Understanding the "God" Concept

[Gees]

Studiot;

 

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:04 AM, studiot said:

Gees, I'm glad you like my offering.

Remember it is an attempt to discuss the God concept in the abstract.

I don't claim it is comprehensive - feel free to add / amend to improve it. That is what true discussion is for.

I am always looking for new metaphors to explain consciousness and "God" ideas because they are abstract ideas and difficult to comprehend and discuss. I liked it because it allowed me to state that some rules are fixed while others are flexible. Yours was interesting in that I had never considered that approach before, but don't worry that it is not comprehensive. There is no comprehensive theory of consciousness -- as yet -- so a metaphor that entirely explains it is not likely to appear any time soon.

I think that Occam's razor was used as an attempt to create a comprehensive theory of consciousness at different times in history. Although the theory (Occam's razor) on it's own can be valuable, it can also be a form of reductionism, so I suspect that at times it was used to reduce the idea of consciousness to one "God", who was in control of everything. This idea would, of course, feed the debate of Monism vs Dualism and the debate of Free Will vs Determinism, which I do not find interesting at all. Rather than use the "razor" to try to reduce consciousness to "God", or the brain, or illusion, I chose to be more inclusive in my thinking and examined what Religion, Philosophy, Science, and the paranormal all had to say about the subject. Then I looked at commonalities between the Disciplines, broke down consciousness into components, and compared what I found. I may never find all of the answers, but it seems likely that I will at least find some truths.

The best metaphor that I have ever used is water. I was in my 20's, I think, when I was reading a magazine article about water; it was explaining some of the incomprehensible properties of water, and I realized that some of those properties also related to consciousness. The more I learned about consciousness, the more comparisons I found. To name but a few things, water does not feel like what it is; water is everywhere; water is life, but can also cause death; water is gentle and cleansing; water is powerful and willful when there is enough of it; water can take different forms, liquid, solid, gas; a drop of water can incarnate from evaporation to condensation; a drop of water is part of the ocean now, or before, or eventually; water is fluid and self balancing. All of these things have a comparison in consciousness and/or in "God" ideas. Would you say that water has a Will? I wouldn't.

 

Quote

Personally I am a 'don't care' in that it makes no difference to me or how I think or act.

I think I was about 12 when I worked out for myself that an almighty entity is a self contradiction.

Well, we certainly make an interesting pair. You say that you know that an "almighty entity is a self contradiction", yet you chose number 3 in your scrabble theory to expound upon. I say "God" is real, but does not exist. Do you think we are confused? (chuckle chuckle)

I was also in my teens when I first found the "God" idea contradictory. I used logic to come to my conclusions and suspect that you did also. The problem with logic is that it can disprove an invalid theory, but it can not prove an unknown. Logic is a linear process and uses sequential steps to go from one point to another, so it is an internal investigation. Example: I want to go to the store, so I grab my keys, put on my coat, and head for the front door. Logical. But if I were actually going to take a shower, my prior actions would be illogical and disturbing to my neighbors if I stripped in the front yard. (chuckle) So logic has it's purposes, but if you do not know the end point, or are dealing with an unknown end, then logic is ineffective and can only lead you in a direction that you have already decided to go -- which makes it a rationalization. It can not find an unknown or show you which direction to go so you can start taking those sequential steps.

Descartes was probably the most logical and rational man ever born, and he told us to "doubt" ourselves. I suspect that this was because his knowledge of logic was vast, so he knew the strengths and weaknesses of logic. I agree that what we have been taught about "God" is very contradictory. I can not see "God" as a being or even as a singularity, but something about the "God" idea is real. I want to find out what that is. 

 

Quote

Anything less is just a 'super' being further up the food chain; something Man could (one day) aspire to.

This statement makes you appear to be a linear thinker; I am holistic in my thinking. If I thought of something being "further up the food chain" it would probably be the unconscious aspect of mind -- or the collective unconscious that I would call "God". Not a "being" super or otherwise.

I think I am ready to post Part 2, but if I do, this program will add it to this post. So I will wait for a while. Maybe you will respond.

Gee

Edited September 21, 2018 by Gees

[Gees]

This should be read as a continuation of the OP (Part 1)

Part 2 of

Because "God" is a concept that we are aware of, or conscious of, but does not actually exist, it is not surprising to find that it is studied in Philosophy under the topic of consciousness. For the last 1,000 years or so, it has been debated under the title of Monism v Dualism, and if anyone expects me to chose one side or the other, they will be disappointed as that argument does not impress me much either.

When people say they are Monists, they usually mean that there is no "God", soul, spirits, or other magical realm that guides conscious life. They believe that consciousness comes from matter, most specifically from the brain, then point to AI as an artificial means of creating consciousness. Note that we are talking about a human brain, or something very like it, and we are talking about an artificial representation of the human mind/brain.

When people say they are Dualists, they are talking about a separate reality that consciousness comes from and returns to, and that the soul or spirit is not material. This separate reality is often under the authority of a "God" or Intelligent Designer. Note that this "God" or Intelligent Designer is an anthropomorphizing of a human mind, and that the souls or spirits are also representative of human minds.

There are also "illusion theories" and these theories are often coupled with quantum physics or holographic ideas to try to validate the theories. Note that the illusionist is a human.

There are also dream theories and solipsism, and in these theories the dreamer is again a human; the solipsist is again a human.

The above are simplified generalizations, but I would guess that 80% of all the theories of consciousness are actually theories of our human consciousness. Even though there is some truth in each of the above theories, we corrupt it by taking a little evidence, a smidgen of truth, and bundling it together with a lot of arrogance to twist the information into a self-validation of human consciousness. This does not "unbundle" anything and actually serves to validate the idea that consciousness is a "God" concept with a human mind.

We  start out with a theory about the Universe; or we do some kind of illusion or idealism theory; or we go straight to a human mind, brain, whatever, while skipping over the evolution in between. This looks very circular to me, going from an anthropomorphized us to us; or from us to us. It also seems to negate evolutionary life, following religious teaching a little too closely. Biblically speaking, "God" (conscious) created the heavens, earth, plants, fish, animals, and us (conscious) -- a very circular idea, as everything between "God" and us is not conscious, or no soul. Then, of course, we create "God" completing the circle.

 Apparently, I am supposed to accept this circular thinking, or I am to believe that there is no "God" or consciousness until it magically (miraculously?) appears in humans (the brain). And since other life is just chemical reactions, that begs the question as to why we have Biology, as life should be studied in Chemistry. Right?

These ideas don't impress me much either, as I see little truth in them. There has to be a better way to understand consciousness and "God". In my opinion.
 

Gee

[jajrussel]

On 9/18/2018 at 5:23 AM, Gees said:

 

So I see consciousness as a game that has fixed rules, flexible self-balancing rules, and players (life). imo

Gee

 

This is a little puzzling? Isn't consciousness life? With certain goals, such as to survive, and do well. If we can't do well we will accept survival, perhaps grudgingly? Why grudgingly? Because, flexible self balancing is achieved by cheating. Our Kings, and leaders are given leeway, so that they can maintain what we have become comfortable with. We look the other way for our favored sons and daughters and do everything we can to demean any and all up and coming challengers unless we begin to note that so and so is the second coming. Then we find ourselves somewhat shortchanged. When the person supposed to be the second coming is shown to be the root of all lies. It doesn't matter who they are or what they want to do. The picture gets painted, perhaps tainted is the better word after all it is the word that my keyboard seems to be insisting I use.

One might think that if God is man's creation that mankind might at the least try to emulate the image of their own creation, but maybe I am not as puzzled as I thought... The picture of God that most presents is simply an imatation of life, and life is going to self balance without regard to our humanity, or our opinion, or even eventually, without regard to life. This is the picture that science paints. It would be an act of Faith to believe otherwise.

 

 

[jajrussel]

Can I tell an irreverent joke? 

What might Jesus's nickname have been?

Gees, I don't know... 

[Gees]

Jajrussel;

 

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 9:00 AM, jajrussel said:

Can I tell an irreverent joke? 

What might Jesus's nickname have been?

Gees, I don't know... 

Very funny. I suppose this was to get my attention; and of course, it worked.

You brought up some interesting points in your first post which I intend to respond to, but I have trouble posting in more than one thread at a time. (I am slow and old.) When I finish, or get run out of, that other thread, I will give your comments serious consideration.

I am sorry that you will have to wait, but I have to be very careful with my words in a thread like this. Bringing up the possibility that "God" is real in a Science forum is much like playing hopscotch in a field of land mines -- one must be cautious and careful. 

Gee

[Itoero]

Most theists think they have some form of interaction (by praying, serving, talking with God in dream or hallucinations)  with their god, which causes people to ascribe human properties to their God concept...the same for people that belief in heaven/hell.

[Gees]

Jajrussel;

My apologies for taking so long to respond. Thank you for your patience.

 

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:06 AM, jajrussel said:

This is a little puzzling?

Your above statement is in response to my post: "So I see consciousness as a game that has fixed rules, flexible self-balancing rules, and players (life). imo"

I am not sure why you find the above puzzling. My statement was a response to Studiot's "scrabble theory" in a prior post. Unless I mistook Studiot very badly, the "theory" was in reference to the board game, Scrabble. If you are not aware, Scrabble is a game where you have tiles with letters on them and you use them to form words that have to connect to previously made words until all the tiles are used up. In theory, if you greatly expanded the game tiles and the board, you could end up with a very complex building up of something that compares to reality with everything related and interconnected. Much like evolution built life and consciousness from small unrelated chemicals? tiles? whatever.

Like most theories, if you exclude life and/or "God", the scrabble theory has one unavoidable problem in that it has nothing to empower it. I have a Scrabble game, and do you know what it does? It sits in my closet and gathers dust, because without the players (life) it has no power, it does nothing. It is not even a game -- just cardboard, paper, ink, and wood. The rules of the game do NOT cause the activity of the game and can only somewhat direct that activity. That was my point.

 

Quote

Isn't consciousness life?

Maybe. I can agree that life is our only evidence of consciousness, but can not state in all honesty that I know there is no consciousness that is separate from or prior to life. I don't know that, and it depends upon what you think consciousness is. We have set parameters regarding what life is, but there are no such parameters on consciousness.

 

Quote

With certain goals, such as to survive, and do well. If we can't do well we will accept survival, perhaps grudgingly? Why grudgingly? 

Because survival is required of all conscious life. We call it survival instincts, but the truth is that all life is required by consciousness to continue, which means that it must adapt or evolve and do everything possible to survive. No, it does not always succeed, but it is always necessary to try to survive. The fact that humans can adjust or even deny their survival instincts is evidence of free will, as is suicide.

 

Quote

Because, flexible self balancing is achieved by cheating. Our Kings, and leaders are given leeway, so that they can maintain what we have become comfortable with. We look the other way for our favored sons and daughters and do everything we can to demean any and all up and coming challengers unless we begin to note that so and so is the second coming. Then we find ourselves somewhat shortchanged. When the person supposed to be the second coming is shown to be the root of all lies. It doesn't matter who they are or what they want to do. The picture gets painted, perhaps tainted is the better word after all it is the word that my keyboard seems to be insisting I use.

This looks too political or religious for me to comment. But my keyboard keeps insisting on typing Trump, Trump, Trump.

 

Quote

One might think that if God is man's creation that mankind might at the least try to emulate the image of their own creation,

Well, I suppose that many of us do try, but you should understand that it is the unconscious aspect of mind that "creates" "God". It is not a product of the rational aspect of mind or even imagination, so not really a choice, and not necessarily rational.

 

Quote

but maybe I am not as puzzled as I thought... The picture of God that most presents is simply an imatation of life, and life is going to self balance without regard to our humanity, or our opinion, or even eventually, without regard to life. This is the picture that science paints. It would be an act of Faith to believe otherwise.

Do you mean that we may go the way of the dinosaurs? Possibly.

I hope I answered your questions and will welcome additional thoughts.

Gee

[Gees]

Itoero;

 

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 9:53 AM, Itoero said:

Most theists think they have some form of interaction (by praying, serving, talking with God in dream or hallucinations)  with their god, which causes people to ascribe human properties to their God concept...the same for people that belief in heaven/hell.

I am not sure what you are asking for in a response. I agree that many people think and believe these things. I can not and will not try to dispute what they think/believe, but I also can not and will not try to prove what they think/believe. All of the sides of this argument have some value to my way of thinking.

I do wonder how you decided that the interaction, praying, serving, and/or talking to "God", is what causes human properties in "God". My thought is that these properties are caused by the unconscious aspect of mind as I explained earlier in this thread.

Gee

 

[Itoero]

21 hours ago, Gees said:

I do wonder how you decided that the interaction, praying, serving, and/or talking to "God", is what causes human properties in "God". My thought is that these properties are caused by the unconscious aspect of mind as I explained earlier in this thread.

Gee

I rather mean if you think you have a form of interaction with God then you will ascribe human properties to God because you interact with 'him'. I don't really know how to explain this. When you for example pray to ask help, say thanks or simply as a ritual then imo you will ascribe human properties to god because it's more suitable to ask help or say thanks to a person.