Author
|
Topic: virus: No disproof for my God (Read 1532 times) |
|
simul
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
 
|
 |
virus: No disproof for my God
« on: 2005-06-10 02:00:23 » |
 |
My definition of God cannot be disproven as the correct use and is the "true" meaning that was intended by all philosophers since the beginning of it's appearance. (Nor can it be proven)
(reminder: God. - I have defined it as a word describing a meta-entity consisting of the entire universe, or equivalently, of the ultimate objective observer)
If someone offers an incarnation-proposal, for example, that Jesus is an incarnation of God, I can simply affirm that Yes, since God is everything, then Jesus was certainly an incarnation. No disproof by incarnation in any form.
Someone denied my definition by insisting that early man's conception of God was of a physical deity residing in some nebulous, but actual, space.
I simply counter-propose that this was merely a metaphorical expression of their early insight into my definition.
In fact, *any proposal* that someone offers that might claim to deny my definition has an equal and noncontradictory counter-proposal.
This is fundamental rhetoric.
Of course, the fact that my defnition cannot be disproven doesn not make it correct. On the contrary, *all* surviving definitions of God are non-disprovable. ( IMHO, my definition is superior - but of course I think so)
Rather than worry ourselves (as COV) over foolish disproof or denial, we are much better off crafting our own non-disprovable definition that suits our worldview and meets our philisophical goals.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #1 on: 2005-06-10 04:43:49 » |
|
Erik Aronesty
Sent: 10 June 2005 08:00
<snip>
(reminder: God. - I have defined it as a word describing a meta-entity
consisting of the entire universe, or equivalently, of the ultimate
objective observer)</snip>
[Blunderov] Sounds like pantheism which is probably a more generally
palatable flavour of atheism than for instance Satanism. Kinder to the
kinder (somebody stop me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic
<snip>
Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is
All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an
all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God
are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea
that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all
that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the
theological principle of 'God'. The term "pantheist" - of which the word
"pantheism" is a variation - was purportedly first used by Irish writer
John Toland in his 1705 work, Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist.
</snip>
(It took a while but I think I get 'ultimate objective observer' now. A
set that only contains itself as a member but is not empty? Intriguing.)
I think that the argument that the pantheistic idea of god is the root
of all other ideas about god is harder to make. It seems to me that homo
ferox has always been very much predisposed to creation myths. The idea
that order is a function of existence is not intuitive to us.
To ancient eyes it must have seemed that birth was a 'coming in to
being' of something from nothing and was so ubiquitous as to be the
obvious underlying principle of the whole cosmos. This fallacy of
composition became an arch meme in deep antiquity and its longevity is
testament to its strength.* Pantheism is a pretty good try at hacking it
but will only latch where doubt already exists IMO.
Best Regards.
* I did a google search for the string <church of> and obtained
something like 54 million results. I bet almost all of them offer some
account of 'creation'.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.43
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #2 on: 2005-06-10 07:13:26 » |
|
Quote from: simul on 2005-06-10 02:00:23
My definition of God cannot be disproven as the correct use and is the "true" meaning that was intended by all philosophers since the beginning of it's appearance. (Nor can it be proven)
(reminder: God. - I have defined it as a word describing a meta-entity consisting of the entire universe, or equivalently, of the ultimate objective observer)
|
Why not just call it "universe" and leave it at that...?
- Iolo
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #3 on: 2005-06-10 14:18:04 » |
|
> (It took a while but I think I get
> 'ultimate objective observer' now. A
> set that only contains itself as a
> member but is not empty? Intriguing.)
My input is limited. I cannot possibly be completely objective, since my perspective is limited by my limited self.
The universe takes as it's input everything that happens. It's perspective, as an entity, is entirely objective, ultimately rational and, in all instances, entirely "correct". Why? Because it's output is what occurs, precisely and without error.
It is what is.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #4 on: 2005-06-10 14:43:09 » |
|
You forget, however, that the entire known Universe *was* the earth. So to imagine an entity that birthed the earth was nothing more than imagining an entity *at least larger* the size of the entire known universe.
How is this not pantheism?
Each imagining of God seems to merely expand our universe.
Likewise, to imagine a modern God that was capable of creating the Big Bang is nothing more than imagining a pantheistic God that is bigger than the known universe as opposed to a pantheistic God that is the same size as the known universe.
So the dispute is not over whether or not pantheism is the view. It's the "size of the pantheistic God" that's at question.
And physicists still don't agree on the multiverse concept.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:43:49
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: No disproof for my God
Erik Aronesty
Sent: 10 June 2005 08:00
<snip>
(reminder: God. - I have defined it as a word describing a meta-entity
consisting of the entire universe, or equivalently, of the ultimate
objective observer)</snip>
[Blunderov] Sounds like pantheism which is probably a more generally
palatable flavour of atheism than for instance Satanism. Kinder to the
kinder (somebody stop me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic
<snip>
Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is
All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an
all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God
are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea
that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all
that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the
theological principle of 'God'. The term "pantheist" - of which the word
"pantheism" is a variation - was purportedly first used by Irish writer
John Toland in his 1705 work, Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist.
</snip>
(It took a while but I think I get 'ultimate objective observer' now. A
set that only contains itself as a member but is not empty? Intriguing.)
I think that the argument that the pantheistic idea of god is the root
of all other ideas about god is harder to make. It seems to me that homo
ferox has always been very much predisposed to creation myths. The idea
that order is a function of existence is not intuitive to us.
To ancient eyes it must have seemed that birth was a 'coming in to
being' of something from nothing and was so ubiquitous as to be the
obvious underlying principle of the whole cosmos. This fallacy of
composition became an arch meme in deep antiquity and its longevity is
testament to its strength.* Pantheism is a pretty good try at hacking it
but will only latch where doubt already exists IMO.
Best Regards.
* I did a google search for the string <church of> and obtained
something like 54 million results. I bet almost all of them offer some
account of 'creation'.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.43
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
|
|
Re: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #5 on: 2005-06-13 10:09:22 » |
|
Quote from: simul on 2005-06-10 14:43:09
You forget, however, that the entire known Universe *was* the earth. So to imagine an entity that birthed the earth was nothing more than imagining an entity *at least larger* the size of the entire known universe.
How is this not pantheism?
Each imagining of God seems to merely expand our universe.
Likewise, to imagine a modern God that was capable of creating the Big Bang is nothing more than imagining a pantheistic God that is bigger than the known universe as opposed to a pantheistic God that is the same size as the known universe.
So the dispute is not over whether or not pantheism is the view. It's the "size of the pantheistic God" that's at question.
And physicists still don't agree on the multiverse concept.
|
Hmm I think I agree with Hermit in FAQ: Epistemology, Axioms, Reality, Consciousness, the Universe and Everything, where he writes:
{begin quote}
7 The Universe & Everything
The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and imaginary which have existence or potential existence. This is not by any means a “stretch.”
WWWebster defines “universe” as follows:
Quote:
Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more at WORTH
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 : a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks... to choose from -- G. B. Clairmont>
|
You will see that our definition matches the primary definition under 1, 2 and 4 and includes the additional definitions under 1 and subsumes 3 and 5. Is this definition falsifiable. Of course it can be. An example might be, "There is no set of things, real and imaginary which have existence or potential existence which can be defined to be a valid set under set theory." This would suffice to falsify the Universe were it true. The definition is easily demonstrated to be non-axiomatic. From the axioms of union and pairing we are able to prove that the universal membership predicate is infinite and that all other sets are subsets of the universal membership predicate through the axiom of subset (comprehension). The Universe is validated by observation, implied by reason and logic, and other fundamental axioms of reason and logic make no sense if the Universe is falsified. Thus it is probable that the universe as defined does exist and as our definition is an "acceptable and shared" definition, it is useful for communication. [As the above demonstrates, set theory is a wonderful epistemological tool. Less nonsensical philosophy would be expounded if more "philosophers" had to learn set theory before holding their theories up to ridicule.]
{end quote}
I still fail to understand why your god cannot simply be referred to as universe.
- Iolo.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #6 on: 2005-06-14 11:49:27 » |
|
[Iolo]
Hmm I think I agree with Hermit in FAQ: Epistemology, Axioms, Reality, Consciousness, the Universe and Everything, where he writes:
Quote:7 The Universe & Everything
The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and imaginary which have existence or potential existence. |
I can't agree with this. The universe is all that is real which does not include all that is imaginary.
So if god is imaginary he is outside the universe after all 
Simul, is sentience a property of your proposed god redefinition? What about omnipotence?
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #7 on: 2005-06-14 13:37:09 » |
|
[Iolo quoting Hermit]
The Universe & Everything
The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and imaginary which have existence or potential existence. This is not by any means a “stretch.”
WWWebster defines “universe” as follows:
Quote:
<snip>
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : POPULATION 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 : a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks... to choose from -- G. B. Clairmont>
You will see that our definition matches the primary definition under 1, 2 and 4 and includes the additional definitions under 1 and subsumes 3 and 5. Is this definition falsifiable. Of course it can be. An example might be, "There is no set of things, real and imaginary which have existence or potential existence which can be defined to be a valid set under set theory.
<end quote>
[rhinoceros] A definition does not fall into the empirical statements which need to be falsifiable. At worst, a definition can only be shown to be inconsistent within the framework where it applies.
Also, the different definitions under a dictionary entry are not required to be compatible between them -- are not required to be all true at the same time. They may well refer to different concepts, under different frameworks. Even if a way is found to make them all compatible, more definitions can be added in the future as a result of usage. The dictionaries will happily include them.
Notice especually definition #4, which seems the most general and enlightening to me.
<quote>
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
<end quote>
So, you can define the Universe as "the set of all things, real and imaginary which have existence or potential existence", but:
a) You should not expect that the definition can be carried over to discussions which use other definitions of the word Universe, such as the Universe of Physics and Cosmology.
b) Since it is defined in the context of Set Theory and uses the word "all things", you should take care to avoid Russel's paradox of Set Theory (pointed out by Lucifer in #virus IRC -- does the set "Universe" contain the set "Universe" as a member?)
So, you can easily give such a definition to the word Universe and make it include any real or imaginary gods, but using this definition in any particular discussion can be tricky.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #8 on: 2005-06-14 16:27:28 » |
|
[Iolo quoting Hermit]
The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and
imaginary which have existence or potential existence.
[Blunderov] 'Potential' is interesting.
"It's coming from the feel
that it ain't exactly real,
or it's real
but it ain't exactly there"
(Leonard Cohen)
All the best.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.43
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
|
 |
Re:virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #9 on: 2005-06-15 06:24:18 » |
|
Aha! Thanks for the clarification, all of you.
- Iolo
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #10 on: 2005-06-15 10:55:21 » |
|
> [Iolo quoting Hermit]
>
> The universe can best be described as the set of all things, real and
> imaginary which have existence or potential existence.
I definitely don't include imaginary things in my definition of the
Universe/God. Perhaps I should? I can't see why.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: No disproof for my God
« Reply #11 on: 2005-06-15 11:50:47 » |
|
> So if god is imaginary he is outside the universe after all
Certainly if God is defined as "the whole Universe", then it not
imaginary. Unless you believe the Universe is imaginary, in which case,
God help you
> Simul, is sentience a property of your proposed god redefinition? What about omnipotence?
First, I'd like to point out that mine is not a "redefinition". It's a
scientific interpretation of existing literature on the subject.
You can answer the questions yourself by rephrasing the question.
1. Is the Universe all powerful?
First, we must define "powerful". I assume you mean "having the
capacity to move or alter things". A powerful speaker moves people, via
emotional or inspirational movement, but still an alteration. A
powerful bomb moves matter around a lot - the more powerful, the more it
can move.
I will approach this several ways:
A powerful God can move mountains. The Earth, of course, moves
mountains on a regular basis. An even more powerful God can move
stars. The Earth doesn't move stars. God as "the Universe" can move
anything. Nothing besides God can do this. Thus a definition of God,
since God is all powerful, must be at least at the magnitude of the
Universe. And since the Universe is everything, then God must, again,
be the Universe.
Another way of defining power is "energy". Since God as "the Universe"
contains all matter and energy, then God is "all powerful" literally
(like one big Energizer battery).
Bear in mind that this is a property of "the Universe". It exists
independently of whether you believe in God or not. If there was
something that was more powerful, then it would exist outside the
universe. But since the definition of the Universe is *everything*,
that thing *cannot exist*.
The Universe is all-powerful by definition. God is all-powerful by
definition. There cannot be two all-powerful things, thus *God must be
the Universe*. They must be equivalent.
2. Is Sentience a property of the Universe?
In my opinion, we cannot possibly know whether God (the Universe) is
sentient. It's too big for us to know. Is it possible to know whether
a collective that you are a member of is sentient? Do our neurons know
that we are sentient?
It may be useful to *imagine* that the Universe is sentient and see if
that creates predictions. Then we could test those predictions to learn
more about the Universe.
Personally, I don't include imaginary things in my definition of the
Universe.
If it were *consistently useful* to imagine the Universe as sentient and
base decisions on predictions derived from that viewpoint, I might give
sentience some credence.
Certainly there's nothing explicitly wrong with believing in a sentient
Universe.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
|
Logged
