A "god" I Can Believe In

[Shyone]

If a god existed, I have accepted the fact that the idea of "one god" with some ultimate absolute consciousness is absurd. It wouldn't explain anything in this universe. IMO monotheism was created in order to simplify religion and make it easier for the flock to comprehend.

Yes, I believe so too. Looking at the history of religion, it makes it easier to have fewer gods, and the people working for the One True God have more power than those working for the little gods.

 

Hence, Aten, the Sun Disk, was the sole "property" of Akhenaten (sp?). Marduk eventually became the sole God of the priestly class of the Babylonians.

 

Also, consider portability for a mobile population. Gods, especially those requiring statues, are heavy!

[Ouroboros]

God doesn't need to be a factor, but positing that the big bang was the result of two universes colliding simply raises the question "where did those universes come from?" It's not an answer to the first cause question, not really.

And the "first cause" of that doesn't really explain where the "first cause" came from.

 

Actually, for me, it's easier to accept an infinite multiverse, with infinite "virtual time", in an infinite number of dimensions. We're not just a speck on a map, we are an infinitely small nothing, in time and space, in the total existence. The "First cause" is basically, all that is, and all that was, and we are part of it.

 

There is an obvious answer to "where did everything come from," which is that something was always there. What that something is, well, that's open to speculation. It might be the multiverse. It might be space/time/matter, in some form or other. Theists say it's god, but that's just another way of saying that it's turtles all the way down.

Right.

 

It see the difference between a "first cause" God and the finite existence of a universe and beings like us, like the difference between an integer and the infinite set of integers. God is the set. We are an integer (FYI, it's 42). Which means, God is not an integer (i.e. he/she is not a he/she or even a being, but just an It). The "first cause" idea is based on that there are no negative integers. It must have started at zero. But unfortunately (or fortunately) I (the integer set) spans (-∞,∞).

[NotBlinded]

Right.

 

It see the difference between a "first cause" God and the finite existence of a universe and beings like us, like the difference between an integer and the infinite set of integers. God is the set. We are an integer (FYI, it's 42). Which means, God is not an integer (i.e. he/she is not a he/she or even a being, but just an It). The "first cause" idea is based on that there are no negative integers. It must have started at zero. But unfortunately (or fortunately) I (the integer set) spans (-∞,∞).

huh? That flew so fast over my head that I didn't even get to see its feathery ass.

[Ouroboros]

huh? That flew so fast over my head that I didn't even get to see its feathery ass.

I think I caught one feather at least... they're pretty.

 

Do you want me to reformulate it or are you good as it is?

[NotBlinded]

huh? That flew so fast over my head that I didn't even get to see its feathery ass.

I think I caught one feather at least... they're pretty.

 

Do you want me to reformulate it or are you good as it is?

Yes, please. I would at least like a fleeting glimpse!

[Ouroboros]

Yes, please. I would at least like a fleeting glimpse!

Ok. I'll try.

 

Do you know what natural numbers are? They are numbers starting from 1, and then the next is 2, then 3, and so on. They continue infinitely. There are no "highest" number, like 94525235125. There's always a number higher. But Natural numbers do have a first number, which is "1". It doesn't go to Zero. So Natural numbers got a "First" if you want, just like a "First Cause". So say that you have a Set of something, means an idea of representing ALL of something into one concept. A bag of all of them. The Natural number set, is the series of 1,2,3,4... all the way to infinity. Unfortunately I can't give you the correct symbol for the set, because the webfont doesn't have it. But the best one I can do is N.

 

Integers also makes a set, but the don't start at 1, the start before 1, and before 0 too; actually the start at negative infinity. And I used the symbol: I for the Integer set.

 

Infinites are represented by the symbol ∞. The negative infinite is -∞. So Integers then are the set which starts at -∞ and ends at ∞, which you write as (-∞,∞). There is not beginning and no end. But the Set of Integer, the Set itself, does still exist. But the (-∞,∞) is not an integer in itself, it is the set of them, but it is not an integer. It is transcending, if we speak god-speak. So if God would be the Integer Set, and we are one of the integers in that set. Then God is not a human, or being, but rather the collection of all beings, and objects which exists.

 

Does it make sense now?

[NotBlinded]

Yes, please. I would at least like a fleeting glimpse!

Ok. I'll try.

 

Do you know what natural numbers are? They are numbers starting from 1, and then the next is 2, then 3, and so on. They continue infinitely. There are no "highest" number, like 94525235125. There's always a number higher. But Natural numbers do have a first number, which is "1". It doesn't go to Zero. So Natural numbers got a "First" if you want, just like a "First Cause". So say that you have a Set of something, means an idea of representing ALL of something into one concept. A bag of all of them. The Natural number set, is the series of 1,2,3,4... all the way to infinity. Unfortunately I can't give you the correct symbol for the set, because the webfont doesn't have it. But the best one I can do is N.

 

Integers also makes a set, but the don't start at 1, the start before 1, and before 0 too; actually the start at negative infinity. And I used the symbol: I for the Integer set.

 

Infinites are represented by the symbol ∞. The negative infinite is -∞. So Integers then are the set which starts at -∞ and ends at ∞, which you write as (-∞,∞). There is not beginning and no end. But the Set of Integer, the Set itself, does still exist. But the (-∞,∞) is not an integer in itself, it is the set of them, but it is not an integer. It is transcending, if we speak god-speak. So if God would be the Integer Set, and we are one of the integers in that set. Then God is not a human, or being, but rather the collection of all beings, and objects which exists.

 

Does it make sense now?

Oh okay. But what if the finite universe and all beings in this set is nothing but this set? That's what you're saying isn't it?

 

Let's say the infinite set of integers is the field and the integers in the set are the objects in the field. This field doesn't exist apart from the objects in the field and vise-versa. Yes, that's what you said.

 

God includes both the negative and positive. Yes, of course.

[Guest Davka]

Ergo, Davka is God.

 

Wait, that can't be right....

 

And why NOT, I'd like to know?

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Since leaving the idea of Anthropomorphic deity behind I have become rather pantheist. I am an imaginative person (I refuse to believe that there are no fairies even if they only exist in my mind) and its always been a source of spirituality I guess you could say. I tell people that if ever I believed in a bible it would be the Lord of the Rings. Not literally but the beauty behind it provides enough reality spiritually to satisfy me completely. But I have always been drawn to mythologies that personify traits, ideals, natural forces and objects. It give me something to connect to. Would I call this pseudo reality god? Not necessarily. As far as beliefs - I believe in what is (the Universe), but I can experience and imagine it to be more in an unconstrained manner. When logic/ evidence fails to complete an answer I can imagine what would and play in it a while without devoting myself to any of it. I don't think that the universe itself is animate, or that it was caused by something animate - at least not the way we think of it. The only consciousness we have ever found is within a brain and I doubt there is anything quite like our brains elsewhere in the universe. Consciousness may be more common than that, but how would we recognize it? So I leave it open to day dreams and fancies. Honestly the universe is amazing - I say the Creation far exceeds the Creator (if indeed such exists). Same goes for any artist.

 

I sound like a fruit loop don't I? Ah well, I honestly am a very logical person in many respects but I am equally imaginative and emotional - I swear the two balance out to a somewhat normal person. Like I totally understood the math god equation.

[NotBlinded]

Yes, please. I would at least like a fleeting glimpse!

Ok. I'll try.

 

Do you know what natural numbers are? They are numbers starting from 1, and then the next is 2, then 3, and so on. They continue infinitely. There are no "highest" number, like 94525235125. There's always a number higher. But Natural numbers do have a first number, which is "1". It doesn't go to Zero. So Natural numbers got a "First" if you want, just like a "First Cause". So say that you have a Set of something, means an idea of representing ALL of something into one concept. A bag of all of them. The Natural number set, is the series of 1,2,3,4... all the way to infinity. Unfortunately I can't give you the correct symbol for the set, because the webfont doesn't have it. But the best one I can do is N.

 

Integers also makes a set, but the don't start at 1, the start before 1, and before 0 too; actually the start at negative infinity. And I used the symbol: I for the Integer set.

 

Infinites are represented by the symbol ∞. The negative infinite is -∞. So Integers then are the set which starts at -∞ and ends at ∞, which you write as (-∞,∞). There is not beginning and no end. But the Set of Integer, the Set itself, does still exist. But the (-∞,∞) is not an integer in itself, it is the set of them, but it is not an integer. It is transcending, if we speak god-speak. So if God would be the Integer Set, and we are one of the integers in that set. Then God is not a human, or being, but rather the collection of all beings, and objects which exists.

 

Does it make sense now?

Oh Hans, I ran across something on Quentin Smith's website and what you are describing sounds like the half-open hour he talks about. And get this...the universe doesn't have to be infinite.

 

Check it out here: The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist

 

Excerpt:

 

There is a second way the universe can cause itself to begin to exist. Suppose the first hour of the universe’s existence is half-open in the earlier direction. This means there is no instant corresponding to the number zero in the real line interval 0 ³ x £ 1. If time is continuous, then there is no first instant that immediately follows the hypothetical ‘first instant’ t = 0. This is because between any two instants, there are an infinite number of other instants. If we ‘cut out’ the instant that corresponds to 0 in the interval 0 ³ x £ 1, we will not find a certain instant that immediately comes after the ‘cut out’ instant t = 0. For example, the instant corresponding to the number 1/2 in the interval 0> x £ 1 cannot be the first instant, since between the number 0 and the number 1/2 (= 2/4) there is the number 1/4. The same holds for any other number in the interval 0 > x £ 1.

 

This implies that every instantaneous state of the universe corresponding to a number in the interval 0 > x £ 1 is preceded and caused by other instantaneous states. There is no instantaneous state in this first half-open hour that lacks some earlier cause. Since the universe is nothing other than the succession of these instantaneous states, it follows that the universe begins to exist, but that its beginning to exist is internally caused. It is internally caused in the sense that each instantaneous part of the finitely old succession of parts is caused by earlier instantaneous parts of the succession.

 

Now some theists, like Craig and Swinburne, might ask: what causes the whole interval, specifically, the first half-open hour? Does this need an external cause, such as a divine cause?

 

The answer is negative, since the interval is nothing other than the set of the instantaneous states that make up the hour. The set or interval logically supervenes upon the members of the set. If Jack and Jill are each caused to exist, then the set [Jack, Jill] does not need an extra cause of its existence. For the existence of Jack and Jill entail the existence of the set [Jack, Jill]. The set is not caused to exist, but is logically required by the concrete elements that are caused to exist.

 

Is this anything like what you are talking about? This stuff gets over my head and I could be completely wrong.

[Guest Zoe G]

let alone be concerned with such minutiae as which flesh sack puts what appendage in which other flesh sack's orifice.

 

 

 

hahahahahha oh god, I think you've soured me on sex forever now.

 

I'm telling the non-personal deity about this one. He'll make an exception.

 

And this sounds like a spin on Deism.