God's knowledge?

[surreptitious57]

God cannot be material otherwise we could experience It so the only option which is left is spiritual

That is not the only option left as there is another : God does not exist outside of human imagination

[attofishpi]

God cannot be material otherwise we could experience It so the only option which is left is spiritual

That is not the only option left as there is another : God does not exist outside of human imagination

There are probably plenty - so here's mine since i KNOW God\'God' exists:

God IS the universe - it formed the logic that we can presently appreciate - REALITY.

God wanted to be cast into a form that others might interact in an intellectual social sexual manner not just for 'its' benefit but for ours.

God formed (now H)imself as a man.

[Dontaskme]

God cannot be material otherwise we could experience It so the only option which is left is spiritual

That is not the only option left as there is another : God does not exist outside of human imagination

There are probably plenty - so here's mine since i KNOW God\'God' exists:

God IS the universe - it formed the logic that we can presently appreciate - REALITY.

God wanted to be cast into a form that others might interact in an intellectual social sexual manner not just for 'its' benefit but for ours.

God formed (now H)imself as a man.

There is no such thing as a Man or woman these are merely imputed and have no essence.

[thedoc]

There is no such thing as a Man or woman these are merely imputed and have no essence.

That's odd, because I have encountered many human beings in my life and all of them have identified themselves as a man or a woman, and these seemed to be accurate from my own observations. Claiming that man and woman don't exist is akin to claiming that the universe is a figment of our imagination, I think you are just playing with words.

[Immanuel Can]

1) Knowledge is a sort of information which is comprehensible for a person
2) Information can be hold in something which has form (a brain for example) same for knowledge
3) God has no form since it is purely spiritual
4) We can deduce from (2) and (3) that God cannot have any knowledge

Interesting.

Let's not question #1 for the moment, and accept it as worded. That doesn't mean it's entirely clear to me what you intend to imply by the particular wording, but let's leave that momentarily aside.

#2 cannot be known to be true. We could say that "All the knowledge of which we humans have an experience requires us to have brains," but we could not therefore say that "information" could not be encoded, impressed or produced in any other circumstance, were a being of a different nature being considered: we simply have no experience with such things -- at least, none of which we are currently conscious -- if such things do take place. And that's as strongly as we could put it.

In any case, an even more interesting point is that "information" is different from "form." "Form," we might say is HOW a thing is encoded (whether in slate, ink or the 0's and 1's of binary code), but "information" is the conceptual content that thing communicates to a mind.

The latter is clearly not simply a different arrangement of "form," for it is quite possible to have any "form" and no "information." Consider, for example, when the code in question is unarranged, or when it is properly arranged but no mind is there to perceive it. In such a situation, there are, perhaps, squiggles on a page, but they are neither "symbols" nor "information" until a consciousness comes along to decode them and derive a content from them. The "form" of the alleged information would be present (squiggles would still have the same configuration), but it would in nowise be "information" until it encountered a mind, since it would not be "informing" of anything.

#3 then becomes very dodgy. We do not know that a "mind" needs a "form"; we only know that that is the way human beings experience things so far. We do know that God (assuming His existence, for the moment) would have a Mind (at least, in the Western view, "God" would; the Eastern, perhaps not). And we do not know what "purely spiritual" really entails, even if it's an apt predication of the Supreme Being.

I suggest, therefore, that we are quite ill-prepared by this line of argument to "deduce" any such thing as #4. It lacks any certainty of #2 and #3, even if we treat #1 as given.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as a Man or woman these are merely imputed and have no essence.

So you're not a believer in genetics, then? There's no such thing as a "Y" chromosome? It's a conspiracy of cis-scientists?

[Dontaskme]

There is no such thing as a Man or woman these are merely imputed and have no essence.

That's odd, because I have encountered many human beings in my life and all of them have identified themselves as a man or a woman, and these seemed to be accurate from my own observations. Claiming that man and woman don't exist is akin to claiming that the universe is a figment of our imagination, I think you are just playing with words.

No one has ever seen a man or a woman or any thing for that matter. There is seeing evidenced in the seen, but seeing doesn't belong to a thing seen. The thing seen is only known as it is seen by no one. Seeing has no idea what it is looking at, fortunately, thinking arises in conjunction with the seeing, which happens to label seen object with a word to become knowable, else it's just a bunch of 'what is' nothingness. Neither the seer nor the thinker has ever been seen, but is known in the experience of labels put there by thought. So yes, this, what ever this is, is playing with words for there is nothing else available to identify with what is actually a non attributed state of ''what is''

Everything is, but nothing can be known about 'what is' except the false name tags thought applies to it. So the known name tags can never know the knower,thinker or seer, simply because any thing known are fictional characters..aka words...and words are not actually ''what is'' - ''what is'' is without attribute in which words appear.. So thank god for words eh!

I speak the non-dual truth. Non-dual truth doesn't have many followers.

[Dontaskme]

So you're not a believer in genetics, then? There's no such thing as a "Y" chromosome? It's a conspiracy of cis-scientists?

Just more concepts.

[Immanuel Can]

So you're not a believer in genetics, then? There's no such thing as a "Y" chromosome? It's a conspiracy of cis-scientists?

Just more concepts.

Is the statement "they are just concepts" not "just a concept" too? In other words, is there any reason to suppose it's true?

[bahman]

Let's not question #1 for the moment, and accept it as worded. That doesn't mean it's entirely clear to me what you intend to imply by the particular wording, but let's leave that momentarily aside.

I just simply define knowledge here.

#2 cannot be known to be true. We could say that "All the knowledge of which we humans have an experience requires us to have brains," but we could not therefore say that "information" could not be encoded, impressed or produced in any other circumstance, were a being of a different nature being considered: we simply have no experience with such things -- at least, none of which we are currently conscious -- if such things do take place. And that's as strongly as we could put it.

How information could be stored in something which has no form? Something which has no form is uniform which means that it cannot have any content.

In any case, an even more interesting point is that "information" is different from "form." "Form," we might say is HOW a thing is encoded (whether in slate, ink or the 0's and 1's of binary code), but "information" is the conceptual content that thing communicates to a mind.

Information perse is not directly related to something with conceptual content. That is knowledge which has conceptual content.

The latter is clearly not simply a different arrangement of "form," for it is quite possible to have any "form" and no "information." Consider, for example, when the code in question is unarranged, or when it is properly arranged but no mind is there to perceive it. In such a situation, there are, perhaps, squiggles on a page, but they are neither "symbols" nor "information" until a consciousness comes along to decode them and derive a content from them. The "form" of the alleged information would be present (squiggles would still have the same configuration), but it would in nowise be "information" until it encountered a mind, since it would not be "informing" of anything.

That is true that something with form does not essentially contain any information.

#3 then becomes very dodgy. We do not know that a "mind" needs a "form"; we only know that that is the way human beings experience things so far. We do know that God (assuming His existence, for the moment) would have a Mind (at least, in the Western view, "God" would; the Eastern, perhaps not). And we do not know what "purely spiritual" really entails, even if it's an apt predication of the Supreme Being.

Mind needs a form in a specific order, information, in order to experience and process it. You cannot excite mind with a uniform thing.

I suggest, therefore, that we are quite ill-prepared by this line of argument to "deduce" any such thing as #4. It lacks any certainty of #2 and #3, even if we treat #1 as given.

I hope that things are clear by now.

[Immanuel Can]

How information could be stored in something which has no form? Something which has no form is uniform which means that it cannot have any content.

"Uniform" does not mean "formless." It means "uni-" i.e. "one". To say something has "one-form" is not to say it has "no-form." In fact, it's a denial of the latter. So you'll have to choose which you believe.

Information perse is not directly related to something with conceptual content. That is knowledge which has conceptual content.

No again. You can't "inform" unless there is a recipient. If there is not, there is nobody to be thereby "informed."

That is true that something with form does not essentially contain any information.

It does not inherently do so. But information may be derivable from it, IF it encounters intelligence. A "form" may convey information from one agent to another. But of itself, it does not constitute information without those agents: somebody to intend, and somebody to receive.

Mind needs a form in a specific order, information, in order to experience and process it. You cannot excite mind with a uniform thing.

Depending on how I take what you say above, it's either true or false. I can't be sure which you intend. But again, I think perhaps you've misunderstood the meaning of uni + form. Check the etymology of the word, and you'll see.

But now, let me snoop a little, if I may. I'm guessing you're from an Eastern tradition? That would explain your automatic belief that "oneness" entails "nothingness." Am I right?

I hope that things are clear by now.

Well, the syllogism you offered still has the problems I noted earlier, so I can see that clearly. But I'm not any more convinced of the argument yet.

[bahman]

How information could be stored in something which has no form? Something which has no form is uniform which means that it cannot have any content.

"Uniform" does not mean "formless." It means "uni-" i.e. "one". To say something has "one-form" is not to say it has "no-form." In fact, it's a denial of the latter. So you'll have to choose which you believe.

Uniform is defined as: not changing in form or character; remaining the same in all cases and at all times.
Formless however defined as: without a clear or definite shape or structure.

So I go with the definition of uniform.

Information perse is not directly related to something with conceptual content. That is knowledge which has conceptual content.

No again. You can't "inform" unless there is a recipient. If there is not, there is nobody to be thereby "informed."

I agree with what you stated.

That is true that something with form does not essentially contain any information.

It does not inherently do so. But information may be derivable from it, IF it encounters intelligence. A "form" may convey information from one agent to another. But of itself, it does not constitute information without those agents: somebody to intend, and somebody to receive.

I don't understand you. I just mentioned that I agree with what you stated. No you are saying something different.

Mind needs a form in a specific order, information, in order to experience and process it. You cannot excite mind with a uniform thing.

Depending on how I take what you say above, it's either true or false. I can't be sure which you intend. But again, I think perhaps you've misunderstood the meaning of uni + form. Check the etymology of the word, and you'll see.

But now, let me snoop a little, if I may. I'm guessing you're from an Eastern tradition? That would explain your automatic belief that "oneness" entails "nothingness." Am I right?

I go with definition of uniform as it is sated above.

I am not from an Eastern tradition. I have no idea about what you stated.

I hope that things are clear by now.

Well, the syllogism you offered still has the problems I noted earlier, so I can see that clearly. But I'm not any more convinced of the argument yet.

So I guess that things are more clearer now?

[Immanuel Can]

It does not inherently do so. But information may be derivable from it, IF it encounters intelligence. A "form" may convey information from one agent to another. But of itself, it does not constitute information without those agents: somebody to intend, and somebody to receive.

I don't understand you. I just mentioned that I agree with what you stated. No you are saying something different.

No, I'm saying the same thing, but with a caveat. Information comes and is received by intelligent agents. The medium of its transfer may be words. But that does not mean that the words qua black-lines-on-paper have any intrinsic meaning. Their meaning is derived from the intelligence of the sender, and so is extrinsically derived, not intrinsic to the words themselves. Indeed, they cannot even rightly be termed "words" unless they are interpreted.

But now, let me snoop a little, if I may. I'm guessing you're from an Eastern tradition? That would explain your automatic belief that "oneness" entails "nothingness." Am I right?

I am not from an Eastern tradition. I have no idea about what you stated.

Your view sounds similar to many Eastern patterns of thought. It is not unproblematically applicable to the the Western concept of God. That's what made me think you must be channelling an Eastern perspective of some kind.

[Dontaskme]

So you're not a believer in genetics, then? There's no such thing as a "Y" chromosome? It's a conspiracy of cis-scientists?

Just more concepts.

Is the statement "they are just concepts" not "just a concept" too? In other words, is there any reason to suppose it's true?

Every word spoken is a concept known, the knower and speaker of a concept cannot be known by the concept.
Prior to the concept known..nothing is known. The mind can do nothing with nothing so takes the concept as a truism, albeit illusory.
Therefore the whole of human reality is a fictional story made purely of conceptual make-belief. Reality is basically pointless and meaningless. However, all hope is not lost since meaning is ascribed to the meaningless as a concept is believed. The concepts believed counteract the pointlessness of reality by giving it shape, form and definition. Belief arises in the same place concepts arise. Nothing is known about this place except in it's believed conception.

[Immanuel Can]

Just more concepts.

Is the statement "they are just concepts" not "just a concept" too? In other words, is there any reason to suppose it's true?

Every word spoken is a concept known, the knower and speaker of a concept cannot be known by the concept.
Prior to the concept known..nothing is known. The mind can do nothing with nothing so takes the concept as a truism, albeit illusory.
Therefore the whole of human reality is a fictional story made purely of conceptual make-belief. Reality is basically pointless and meaningless. However, all hope is not lost since meaning is ascribed to the meaningless as a concept is believed. The concepts believed counteract the pointlessness of reality by giving it shape, form and definition. Belief arises in the same place concepts arise. Nothing is known about this place except in it's believed conception.

A bit convoluted, that. But its chief problems are probably this: it's utterly trivial, since it puts all truth and falsehood simply "up for grabs," and that it's false if true.

What I mean is this: if true, it would entail that there is no "reality," and nothing is "true" or "false" at all -- all reality is merely "meaningless" as you say, and "illusory" as you also say. But that would necessarily, and by your own account, have to include the elaboration you make above. Moreover, if you were articulating the truth by telling us this, then you would be falsifying your own belief, since then there would be an absolute truth, i.e. the series of statements you make above.

This is a problem for the view you float above because of this: when a person cannot articulate his own view without falsifying it at the same time, we have what we call a "contradiction." And a self-contradicting paradigm gives us the very best reason we can find to regard that paradigm as just simply false.

Moreover, the only way the articulator can argue back is by supposing his view to be true, and asserting it as such; which would again falsify its basic claim!

Quite a pickle, that.

Now, there's a concept!