What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration

Gravity is explained. Quantum leap. Design of white/black hole.

Ok. How F=GMm/R² (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Ok. How F=GMm/R² (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?

I draw the plan. It's a pure logic.
I just need some numbers. They will prove it is a valid approach. The logic shows it.
The numbers will come soon. It's not because they are not here now that it makes the approach not valid. If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths. I know the result.

For your information:

Quote : In 1912, Einstein had another profound insight: If all accelerated frames of reference were equivalent then Euclidean geometry cannot hold in all of them. That is, the geometry of space is not necessarily Euclidean.
Einstein did not know the mathematics he needed to turn his idea into a physical theory so he turned to his friend Marcel Grossmann who directed Einstein to the works of Riemann, Ricci and Levi-Civita on differential geometry.
... In 1915, Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which provided a radical explanation of free fall motion and therefore of gravity. The free fall motion of objects depends on the geometry of the space through which they move. Objects in free fall move the same way simply because they experience the same spatial geometry Moreover, the geometry of space and time is determined by matter and energy.

If you really go inside the P-manifold approach you will see that the non-commonsense behavior of light in a inertia frame is not strange at all. Since the membrane is inside the inertia frame ... the same membrane stress is applicable. So light has it's standard speed in the inertia frame.

I repeat: If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths.

 

[Royce]

That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith. [/B][/QUOTE]

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a beginning and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a beginning and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gibberish.

 

[THE MIND]

Hello !

Hello! Hiiiii.

I am THE MIND.
Nice to be here.

 

[quantumdude]

LOL I guess that settles it, then. That's always what I thought you'd look like!

 

[FZ+]

"Proof for the existence of God", the revenge?

 

[BoulderHead]

When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly!

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty!
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!

 

[M. Gaspar]

No "Buddy" Here!

Originally posted by BoulderHead
When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly!

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty!
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!

So you'll know, not everybody feels this way.

I had enough VACANT CHAT on Yahoo's Physics Chat room!

Guess that's why they have "Ignore" buttons.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Ok, here it goes. I would define God as such:

Any one of a variety mythological entities which have supreme power and abilities over all other entities in it's respective mythology.

This I have come to consider the best definition, give or take.

Here we can see this applies to christian mythology where God would have power over all other entities, including humans because in the Christian mythology, humans exist.

I could create a mythology where there only exists two snails, Phil and Ralph. Ralph has supreme power and abilities over all entities (Phil). Therefore he is the god.

Make sense?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So you'll know, not everybody feels this way.

I had enough VACANT CHAT on Yahoo's Physics Chat room!

Guess that's why they have "Ignore" buttons.

Come on, man, lighten up!

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Make sense?

Would that sort of be like the United States being Godlike at this time in history?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Boulder, not sure if you're asking me something serious or jokingly? If serious, explain a bit more so I can respond with a good answer. thanks!

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Would that sort of be like the United States being Godlike at this time in history?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok, here it goes. I would define God as such:

Any one of a variety mythological entities which have supreme power and abilities over all other entities in it's respective mythology.

This I have come to consider the best definition, give or take.

Here we can see this applies to christian mythology where God would have power over all other entities, including humans because in the Christian mythology, humans exist.

I could create a mythology where there only exists two snails, Phil and Ralph. Ralph has supreme power and abilities over all entities (Phil). Therefore he is the god.

Make sense?

Do you consider the universe a "mythological creature"?

Perhaps the "problem" has been that we keep making up stories about "The Great Outsider" that is all-powerful and all-knowing rather than considering that the the Universe is a living, conscious Entity unto ITSELF...One that doesn't need to be "worshipped" (like so many of us seemed COMPELLED to do)...but only to be APPRECIATED!

 

[BoulderHead]

Well, judging from the name you have chosen to use, I would guess that you don’t hold much stock in mythological entities. It sounds like big dog over little dog stuff (which sounds ok to me, btw) and made me think of nations for some reason (probably due to the Iraq war). It isn’t really deserving of serious consideration, however.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Gasper. The universe isn't in a mythological system. It's in reality.

My statement was that God has power over all entities in that partiular mythology.

Not sure why you asked this question, or the origin of it? Perhaps explain more!

So to the rest of your comment, indeed religion is a problem, heh. Much larger than can fit onto the entire internet let alone 6 lines in a physics forum!

I think your idea of this appreciation sounds almost like pantheism. NOT the textbook definition which is biased, but the practicible definition which calls the universe God and basically gives people an emotional feeling towards it's beauty. Although defining it as God (which some in pantheism do and some don't) seems to me an inapprioriate gesture usually done to avoid the question "do you believe in god" since they could say yes...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Do you consider the universe a "mythological creature"?

Perhaps the "problem" has been that we keep making up stories about "The Great Outsider" that is all-powerful and all-knowing rather than considering that the the Universe is a living, conscious Entity unto ITSELF...One that doesn't need to be "worshipped" (like so many of us seemed COMPELLED to do)...but only to be APPRECIATED!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I get you boulder. When I see (or saw) Bush heading things and impossing so many things into the rest of the world, it reminds me of Hitler, and I see what you mean indeed.

The stock I hold in mythology is that it's just that. It was always just that, and at some point a given mythology was passed on to a generation, and the elders forgot to mention it wasn't really true.

Ever play operator? There's the cause of religion. Along of course, eventually with so MANY emotional humanitarian concepts that were bundled into each respective religion like perhaps flies collecting on a fly zapper.

Thus we have the wiry akward and unfitting religions of the world today. So large that they infact each contain their own enemy. But, for me that's a good thing!

Love this forum, been signe dup for 4 hours and already so much to talk about and listen to!

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, judging from the name you have chosen to use, I would guess that you don’t hold much stock in mythological entities. It sounds like big dog over little dog stuff (which sounds ok to me, btw) and made me think of nations for some reason (probably due to the Iraq war). It isn’t really deserving of serious consideration, however.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gasper. The universe isn't in a mythological system. It's in reality.

My statement was that God has power over all entities in that partiular mythology.

Not sure why you asked this question, or the origin of it? Perhaps explain more!

So to the rest of your comment, indeed religion is a problem, heh. Much larger than can fit onto the entire internet let alone 6 lines in a physics forum!

I think your idea of this appreciation sounds almost like pantheism. NOT the textbook definition which is biased, but the practicible definition which calls the universe God and basically gives people an emotional feeling towards it's beauty. Although defining it as God (which some in pantheism do and some don't) seems to me an inapprioriate gesture usually done to avoid the question "do you believe in god" since they could say yes...

I asked the question because your definition of "God" was that of a mythological entity with supreme powers.

My point is that we can eliminate the extraneous entity that many call "God" or "Allah" or whatever and simply focus on the Universe.

HOWEVER, I speculate that the Universe is NOT "God-like" but rather an Entity that is EVOLVING ...NOT "all-powerful" but simply "well-connected" ...and NOT "all-knowing" in that, although It may "know" what's "going on" in the moment, It does NOT know how everything will turn out.

I would be very happy to eliminate the word "God" from every conversation and just see the Universe as a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

As to "appreciating" it, my point really rested in the first part of the sentense...that It doesn't need to be "worshipped" in the "ooga-booga" sense of the word. But for some reason, our species can't seem to help itself from FIXATING on PERSONALITIES and coming up with RITUALS of ADULATION

In other words, we just love our "heros" and the STORIES we tell ourselves about them! Apparently (to me), it keeps MOST of "us" entertained, distracted and "saved"... from ABSTRACT THOUGHT!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Gasper. We are along the same lines I believe.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gasper. We are along the same lines I believe.

Please note edits to my post.

Meanwhile, as a registered athiest, do you "believe" the Universe is a living (?), conscious (?) Entity (?) that responsive (?) to all of Its parts?

If not, why not?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Ok gasper:

1. Universe is living = false. If you mean living in the sense that I am living.

2. Universe is conscious = false. Conscious in any sense I know of I'd say it isn't.

3. An entity? Responsive? Through physics it's responsive yes. An entity? Well, I think entity is an open term really.

I think that, this is one of those HUGE LOOKING questions that can somewhat be solves very easily.

What is the universe? Disregarding the existence of other univeres (which has been proven but let's pretend it hasn't) I assume that a pile of dirt on my table is part of the universe.

This dirt is not living, it's not conscious. Therefore the universe isn't either.

If parts of the universe are conscious, well sure they are because I AM. But, even if huge parts of it were, it wouldn't mean the universe is consciou. Just like if my arm is tanned, it doesn't mean I am tanned.

But again we have in a way, a bit of syntax.

SO, I guess you're question is one of the few things that are open as far as I can see!

Amazing, since I rarely come across logical statements that have much bouncing room for actuall belief you know?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Please note edits to my post.

Meanwhile, as a registered athiest, do you "believe" the Universe is a living (?), conscious (?) Entity (?) that responsive (?) to all of Its parts?

If not, why not?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok gasper:

1. Universe is living = false. If you mean living in the sense that I am living.

2. Universe is conscious = false. Conscious in any sense I know of I'd say it isn't.

3. An entity? Responsive? Through physics it's responsive yes. An entity? Well, I think entity is an open term really.

I think that, this is one of those HUGE LOOKING questions that can somewhat be solves very easily.

What is the universe? Disregarding the existence of other univeres (which has been proven but let's pretend it hasn't) I assume that a pile of dirt on my table is part of the universe.

This dirt is not living, it's not conscious. Therefore the universe isn't either.

If parts of the universe are conscious, well sure they are because I AM. But, even if huge parts of it were, it wouldn't mean the universe is consciou. Just like if my arm is tanned, it doesn't mean I am tanned.

But again we have in a way, a bit of syntax.

SO, I guess you're question is one of the few things that are open as far as I can see!

Amazing, since I rarely come across logical statements that have much bouncing room for actuall belief you know?

Per the above, I don't believe we are (thinking) along the same lines, as you put it.

Also, it's GaspAr.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I didn't mean about that part, I meant the other stuff.

GASPAR!

 

[M. Gaspar]

LogicalAtheist...

There are those who believe that EVERYTHING has a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including dirt, the atoms that make up the dirt, and the elementary particles that make up the atoms.

What say you on this?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
There are those who believe that EVERYTHING has a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including dirt, the atoms that make up the dirt, and the elementary particles that make up the atoms.

What say you on this?

To that I say that the amount of evidence supporting such a claim is the same amount supporting the claim that CARL SAGAN'S DRAGON IS SITTING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM RIGHT NOW!

In other words, you might as well say the Earth is flat. You doing just as well.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
To that I say that the amount of evidence supporting such a claim is the same amount supporting the claim that CARL SAGAN'S DRAGON IS SITTING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM RIGHT NOW!

I was wondering what that was hogging the TV!

Meanwhile, what would said "evidence" look like? An equation? A well-reasoned case? The predicted results of an experiment?

What would satisfy a logical atheist?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I would say without putting days of that. For most things I, like most scientists require:

Empirical, completely documented evidence, preferably recorded if applicable and if at all applicable must be documented such that others can repeat this test independantly.

That last one is important as hell. I think basically that fits, let me know what you think of it.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I would say without putting days of that. For most things I, like most scientists require:

Empirical, completely documented evidence, preferably recorded if applicable and if at all applicable must be documented such that others can repeat this test independantly.

That last one is important as hell. I think basically that fits, let me know what you think of it.

The above applies only to "things" that are detectable and measureable. Consciousness: what shall we do?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to each other.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existence of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

DOes that make sense?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to each other.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existence of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

DOes that make sense?

What if consciousness were NOT merely a "concept" or "state" or a nomenclature for the purpose of discussion?

What if consciousness were a form of ENERGY? Or existed as "particles of consciousness" that accrete into dynamic, coherent systems of consciousness?

What are the "identifying factors of consciousness" to which you allude?