Define: God

[Borachio]

There are seven blind men in a room with an elephant.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe; and the one who waves his hands about feeling nothing says "there is no elephant at all".

 

[ParkCungHee]

Define God. Tell me what you think / believe God is.

Omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator of the universe.

1) How do you know your definition of God is correct?

Because it's useful to me.

2) What if other people have different definitions?

Is it useful to me or them? If so, what for? If it's a good thing, cool.

3) What if the definition you gave God could be attributed to something other than God?

It, by definition, couldn't.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Define God. Tell me what you think / believe God is.

Then consider the following questions:

1) How do you know your definition of God is correct?
2) What if other people have different definitions?
3) What if the definition you gave God could be attributed to something other than God?

Please note that whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant to this discussion.

Absolute (pretty much undefinable) reality

1. well that self-explenatory -- Absolute cant be incorrect
2. they are bound to exist within the frame of the Absolute..
3. than it would be just another manifestation of the Absolute

 

[Gary Childress]

Define God. Tell me what you think / believe God is.

Then consider the following questions:

1) How do you know your definition of God is correct?
2) What if other people have different definitions?
3) What if the definition you gave God could be attributed to something other than God?

Please note that whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't know where to begin in "defining" what is meant by "God" so I Googled the term and came up with:



1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

These seem like as good a definitions as any. I'm not a mystic and I don't think I've ever had a mystical experience that I am aware of so I just go off what the "experts" on the subject say. Personally I'm agnostic but since belief or not in God is "irrelevant" to this discussion I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot.

In answer to the 3 questions:

1. I don't know if the definitions cited above are correct.
2. If other people have different definitions then for the most part I'm not all that concerned unless their definition of God is such that the rest of us must convert or die.
3. If the definitions of God above can be attributed to something other than God then I would say those definitions may be of something other than God.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like BirdJaguar's definition. His god exists, merely because it does so tautologically.

My 'vision' of God has long been
a) a person (i.e., a thinking being)
b) created the universe
c) creates morals
d) also rules the afterlife

... but I see no reason why this entity must or even might exist. That said, I'm agnostic on whether our universe was created intentionally

 

[Gary Childress]

I like BirdJaguar's definition. His god exists, merely because it does so tautologically.

How does God exist tautologically?

 

[warpus]

I think BirdJaguar defines God to be the Universe. (but don't quote me on that)

One of my questions to that would be - what if the Universe isn't sentient? Can God be something that isn't sentient? Usually, in people's stories and ideas, Gods perform actions and make decisions. But what if the Universe is just.. well, what it is - a collection of atoms. Nothing special about it. No sentience there. Could that be God still?

 

[Gary Childress]

Well the universe certainly seems to exist. Whether "the universe" and "God" are identical terms I don't know. As you say, when someone talks about "God" I usually bring to mind some sort of sentient being of some sort. But I suppose there's nothing to say we know that the universe ISN'T God.

 

[Farm Boy]

If God were to be the universe, then you would be of God. You define yourself as included in what you mean by sentient, so at least parts of what you observe of God are sentient. You can atomize the whole if you want. A rock doesn't seem to have anything to do with sentience. Neither does a water molecule in a nerve ending, or a cancer cell, all reasonable observations to make.

 

[El_Machinae]

How does God exist tautologically?

It's the way he defines it. He doesn't shoehorn the concept of God onto our reality, but insists upon a definition of God that necessarily exists.

FarmBoy is correct, the universe is sentient because we are sentient. Now, it's a bit weirder with Relativity, but our entire lightcone is causally connected and so you can easily say that our lightcone is sentient - there's no quantum point that isn't intrinsically connected to sentience. And, to the best of our knowledge, there's not a single quantum coordinate that's incapable of being sentient. 'Cept, Black Holes, I guess.


The philosophy of a sentient universe is a bit tougher to intuitively accept once we allow for the idea that there are parts of the universe that are completely outside our ability to influence, in an information sense. In fact, I am not sure if it continues to be true or even a useful way of thinking about things.

 

[Gary Childress]

It's the way he defines it. He doesn't shoehorn the concept of God onto our reality, but insists upon a definition of God that necessarily exists.

What would be a definition of God that makes God "necessarily exist"?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If God were to be the universe, then you would be of God. You define yourself as included in what you mean by sentient, so at least parts of what you observe of God are sentient. You can atomize the whole if you want. A rock doesn't seem to have anything to do with sentience. Neither does a water molecule in a nerve ending, or a cancer cell, all reasonable observations to make.

According to evolution theory life(sentinence) develops out of the mineral.

Sentinence(consciousness) is just another form of matter then or rather as I see it matter is just a form of consciousness. It doesnt appear to be that but more we are learning about matter more it becomes clear it isnt really what it looks like through sensual perception. How could God the Absolute create anything outside of Itself? Impossible.

 

[warpus]

Well the universe certainly seems to exist. Whether "the universe" and "God" are identical terms I don't know. As you say, when someone talks about "God" I usually bring to mind some sort of sentient being of some sort. But I suppose there's nothing to say we know that the universe ISN'T God.

There is sentience sprinkled throughout the Universe perhaps. Right now we just know about bits and pieces here on this planet - but there may very well be more.

Either way though, your answer satisfies my question in that there is obviously no "larger" sentience that is made up of all the smaller ones. All that appears to exist are the smaller sentient players - you, me, everybody on this planet.. and no entity that is able to think and act on its own - that is made up of the constituent sentient minds.

But then it still seems to me that most people who believe in a god would not accept a non-sentient god.

According to evolution theory life(sentinence) develops out of the mineral.

You're thinking of abiogenesis - which I don't think is a theory yet, but a number of hypotheses. But I could be wrong about that last bit.

 

[Gary Childress]

According to evolution theory life(sentinence) develops out of the mineral.

Sentinence(consciousness) is just another form of matter then or rather as I see it matter is just a form of consciousness. It doesnt appear to be that but more we are learning about matter more it becomes clear it isnt really what it looks like through sensual perception. How could God the Absolute create anything outside of Itself? Impossible.

But do minerals have sentience or is sentience an emergent property of minerals arranged in a certain way?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But do minerals have sentience or is sentience an emergent property of minerals arranged in a certain way?

Thats very close being the same. Either there is (involved?) capacity for sentinence within the matter or there isnt regardless the degree (even if being close to nil).

 

[Gary Childress]

Thats very close being the same. Either there is (involved?) capacity for sentinence within the matter or there isnt regardless the degree (even if being close to nil).

I guess the distinction being, does a rock "know" anything? Does a rock "feel anything"? I mean, how are we defining "sentience" or "consciousness". Are we saying that a particular arrangement of matter has the capacity to become sentient or are we saying all matter is sentient?

 

[warpus]

I guess the distinction being, does a rock "know" anything? Does a rock "feel anything"? I mean, how are we defining "sentience" or "consciousness". Are we saying that a particular arrangement of matter has the capacity to become sentient or are we saying all matter is sentient?

Before this gets off track too much to be logical, can we just go with "some matter has the capacity of being re-arranged in such a way that sentience and consciousness is possible" ?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I guess the distinction being, does a rock "know" anything? Does a rock "feel anything"? I mean, how are we defining "sentience" or "consciousness". Are we saying that a particular arrangement of matter has the capacity to become sentient or are we saying all matter is sentient?

Is egg a chicken or not? Simillarly I would think that the capacity for life is present in the way matter is aranged. Life doesnt come about by some impossible magic.

 

[Gary Childress]

Simillarly I would think that the capacity for life is present in the way matter is aranged. Life doesnt come about by some impossible magic.

That would be my guess but you were saying:

"as I see it matter is just a form of consciousness".

What do you mean by that? It almost sounds like you are saying that matter is conscious even when it isn't arranged in a particular way. Or are you saying that consciousness is some sort of "substance", somehow congruent with matter? I don't follow.

 

[Farm Boy]

Before this gets off track too much to be logical, can we just go with "some matter has the capacity of being re-arranged in such a way that sentience and consciousness is possible" ?

We could say that, and it would be a true statement, but it's probably too limited in scope. Specify the "some" as inclusive rather than exclusive, specify that what we consider consciousness is not merely possible but existent, and even then we are left with logical questions over whether or not they need to be rearranged from their present form at all since our relativistic view cannot encompass the scope of the scale we're interested in with this question.