Philosophy Now Forum

Questions require thought, the answer requires more thought.

'thought' cannot scratch the surface of 'God' because God ........ is a COMPLETE thought.

There is no thinker of thought. If there were, the thinker would be able to stop the thoughts it is thinking from appearing. Thoughts therefore can only be thought to come from the thoughtless.

___________

“The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine.”

― Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe

Different philosophers and people will give you different answers, here is my own (biased?) opinion :

God (as the term is defined) probably does not exist, because (again, it is only my own opinion) it is unnecessary a hypothesis ... why do I think so?

There are three points I consider to devise an argument against the existence of God :

1- Intelligence is, by induction, complex:

Most of our generalization rules are results of inductive reasoning, that is : we observe states of affairs s1, s2, s3...s[n] that share a given feature f, and that bring about some effect e. To induce the general rule that any state of affair s[n+1] that has that feature (or set of features) f will result in that effect e.

For example, because of past experience you know that if I tell you : "I have a cat" , you will inductively conclude that my cat cannot speak. Because all the cats you encountered in your life c1, c2, c3....c[n] cannot speak.

So, back to God ... When you say : God is intelligent, or wise, or omniscient. I automatically inductively think about brains and motherboards. Because all the entities that I have encountered that have this property of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge or those that can at least do some kind of basic arithmetic (like a computer)...etc i1, i2, i3, i4....i[n] are all complex . AND their complexity is proportional to how intelligence they are. So the brain is more complex and intelligent (in terms of decision making for example) than say, a computer.

Using inductive reasoning, (the same reasoning that tells you that my cat cannot speak), I can conclude that if you present another intelligent entity (like an alien, God...etc), all I can say is that this new entity has to be complex. And since God is omniscient, then he has to be more complex than the whole Universe.

Other than induction, I can use deduction too , if you consider that information and knowledge are by definition very complex, and if you agree that a simple system or entity cannot store complex information, then it follows that since God knows everything, God must be complex.

In a sense, the hypothesis of God is more complex than the Universe itself. God makes the subject matter more complex.

2- Omnipotence and eternity make intelligence unnecessary :

If you believe in an omnipotent and eternal God, let me ask you : for this omnipotent God, is creating one atom or particle less difficult than creating a whole Universe?

Of course not, because since he is omnipotent (has infinite potency and power), for him, creating one atom is as easy as creating a whole Universe (and vice versa), there are no differences in difficulty and easiness for him ... He creates the Universe or the atom (or anything) with zero effort.

Think how extraordinary this claim looks (to us atheists).

Since nothing is easier for God than anything else (and nothing is more difficult than anything else), it follows that for God to create an infinite number of Universes, he would make zero effort, exactly the same effort he would make to create one atom.

And since God can create an infinite number of Universes (a multiverse) with zero effort, it follows that he can do that randomly (that is, without purpose) for an infinite amount of times, again, with zero effort.

And in mathematically speaking, if the possible configurations and combinations of matter in every Universe is finite, it follows then that mathematically speaking : these infinite Universes, that God created randomly with zero effort, will give rise to all possible physical outcomes (including our evolution).

Now, you must realize that God (if you believe in omnipotent God) can perfectly do this (without effort)

So, here is the question (and think about how intelligence is inductively and empirically speaking, very complex) : If God can create an infinite number of Universes randomly with the same effort of creating one atom (which is zero) ... Why then do you think that this being has to be intelligent and purposeful? You must realize by now that God does not need to be an intelligent being, since he is omnipotent and eternal?

In other words ,why would you think that he has to be omniscient? (I frankly speaking do not see the reason), and in the first point we said that intelligence adds infinite complexity , which I do not think is a reasonable hypothesis .

So, based on these 2 arguments : it must be that probably (just probably) God does not exist (at least the way believers define him/her/it ).


The third point that that makes me think that the God hypothesis is not based on a rational thinking

3- The special pleading fallacy can argue for pretty much everything :

A theist may object : But God is not like things in our Universe? God can be simple and intelligent at the same time.

Although this claim is not based on any empirical or inductive grounds , I can reformulate it thus : "All x needs complexity to be intelligent, except God".

This is a special pleading fallacy (if you argue wiith an atheist this way) .. Because one can use the same fallacy to argue about anything, no matter how irrational it is.

I can say for example that there is blind rock outside the Universe (it is just a rock, it has no omnipotence or omniscience or intelligence) , and this rock, somehow, created the Universe.

Again, you may object : but how can a blind rock create a Universe?

How do you know that a rock cannot create a Universe?

By induction and experience ... You saw many rocks and how they are very "helpless" , and concluded that if there is another rock somewhere, it would also be, inductively, helpless and powerless, and therefore cannot create a Universe.

But how about this? if I called this rock : Rockeus and claimed : "All x that is a rock cannot create a Universe, except for Rockeus)

Wouldn't that sound like "All x needs complexity to be intelligent, except God".

That's why I do not buy it when someone says that God is simple and intelligent.


Again, all of this is my own opinion and how I see the subject as an atheist : as for whether God exists or not, I adopt an agnostic position, we simply do not know for sure.

She would be laughing at all of the mayhem and absurdity, and at the concept of a MALE god.

In response to the rest of your post...

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:36 pm Questions require thought, the answer requires more thought.

'thought' cannot scratch the surface of 'God' because God ........ is a COMPLETE thought.

Uh, okay...whatever.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:36 pmThere is no thinker of thought. If there were, the thinker would be able to stop the thoughts it is thinking from appearing.

It is possible to stop thoughts and just be aware without thinking.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:36 pmThoughts therefore can only be thought to come from the thoughtless.

I don't see sense or value in this. But you do...so, good.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:36 pm “The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine.”

― Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe

Yes it does! But not from the kind of "thinking" that humans understand. More like a breath of creativity from the infinite, without any NEED.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:23 pm It is possible to stop thoughts and just be aware without thinking.

There is awareness of thought, else thought would not be recognised or known. Thoughts are known by that which is aware of them as and when they arise in that knowing. But can the awareness of thought be the thought that it knows?
Can what is known ie: an ''object'' be aware of it's own existence? What or who exactly is being aware of it's own existence here?

Who and what is being aware Lacewing?
Are you the awareness of a thought? or are you the thought you are aware of?

Notice thoughts come and go quite randomly and spontaneously, while awareness doesn't come and go, rather, it has to stick around permanently.
Also notice there can be no stopping thoughts from coming and going as they often arise uninvited and leave quietly unannounced.

Your feedback on this thread topic would be appreciated Lacewing. Thanks.

.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:23 pm She would be laughing at all of the mayhem and absurdity, and at the concept of a MALE god.

Yes indeed, God is Female. Only the Female can birth - the Male is the unbirthed other side of birth...aka the latent seed of potential prior to actual manifestation. Seemily opposites, but must work in conjunction together as ONE, can't have one without the other, both one and the same God, one in relation to zero as itself alone. From the seed of potential to actuality reveals the manifestation of the Female God in her entirety, as WHOLENESS. The female is smarter than the male because she endures everything without resistence. She was born for this, shes a tough cookie. Nothing can break her resilience.Nothing can touch her.
Smarter in the context she is now self realised, in essence a fully fledged fertilised actualised seed born of the great unrealised inky deep void of nothingness.

Female is the two sides of the same one coin, aka all GOD

However, these are just my own private thoughts about God, I'm not saying it's how it actually is, it's just my imagined idea about what God is.

.

She would be laughing at all of the mayhem and absurdity, and at the concept of a MALE god.

I did not notice that he used "She" instead of "He" . Anyway, the reason my answer used "He" is not because I do not think that women have no right to be Gods too hhh, in the same way I do not think that we have more right to be Unicorns than women have.

Are titans in AOT males or females? what about the smurfs ... there is only one female smurf and no complains. It really does not matter, I use "he" unconsciously for one reason : it is one letter less. Things get more complicated in Arabic and French as these languages add many letters for feminine nouns and verb conjugations.

I still agree with the fact that women have the right to be Gods, Smurfs, Unicorns and who knows what.

This subject is irrelevant, there are more important subjects like woman education, healthcare, right to politics...etc. Subject that are still debated today in many countries.

mohamedtaqi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:33 pm......

Thanks for your opinion on the subject topic. You can only know the YOU that is YOU from you're own personal understanding.
So for you, how you see it is within you're own mentation the way you see it from you're own unique perspective as you perceive it to be.

For me, in my opinion, God is just another word for Awareness or Beingness, or YOU.
God has no gender. No identity. God Is formless nothing being everything infinitely for eternity. Labels and names are self-referential pointers, used as a way of knowing and experiencing the world of form as and through those concepts in this/you're conception.

.

mohamedtaqi wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:21 pm

I did not notice that he used "She" instead of "He"

That he is a she.

And also, SHE has both he and she in it, ( S/he )and that's why I used that label. I combined the opposites to make two ONE.
I could have easily have just labeled God an IT

In the SENSE..Is there a God? If so, what is IT like?

So the likeness comes in the image of itself in the form of mental physical conceptual constructs. The minds creates these out of it's own not-knowing emptiness and projects them as mirror images within itself, it does this because it likes to label everything and nothing into separate things, so that specific distinctions are known that can make sense to the mind. Without the mind as a projection screen what can any thing be or where can it be?
Words are just pointers pointing the mind of truth and knowledge back to itself which is the ineffable ONE.

.

mohamedtaqi wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:21 pm
This subject is irrelevant, there are more important subjects like woman education, healthcare, right to politics...etc. Subject that are still debated today in many countries.

THIS SUBJECT is relevant to all those who are interested and wish to participate in it.

If you think it's irrelevant, then do feel free to start your own thread on more important subjects like woman education, healthcare, right to politics...etc.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:23 pm It is possible to stop thoughts and just be aware without thinking.

There is awareness of thought, else thought would not be recognised or known. Thoughts are known by that which is aware of them as and when they arise in that knowing. But can the awareness of thought be the thought that it knows?

No.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amCan what is known ie: an ''object'' be aware of it's own existence?

No.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amWhat or who exactly is being aware of it's own existence here?

The ALL-knowing.

Who and what is being aware Lacewing?

The ALL-Knowing, Conscious-Aware-ness, or Counciousness, Itself, which is some times also known as Allah, God, Enlightenment and/or Spirit.

'Who' is Aware EVERY thing is just what is some times called God, which in the Spiritual sense is just the one and only Mind, and, 'what' is Aware EVERY thing is also just God, which in the physical sense is just EVERY physical thing.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amAre you the awareness of a thought? or are you the thought you are aware of?

The individual 'you' or small 'i' are the thoughts (and feelings) within a human body. The collective 'you' or again small 'i' are the thoughts (and feelings) within a collective of human bodies.

Who and what is Aware of ALL of these thoughts (and feelings) is not the 'you' but thee 'I', as in the question 'Who am 'I'?' This 'I' is also some times known as Consciousness, Awareness, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, et cetera.

This is the True 'I', and NOT the one the little 'i's THINK they are.

'I', in the spiritual sense, is just thee Mind. The Who.

'I', in the physical sense, is just EVERY thing physical. The What.

'I' am just thee Universe, Itself, continually evolving and coming into Being Consciousness and Knowing Thy Self.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amNotice thoughts come and go quite randomly

Come from where, and, go where exactly?

Do 'you' notice and know this answer?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:23 pm It is possible to stop thoughts and just be aware without thinking.

There is awareness of thought, else thought would not be recognised or known. Thoughts are known by that which is aware of them as and when they arise in that knowing. But can the awareness of thought be the thought that it knows?

No. Thought and Mind are two different things. Mind is always OPEN and KNOWS. Whereas, thought can sometimes be CLOSED and just THINK it knows.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amCan what is known ie: an ''object'' be aware of it's own existence?

No.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amWhat or who exactly is being aware of it's own existence here?

Me, thee one and only Mind, that is within EVERY thing.

Within EVERY physical thing there is Life, which is just Me revealing thy Self to a conscious intelligent being such as 'you' human beings.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amWho and what is being aware Lacewing?
Are you the awareness of a thought? or are you the thought you are aware of?

If 'you' replaced the word 'you' with 'i' or 'I' some times, then the answers that 'you' say can not be known 'you're will find can actually be KNOWN.

Notice thoughts come and go quite randomly and spontaneously, while awareness doesn't come and go, rather, it has to stick around permanently.

'I' "stick around" eternally and infinitely HERE-NOW actually.

'thoughts' come and go, depending on what a human body is experiencing and feeling, and on what that human body has previously experienced.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amAlso notice there can be no stopping thoughts from coming and going as they often arise uninvited and leave quietly unannounced.

This is because the human body can not stop experiencing new and changing things. 'thoughts'come and go with new and continually changing experiencing.

Although, it could be argued, that some of 'you' are to afraid to change, and so dearly hold onto what is already believed, which is again 'you', thought and your own selves.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amYour feedback on this thread topic would be appreciated Lacewing. Thanks.

.
and spontaneously, while awareness doesn't come and go, rather, it has to stick around permanently.
Also notice there can be no stopping thoughts from coming and going as they often arise uninvited and leave quietly unannounced.

Your feedback on this thread topic would be appreciated Lacewing. Thanks.

.

That he is a she.

Sorry, thanks for clarifying. I think languages like Indonesian are cool (both she and he are called dia)

And also, SHE has both he and she in it, ( S/he )and that's why I used that label. I combined the opposites to make two ONE.
I could have easily have just labeled God an IT

Ah, I get it, thank you ... although I disagree on addressing God by 'IT' , since this may imply that S/HE is not intelligent. On the other hand, using IT may also imply that you are talking about the IDEA of God, not God. So, let's call He/r a S/he

So the likeness comes in the image of itself in the form of mental physical conceptual constructs. The minds creates these out of it's own not-knowing emptiness and projects them as mirror images within itself, it does this because it likes to label everything and nothing into separate things, so that specific distinctions are known that can make sense to the mind. Without the mind as a projection screen what can any thing be or where can it be?
Words are just pointers pointing the mind of truth and knowledge back to itself which is the ineffable ONE.

Well, all I can do is to give you what my Muslim/Jewish background believes about God . Although modern scholars have more sophisticated view of God (has no place, no time, infinite, ...etc), early scholars and books in both religions (judaism and islam) believed God is actually in a place in heavens, and can enter the paradise, in Islamic Hadith : he is a shaved young man (not a woman)..etc. And Qur'an refers to God as a He and says that He does not have a wife.

But the more sophisticated modern view is, as you said, God is more an IT than a S/He , with regards to gender (although God is more of a S/He than IT with regards to intelligence).

THIS SUBJECT is relevant to all those who are interested and wish to participate in it.

Okay, I am going to participate in it : It does not matter whether you call God a She or He , because :

- If God exists then God is neither He nor She, so whatever you choose does not matter.
- If God does not exist on the other hand, then again : call God whatever you want.

On the other hand, what matters is IT , do not call God an IT if you define God as intelligent and omnipotent.

- Either God exists and S/he is not an IT.
- Or, God is an IT and does not exist as we define God.

Any subject you make relevant is relevant ... so you are right !

mohamedtaqi wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:06 pm

Ah, I get it, thank you ... although I disagree on addressing God by 'IT' , since this may imply that S/HE is not intelligent. On the other hand, using IT may also imply that you are talking about the IDEA of God, not God. So, let's call He/r a S/he

Okay cool! but I'm getting a little bit muddled trying to see the way you are seeing this, I hardly see what difference it makes whether intelligence is an IT or a not IT...or what ever one wants to call IT.

Feel free to freely replace the talked about subject with the label IDEA... or any other concept/object, and all this without the added assumption that there is someone that can either do this or not do this.
It just happens.It just is...in my opinion. what is an idea anyway? I have no idea!!

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:23 pm It is possible to stop thoughts and just be aware without thinking.

What or who exactly is being aware of it's own existence here? Who and what is being aware Lacewing?

There are no thoughts about that. I feel no need to try to name/identify anything. It's just awareness without thoughts dancing around.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 am Are you the awareness of a thought? or are you the thought you are aware of?

These thoughts don't arise for me then or now. Doesn't seem to matter.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 amNotice thoughts come and go quite randomly and spontaneously, while awareness doesn't come and go, rather, it has to stick around permanently.

What I notice is that a lot of noisy thoughts obscure awareness.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 am
Also notice there can be no stopping thoughts from coming and going as they often arise uninvited and leave quietly unannounced.

Well this is opposite to what I said: "It is possible to stop thoughts and just be aware without thinking." So, no, your phrase "there can be no stopping thoughts" is not what I notice. I agree that thoughts can arise uninvited, and come and go loudly or quietly. But they can be turned off in any moment, which appears to become easier with practice.

I do not think this is something I need to quest after or define or create a belief/thought system around. All of that would create something human-made. For the sake of discussion right now, however , I can try to describe two things that have resulted for me from having such an experience. (This description of course requires thoughts and words, but those are not present at the time.)

1) In the awareness there is no separation, so everything associated with separation is gone -- showing that separatist anxieties are a product of human noise. The residual sense of that is comforting and humorous.

2) Knowing that I can turn off the noise/thoughts and experience this "awareness" any time, shows that all is one, ever-present and accessible. The sense from this is that life, with all of its creative and superficial manifestations and imaginings, is PERFECT. All is well.

I do not KNOW anything. I just try to keep my noise and all other noise from spinning me into blind unaware frenzies. I prefer frenzies that have awareness associated with them. Things are more fun with awareness. If ever I'm not having fun, it could be a sign that I'm not being aware.

There is nothing to escape. There is only awareness of perfection.

It just happens.It just is...in my opinion. what is an idea anyway? I have no idea!!

All I can say is that if God exists then I raise my hat to H/im/r ... although I do not believe God exists, if it turned out the opposite is the case, I would not ask why there is evil, or what is the purpose of our existence ...

All I would do is to be grateful, and ask H/im/r a hell bunch of metaphysical questions (what is matter? what is the ultimate reality? what is consciousness and how it is produced? what makes me me?)

Because, anyway, I do not hate the idea of God based on logically fallacious ethical or moral arguments. I just see that such a being is very unlikely to exist.

So, maybe the right and meaningful question is what would you do if it turned out to be the case? for me it wouldn't change too much, I would lead the same life whether God exists or not. (except for gaining more knowledge from the divine).

What would you do?

'thought' cannot scratch the surface of 'God' because God ........ is a COMPLETE thought.

My comment on this one:

I take it that by complete you mean "perfect" thought , let's suppose that God exists as a Thought or idea, a perfect and complete idea that needs no perfection because it is perfect as God is perfect.

The problem with this one is that if x exists as an idea, it cannot (inductively speaking) exist without a mind that contains and embodies this idea. (because by induction, we know that ideas only exist in minds, from our experience).

It does not matter what or who this mind is, as long as it can understand infinity and perfection. An idea cannot exist without a mind. So if God is an idea, then it has to be in a Mind. who's mind is that?

You said : a complete idea, that is : the mind has to hold the complete and perfect idea of God. Whereas our minds only hold a portion of that idea (I cannot even imagine an omniscient or omnipotent being, I can only understand the meaning of these words, without a total grasp of the semantics behind them...)

it follows that the mind that can contain the idea of God (I mean the complete idea) has to be somehow be more perfect than that idea. (I take it for granted that my mind is more perfect than the idea of red, because the idea of red cannot exist without my mind, it only takes a shape in my mind, and whenever I do not think about red, the idea ceases to exist).

So, if God is an idea, then it is contained in a mind, and that mind has to be more perfect than the idea. So, it follows that the idea was not perfect (because it needs some more perfection to be as perfect as the mind ... ideas are not perfect nor complete).

If we define God as "perfect" and yet claim that God is just an idea, then it follows that it is not perfect, since ideas are generated in minds, and therefore God is not God (because God is supposed to be perfect according to our definition).

I know, this is all some kind of 'sophistry', that's akin to what St Anselm did when he argued that since God is perfect in every way then God exists, since a God that exists is more perfect that one that only exists as an idea.

This kind of arguments never ends...