What is God?

[spazelord]

But how do you know that God and the universe is the same thing? Or made of the same matter?

Well the same way that we know our body is about 80% water and so is the planet. Do the same way that we know the same neutron that is in our body is in the universe. That

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well the same way that we know our body is about 80% water and so is the planet. Do the same way that we know the same neutron that is in our body is in the universe. That

[spazelord]

It makes sense for "us" to be part of the universe.  But it doesnt make sense for "god" to be part of the universe.  Instead of calling the universe "god" just say that god doesnt exist and that the universe is all there is.  That would be less confusing and would convey your point just as well.  Equating God to the universe and then saying that God is made of energy, is like saying the universe is made of the universe.  What you are saying, albeit in a confusing way, is that there is no God. Because if you truly believe that that the universe is God or that energy is God...then you dont believe in God.  God as defined by theologians is something different altogether.

I think its human nature trying to always separate God from universe this from that, us vs. them or that vs. this. Everything is connected you see?

God very much exists it's just that you call it God others call it higher self, Allah, infant life, the endless life, energy, call it what pleases you but, it isn't a person or i don't see it the way you see it that

[VigilVirus]

I think its human nature trying to always separate God from universe this from that, us vs. them or that vs. this. Everything is connected you see?

God very much exists it's just that you call it God others call it higher self, Allah, infant life, the endless life, energy, call it what pleases you but, it isn't a person or i don't see it the way you see it that

[Dude_Doc]

Well the same way that we know our body is about 80% water and so is the planet.

We know this because we can use science and technology to proove it. How can you use science and technology to prove that God is the universe, i.e. that God is in everything? Also, how does God, in your oppinion, operate?

[spazelord]

This sounds more like the Bing Bang theory, of an ultimate energetic singularity that dispersed and randomly created everything that exists in the universe now. But instead, you choose to call this singularity God. But as Gunwounds correctly brought up, this is does not match up with the views of God that are widely popular in theology, ie intelligent design and free will.

It's sort of like calling a pencil "God" and then attempting to claim that since this pencil is made up of the same matter as everything else, it must be the same God that christians, muslims and other religions worship to.

Well for thousands of years Christians, Muslims and other religions have shed more blood and lives up on this earth then any other entity that has ever excited for not worshiping or being like them. Continuously they keep fighting wars after wars, so 1 thing they would know is confusing people not knowing what really "GOD" means.

Well not really it

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well for thousands of years Christians, Muslims and other religions have shed more blood and lives up on this earth then any other entity that has ever excited for not worshiping or being like them. Continuously they keep fighting wars after wars, so 1 thing they would know is confusing people not knowing what really "GOD" means.

Well not really it

[spazelord]

Only problem with your example is that you are bringing God down to "our" level by saying He wouldnt know what we are doing the way we dont know what our cells are doing. God creating the universe from scratch is far superior to us creating a pencil from pre-made atoms.  Hence one would assume his abilities to monitor his creation would be better than our own abilities to monitor ours.

Well en example is an example I

[VigilVirus]

Well en example is an example I

[spazelord]

That's contradictory though. You're saying that we can monitor our own creations, but God cannot monitor his. The fact is, we can't monitor the atoms and the cells in our body at the same time, but they are also not our conscious creation. In the case of God, he has created all the matter and energy in the universe, as well as create the rules by which that energy and matter can be manipulated. In fact, God would be able to monitor and predict all possible permutations of what we could ever think of creating or attempting. Which goes hand in hand with most religions considering God to be omniscient as well as omnipotent.

Mr. Devil's Advocate it

[spazelord]

We know this because we can use science and technology to proove it. How can you use science and technology to prove that God is the universe, i.e. that God is in everything? Also, how does God, in your oppinion, operate?

Energy/God exists every where my friend beyond this universe and all space and time. How do we know? Look through a microscope to find its creation or a telescope to see out there or take a good look at your self that should explain it as well. Some don

[GUNWOUNDS]

Mr. Devil's Advocate it

[VigilVirus]

You mixed up the point of my post when you read it. I clearly stated that we can't be aware of the operation of atoms and cells, because they are not our own creation, but God's.

My ultimate point is, you're attempting to compare the relationship between a physically limited being such as a human and his invention to that of God and the universe, assuming that God has limits (as all energy and matter has a limit). I think that assumption is incorrect at the core. By assuming that God is all the energy and matter in the universe, you're also leaving out the major aspect of what God is, i.e. the creator of the universe. Without outside interference, how did the energy, or God arrange itself in the manner that it is now? That brings you back to either that all energy and matter are a single intelligent being or that matter arranged itself randomly, i.e. the Big Bang theory. The first theory is rather absurd, while the second, as Acriku has mentioned before, is just giving energy a different name.

[Darth Kwisatz]

We cant possibly imagine 4-D with a 3-D mind so we must use 2-D to 3-D interaction examples.

I've imagined up to 9 of those dimensions since I was a kid. 

And with your most recent posts i am starting to reconsider my first impression of you.  Whats boring is someone who cant debate without getting pissed every 2 seconds when someone outwits him. Its easy to see that Edrico drives you nuts because you cant bullsh!t him like you do everyone else.

First impressions are best for me, but my first posts were the silliest, so figure that out. Theology debates are a bore because rarely can the protagonists engage on equal terms for the sake of argument. Theists take things far too personally, even though we must always condescend to assuming the presence of god in order for there to even be a debate. I've not met a theist who can happily imagine there being no god and engage merrily and logically on those terms, and without a palpable sense of fear of the possibility. No one drives me nuts at all. If anything, I'm curious to see if there is any reason to believe in this phenomenon other than the empty rhetoric of faith. If you want a ten-dimensional debate, just ask.

I really do think, the more I explore what drives theists to their convictions, that it is a combination of fear and need. I've seen people convert between theism and atheism in either direction. What I get from that, and from knowing people is that to me, and as I observe in others, god really is the spiritual representation of a cure for individual terror of absurd futility. I'm with Nietzsche on that one.

I don't drink beer nor belch except with people who do talk about inter-dimensional nonsense. Its a pity you're half-way around the world and not around the corner.

[spazelord]

 

I really do think, the more I explore what drives theists to their convictions, that it is a combination of fear and need. I've seen people convert between theism and atheism in either direction. What I get from that, and from knowing people is that to me, and as I observe in others, god really is the spiritual representation of a cure for individual terror of absurd futility. I'm with Nietzsche on that one.

I couldn't agree any more with this quote. You see, it

[spazelord]

You mixed up the point of my post when you read it. I clearly stated that we can't be aware of the operation of atoms and cells, because they are not our own creation, but God's.

My ultimate point is, you're attempting to compare the relationship between a physically limited being such as a human and his invention to that of God and the universe, assuming that God has limits (as all energy and matter has a limit). I think that assumption is incorrect at the core. By assuming that God is all the energy and matter in the universe, you're also leaving out the major aspect of what God is, i.e. the creator of the universe. Without outside interference, how did the energy, or God arrange itself in the manner that it is now? That brings you back to either that all energy and matter are a single intelligent being or that matter arranged itself randomly, i.e. the Big Bang theory. The first theory is rather absurd, while the second, as Acriku has mentioned before, is just giving energy a different name.

You see 1st of all you are the 1 or rather we are the 1s that put limitation up on our selves. If God is unlimited y would he create unlimited universe and all of a sudden limited beings like us? You see he didn't we put that label on us, just like how you limited your self of thoughts Devil's Advocate. 2nd i never assumed God is energy i know it is. If people like to believe in allusions created by religious people is fine with me but can't force it up on what i know is the truth. You may have been growing up with religious beliefs or limitation concepts with the people around you but it doesn't mean every 1 else should see things the way you do or others that have limited mind set. When i say limited mind set i didn't say it you did up above on this page, so that tells me a lot about how you think. Then you said all energy is limited, that is false as well, 4% of our universe is visible matter that we can detect like us planets, stars and galaxies. 21% is dark matter that we can't see, and about 75% is dark energy that no1 can understand or see it. Beyond that scientists have created a computer image of what the outside of our universe looks like and it seems like there are billions just like us and functioning about the same but yet diffrent. So you see it

[GUNWOUNDS]

You see 1st of all you are the 1 or rather we are the 1s that put limitation up on our selves. If God is unlimited y would he create unlimited universe and all of a sudden limited beings like us? You see he didn't we put that label on us, just like how you limited your self of thoughts Devil's Advocate. 2nd i never assumed God is energy i know it is. If people like to believe in allusions created by religious people is fine with me but can't force it up on what i know is the truth. You may have been growing up with religious beliefs or limitation concepts with the people around you but it doesn't mean every 1 else should see things the way you do or others that have limited mind set. When i say limited mind set i didn't say it you did up above on this page, so that tells me a lot about how you think. Then you said all energy is limited, that is false as well, 4% of our universe is visible matter that we can detect like us planets, stars and galaxies. 21% is dark matter that we can't see, and about 75% is dark energy that no1 can understand or see it. Beyond that scientists have created a computer image of what the outside of our universe looks like and it seems like there are billions just like us and functioning about the same but yet diffrent. So you see it

[Acriku]

I shudder from the logic of that argument Guns, "the idea necessitates existence." I could use that argument to say that there exists a unicorn that which no greater unicorn could exist. Does that make unicorns spring into existence by the straps of logic? Hardly. Just a side note.

[Caid Ivik]

I shudder from the logic of that argument Guns, "the idea necessitates existence." I could use that argument to say that there exists a unicorn that which no greater unicorn could exist. Does that make unicorns spring into existence by the straps of logic? Hardly. Just a side note.

Anselm, who as the first used this argument, actually faced a similar question (I think in that case, a gargoyle was mentioned instead of unicorns),  just in platonic structure of the world, you have a term of primary cause, which was semantically linked to the term of transcendent God - unicorn (or gargoyle) wasn't. Of course, that's (neo)platonism, in multiverse of postmodernity, such language has no use. But nice to see ideas of Platon or Anselm still effective ;D

[GUNWOUNDS]

I shudder from the logic of that argument Guns, "the idea necessitates existence." I could use that argument to say that there exists a unicorn that which no greater unicorn could exist. Does that make unicorns spring into existence by the straps of logic? Hardly. Just a side note.

The unicorn example doesnt make sense because the argument only makes sense when explaining the greatest entity of ALL entities imaginable (God).  Also the argument only is reasonable if there is no definitive proof for the existence or non-existence of the being in question.  Meaning the argument is meant to give support to the existence of something [the greatest something] that could exist, but that we are unaware of (God).  It of course is NOT meant to "spring" things out of existence which we know definitely do not exist (unicorns).  And it is NOT meant to infer that there is a greatest version of some entity we already know definitely exists (cheeseburgers).  Attempting to widen the scope of this arguement beyond what its intent was is a strawman.  Well atleast in my opinion anyway.

Oh i just noticed that Caid basically said the same thing except in fewer words... "the term of primary cause, is semantically linked to the term of transcendent God, the unicorn (or gargoyle) wasn't [linked]"

[Caid Ivik]

But my point is, that it is a correct argument only within platonic language/universe.

[spazelord]

First off i was tired when i wrote this.... so i apologize for the scattered sentences....

Spaze the "limits" that Devil advocate is referring to are physical limits which make sense.  For instance you cant possibly know what all the cells in your body are doing.  Yet an allpowerful God would be able to know.  And the reason that the image of what a "god" should be like has been "drilled" into us is merely because philosophers and theologians have agreed on certain aspects that seem to make sense.

Much of it is derived from the first line of the Ontological Argument for God... i have bolded it for you.

God is that which than nothing greater can be conceived.

It is better for God to exist than for Him not to exist (an existing object, by definition, is better(credibility/respectability) than non-existence).

Therefore, God exists [because it is better for him to exist than not to exist; and if he is "that which than nothing greater can be conceived", he neccessarily must exist.]

Thus, by considering and examining the following propositions, we must admit that an idea of God necessitates his existence.

The first line says "that which none greater can be conceived"  means that energy is automatically ruled out.  Because we can easily conceive of something better.... an intelligent entity that can create energy.

What you call "illusions of belief"  are actually hundreds of years of philosophical and theological foundational thinking.  People didn't just imagine what God is like just yesterday.  The idea of God has been refined throughout the centuries. By saying that this % is dark matter and this % is matter ant this% is etc, etc,.  You fail you realize that all those percentages add up to 100%.  IF something adds up to 100% then it isn't infinite, its quantifiable.

Also the models that scientists have come up with to describe alternate universes aren't just talking about universe they are talking about entirely different dimensions of space and time on a different timeline and everything.  Those other dimensions may not even have energy..... they may have Tachyon Particles instead of Photons.  Tachyon Particles are theoretical particles said to have negative mass which allows them to travel faster than the speed of light.  However this would mean they are neither energy nor mass. (components of spiritual beings anyone?)

This means if other dimensions and their universe dont have photons, gravity, or mass... but have something entirely different and exotic.... then energy DOES stop with our universe inside of our dimension and therefore energy is quantifiable and limited (Finite).   I notice you keep saying that Dark matter is "something nobody can understand" .... it seems like you want to mystify dark matter and say our minds cant comprehend it so lets call it infinite.  Well the problem is that dark matter is most likely originated from the same big bang as regular matter and therefore it was spewed from the same epicenter and most likely cuts off at the 15 billion light year mark just like regular matter does.  And it will only be a matter of time before it is fully understood just like regular matter is.

Point i am trying to make is that Energy, Matter, Dark Matter, etc all have a quantifiable value that adds up to 100% within our 15 bill x 15 bill light year sphere of matter/energy.  Space/time goes out further than 15 bill x 15 bill but it is all empty past that because.... since all matter/energy originated from the Big bang.... nothing can exist outside the 15 billion light year diameter edge which contains the first matter/energy to be released from the big bang.

The multi-dimensional theories are certainly plausible but you are being anthropocentric by believing all other dimensions will contain energy and matter like ours.  Other dimensions could have any number of things totally exotic and different like the tachyon particles i mentioned earlier.  If such a dimension did exist with Tachyon particles it would make "spiritual beings" make sense. 

The part i do agree with you on Spazelrod is that as humans our imaginations are unlimited and that is interesting.  I mean when beavers or ants build spectacular dams and ant mounds... they aren't imagining it.. they are following programmed code.  As humans our imaginations seem to be genuinely free from determinism.  But stating that God (that which none can conceive of anything greater)  is energy (something we're all familiar with)  just doesn't follow logically.

Perhaps the problem is that this is a semantical argument.  You define God as that which is infinite, creates, and has always been around.  We are defining God as Omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent.  That's a big difference.  In your original topic you stated that theologians and scientist describe God and energy in the same manner...except that you honestly had to perform a gross oversimplication of the descriptions to even get a hint of a match. 

Lets take your arguements again..... You define God/Energy as that which is infinite, creates, and has always been around.  The problem is that energy/matter didn't exist before the big bang... so it hasn't always been around.... and since all of the energy and matter adds up to 100% it definitely isn't infinite.  This shatters your equation of God = Energy.

As I mentioned b4 obviously we can

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why do you keep referring to  integer numbers?   Infinity is a concept... not a number.  You are not making any sense.

Why are you comparing energy to numbers? Just because there is an infinite amount of numbers doesnt mean there is an infinite amount of energy.  There is a limited quantity of photons and protons.  That quantity = X.  X = 100%.

Period.

AS for energy in other universes.... you still dont get what i said about other dimensions and their universe's having something "exotic" or different from photons(energy) and protons(matter).  Just because our universe has energy doesnt mean that other universes in other dimensions will have energy.  Maybe they will have something radically different from photon particles or protons.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?  Stop being so anthropocentric.

Also, our "human created" concept of God isnt a "religious illusion" that contradicts the truth. It doesnt rob us of truth. We humans ascribe a personality to God so that we can better understand him... its called anthropomorphism. WE say God is angry or pleased so that we can describe the actions of His force and understand them.  Also our human understanding and interpretation of God doesnt rob of us of understanding of the theoretical.....because multiple dimensions or universes or even super bizarre theoretical physics like baryons doesnt rule out a traditional God in my eyes.  To me that would only prove His awesome power and unlimited facets.  Also i fail to see why you keep comparing a theoretical all powerful Deity to fairly limited biological organisms.  Comparing God to us humans and saying that because we are limited he must also be limited... just doesnt make sense.  Its apples and oranges.  Hey did you know that humans are made of iron.  Also shovels are made of iron.  Shovels rust.. so humans should rust too?  Thats how your analogy sounds to me.

[spazelord]

Why do you keep referring to  integer numbers?   Infinity is a concept... not a number.  You are not making any sense.

Why are you comparing energy to numbers? Just because there is an infinite amount of numbers doesnt mean there is an infinite amount of energy.  There is a limited quantity of photons and protons.  That quantity = X.  X = 100%.

Period.

AS for energy in other universes.... you still dont get what i said about other dimensions and their universe's having something "exotic" or different from photons(energy) and protons(matter).  Just because our universe has energy doesnt mean that other universes in other dimensions will have energy.  Maybe they will have something radically different from photon particles or protons.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?  Stop being so anthropocentric.

Also, our "human created" concept of God isnt a "religious illusion" that contradicts the truth. It doesnt rob us of truth. We humans ascribe a personality to God so that we can better understand him... its called anthropomorphism. WE say God is angry or pleased so that we can describe the actions of His force and understand them.  Also our human understanding and interpretation of God doesnt rob of us of understanding of the theoretical.....because multiple dimensions or universes or even super bizarre theoretical physics like baryons doesnt rule out a traditional God in my eyes.  To me that would only prove His awesome power and unlimited facets.  Also i fail to see why you keep comparing a theoretical all powerful Deity to fairly limited biological organisms.  Comparing God to us humans and saying that because we are limited he must also be limited... just doesnt make sense.  Its apples and oranges.  Hey did you know that humans are made of iron.  Also shovels are made of iron.  Shovels rust.. so humans should rust too?  Thats how your analogy sounds to me.

Gun your so funny all the things I said not 1 of them you answered correctly. You miss my point every single time. It

[Sneakgab]

''God is that which than nothing greater can be conceived.

It is better for God to exist than for Him not to exist (an existing object, by definition, is better(credibility/respectability) than non-existence).

Therefore, God exists [because it is better for him to exist than not to exist; and if he is "that which than nothing greater can be conceived", he neccessarily must exist.]

Thus, by considering and examining the following propositions, we must admit that an idea of God necessitates his existence.''

Are you saying that a defining feature of God existing is that the best possible thing imaginable exists and that therefore since God is the best imaginable thing if God exists because his existence means that the best thing exists and he is the best thing. If that is the case then this is somewhat understandable (not proof for God's existence, but it makes some sense). In that case I understand, but otherwise:

It is better for God to exist therefore he exists? Am I the only who one who doesn't see any reason in this? It would be better if all the fresh water needed on Earth existed everywhere on Earth but that does not make it so.

Nothing greater can exist so he must exist?

The ''goodness'' of a things existence and it existing seem completely unrelated to me unless a part of that thing existing is that the best thing must exist due to it's existence. But in that case, such a proof assumes it's existence in the first place and is silly.

I'll just assume I misinterpreted something and leave it at that.

Somebody mentioned that they can imagine nine dimensions... well either they are some God-like being that is fundamentally superior to me (in terms of imagination atleast) or we have different things in mind when reffering to dimensions.

Dimensions for me are things like length, width... maybe time and thought as well I guess. So in retrospect it seems possible to imagine more than spatial dimensions if you consider things like thought to be a dimension but if you are speaking about imagining nine spatial dimensions like length,width,height,e.t.c then I can of course theorize about their existence but I cannot actually imagine them as though I know their exact nature.

For me, when considering other dimensions and their effects on what we perceive it always made sense to consider 2-D models with ''inhabitants'' with 2-D perception and then to consider how things from a 3rd dimension may be considered by said hypothetical inhabitants with 2-D perception and then take these lessons for applying extra-dimensional events to our world. There are definetly scientific equationsrules after all that can be used to examine unperceived dimensions. For example, scalar and vector products work regardless of involved dimensions, and matrices and equation can involve as many dimensions as you like. By considering 4 different components to something travelling in four different dimensions (spatial) for example one can use simple pythag to determine it's velocity and the angles between each vector. I think this is what you mean by ''imagining'' nine dimensions? For me though that is not really imagining nine dimensions, but maybe I am speaking nonsense. ;D

As for this spaze guy:

It seems to me that most important thing you must address is this:

What are the defining features of the God of which you speak. Compare this to the defining features of the God which others here speak, and you will probably find that you are not speaking about the same thing.

It seems you're trying to say that scientists believe that all is dictated by the laws of science while others believe that all is dictated by the laws of God and that actually God and science are the same and that all is simply dictated by laws which some call God and some call science.

However, theists define God as more than just laws, they define him as being sentient for which thing, which an abstract thing such as law cannot be.