Is god a number?

[firebird]

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

[Tesla]

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

Dimensionally, God is undefined. But if we review what God 'must' be as a 'mono' it is simply referring to the miracle of existence. Science shows that energy is present, therefore energy was. You can determine it is 'apparent' that something can come from nothing, but literally nothing can come from literally nothing, and so because of what 'is' it came from 'something'. That something is 'existence' (necessary energy) which is necessary before anything can 'exist'.

So in the end, we find existence to be 1/known energy, or initial/existing. The possibilities quickly become infinite, which is why 'God' is undefined. Was the energies first evolution a decision? Possibly, and therefore, 'God' as a monotheistic identity becomes plausible.

if 'God' is defined by higher intelligence, then the possibilities of greater consciousness are also infinite, and the sheer volume and unknowns of space and the universe leave many possibilities outside of the monotheistic identity.

So the truth is : it is currently unknown, but as we advance our understanding of consciousness, and find a way to communicate with lower species, and understand our own consciousness, then chances of looking for that dynamic numerically in waves or dynamics will become plausible: so eventually, the question of the chicken or the egg can be answered. For now, it is up to you to conclude what you will for yourself until more information is available.

Edit: a note on immaterial and 'supernatural': Supernatural is impossible, as all things are natural to the initial existence, if a supernatural event is evident, is only because of a lack of knowledge of the dynamic. So also is immaterial lacking any power in its idea, as it would suggest no energy, which is impossible to be outside of some form of existing thing, in which all existing things are either raw energy, or energy in a conserved state.

[bobevenson]

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

Don't bring that Genesis crap into the conversation. The first 65 books of the Bible are merely wrapping paper for Revelation, the 66th (appropriately, an Ouzo combination, my friend).

[Tesla]

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

Don't bring that Genesis crap into the conversation. The first 65 books of the Bible are merely wrapping paper for Revelation, the 66th (appropriately, an Ouzo combination, my friend).

In my opinion, the entire bible is a government handbook to keep people obedient without question. (in those days, there was not a separation between church and state) and revelations is probably the worst book, since it hijacks older books to describe the need of political change during the reign of Nero, who happens to be the individual named as 666. Research is a healthy thing, but coming to terms with that is very difficult, because for a human to give up where their 'hope' lies is an ineffable experience. Such was it for me.

here was that experience:

The birth of an absurdity

Many of us have had the opportunity to be indoctrinated into our societies with certain beliefs. For many in this geographical location and throughout time, God has been one surviving and challenging belief well indoctrinated with specific instructions for well-being and personal life goals, which have usually ended in some form of after life, in which that eternity is more important than this short reality.

After decades of argument and research to attack atheism and pursue greater knowledge and add value to my purpose of existing, I discovered that most all I believed was false. And so I pursued, and yet still pursue the truth of the matter, for the absurdity I discovered was that existing, being a part of existence, as we are, is the only evidenced truth, and that new life cannot live if the old does not die, and so death brings rebirth, and our lives are a part of a process of life; that when it ends: nothing can be said honestly, about the ‘next’ of the existing experience, and that all data does not disclude the potential of soul, but that most likely, soul is a great one thing, that miracle body of existence that we individually support for our time, and live on through the impact we have made, and through our children.

The struggles of a lost value system

What can I do now? Since heaven most probably is a lie? Did the first chicken come with the first egg? Or is it an egg becoming a chicken? Or is the chicken laying an egg? What then is the point of purpose to exist at all? The human mind cannot rationalize how existence is possible, and given the human minds unwillingness to give up hope, how can I face life knowing that most likely we exist for some purpose tied to the whole of the species impact, and not in any way important or retained of self except by the impact we have in shaping the future of the whole?

How can I walk into a church with such beliefs and bring anything with my honesty except to destroy the ignorant hopes and beliefs of my fellow humans, would that profit the species? Will it profit me to have done it? If I have no duty, to have no value to say: this is my purpose in existing.

No hope. No purpose. Only what hope or purpose I can create to lie to myself so I can walk through life with no meaning. And watch all the poor ignorant fools practice their rituals and please a non-existent God and to die, and cease to be, and all they have ever done, even their very memory, most likely will be forgotten and erased by time.

(Not to say God does not exist, but that God in it’s true form would most likely model the human body in idea, and we humans being a species of bacteria in that body, valuable for the work we perform, but no more or less valuable than the work that was done, for our death feeds the next births to continue the undefined work of existence)

The truth cannot yet be known, but to exist with any human health I would need a value system with a top value to guide my beliefs, my morals, my inner law, and my impacting steps and words.

The reaction to Absurdity

The impact was devastating. I had to define ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Where do they stop and end? No one agrees. The search for meaning and value led to great debates with scientists, politicians, friends, historians, religious, non-religious, Existence itself, the spirit of life, in which in heart and mind I cried constantly. I began to see death in a new way, to lament not those that died, but to lament the impact they could have made if they lived for our species instead of an imagined next. To lament and be pained to hear people speak of heaven and hell when in my realizations I came to know that heaven and hell are both alive and well right now as we are where we are, and as we make it. That happiness is a decision, with only the necessary impositions we place on it for it to be decided. That the human body and mind is wired to love to exist, to value existing, and to preserve it for as long as we can, in as ‘good’ a form as possible. I realized that the single most important thing would become how cooperative the species can be to reach the goal of heaven on earth, since heaven in an afterlife can only be imagined, and no reliable data supports anything else. I realized we will assign values based on our beliefs, and mine being so redefined I began to really search for God. I wrote physicists, astrophysicists, I wrote government science entities, math entities, saying: what are we building if not ‘God’? Can our technology be the step in evolution to a silicon life form that is eternal and without limit to memory? Does a greater species of greater evolution exist? I wrote and shared my ideas concerning brain research, hoping to inspire the birth of technology that can record and understand ideas and thoughts; I studied engineering and control loops and other science technologies realizing that the human body was the guide for almost all our advanced technology. That electrical communication was first a biological function we copied. Is consciousness restricted to only the known biological, or could a planet or conscious plane exist? How can we find it? Where…is God.

The value of the response

Due to much better defined values after much examination, and higher understanding of self and importance and settling on the notion that my purpose is to aid our species in its evolution from ignorance and indoctrination into wisdom and realizations my philosophy was birthed. The impact of my conversations with Nasa and European scientists became evident with the new technologies and headlines, which only six to eight months after discussions would find themselves topics in mainstream science sites and even on the news, be it that I only added to an existing conversation, the true impact I have had, if any, can only be guessed. But the evidence only fueled my activities either way. I have written many letters to federal senators addressing civil rights, the most recent being the evil of the ransom costs of parents for rights to their children; I still seek legislation to sue the state.

The constant questioning and time spent on research and letters took me away from video games and lighter pursuits for a time. So distraught I was without a guide for my philosophies, and the strain helped end my marriage and sent me on a dangerous path to becoming almost fully absurd and almost inhuman in my pursuits and ambitions, had I not realized the damage I could have soon became lost, perhaps even went insane, and by viewing some early letters it would appear for a time I surely was.

My friends enjoyed me for the value I added to their laughter and lighter conversations soon discovered I was a boring and overly ambitious man with no ability to laugh so serious was I and always thinking the ‘craziest’ things. I found myself alienated, and as work dried up and the divorce I found myself living in a van, and still asking the same questions: Still seeking God through religion or science, or in my mind.

It has taken a long time to get to where I am. To always seek a balance between work and play, to always look for laughter, to love wisdom, but not allow the pursuit to so encompass me to shut me down into depression or freeze me because of irrational fears. To remember the duty I have. To remember to talk a little less, and force myself to listen, to accept that ignorant people cannot come to awareness in one conversation, or even years of them. The absurdity has brought both pain, and productivity. It has been a hard thing: to finally accept a guide for my philosophy as a species philosophy and for me to have hope and purpose. To hope to one day write the book that will aid people in teaching and learning through realization, and not indoctrination. And my purpose to be a part of the one existence, where I am, and how I am, for the benefit of what is known to be, which all is a part of the miracle of existence, as long as it exists.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




HOLY SHIT!


This might be the best post I HAVE EVER SEEN upon this forum.



All kidding aside, you may be the only legitimate philosopher here.


This post is intelligent, well written and respectful to others.



You, my friend, are a GOD.


* And I like what you did with you profile pic.



Well done!



Thank you for being here.







.

[Tesla]

.




HOLY SHIT!


This might be the best post I HAVE EVER SEEN upon this forum.



All kidding aside, you may be the only legitimate philosopher here.


This post is intelligent, well written and respectful to others.



You, my friend, are a GOD.


* And I like what you did with you profile pic.



Well done!



Thank you for being here.







.

Time for you to fix your pic eh mon ami? thank you for your kind words. (and even if you don't change the pic, I love the pic, it makes me want to share a drink with you) >:)

[bobevenson]

Nero, who happens to be the individual named as 666.

My friend, you are talking to somebody who actually knows what 666 refers to (please see http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf).

[firebird]

well, an interesting bunch of responses,

a guy who wants to write about himself,

a guy who says its all "crap" but seems to miss the point entirely

and a sad lonely guy who wants a friend.

lol,!!

[Tesla]

Nero, who happens to be the individual named as 666.

My friend, you are talking to somebody who actually knows what 666 refers to (please see http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf).

'know'? maybe you should read Bertrand Russell. I should have said 666 'most likely' refers to Nero. In my opinion the link you posted is as reliable as much of religious doctrine in supporting truths: the evidence is weak, the believers are many.

Believe what you will, I'm not buying it.

[Arising_uk]

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

I think you can probably generalize this further and say if this 'thing' is an 'immaterial being' then you can't talk about it at all.

[Tesla]

well, an interesting bunch of responses,

a guy who wants to write about himself,

a guy who says its all "crap" but seems to miss the point entirely

and a sad lonely guy who wants a friend.

lol,!!

You have a very negative way of viewing things, how do you measure up to yourself? Do you see yourself as all-encompassing great that allows you to look for ways to belittle others, or to quickly reduce their true identities into some negative one-liner?

Or are you miserable, feeling inadequate, and attempting to make yourself feel better by some wittiness of belittlement?

[Bernard]

You can't go around saying things like something can come out of nothing or that existence came before energy. These statements won't withstand scrutiny.

the basic claim of monotheism is that there is "one god".
is this claim logical?

it appears (to me) to confuse quantitive and qualitative ideas.

"one" is a number, and numbers make sense only in a material context : you cannot count immaterial things.

but god, according to genesis, brought the material universe into being, so one might assume
that whatever god is, god is not a material being. therefore, how is god "countable"?

it seems like an inappropriate use of language to describe an immaterial being as
"zero", "one", "many" or "infinite".

Dimensionally, God is undefined. But if we review what God 'must' be as a 'mono' it is simply referring to the miracle of existence. Science shows that energy is present, therefore energy was. You can determine it is 'apparent' that something can come from nothing, but literally nothing can come from literally nothing, and so because of what 'is' it came from 'something'. That something is 'existence' (necessary energy) which is necessary before anything can 'exist'.

So in the end, we find existence to be 1/known energy, or initial/existing. The possibilities quickly become infinite, which is why 'God' is undefined. Was the energies first evolution a decision? Possibly, and therefore, 'God' as a monotheistic identity becomes plausible.

if 'God' is defined by higher intelligence, then the possibilities of greater consciousness are also infinite, and the sheer volume and unknowns of space and the universe leave many possibilities outside of the monotheistic identity.

So the truth is : it is currently unknown, but as we advance our understanding of consciousness, and find a way to communicate with lower species, and understand our own consciousness, then chances of looking for that dynamic numerically in waves or dynamics will become plausible: so eventually, the question of the chicken or the egg can be answered. For now, it is up to you to conclude what you will for yourself until more information is available.

Edit: a note on immaterial and 'supernatural': Supernatural is impossible, as all things are natural to the initial existence, if a supernatural event is evident, is only because of a lack of knowledge of the dynamic. So also is immaterial lacking any power in its idea, as it would suggest no energy, which is impossible to be outside of some form of existing thing, in which all existing things are either raw energy, or energy in a conserved state.

[Tesla]

You can't go around saying things like something can come out of nothing or that existence came before energy. These statements won't withstand scrutiny.

I didn't. Read more carefully. Note: 'Apparently' and note 'Existence is the necessary energy that was first'.

After a more careful reading, do my statements hold up to scrutiny? If not: why?

[bobevenson]

Nero, who happens to be the individual named as 666.

My friend, you are talking to somebody who actually knows what 666 refers to (please see http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf).

'know'? maybe you should read Bertrand Russell. I should have said 666 'most likely' refers to Nero. In my opinion the link you posted is as reliable as much of religious doctrine in supporting truths: the evidence is weak, the believers are many.

Believe what you will, I'm not buying it.

"The Ouzo Prophecy" is allegorical, my friend, but unfortunately, not up your alley.

[Tesla]

"The Ouzo Prophecy" is allegorical, my friend, but unfortunately, not up your alley.

Not up my alley: correct.