What god isn't.

Micheal


Devil?

What is that?

Occam

 

Your facts are uncoordinated.

Rocks are "mineral". As for "blue"- I will add that god is not photons of that particular wave lenght.

Besides, no one can define thier god without a bunch of assumptions (like "good" and "love" and "intelligence") be taken for granted.

What god ISN'T, is the only possible approach.

 

That's pure nonsense. There is, literally, an infinite number of things God is not, and rocks are not, and blue is not. It cannot be held by any thinking person that defining what a concept is not helps describe the concept in any meaningful way.

If all the theists here are just going on a tangent about how they personally believe God doesn't have X attribute when person Y said God does, that's perfectly fine. But I see no reason to pretend this is some sort of candle in the dark.

 

Vae Victus,
You would appear to be the main theist present.

"infinite" is a mathematical artifact with no real world application.

Tell us what your god IS- if you can.

 

what do u mean by this? every culture in history has some sort of god? i dont see this as a statistically improbable phenomenon. surely it is biological or evolutionary.

at some point in our evolutionary line it was (and i suppose still is to an extent, but to a much lesser value) appropriate for our limited minds to believe that the things around us were created by an entity of greater power.

but as we learn more about the environment that surrounds us, we find that nothing is created out of nothing. everything has a catalyst. thus a less valid reason for believing in a god.

as for discussing what god is not... it's just a discussion on a forum for atheists. we enjoy talking about what it is not, because more often than not we find ourselves in arguments about what it is... and it gets overly monotonous.

 

Oooh, I'm so burned!

Are you actually claiming you don't understand the concept of infinity? And I don't need a definition of god--I'm not claiming one exists.

 

If you wish to see it that way... ALL of life is an exercize in futility. I was under the impression that this was a just a fun forum that has turned into a highlight of many misconceptions about God - were one to exist.
Infinite is easy to define, but then again so it God... if you want to be simplistic.

 

MMmm, that is some good stuff.

And Yes, you know it, of course, but there is more. There are qualities and patterns of reality for which we have no words, not yet anyway. There is an undefinable quality to all of this that doesn't sit still to be contained in words. To try to do so is noble, but as difficult as trying to thread a needle while wearing boxing gloves.

It is simple but it can only be experienced and communicated directly. I think, in part, it has something to do with the nature of the relationships between everyone (and everyone else) and everything (and everything else).

It is similar to trying to describe the Pacific Ocean. To the person you were describing it to, any words you use would only give an idea of its vast, mysterious, reality. You could draw a bucket of it, but then, even though you would have a gallon of sea-water (physically identical to the stuff that makes up the Ocean), you would not have The Pacific Ocean. You could even take someone to see it for themselves, but as anyone who lives near the Pacific (or any ocean) knows, there is a lot more to it than what you see from the shore.

But you know what the Pacific Ocean is. Simple isn't it?

 

Vae Victus,

Burned?

Like "god", "infinity is a "concept" with no real world examples- you can't point to it.
Entropy doesn't allow it- so don't waste your time on the "transversing a finite path an infinlte number of times" arguement- in other words, circles.
And don't say space is infinite. That's merely a reflection of finite understanding.

An unsubstantiated concept is an unsubstatiated concept- "god" or "infinite".

 

"And I don't need a definition of god--I'm not claiming one exists."

So you can know that you don't believe in god, without actually knowing what god means (that knowledge is given to you by a definition of "god")?

 

Well said!

 

Absolutely. I see no reason to pander to each and every theist. As soon as someone comes up with some notion that can be studied, proven, disproven or supported in any way, I will hear them out with both ears. What I will not do is fake my way through every discussion about people's "feelings" and "faith." I don't need to delve into every theists' mindset on this planet to decide whether I believe in a "higher power" or not.

Either you're missing my point altogether, or you're very intellectually dishonest. I will rephrase for the sake of discussion: There are literallly, trillions etc...

 

Varuna

Occam agrees.

The 'pacific ocean' is a name for a concept.
It has at least a set of human parameters.
[it ends at sea level , the sea floor. the african, s/amercan capes & other
'borders'.]
But it incorporates all within it that is not ocean. Just as 'earth' incorporates US.

And occam sees your point. "There are qualities and patterns of reality for which we have no words, not yet anyway. There is an undefinable quality to all of this that doesn't sit still to be contained in words."

Occam might call this a 'synergy of systems.'
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Occam believes that such synergy is all pervasive in reality when dealing with
LIFE.
Raw energy/mater can be reduced to basics and rebuilt...[deconstructed/re]
But when dealing with life systems...
A synergy cannot be reduced.
A perfect example is the operant human MIND.

MIND is in occams opinion. A synergistic product of the function of the
miriad subsystems/relationships of or brains.
There is no part of our brain where imagination lives...
it is a synergy of a thousand different hard/soft systems.

A supersystem as you will.
The biospere of earth is a supersystem.
The pacific ocean is a supersystem
Reality, is a supersystem.

We must accept that much of reality will always be a mystery to us.
That much is, that we cannot explain...

What a wonderfull purpose for us..
To understand as much as we can..
Individually and for our race.

Occam

PS
a bit off imagineering...

Occam thinks we as a species understand maybe one percent of
the workings of the systems of reality. We are babes in the woods.

And a god. Is such simply because it understands 40%

 

Vae Victus,
You're hidding from the issue.

There are no real world examples of infinity.

You are professing to an understanding you do not have of a concept that is purely mathematical- more rigid, but no more observable (even theoretically) that "god".

Otherwise, Provide an example that does not ignore thermodynamics.

Philosophical arguments that conflict with reality are of no account.

 

This does not conflict with reality, and does not ignore thermodynamics. Here is the scenario- a universe that naturally would run out of energy, disperse, die. God adds energy to it at the right places to keep it going forever. You think God ignores thermodynamics? Might ignore someone who worries about them though . I call the universe thermodynamics with a side of fries from the Big Maccer... (Mean that in the maker mac-daddy way).

 

One problem:

There is no verifiable example of energy spontaneously coming into creation from nothing.

Much simpler to suppose such a god would allow/require the Universe to run down in it's time and then start over. Or run out in one place and "leak" into another- such as into a blackhole and out a whitehole and into the big bang, thus closing the universe- or confining god's toy, if you will.

 

I'm not sure I agree. What about Pi and Phi? Are they not infinant?
But, you were right saying that the only logical way of describing 'God' is describing what 's/he' isn't. I mean, you cannot define God, right? Then let's say what he isn't.

 

Pi is infinite. That's why you can never claim to have defined it. It is known to be mathmatically undefinable. Sure you can call it infinite, but infinite, by definition is undefinable.

Life seems to ignore basic thermodynamics. At least when you consider the fact that you are not a new organism. When you imagine that you are just a piece that has been passed on and on for 3 billion years only growing more diverse and complex it seems to contradict basic thermodynamics. I haven't really run into anyone who tries to apply thermodynamics to life systems.

 

Pi is an inadequate mathematical construct. The answer is infinite and gives only an "estimate"- never a truly accurate answer.

Without people, there is no math- there was no Pi. Humans brought the concept of "infinity" into existence.

Infinity is a mathematical construct. Ther are no real world examples.
---
Life systems (like thought) only apper to defy thermodynamics.
Ever more energy is poured into the system on a continuing basis.

Conception- when a life "quanta" is achieved- is arguably a moment of isolated "reverse entropy". But it's far from a conclusive argument.
If indeed at that moment more energy emitts from the system than is absobed, this may indicate a god-force at work, although I'll stick with Uncertainty for now.

 

You've yet to respond to anything I've said except the word "infinity."

Assumption.

Ad hominem attack.

Assumption.

Working within self-created definitions.

Now I'm just confused.

What a coincidence. I was just about to say the same thing to you. You still aren't even talking about the topic. You're just having a rant about your assumptions regarding the word "infinity," and if it "exists" or not. Who cares? Respond to my posts--- don't pick out a single word, muse over the semantics of it, and pretend you've discovered some fatal flaw in my idea. I'll say it again (though I doubt it will do any good): For the sake of discussion, replace the word "infinity" in my post with "trillions."