Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

The physical is mathematics.
I love stuff like that so bold, so catastrophic, so brute fact or, in this case, brute unproven fact.
There is of course one problem, either all of maths is evident physically in this universe and the idea is testable. Or some maths is physical in the multiverse. Tegmarks level 4 multiverse.........in which case there is probably no way to test the idea.

You are quoting tegmark yes, but his own level 4 multiverse would preclude a test.

Other failings are that if maths is the physical and there is nothing else this cannot be a platonic theory as you claimed.

And there is at least a third problem. The physical changes and interacts. Your speed might change but one plus one is always going to be two no matter how fast you are going.

Still I would encourage you to crack on with your project.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to understand that the current paradigm is that information is physical - there's no need for a magic something to sit beneath that. He might like to try Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding the Universe" to read someone who already has done "the project". 

[Stranger]

The physical is mathematics.
I love stuff like that so bold, so catastrophic, so brute fact or, in this case, brute unproven fact.
There is of course one problem, either all of maths is evident physically in this universe and the idea is testable. Or some maths is physical in the multiverse. Tegmarks level 4 multiverse.........in which case there is probably no way to test the idea.

You are quoting tegmark yes, but his own level 4 multiverse would preclude a test.

Other failings are that if maths is the physical and there is nothing else this cannot be a platonic theory as you claimed.

And there is at least a third problem. The physical changes and interacts. Your speed might change but one plus one is always going to be two no matter how fast you are going.

Still I would encourage you to crack on with your project.

Vlad, I do wish you'd pay attention.

• I have never claimed that Tegmark is testable - in fact, I said the opposite.
  
  
• I have never claimed that Tegmark is true.
  
  
• Tegmark only needs to be a logical possibility in order to refute Fester's nonsense (as if it weren't silly enough to begin with).
  
  
• Nothing Feser said is testable.
  
  
• If Feser's end of hierarchy is anything like a god that intervenes, answers prayers, plans, issues commandments, makes moral judgements, offers forgiveness, or displays any other characteristics of a thinking mind, then Feser is self-contradictory.
  
  
• Was there some point to talking about speed and one plus one? Time (hence change and interaction) are described by mathematics, so if Tegmark is correct, they would be part of the mathematical structure we inhabit.
  
  

Perhaps you should try keeping notes, so you don't lose track of what's been said? Failing that, you could always read back a few posts before just typing the first thing that comes into your head...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to understand that the current paradigm is that information is physical - there's no need for a magic something to sit beneath that. He might like to try Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding the Universe" to read someone who already has done "the project".

So what this chap is saying is that there is only one universe and it's made of stuff and all there is is physical.
Which is physicalism which you've been saying for years and we e been aware of.

So what's new.
Has anybody stopped Sean Carroll wasting his time with multiverse? Or Tegmark for that matter.?

Your just spinning it Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

So what this chap is saying is that there is only one universe and it's made of stuff and all there is is physical.
Which is physicalism which you've been saying for years and we e been aware of.

So what's new.
Has anybody stopped Sean Carroll wasting his time with multiverse? Or Tegmark for that matter.?

Your just spinning it Hillside.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon misrepresents entirely what "this chap" (presumably Vedral) actually says.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon misrepresents entirely what "this chap" (presumably Vedral) actually says.

He is saying information is physical therefore he is a physicalist.Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

He is saying information is physical therefore he is a physicalist.Hillside.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon either forgets or lies about what the term "physicalist" actually means. Vedral does not concern himself with conjectures about what may or may not lay outside the physical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon either forgets or lies about what the term "physicalist" actually means. Vedral does not concern himself with conjectures about what may or may not lay outside the physical.

Vlad:                                      Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz repitition of ''Lieutenant Pigeon''
Nicholas Parsons                      Yes But he is trying out the Junior Derren Brown Hypnosis Kit he got for Christmas

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon either forgets or lies about what the term "physicalist" actually means. Vedral does not concern himself with conjectures about what may or may not lay outside the physical.

So you have just been indulging in name and word dropping Vedral, paradigm then? If not how does he help your point which I don't think we're clear on anyway?

[Stranger]

He is saying information is physical therefore he is a physicalist.

Non sequitur. Considering you keep banging on about philosophy, your grasp of basic logic is dismal.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Bloody hell! This thread is still going What's that musical Dance through the time warp again!!

Dear Searching for God,

What is God?

God is the Universe.

God is Nothing or No-thing.

God is the Universe trying to find his self/Herself/its self.

God is every living thing.

God is just everything.

God is the thing the Universe is searching for.

God is that fleeting moment when you just know.

God is, all of the above and more.

God is not a irrational thought, he/she/it is real, compassion is real, misery is real, joy is real, sadness is real, God is all of these things and more.

Searching for God, keep searching and never give up one day you might just catch a fleeting glimpse



Gonnagle.

PS: The ones in bold are thanks to Horsethorn and that good old boy Wigs, posters who make you step out of your little box and lead you that little closer to understanding, understanding what I hear you cry, how the bloody hell should I know

[torridon]

Nice to see you back Gonners 

If God is everything, well, we already have words for that - everything, Universe.  If the universe is God, why not just call it 'Universe'.

[Stranger]

What is God?

God is the Universe.

God is Nothing or No-thing.

God is the Universe trying to find his self/Herself/its self.

God is every living thing.

God is just everything.

God is the thing the Universe is searching for.

God is that fleeting moment when you just know.

God is, all of the above and more.

I'm none the wiser. Many of these are mutually exclusive, for example, god can't be both the universe and nothing. I have no idea what no-thing means. In what sense can the universe be searching for anything? If god is both the universe and what the universe is searching for, then it's searching for itself - how does that work?   

God is not a irrational thought...

How do you know? Also, if god "is just everything" (as you said) then it must be an irrational thought too. It's all very confusing...


PS Welcome back!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

Nice to see you back Gonners 

Cheers old friend

Define the Universe?

Good luck with that answer.

God is a better answer because it means more, God is before the start of time, God is the spark in life, God is not just a Universe expanding, God is what it is expanding into.

Universe does not do the whole justice, what that whole is I don't know.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear stranger,

PS Welcome back!

Thankyou.

I have no idea what no-thing means.

Ever since man stepped out of the cave he has been struggling with what God is, God is No-thing because we have no words to describe what God is, we use words like love, evil, compassionate, all powerful, all knowing, Christians have their definition, Muslims have theirs, Sikh's, Hindu's, Jews, all have their definitions but all are totally inadequate.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

If god is a thing then god is a-thing.

Just saying.

[Stranger]

Ever since man stepped out of the cave he has been struggling with what God is...

Have they? How do you know they were struggling with what something real was, rather than just inventing stories of unseen beings to 'explain' stuff?

The latter is readily explained by evolution because, when it comes to detecting deliberate intent, a false positive is less dangerous to survival than a false negative. It's relatively harmless to conclude that the storm, flood, falling rock, and so on, want to hurt you, whereas failing to understand that the saber-toothed tiger wants to have you for lunch could end very badly...

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

It is a absolute pleasure to see you posting on this forum again

If god is a thing then god is a-thing.

All my arguments toppled in one small post Now go away and stop being sensible, there is no room on this forum for sensible, even old Nearly fails to achieve sensible, well Almost

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Dear Rhiannon,

It is a absolute pleasure to see you posting on this forum again

All my arguments toppled in one small post Now go away and stop being sensible, there is no room on this forum for sensible, even old Nearly fails to achieve sensible, well Almost

Gonnagle.

I see you are still the Gonners we all know and love.

[wigginhall]

Dear Rhiannon,

It is a absolute pleasure to see you posting on this forum again

All my arguments toppled in one small post Now go away and stop being sensible, there is no room on this forum for sensible, even old Nearly fails to achieve sensible, well Almost

Gonnagle.

Well done, Gonners, good to see you back.  I thought that no-thing came in part from the idea that God is not an item in the universe, which is an old idea.  Also, God is not an item outside the universe.

This seems to destroy any idea of an objective God, but you can always stick with the personal experience.   However, this irritates people no end, for obvious reasons. 

We seem to be in Karen Armstrong territory, and she has been heavily criticized for discussing a God who is not a divine architect, (normal religion), but 'that which is in everything', which is totally subjective, and so hard to discuss.   Is it too early for a drink?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Have they? How do you know they were struggling with what something real was, rather than just inventing stories of unseen beings to 'explain' stuff?

Inventing stories! Yes that is exactly what we do, I am convinced that man really is a story telling ape, but how does that help us with the idea of God, why God?

Who said anything about being real! Earlyman definitely thought God was real, in fact ( well according to K.Armstrong ) earlyman man thought there was only one God it was only when we started giving God human traits, anthropomo ( that long word ) that we started making up gods for thunder, the sea, the sky.

Here's another what is God, is God just mans attempts to find himself, do you think we have found ourselves? I watch mans inhumanity to man and think we don't even come close to God, to being truly human.

The latter is readily explained by evolution because, when it comes to detecting deliberate intent, a false positive is less dangerous to survival than a false negative. It's relatively harmless to conclude that the storm, flood, falling rock, and so on, want to hurt you, whereas failing to understand that the saber-toothed tiger wants to have you for lunch could end very badly...

I will try and get back to you on false positives and false negatives.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs, ( me old friend )

I am always in Armstrong territory

 

Is it too early for a drink?

Something about the sun being over the yardarm in some part of the Empire ( what's a yardarm? )

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

I think the officers on a ship would have their first tot about 11am, when the sun was supposed to show above the ship's upper spars.   Also I suppose where they would hang you, if you didn't swab the decks.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

We seem to be in Karen Armstrong territory, and she has been heavily criticized for discussing a God who is not a divine architect, (normal religion), but 'that which is in everything', which is totally subjective, and so hard to discuss.

Wot the Wigginhall just said, Armstrong talks about a tribe or religion known as the Upanishad ( precursors to Hinduism,Sikhism and Buddhism ) they would fast for weeks and take a wee puff of some kind of mind altering drug and then have a contest to define God, the winner would be the one who shut everyone up by telling them they were all talking rubbish ( my definition, Armstrong explains it better )

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

I can get to everything being god, I am a pantheist after all, but then what does that mean? Probably nothing except that I think that all of it is sacred. Sometimes I say that I see an animating energy that runs through everything and that is god too. But take the energy away and you still have everything being god.

Can't accept that the universe is god trying to find itself, that implies a mind, and I don't experience a god with a mind or a personhood.

[Stranger]

Inventing stories! Yes that is exactly what we do, I am convinced that man really is a story telling ape, but how does that help us with the idea of God, why God?

Who said anything about being real! Earlyman definitely thought God was real, in fact ( well according to K.Armstrong ) earlyman man thought there was only one God it was only when we started giving God human traits, anthropomo ( that long word ) that we started making up gods for thunder, the sea, the sky.

Well, I'm not an expert in the ancient history of religion but I haven't seen the claim that monotheism came first before. Does Armstrong (or anybody else) have any evidence? Do you have a link or reference?

Here's another what is God, is God just mans attempts to find himself, do you think we have found ourselves? I watch mans inhumanity to man and think we don't even come close to God, to being truly human.

Well modern man at least aspires to be far, far batter than (for example) some of the actions of the OT god - who ordered and directly committed what would now be called crimes against humanity.

Then there are those who commit atrocities today, in the name of their gods.

I don't deny "man's inhumanity to man"  but I'm really not sure that the god concept is helping.