God is technology

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

theoretically, any computational device can exhibit just as complex interaction.

Ah, the great "theoretically", the solver of all problems of logic and practicality. 8)

Computers can't produce anything new, can't make judgment calls effectively, because they rely on having every conclusion predetermined by human programmers. It's not a "technical problem" as I see it, but a problem of technology itself. Computers can replicate most anything we've already produced very efficiently.

But they can't write new material, they can't create. They are a tool for human interaction and hold to all the inherent limits of any such tool.

 

[severely etarded]

I think god lies within in the matter and energy of the universe. God is the universe, and is really whatever your mind makes it/him/her/them to be. In the end, there is more we do not know yet, however, I don't think God is anything humans can even actually begin to grasp the true concept of. I think certain psychadelics like DMT or LSD can help unify one's mind with the universe, even if only for a short time.

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

I don't think God is anything humans can even actually begin to grasp the true concept of.

QFT

God is everything there is, ever was, and ever will be, and something more that we can't describe.

 

[IamMe90]

I think god lies within in the matter and energy of the universe. God is the universe, and is really whatever your mind makes it/him/her/them to be. In the end, there is more we do not know yet, however, I don't think God is anything humans can even actually begin to grasp the true concept of. I think certain psychadelics like DMT or LSD can help unify one's mind with the universe, even if only for a short time.

well sure, you can define God that way if you want but a lot of people would disagree. If you're just going to tautologize God as The Universe, well there you go, you can't really deny that the universe exists. but such a tautology isn't really necessary as you could have just as easily just said "the universe"

however, MOST people that refer to God actually have a very specific conception of God they're talking about, which is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolant entity. Interestingly, this makes the concept more of a logic game than your conception of God. Yours would seem to be more sincere to me, as if you were really worshipping the universe for the sheer complexity and ineffability of it. But still, just worship The Universe, not God. There's no real reason to use such connotative terminology.

 

[severely etarded]

^ God is just a word for higher power. I think the brain has connection to the universe though, and can be harnessed through meditation.

 

[IamMe90]

I don't think you really addressed my point though, which is that pantheism, or the worship/conception of "God" AS "the universe" is really pretty unnecessary and is simply a tautology. you're not adding anything new to the concept of the universe and energy by calling it "God" and so you really shouldn't involve the term at all.

 

[ColtDan]

I think certain psychadelics like DMT or LSD can help unify one's mind with the universe, even if only for a short time.

this

 

[severely etarded]

I don't think you really addressed my point though, which is that pantheism, or the worship/conception of "God" AS "the universe" is really pretty unnecessary and is simply a tautology. you're not adding anything new to the concept of the universe and energy by calling it "God" and so you really shouldn't involve the term at all.

My gods are my gods. I worship the higher power in which created me and in which my mind is united with through LSD and meditation. If you dont call that God, that's your prerogative. The universe, and the energy which propel it are my gods.

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

however, MOST people that refer to God actually have a very specific conception of God they're talking about, which is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolant entity. Interestingly, this makes the concept more of a logic game than your conception of God. Yours would seem to be more sincere to me, as if you were really worshipping the universe for the sheer complexity and ineffability of it. But still, just worship The Universe, not God.

In the words of Joseph Campbell, you're mistaking the symbol for the message here, IamMe. Any idea of "god" is our conscious mind's attempt to describe the indescribable, to talk about something that transcends all categories of thought. It's not about which individual deity you worship, it's about recognizing that there is something that goes beyond our domain of comprehension.

Also, some faiths see god as decidedly separate from the universe, so I think that making the statement that god and the universe are one and the same, is entirely relevant.

 

[L2R]

don't look like no damn 'chine t'me

 

[Pythagoras]

@IAmMe

If you're just going to tautologize God as The Universe, well there you go, you can't really deny that the universe exists. but such a tautology isn't really necessary as you could have just as easily just said "the universe"

Saying God is the universe is not to my mind a tautology. It is equating two terms that are not necessarily equal. As you point out Theists, pantheists, panentheists, panpsychists, atheists etc would all disagree with the definition. So for them, it is not a tautology. It may be a pleonasm, however I am fairly certain it is not a tautology.

I'm happy to be proven wrong though.

 

[IamMe90]

I'm only saying pantheists don't add anything to the concept of the universe through God, not panentheists or other theisms.

to be honest, i simply don't see how you move past tautology.

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical"

pantheism seems to garner its meaning in its approach to the universe/God - to consider it "sacred." however, i'm not sure why God is the only concept worthy of "sacredness" why you couldn't just as easily say "I am a universalist (i just made this up as an alternative to pantheist haha). I worship the universe and its sacredness!"

panentheism is meaningful because God is IN the universe, implying that there is something in the concept of "God" that is beyond the concept of the universe. but at the point where the universe and God are indentical, what is the point of differentiating the two?

It is equating two terms that are not necessarily equal.

that's just the problem, though, every definition i've managed to find of pantheism says that the two are identical and equal. if someone could actually spell out the difference for me, i'd love to hear it. maybe someone's personal conception of pantheism isn't meaningless, in which case i'd say they aren't really pantheists but something a little different.

 

[DOB]

god is this and god is that blah blah blah,god is everything man... you know how bacteria in my ass call that place? a"universe"

 

[Pythagoras]

I'm only saying pantheists don't add anything to the concept of the universe through God, not panentheists or other theisms.

to be honest, i simply don't see how you move past tautology.

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical"

pantheism seems to garner its meaning in its approach to the universe/God - to consider it "sacred." however, i'm not sure why God is the only concept worthy of "sacredness" why you couldn't just as easily say "I am a universalist (i just made this up as an alternative to pantheist haha). I worship the universe and its sacredness!"

panentheism is meaningful because God is IN the universe, implying that there is something in the concept of "God" that is beyond the concept of the universe. but at the point where the universe and God are indentical, what is the point of differentiating the two?



that's just the problem, though, every definition i've managed to find of pantheism says that the two are identical and equal. if someone could actually spell out the difference for me, i'd love to hear it. maybe someone's personal conception of pantheism isn't meaningless, in which case i'd say they aren't really pantheists but something a little different.

I think we're talking at cross purposes and apologies if my previous post was not clearer.

The purpose of the post was not to enter into a discussion of what God is, but rather what a tautology is.

Again I may be wrong but saying 'God is pantheistic' is not a tautology. It is not for one, neccesarily true, like 'All Bachelors are unmarried'. I think the term may be a pleonasm (though I'm not certain it is even that), but it seems to me that it is not a tautology.

 

[girlygrrl]

Check out http://simulism.org ... My spiritual beliefs are all over the place, but I'm fairly convinced we are living in a sophisticated computer simulation...all this new age talk of "spiritual beings having a human experience" really sums it up for me...

 

[girlygrrl]

@IAmMe

Saying God is the universe is not to my mind a tautology. It is equating two terms that are not necessarily equal. As you point out Theists, pantheists, panentheists, panpsychists, atheists etc would all disagree with the definition. So for them, it is not a tautology. It may be a pleonasm, however I am fairly certain it is not a tautology.

I'm happy to be proven wrong though.

I think the problem is how people define "god". From my understanding all of existence was derived from the source consciousness, and so everything that exists is all actually part of one big organism.

Then there are "gods" in the sense of deities...and that is something different IMO. The god of the bible for example would not be source consciousness but something a few steps down from source consciousness.

 

[hobhead]

keep it up you erudite BLers .

there are words that i have not ever heard in conversation being tossed around here leonasm, tautology, panpsychists for example .

the wonder of my computer's browser allows for instant checking the definitions.

this old dyed in the wool atheist loves learning and the english language.

 

[Pythagoras]

Gnostic Theology

I think the problem is how people define "god". From my understanding all of existence was derived from the source consciousness, and so everything that exists is all actually part of one big organism.

Then there are "gods" in the sense of deities...and that is something different IMO. The god of the bible for example would not be source consciousness but something a few steps down from source consciousness.

From what you have written you might be interested in Gnostic or neo-Platonic thought.

Gnosticism is an emanationist doctrine that rejects the tetragrammaton of the Old Testament, regarding Him as a demiurge and revering the 'God above God'. The demiurge is the creator God who is unaware of the higher archons and the source. They reject the unity of scripture (in line with Marcion), and adopted extra-canonical gospels, apocalypses and pseudepigrapha, much of which only came to light in the 20th century (having been lost to scholarship for 1400 years): The find of the Nag Hammadi codices has reinvigorated the study of Gnostic thought becoming a distinct subject within Patristics.

Given your outlook I strongly recommend reading some secondary source literature, which will also illuminate the wide divergence of thought in the early Christian church of the ante-Nicene period.

 

[girlygrrl]

Given your outlook I strongly recommend reading some secondary source literature, which will also illuminate the wide divergence of thought in the early Christian church of the ante-Nicene period.

Do you recommend a specific book or reading list?

 

[IamMe90]

I think God is an artifact of a species that needed to provide solutions for its universe.

But it isn't necessary anyway. Where is it mandated the universe had ever to be created and not exist ad infinitum?