What if god does not know of you

[eduhum]

Hey i am not claiming that a god would not be able to create what we see as scientific theorems or rules etc. I am doubting if a god that is conscious would be likely to create something when he would be one with everything used to create anything in the first place. Would the numbers gather round and focus on a part of their interconnections?
Let alone that the idea of numbers seems to (not entirely certain) presuppose a being which can identify differences in the idea of volume (regardless of what kind of volume that would be; 1 is smaller than 2 and differs by 1, and so on).

I just do not really see how a god which is not (to us) largely "unconscious" (nomatter what that god could be from a non-human perspective) could reastically wish to create something when that god would already be everything.

As english is not my mother tongue it's still a bit difficult to understand deeply profound texts, but I think I understood you.

I think I can answer your doubt. I'll use math, cause the its logical method can be compared with your case, and it's the example that occurred to me.

Christian theology states that God doesn't transcend, is, exists in this world (physical and metaphysical).
And it makes sense, because he is infinite.

In math, we put the concept of infinity inside the science, but in a certain way, it is unreachable. You cannot calculate with it, it is not a number, but an almost ungraspable concept. You cannot reach link infinity with any number, as high as it can be, because there will be always a higher number. And, unable to 'prove' even on paper the existence of infinity, physicists and mathematicians work with it, accepting its existence mentally, even tough we really don't know what infinity means, as our brains are limited.
God is the same. He is part of the world (math), but he is not in it, but outside (not a number), and he cannot thus merge with this world and be one with it since it is a finite thing.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you

To my knowledge of Limits, Infinity is used as a concept for types of limits, either limits of something that gets to some finite end in an infinite number of "steps" (eg 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+... will in the end almost reach 2, but it won't ever become 2 unless you use the concept of infinity, which in turn means that the limit of this progression is at 2 if infinite parts are added to it), or limits of something that gets to an infinity (eg 1+2+3+4+...). While limits are a very useful concept (originally born by Calculus, as i read due to a need to account for infinitesimal differences between distinct quantities), as you said they do not provide us with a notion of Infinity that goes beyond the limits. Ie you do not have anything "after" an infinity, cause "infinity" is not a specific part of any volume or progression, at least in its current concept.

You likened god to infinity. But infinity is our own notion. Moreover it is a notion complimentary to more focused other notions (eg limit, progression, volume alteration etc). It is in no way a fundamental concrete part of math. Maybe it is mostly a sort of shadow of our sense of "limit"

I do agree, though, that the notion of infinity can serve as a sort of glue between any parts of a whole, and moreover as the whole by itself. Anyway, it would not really go against the idea that an infinite god would not really see the point in examining finite parts of his existence.

 

[warpus]

What would it mean for God to be infinite anyway?

 

[El_Machinae]

Why the hell would someone who doesn't believe in something argue its nature?

I think Silver Surfer could beat Superman in a fight.

 

[Kyriakos]

What would it mean for God to be infinite anyway?

You may recall an older thread about a notion of a final point between two groups (eg a vanishing point in one's horizon; we cannot see past a point in the horizon, but that point would still exist if we placed ourselves closer to it, only to be replaced by the next vanishing point, and so on).

Spoiler for more shadowy comment:

Spoiler :

In my view (at least philosophically, i am not set to try to view this in mathematical terms) it would seem to make sense that a point X can be further to point Y than anything which can travel from X to Y. A sort of barrier, or limit.

However it is not that "logical" to also assume that this means the X is the limit of any progression starting in Y towards X; it only can mean that for something set in X, Y is the limit.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think Silver Surfer could beat Superman in a fight.

I assume he must have a sufficient quantity of green Kryptonite.

 

[Adjuvant]

I think Silver Surfer could beat Superman in a fight.

Silver Surfer is attributed "power cosmic" which can supposedly transform any energy into any other energy (but apparently "death" is something exterior which he cannot transform or reverse as in the final encounter with Beyonder, who was idealistically, in a manner, "God", who willed himself to non-existence) so Surfer would instantaneously transform Supe into a purple flying unicorn that poos ice cream. So everyone wins. We're rid of an annoyingly oft re-design of a tired superhero concept, Supe is finally free of his obligatory tether to protect Earth, and Surfer gets a new mount and a lifetime supply of ice cream.

Now I've just mentally masturbated in front of you, and while it makes me feel naughty, we've made absolutely no progress toward any real resolve to the proposed scenario. My entertainment of the problem has created only more problems and I expect alot more argument. It's not productive.

 

[El_Machinae]

The point is, of course, that people can meaningfully discuss characters that they don't believe are real, and can even play within the constraints determined by other people. It can be fun.

 

[Adjuvant]

Yes, I understand that point of view, but you're completely dismissing the fact Surfer and Supe are not integral parts of any person's belief systems. It is a process of categorically dismissing the aspect of "faith" in our lives.

To argue faith on "my plane" you must presume to "have faith", which you cannot because you will not, or you'd have it. For me to argue faith on "your plane", I must step out from my contention of faith, which I cannot because, honestly, I have no desire to. Neither is good for the individual and neither is necessary. It's an "agree to disagree" thing, and dangerously borders offense at any time for either because one misstep is an insult.

edit: Even to get this far, I feel I've forgiven you for an attempt to nonchalantly depose my concept of faith, for the purpose of discussion. I don't want me to have to feel that way and I expect neither do you.

 

[eduhum]

What would it mean for God to be infinite anyway?

God is infinite because he is.
I think christian theology states that, and correct me of I'm wrong,
that God doesn't exist, God is. 'I am what I am'

If God existed maybe we should give him some capacities or descriptions finite of his being that cannot match with his/its/whatever infiniteness.

Maybe the question you are asking implies God as a consequence, God as an answer to a question, but God is the beginning of everything, the cause of it.
Maybe, in a way, you can't ask yourself this question.


All the infinite thing I say comes from this: If you want to put yourself through a philosophical challenge this might be interesting..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But what if God does understand hypotheticals?

You're missing my point. God was invented by humans. He doesn't exist any more than any other deity. They were all made up by humans. So it's pointless to ask this question. There is no more a "God" to know/not know of me any more than there is a real Captain Kirk to know/not know of me (and don't anybody get smart-alecky and tell me there really is somebody called Captain Kirk - you know I'm referring to the Star Trek character).

So if there is no God, there is nothing of that sort to understand hypotheticals.

 

[timtofly]

Why should I care if an imaginary being doesn't know about me? There's nobody to not-know, so the question is essentially pointless.

If you do not exist, then neither does God, seems to make sense to me. Unless you are not relating the two together? It only seems to me though, that God stopped existing when humans figured out that they did not exist either.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you do not exist, then neither does God, seems to make sense to me. Unless you are not relating the two together? It only seems to me though, that God stopped existing when humans figured out that they did not exist either.

I like the above comment, it has many potential meanings in a wide range.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If you do not exist, then neither does God, seems to make sense to me. Unless you are not relating the two together? It only seems to me though, that God stopped existing when humans figured out that they did not exist either.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. I know I exist. It's not a phantom that's typing these words onto a screen and sending them out for the rest of you to read.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You don't realize that you are not taking into account the infinite power of this God we are talking about:
Christian theology indeed says he is another kind of entity: he is not of this world.

God would not be a mathematician or a watchmaker, he is everything.
And he might just create infinite physical laws, colors, etc. in a logical way that we are not able to imagine..

If God truly is everything, then doesn't that mean we and everything around us is also God?

Therefore, yes, there's God, and that's us and the existence of everything else.

More or less.

 

[Winston Hughes]

You're missing my point. God was invented by humans. He doesn't exist any more than any other deity. They were all made up by humans. So it's pointless to ask this question. There is no more a "God" to know/not know of me any more than there is a real Captain Kirk to know/not know of me (and don't anybody get smart-alecky and tell me there really is somebody called Captain Kirk - you know I'm referring to the Star Trek character).

So if there is no God, there is nothing of that sort to understand hypotheticals.

The hypothetical in this case involves the assumption that God does exist, and the OP was as clear as he could be that whether or not God actually exists is not up for discussion:

Please note that the scope of the thread does not really contain debate on the actual possibility of existence of a god or not. It is focused on which of the two main possibilities for the god-cosmic relation would be deemed as better for us.

 

[eduhum]

If God truly is everything, then doesn't that mean we and everything around us is also God?

Therefore, yes, there's God, and that's us and the existence of everything else.

More or less.

Well, pardon me if my sources aren't updated, but I'm not a God.

Or did you described god as a simple word to sum up everything that exists?
Then this everything, is it just a sum or is an entity of itself?

This just made me remember the quote we all know because Civ4:
'A whole is more than the sum of its parts'

Not that I completely understand what that means, to be honest

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, pardon me if my sources aren't updated, but I'm not a God.

Or did you described god as a simple word to sum up everything that exists?
Then this everything, is it just a sum or is an entity of itself?

This just made me remember the quote we all know because Civ4:
'A whole is more than the sum of its parts'

Not that I completely understand what that means, to be honest

Depends how you judge what a "god" means. We're Gods, on this planet only, however. But the way as you said it, "god is everything", if we aren't God, then your point is moot and he doesn't exist or something.

 

[CavLancer]

You don't have to understand why God does things, he is God, and you are? God does understand why you do things, same reasons. God knows who you are and values you or not accordingly. If you cannot accept that then face your fate. If you need help ask for it.

Its far too easy to knock God because you don't approve of your life and not so easy to place blame where it belongs.

 

[Kyriakos]

As Winston noted, the thread already carried in the OP the negation of any request for the actual possibility of a god existing to be debated here. It is not a thread about claims as to whether it is more or less logical that a god may exist. It is only a thread about the question whether in the event that some kind of god exists, that would make that god more of a non-threat to humans if the god did not take part in human history.

It is not about blaming a god of something. In fact my own position, already mentioned in my OP, is that i heavily doubt a god linked to human history can exist while still being an actual god and not some sort of over-human super-being without deity status being an obvious part of it.