Define: God

[El_Machinae]

People talk about God-given rights. They then insist that a bunch of rights are God-given. I tend to not find their arguments persuasive, but the Universe does seem to protect our right to not have our historical timeline messed with.

Even more possible (though totally not possible using mainstream physics) would be to send an FTL ship very far away that has a ginormous (gi! nor! mous!) telescope. They could then watch the photons that Alexander sent into space the day he blew out those candles.

Then we'd know!

And, that's similar to the questions about the dimensionality of the universe. There are some theories now that seem plausible (though unlikely) that eventually would allow the collection of sufficient data to answer the question.

 

[timtofly]

I'm talking about cause and effect - not intentional actions performed by a sentient being. I don't mean "responsible" in the sense that the thing is morally responsible for the act occurring - if the wording is causing confusion pretend I said "caused" - a rock sliding down a ravine caused an avalanche, for example.

That is why I said "responsible for all", and not "the cause of it all". The word create, seems too limiting. I think that one can still be responsible and allow for randomness, accidents and choices.

I think that one would be hard pressed to prove that a non-sentient being accidently caused the universe to form without there being something else out there to "accidently" "work" with.

 

[warpus]

Impossible to prove perhaps, but my question remains: Can God be a non-sentient entity? Or does it have to be sentient?

 

[Gary Childress]

People talk about God-given rights. They then insist that a bunch of rights are God-given. I tend to not find their arguments persuasive, but the Universe does seem to protect our right to not have our historical timeline messed with.

Even more possible (though totally not possible using mainstream physics) would be to send an FTL ship very far away that has a ginormous (gi! nor! mous!) telescope. They could then watch the photons that Alexander sent into space the day he blew out those candles.

Then we'd know!

And, that's similar to the questions about the dimensionality of the universe. There are some theories now that seem plausible (though unlikely) that eventually would allow the collection of sufficient data to answer the question.

No light on what is required for consciousness to exist? I'm intrigued now.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, sorry.

The theory is the integration of predicted sensory inputs with actual sensory inputs, often described using a layered series where a set of predictions/inputs can summarized onto hierarchical receptors.

It's hard to explain. Basically, it requires a neuronal net that is reporting a sensory experience being tied to a neuronal net that's predicting the sensory experience, but that also includes a feedback mechanism to correct the predicting machinery.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing

Hawkins does an okay job, but you'll want to watch his longer talks to understand his thesis better.

 

[timtofly]

Impossible to prove perhaps, but my question remains: Can God be a non-sentient entity? Or does it have to be sentient?

God does not have to be sentient.

 

[Hygro]

God does not have to be sentient.

I don't disagree, although if a super entity has sentience within it, guiding its process, it's not unlike sentient.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Impossible to prove perhaps, but my question remains: Can God be a non-sentient entity? Or does it have to be sentient?

Can God be in anything less then human? Its rather that God is supersentinent to the point it almost completely escapes our understanding...

 

[bhavv]

Well, you started the thread, after all. That's not going to exactly discourage people from expressing their opinions, is it?

I wasn't trying to discourage people from expressing their opinions, just stating my own opinion.

 

[Borachio]

OK. Fair enough I guess.

But when I say things like "there's too much of something or other" I generally mean I'd like there to be less of it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Impossible to prove perhaps, but my question remains: Can God be a non-sentient entity? Or does it have to be sentient?

There's a reasonable division among the faiths here. I'd say the Western faiths describe God as sentient. The Eastern faiths do not. At least, the sentience is a very different vibe

 

[timtofly]

Unless I am missing what Warpus is asking, the emphasis is on sentience being necessary, not what people define God as. Western thought focuses on the ability of God to relate to humans in a physical comprehensive way. Eastern thought has always kept to the meta physical aspect that does not need a physical component. I would like to point out that the OT component of God which was before much of the philosophical physical debate on a Physical God, showed God as capable of having physical properties and interacting in a sentient way, even though they still held the eastern view that God was spiritual and sentient in an intangible way. Being self aware is just a small part of sentience. Sentience deals mostly with the eastern thought process that deals with emotions and the ability to convey such emotions.

IMO the difference between east and west is not sentience. The difference is physical and the west does not include emotions unless they are tangible and verifiable in a physical way.

@ Hygro

The issue is that humans have to have a physical sentient being.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There's a reasonable division among the faiths here. I'd say the Western faiths describe God as sentient. The Eastern faiths do not. At least, the sentience is a very different vibe

The East has spiritually experimented much more. The variety of faiths there includes atheistic religions as well as bhaktic cults of single supreme diety simillar to Christianity.

 

[bhavv]

@Timtofly, the exercise behind this thread is to widen peoples perception about ideas behind the term 'God'. While most religions do believe that God must be sentient, the thing is how do any of those religions or their followers know for certain?

We really don't know what God is, as it is a faith based belief. It could quite well be anything, including just a non sentient force, or it could be something else entirely, or it could be nothing at all.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

We really don't know what God is, as it is a faith based belief. It could quite well be anything, including just a non sentient force, or it could be something else entirely, or it could be nothing at all.

Why dont we try to define it as a sum off all the existing things plus those which ever existed plus those which will exist in the future or all those which can be ever manifest? Surely there is some common link here.

 

[warpus]

There's a reasonable division among the faiths here. I'd say the Western faiths describe God as sentient. The Eastern faiths do not. At least, the sentience is a very different vibe

To me it's interesting that God could be non-sentient, because then essentially you don't need a god. Say some natural phenomenon was responsible for the big bang and the creation of our universe - you could call that God, under this definition.. but it's just a natural phenomenon..

That's interesting to me, because under that definition I might even be tempted to say that God exists.

 

[El_Machinae]

But, it's more than that. You can have an afterlife (in theory) that's utterly dependent upon your moral behaviour, along with an objective morality, and still have a non-sentient god. So, Heaven, Hell, Karma, etc. could all exist.

Gravity doesn't judge you, in the sense that it's sentient. But, it still decides whether jumping off a cliff is wise.

 

[warpus]

But, it's more than that. You can have an afterlife (in theory) that's utterly dependent upon your moral behaviour, along with an objective morality, and still have a non-sentient god. So, Heaven, Hell, Karma, etc. could all exist.

How, though? For those things to work, you'd need someone in charge, directing traffic.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

To me it's interesting that God could be non-sentient, because then essentially you don't need a god. Say some natural phenomenon was responsible for the big bang and the creation of our universe - you could call that God, under this definition.. but it's just a natural phenomenon..

That's interesting to me, because under that definition I might even be tempted to say that God exists.

I dont see where would that leads us. You than have to ask how this natural phenomenon come to existence and keep asking till you "hit the wall" of some Absolute reality or come to some kind of pure Nothingness.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are unanswerable questions, though, so that's okay

How, though? For those things to work, you'd need someone in charge, directing traffic.

Why? They can just be natural outcomes of behaviour. To the best of my knowledge, no one is 'directly traffic' and deciding that me stabbing my friends will result in me being lonely as a consequence. The physics of knives and hearts doesn't care about our opinions. It just happens that way, because the universe causes natural outcomes to occur.

Heaven could easily be the destination of those who live according to the moral codes that are evident in the universe.

Maat needn't be conscious.