What is God?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But the universe isn't a person. We have not the slightest reason to think it has a mind, intentions, concerns, desires.

Would a random cell in our body think we are a person, at least outside of cartoons?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I mean immeasurable or uncountable.
For example, we don't know how many stars there are. We can't count them.

Not being able to count that high doesn’t mean anything.

 

[Ponder This]

The same as I'd count, say, the number of coffee beans in a defined zone. That may including finding the sum of many such counts in many defined zones.

It seems to me that you imagine you could count all the stars, but that you couldn't really count all the stars. You could, in practice, only count some of the stars.

 

[Ponder This]

Not being able to count that high doesn’t mean anything.

However, being able to actually count the thing you are trying to count does mean something.

 

[blü 2]

You'll have to clarify a little what you mean by qualities of imaginary things versus real things.

Reality is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

Our brains have evolved to understand that world through language, which (as you can observe in very small children learning to talk) uses abstractions as categories ─ for example, the carer (no matter where in the world, and whether male or female) talks to the infant in "motherese", adn the infant instinctively looks both at the face of the carer, and at where the carer points or is looking in an indicative manner. Thus the infant, being given multiple examples that this object and this object and this object is in each case a "car" learns both the abstraction "a car" and the specific case "this car".

Thus we can have a concept that has no real counterpart ─ "a car", "two", "justice", "Mickey Mouse", "Bigfoot" ─ and, it seems clear enough to me, "God".

For instance the science of real things in the physical universe has real reasons for believing in a real "infinite" universe. Or a real "infinite" multiverse.

I'm not aware of any such claim, unless we include "infinite" in its etymological sense of "unbounded" ie "as big as you like". To put that another way, are you aware of any claim in physics that we can look at nature and find there an instantiation of a Cantorian ω? I certainly am not.

Now, if you believe that the universe as defined is a real thing then it can have real qualities one of which might be infinity in describing its real extension into reality.

Please let me see the example first.

The same goes for omniscience, omnipotence, etc. These terms represent the gradient extent to which a real thing might reach the perfection which the term represents. If a being can have a limited knowledge of a particular thing then it is not a great leap to conceptualize a real being with an unlimited knowledge of a particular thing as a quality it may possess for instance.

This sounds like a version of Anselm's argument for God, which I personally think is nonsense.

Simply because you have no real knowledge of the existence of such a being does not mean such a being cannot really exist with these qualities.

Since not only is there no real example, but not even any even vaguely credible hypothesis as to how such a thing might function, might be possible at all, why should anyone think it was more real than Harry Potter?

 

[blü 2]

Would a random cell in our body think we are a person, at least outside of cartoons?

Under the Knife again!

 

[blü 2]

It seems to me that you imagine you could count all the stars, but that you couldn't really count all the stars. You could, in practice, only count some of the stars.

If as we presently think the expansion of the universe means there are stars whose light will never reach us at any time in the future, that will always be correct. But if we could detect them all (working with a yes/no definition of a 'star'), then each star counted would tick off one place on the number line, +1, +1, +1, until the job was done and there were no uncounted stars. In other words, the stars are countable in principle but not in practice ─ as you said.

 

[rational experiences]

You've got me scratching my head trying to figure this out. If I scratch any more, I'll strike brain.

As a human knowing occult scientists are studying our life by machines I scratch my head quite often. As is known by the observers. But never will I be Jesus.

As humans using machines claiming contact Jesus by sacrificed human life. You surely own a thinking brain problem yourselves. Seeing a machine is a machine with no self volition first.

And if Satanists think humans as humans own the eternal you are wrong. The eternal is the eternal is no human.

And if Jesus a man lived after he came back from the dead. Then if your claim is he never died then a man human has been walking around as Jesus the man since.

Seeing satanists believed that they would inherit no human death. When all humans die. As it was a scientific thesis to shift human time back into the eternal originally. A thesis of human want.

Now you should realise why science does not support occult thesis as human first choice to be a theist and scientist were proven wrong. Time shifting machines.

As they killed us all instead.

 

[setarcos]

Reality is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

Are you saying that the self is not real since reality is external to it?

Our brains have evolved to understand that world through language, which (as you can observe in very small children learning to talk) uses abstractions as categories ─ for example, the carer (no matter where in the world, and whether male or female) talks to the infant in "motherese", adn the infant instinctively looks both at the face of the carer, and at where the carer points or is looking in an indicative manner. Thus the infant, being given multiple examples that this object and this object and this object is in each case a "car" learns both the abstraction "a car" and the specific case "this car".

Our brains have "evolved" to function productively within the reality for which they find themselves I agree. Our senses however have a limited capacity in conveying reality to our awareness and our awareness seems to go beyond what our senses inform us of.
The senses do not show us what is real. They inform our awareness how reality effects our functioning within it. Neither do the senses sense abstractions. Senses detect the specific. Abstractions are generalizations formulated within the mind. The senses see a blue car. Feel a blue car, etc. The senses however do not conceptualize the generalized abstract qualities of what it is to be a car. So are abstractions real? That's like asking if the word car is real. Language is and only can be symbolic of reality.

Thus we can have a concept that has no real counterpart ─ "a car", "two", "justice", "Mickey Mouse", "Bigfoot" ─ and, it seems clear enough to me, "God".

No, after all the concept and what the thing that is conceptualizes about are not equal entities, but we can certainly have a real concept that has a real specific represented case.
You are mistaking the symbolic representation of a thing for the reality of the specific thing. Your confusing the specific for the general. The reality in a concept or abstraction is in its purpose. That is to instruct the mind. You are miscategorizing the reality of abstractions with the reality of the specific case. "A car" is as real as "this car" within the epistemological category within which each falls.
Is the concept "Bigfoot" real? Yes. As a real concept. Are there real specific Bigfoot creatures that adhere to the concept of what a Bigfoot is? Some would say yes and some no. Is the concept of God a real thing? Yes. As a conception. Does that concept describe a real self aware being? No proof either way yet that I know of. Keep in mind God if it exists is not the same thing as the abstract concept which attempts to define such a thing. God if it exists couldn't even be classified with specifics in the same way say a car could since there literally would be no other case with which we could distinguish it from.

I'm not aware of any such claim, unless we include "infinite" in its etymological sense of "unbounded" ie "as big as you like". To put that another way, are you aware of any claim in physics that we can look at nature and find there an instantiation of a Cantorian ω? I certainly am not.

One of the big questions of modern cosmology was whether or not our universe is bounded or unbounded, finite or infinite, temporally infinite but spatially bounded etc. When I say "good reasons" I mean the proponents think they are good. Their reasonings are found mainly in the math.
You wouldn't be able to find a instantiation of a Cantorian ω in nature, if by nature you mean the physical universe. For two reasons that I can see. 1. It is an abstract concept not a physical concept. and 2. We haven't the equipment to mentally recognize the embodiment of such a concept in a physical entity if such a thing were possible in some manner.

Please let me see the example first.

I don't know what you mean by an example? You wish me to pull something infinite out of my hat so that you can see it?
Infinity is merely a word which symbolizes in an abstract way a concept which we can only understand imperfectly. Our awareness is finite in its extent. Therefore to be aware of an infinity in its entirety is impossible for us. To conceptualizes an infinity though, because of its finite nature, we can be aware of.

This sounds like a version of Anselm's argument for God, which I personally think is nonsense.
Since not only is there no real example, but not even any even vaguely credible hypothesis as to how such a thing might function, might be possible at all, why should anyone think it was more real than Harry Potter?

I am not arguing for proof of God here. I'm simply defining the terms of a conception.
I hope you don't believe that one must have a real example to go by before we can conceptualizing what might actually be real? Most of science is conceptualizing, hypothesizing, and speculating before real examples are discovered. Can a rock fall out of the sky? Lets speculate as to why or why not. Then perhaps one day we find a real example and the question is settled. The specifics of how such a thing might function, by its very nature, would be expected not to be comprehensible. Why it might be possible is far from settled. Try reading books like "The return of the God hypothesis" by Stephen C. Meyer. for instance. Play the devils advocate and try to prove the counter arguments. See what you did up. That's the best way I've found to progress a conversation.

 

[blü 2]

Are you saying that the self is not real since reality is external to it?

'Reality' is short for 'objective reality'. Your self as I perceive it is part of objective reality. My self as I perceive it is subjective reality, being informed of objective reality by my senses.

Our brains have "evolved" to function productively within the reality for which they find themselves I agree. Our senses however have a limited capacity in conveying reality to our awareness and our awareness seems to go beyond what our senses inform us of.

Yes, we can think in concepts / abstractions / generalizations / categories, as well as specifics.

The senses do not show us what is real. They inform our awareness how reality effects our functioning within it.

They do both.

Neither do the senses sense abstractions.

Yes, concepts are an evolved way of interpreting sensory input.

So are abstractions real?

Yes in the sense of being brain states. No in the sense of their subject matter having objective existence, though some of them will have real referents.

That's like asking if the word car is real. Language is and only can be symbolic of reality.

But interestingly, it's substantially the same concept that links 'automobile', 'car', 'voiture', 'Wagen', 'macchina', 'carr', 'mașină', 'αυτοκίνητο', 'автомобиль', 'մեքենա', 'მანქანა', '车', '車両', 'รถยนต์' ─ on and on, with different sounds and different symbols and different symbol systems.

No, after all the concept and what the thing that is conceptualizes about are not equal entities, but we can certainly have a real concept that has a real specific represented case.

Yes, 'this chair' as distinct from 'a chair'.

You are mistaking the symbolic representation of a thing for the reality of the specific thing.

No, I assure you I'm acutely conscious of what specific real things 'my children' denotes.

The reality in a concept or abstraction is in its purpose. That is to instruct the mind.

I don't understand your use of 'reality' there. as I said above, a concept has objective existence as a brain state ─, but its contents denote or portray rather than are the thing denoted or portrayed.

I don't know what you mean by an example? You wish me to pull something infinite out of my hat so that you can see it?

I mean that 'infinity' exists purely as a concept without a counterpart in the world external to the self. The same is true of 'two', but the difference is that we find real instantiations of the concept 'two' and none of 'infinity'.

 

[lukethethird]

What is God?
God represents everything we don't know, and all wrapped up into a ball. Actually, God is a re occurring character in a canon of myth and theology, called The Bible.

 

[Brian2]

If God is not real then God is purely conceptual / imaginary ─ which indeed is exactly what, on the all the evidence, God appears to be.
I'd say it was the other way round ─ that no real creature can do what God is said to have done in eg the opening of Genesis, not least because whoever wrote it didn't know the nature of the universe, had no concept of orbits or planets or deep space or the nature of the sky or the stars, the evolution of life on earth, and so on.
Sure, and there are no real examples of such a being. If there were, you could show me one.

You must be missing some of the evidence.
There is no reason to say that the creation story in Genesis is not true.

 

[blü 2]

You must be missing some of the evidence.
There is no reason to say that the creation story in Genesis is not true.

We can be extremely confident that the story in Genesis is not true.

Start with the cosmology used throughout the bible ─ a flat earth immovably fixed at the center of creation, around which the sun moon stars &c move. The sky as a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. You can read relevant quotes from the bible >in this earlier post of mine<.

No concept of heliocentry, of orbits, of satellites, of the nature of the sun or the stars or the other planets, of the EM spectrum or the other forces.

No concept of the origin of the universe, the age of the universe, the formation of the sun as a second generation star, and of our solar system at the same time; or of the expansion of the universe. No concept of how extremely small the earth is in a universe that may have something like twenty septillion stars and however many planets they can muster between them. No concept of a star in another part of the universe whose light has taken more than 13 billion years to reach us.

Incomprehension of the evolution of life on earth, the role of genetics, of microorganisms in nature regarding plants, animals and so on, of the broad nature of biology and genetics, instead asserting that plants existed before the sun did, birds existed before land animals did, and so on.

I express no surprise and intend no disgrace ─ much of our knowledge of these matters didn't exist four hundred, three hundred, two hundred, one hundred, twenty, ten years ago. Instead it's the 'science' of the times and places where the bible was written, the cosmology of the Babylonians in particular. Why would we expect the bible authors to have any other understanding?

And then there's the problem that the bible god isn't a credible creator of all this, not just because [he] starts out as a local tribal deity, but that [he] didn't even exist until about 1500 BCE, tens of thousands of years after the divinities of the Australian first nations, and serious thousands of years after the gods and goddesses of Jericho, Göbekli Tepe, Çatal Hüyük, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, Egypt ...

 

[Kooky]

Would a random cell in our body think we are a person, at least outside of cartoons?

Of course not; that's reserved for the large, interwoven cluster of neural cells located at the top of our bodies.

 

[Brian2]

We can be extremely confident that the story in Genesis is not true..

How do you understand the story?

Start with the cosmology used throughout the bible ─ a flat earth immovably fixed at the center of creation, around which the sun moon stars &c move. The sky as a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. You can read relevant quotes from the bible >in this earlier post of mine<.

Looks like you are reading it the wrong way to me.

No concept of heliocentry, of orbits, of satellites, of the nature of the sun or the stars or the other planets, of the EM spectrum or the other forces.

No concept of the origin of the universe, the age of the universe, the formation of the sun as a second generation star, and of our solar system at the same time; or of the expansion of the universe. No concept of how extremely small the earth is in a universe that may have something like twenty septillion stars and however many planets they can muster between them. No concept of a star in another part of the universe whose light has taken more than 13 billion years to reach us.

Incomprehension of the evolution of life on earth, the role of genetics, of microorganisms in nature regarding plants, animals and so on, of the broad nature of biology and genetics, instead asserting that plants existed before the sun did, birds existed before land animals did, and so on.

It was written for all ages and all types of people so they could get a picture of God making the universe and even in this day and age can be read with out science in mind and seen to be true.

And then there's the problem that the bible god isn't a credible creator of all this, not just because [he] starts out as a local tribal deity, but that [he] didn't even exist until about 1500 BCE, tens of thousands of years after the divinities of the Australian first nations, and serious thousands of years after the gods and goddesses of Jericho, Göbekli Tepe, Çatal Hüyük, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, Egypt ...

God was involved in guiding and informing the people of all ages.
1500 BC was just the right time to form a nation for His name so He could head towards the Messiah and saviour of humanity.

 

[blü 2]

How do you understand the story?

As folktale.

Looks like you are reading it the wrong way to me.

You can't have read that link I gave you to the precise words of the bible saying those things. As I said, it's basically the cosmology of Babylon, so it's no surprise to find it there.

It was written for all ages and all types of people so they could get a picture of God making the universe and even in this day and age can be read with out science in mind and seen to be true.

True in what sense? Certainly not in the sense that God brought the earth into existence at some time around 1500 BCE, when [he] first appears in history.

God was involved in guiding and informing the people of all ages.

No, that was quite expressly other gods.

1500 BC was just the right time to form a nation for His name so He could head towards the Messiah and saviour of humanity.

No, it was simply when a particular tribe of southern Canaanites evolved to the point of having their own version of Canaanite theology and started out with Yahweh. As the bible says, at the start [he] wasn't the only god ─ [his] followers were henotheists. If I didn't give you citations before, just ask and I'll refer you to the relevant texts.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.....My question is, what real thing is God? Describe the real God so that when we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not.

What a very interesting question ^ above^, after all worldwide there are many gods worshipped as real I imagine.
I think a lot of persons think of God as a Spirit in Heaven or Supreme Being. So, Heaven gives us a location for God.
God as Creator or like a person who constructs or builds a house. God as behind original construction or creation.
ALL the stars move in the heavens according to laws that keep them in perfect relation to one another.
I don't think the stars made themselves in which they move with such great order.
Where there is a mind/brain there is intelligence so to me the highly organized universe did Not happen by itself.
The universe is so much more complicated than a simple invention thus showing intelligent design.
An intelligent mind/brain responsible for all creation belongs to a Great Person aka Almighty God.
Persons have a place to live and the Bible tells us God's home location is Heaven itself - 1 Kings 8:43
Jesus spoke about some joining him in Heaven and most people inheriting the Earth.
God operates from the heavens - Psalms 104:30 - with far reaching effects.
( Kind of reminds me of an electric power grid. We don't see it but we see the effects )
Our Power Plant has a specific location but its electricity is distributed all around this area.
So, in order to create, God did Not have to be present here on Earth but distribute His dynamic power here.
God's invisible qualities, His creative power, is shown in the things He made.
God gave Earth as our home - Psalms 115:16 - an Earth that is placed in just the right spot for our life on Earth.
We are designed to enjoy life with the desire if healthy to want to live on and on.
Only those who bring ruin to Earth will be brought to ruin - Revelation 11:18 B - for the sake of the righteous ones.
It is mankind's long history (Not God's) that shows it is man who dominates man to man's hurt, man's injury.
Whereas, the God of the Bible will stop wars earthwide - Psalms 46:9; Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 11:9; Micah 4:3; Isaiah 2:4

 

[blü 2]

What a very interesting question ^ above^, after all worldwide there are many gods worshipped as real I imagine.
I think a lot of persons think of God as a Spirit in Heaven or Supreme Being. So, Heaven gives us a location for God.
God as Creator or like a person who constructs or builds a house. God as behind original construction or creation.
ALL the stars move in the heavens according to laws that keep them in perfect relation to one another.
I don't think the stars made themselves in which they move with such great order.
Where there is a mind/brain there is intelligence so to me the highly organized universe did Not happen by itself.
The universe is so much more complicated than a simple invention thus showing intelligent design.
An intelligent mind/brain responsible for all creation belongs to a Great Person aka Almighty God.
Persons have a place to live and the Bible tells us God's home location is Heaven itself - 1 Kings 8:43
Jesus spoke about some joining him in Heaven and most people inheriting the Earth.
God operates from the heavens - Psalms 104:30 - with far reaching effects.
( Kind of reminds me of an electric power grid. We don't see it but we see the effects )
Our Power Plant has a specific location but its electricity is distributed all around this area.
So, in order to create, God did Not have to be present here on Earth but distribute His dynamic power here.

So what's the objective test that will tell us whether any real candidate is God or not?

Or are you agreeing that God exists only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So what's the objective test that will tell us whether any real candidate is God or not?
Or are you agreeing that God exists only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains?
God's invisible qualities, His creative power, is shown in the things He made.
God gave Earth as our home - Psalms 115:16 - an Earth that is placed in just the right spot for our life on Earth.
We are designed to enjoy life with the desire if healthy to want to live on and on.
Only those who bring ruin to Earth will be brought to ruin - Revelation 11:18 B - for the sake of the righteous ones.
It is mankind's long history (Not God's) that shows it is man who dominates man to man's hurt, man's injury.
Whereas, the God of the Bible will stop wars earthwide - Psalms 46:9; Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 11:9; Micah 4:3; Isaiah 2:4

To me the created Earth is Not imagined, but that it would take a powerful intelligent brain/mind to create Earth.
If you come across a cabin in the woods you would Not think it got there by itself, but had a builder.
History shows us that as the ancient people migrated away from ancient Babylon they took with them their religious-myth ideas and practices and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great.
Religious myth is brain imagined and the global spreading of ancient Babylon's false religious ideas can be seen by the many overlapping or similar religious ideas spread throughout the Earth today,
That does Not make the teachings of Jesus as wrong, but just makes human ideas conflicting with what Jesus taught.

 

[blü 2]

To me the created Earth is Not imagined, but that it would take a powerful intelligent brain/mind to create Earth.
If you come across a cabin in the woods you would Not think it got there by itself, but had a builder.
History shows us that as the ancient people migrated away from ancient Babylon they took with them their religious-myth ideas and practices and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great.
Religious myth is brain imagined and the global spreading of ancient Babylon's false religious ideas can be seen by the many overlapping or similar religious ideas spread throughout the Earth today,
That does Not make the teachings of Jesus as wrong, but just makes human ideas conflicting with what Jesus taught.

But unfortunately none of that tells me the objective test that will determine whether any real entity I may find is God or not.