think about it. Where's spendy when you need him?

It is well known among my neighbors that I am omnivorous. but no supernatural quality is ascribed to my appetite. Laughing

BTW, it was quite my intention at the beginning of this topic to encourage speculation on what God might be like.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:
If God can have limited knowledge of the future, then he can also have limited knowledge of the past. If he had complete knowledge of the past, then he would have complete knowledge of the future, as well. What am I missing?
Assuming time is linear:
Why would his knowledge of the past be any more an indication of future knowledge than would your knowledge of the past?

My knowledge of the past is not complete (nor is it even correct). There are too many unknown variables for me to accurately predict the future.

If the cosmos is deterministic, then complete knowledge of the past (how everything came to be) would provide complete knowledge of the future. Does God, in your mind, have complete knowledge of the past?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

I sympathize with you, Cyracuz, but religionists seem to believe in a personal god, unlike the "living everything" concept.

I am just starting in one end. The concept of 'the living everything' provides logical solutions to many issues we consider to be of a very personal or individual nature. The paradox of choice vs free will is one.

Although the approach indicates that the inner workings of LE (living everything) are of a deterministic nature, it doesn't prohibit the eventuality that elements within it which retain some sense of self or individuality may experience free will. But, being those elemets that retain some sense of self, humans tend to 'forget' that we are extensions of something, and that something in turn extends from us. Fueled by the deterministic drive that spawned us we are left with the choice of where to take it from here. The deterministic part is that the decision to move forward is not ours. We just have some say in where to go.

Or to put it perhaps a little simpler; the LE is deterministic, but it is self-determining, as it cannot, by definition, be subject to external influence. As a fragment of the LE, a human being contains or represents a fracture of the self-determining nature, constantly moved by other forces, but also capable of moving.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Although the approach indicates that the inner workings of LE (living everything) are of a deterministic nature, it doesn't prohibit the eventuality that elements within it which retain some sense of self or individuality may experience free will.

Wouldn't that suggest that Nature created God?

Quote:

But, being those elemets that retain some sense of self, humans tend to 'forget' that we are extensions of something, and that something in turn extends from us. Fueled by the deterministic drive that spawned us we are left with the choice of where to take it from here. The deterministic part is that the decision to move forward is not ours. We just have some say in where to go.

I agree, but I think it is completely deterministic. "Free will" is an experience, not an act of creation.

Quote:

Or to put it perhaps a little simpler; the LE is deterministic, but it is self-determining, as it cannot, by definition, be subject to external influence.

Could such a God be (completely) aware and still be a self? If your "self" is everything, then there can be nothing else.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
If God can have limited knowledge of the future, then he can also have limited knowledge of the past. If he had complete knowledge of the past, then he would have complete knowledge of the future, as well. What am I missing?
Assuming time is linear:
Why would his knowledge of the past be any more an indication of future knowledge than would your knowledge of the past?

My knowledge of the past is not complete (nor is it even correct). There are too many unknown variables for me to accurately predict the future.

If the cosmos is deterministic, then complete knowledge of the past (how everything came to be) would provide complete knowledge of the future. Does God, in your mind, have complete knowledge of the past?

Assuming time is linear: Yes.

But, you have assumed the cosmos is deterministic. If 'He who causes to become' actually exists, then the cosmos would be under his control.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Wouldn't that suggest that Nature created God?

I don't see that it does. Nature is within God, but God is not within nature, by the same logic pattern that tells us that the numeric value 6 is contained in the value 10, but value 10 is not contained in 6.

The creation of the LE, if such a term as creation is even valid, would have to be instantaneous. That is not to say that all elements of LE would be as they are not at the first instant. Their potential had to be there though, as the LE's omnipotence.

echi wrote:

I agree, but I think it is completely deterministic. "Free will" is an experience, not an act of creation.

Completely deterministic, but self deterministic. And if we, as an experience of thought, sub-divide this force of self determination and assign it to individual elements within the LE, it becomes apparent that 'my share' of the LE's deterministic attributes manifests to me as free will.

echi wrote:

Could such a God be (completely) aware and still be a self? If your "self" is everything, then there can be nothing else.

The LE may or may not be completely aware as a singularity. Are you asking if it would negate the possiblility of 'lesser consciousnesses' within it if it were completely conscious? By definition there cannot be more than the LE, and all consciousness takes place within it. We do not know if all the inner workings of the LE add up to it's consciousness as a singularity, but if it did, I don't see how that would negate the validity of such a concept as the LE.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
If God can have limited knowledge of the future, then he can also have limited knowledge of the past. If he had complete knowledge of the past, then he would have complete knowledge of the future, as well. What am I missing?
Assuming time is linear:
Why would his knowledge of the past be any more an indication of future knowledge than would your knowledge of the past?

My knowledge of the past is not complete (nor is it even correct). There are too many unknown variables for me to accurately predict the future.

If the cosmos is deterministic, then complete knowledge of the past (how everything came to be) would provide complete knowledge of the future. Does God, in your mind, have complete knowledge of the past?
Assuming time is linear: Yes.

But, you have assumed the cosmos is deterministic. If 'He who causes to become' actually exists, then the cosmos would be under his control.

It's too presumptious to infer that we are in any way the object of a deity powerfull enough to create us. What personal interest could such an entity have in a life form that is powerless to equal the act of creation, not to mention ..... a universe full of worlds?
Only in our imagination could we expect more than indifference from such a power.

0 Replies

neo wrote:

But, you have assumed the cosmos is deterministic. If 'He who causes to become' actually exists, then the cosmos would be under his control.

The cosmos would be under his control... The cosmos is his control. The fraction of sway you have in which direction this contol should take is his control. Self-deterministic.

About time, to an entity such as the one I'm nagging about in here, time would be an internal force, thereby negating the possibility that a conscious entity of such a nature would experience anything but the pecence.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

. . . It's too presumptious to infer that we are in any way the object of a deity powerfull enough to create us. What personal interest could such an entity have in a life form that is powerless to equal the act of creation, not to mention ..... a universe full of worlds?
Only in our imagination could we expect more than indifference from such a power.

But that is precisely what the grand scheme of things is all about. By creating sentient beings with free will, he has allowed all of us to participate in creation. We have our limits, to be sure; but are you dissatisfied with the potential of your human existence?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

echi wrote:
Could such a God be (completely) aware and still be a self? If your "self" is everything, then there can be nothing else.

The LE may or may not be completely aware as a singularity. Are you asking if it would negate the possiblility of 'lesser consciousnesses' within it if it were completely conscious? By definition there cannot be more than the LE, and all consciousness takes place within it. We do not know if all the inner workings of the LE add up to it's consciousness as a singularity, but if it did, I don't see how that would negate the validity of such a concept as the LE.

I'm arguing that the concept of "self" can only exist in contrast to something else. God, or the LE, being everything, has nothing to measure itself against.

0 Replies

Cryacuz, if the LE is not determined by anything outside of it (which follows if the Everything includes everything), then it, the LE, is free rather than determined.
But you say that it is "deterministic", meaning, I guess, not that it is determined but that it determines the actions of everything within it. Is that right? If so, I have the problem that if I am intrinsic to the LE, I too am (at least ultimately) free. I partake of my True Self's (the LE's) freedom.

0 Replies

neo wrote:

echi wrote:
My knowledge of the past is not complete (nor is it even correct). There are too many unknown variables for me to accurately predict the future.

If the cosmos is deterministic, then complete knowledge of the past (how everything came to be) would provide complete knowledge of the future. Does God, in your mind, have complete knowledge of the past?

Assuming time is linear: Yes.

But, you have assumed the cosmos is deterministic. If 'He who causes to become' actually exists, then the cosmos would be under his control.

I assume the cosmos is deterministic because there is evidence to suggest that it is and (almost) none to suggest that it isn't.
That's not to say that I believe in the "first cause" idea. I see cause and effect just as I see any other duality, or contrast set. I agree with JL's post:

JLNobody wrote:

Our dualism directs us to see the unitary world "in terms of" opposites.
That does not mean, of course, that the world is bifurcated; it is a unitary reality, but it is intellectually apprehended only dualistically.

Without this dualistic view, no self, no ego, no person can be defined. "He who causes to become" cannot exist in a personal sense.

0 Replies

echi, that's right, when we transcend our dualism we lose our llittle selves, our ego, and come to our True Nature as one with everything. Subject and object become one (the dualistic separation is gone).

But you say that you believe the cosmos to be deterministic because there is evidence to suggest it is. I suggest that, just as we do not actually "see" a subject-object division (ego-alter), we do not see determinism (cause-effect relationships). We THINK them up

0 Replies

You are right JL. In a way, the term self-determining does mean 'free'. Thanks for pointing it out.

Quote:

If so, I have the problem that if I am intrinsic to the LE, I too am (at least ultimately) free. I partake of my True Self's (the LE's) freedom.

Yes, we partake in the LE's freedom. This kind of reverses the argument, but it is still sound I think. The freedom of LE is a result of it's internal determinism. There are boundaries to our individual freedom, and those boundaries are made up of the freedom of everything else. Thus it is freedom to unfold that creates the self-deterministic nature of the LE, in that all it's internal elements create and sustain a balance.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

. . . I assume the cosmos is deterministic because there is evidence to suggest that it is and (almost) none to suggest that it isn't.
That's not to say that I believe in the "first cause" idea. I see cause and effect just as I see any other duality, or contrast set. . .

That there are solid laws, whether or not discovered, governing the physics and chemistry of the universe, does not disallow the operation of free will in sentient creatures. Certainly we are limited by the law of gravity; yet we are free to devise ways to fly in spite of it. (understanding there may be consequences for failure) There are also moral laws which we are free to break or ignore. (also understanding there may be consequences)

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know