A God Without Limitations

[Aman Uensis]

To all those who do believe in a faith system, I'd like to know, would it bother you if your God was not exactly all powerful?

I'm asking out of curiosity because on a reddit forum recently I proposed an article that God does indeed have a limitation, however, as far as concerns the creation of humanity we could still regard God (if one believes in it) as the most powerful being in our immediate orbit of existence. So, would it bother anyone if this was the case? Or does your faith hinge on the belief that your God is absolute in all respects?

The link to the article is below for anyone who wishes to read in full:

https://medium.com/@thelittleblackbook/what-is-the-limitation-of-the-all-knowing-all-seeing-insert-belief-here-god-6068823c1a7

 

For those that don't want to read, basically I'm saying that the one limitation of God is that God cannot exist as anything other than God in essence or spirit. Not fully. In other words, existence imposes a condition on each and every thing (including God).

[Lan Todak]

3 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

To all those who do believe in a faith system, I'd like to know, would it bother you if your God was not exactly all powerful?

I'm asking out of curiosity because on a reddit forum recently I proposed an article that God does indeed have a limitation, however, as far as concerns the creation of humanity we could still regard God (if one believes in it) as the most powerful being in our immediate orbit of existence. So, would it bother anyone if this was the case? Or does your faith hinge on the belief that your God is absolute in all respects?

The link to the article is below for anyone who wishes to read in full:

https://medium.com/@thelittleblackbook/what-is-the-limitation-of-the-all-knowing-all-seeing-insert-belief-here-god-6068823c1a7

 

For those that don't want to read, basically I'm saying that the one limitation of God is that God cannot exist as anything other than God in essence or spirit. Not fully. In other words, existence imposes a condition on each and every thing (including God).

Do you mean god can only be himself, don't you?

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

To all those who do believe in a faith system, I'd like to know, would it bother you if your God was not exactly all powerful?

I'm asking out of curiosity because on a reddit forum recently I proposed an article that God does indeed have a limitation, however, as far as concerns the creation of humanity we could still regard God (if one believes in it) as the most powerful being in our immediate orbit of existence. So, would it bother anyone if this was the case? Or does your faith hinge on the belief that your God is absolute in all respects?

The link to the article is below for anyone who wishes to read in full:

https://medium.com/@thelittleblackbook/what-is-the-limitation-of-the-all-knowing-all-seeing-insert-belief-here-god-6068823c1a7

 

For those that don't want to read, basically I'm saying that the one limitation of God is that God cannot exist as anything other than God in essence or spirit. Not fully. In other words, existence imposes a condition on each and every thing (including God).

What's the point of a God that can't protect you or seek revenge on your behalf? 

[Aman Uensis]

21 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Do you mean god can only be himself, don't you?

In short, yes. I believe if God exists then God is also subject to the rules of existence in general. So rather than asking the question, what is God, I'm making the inquiry what is existence? Because I do think there is a very very subtle difference between the purpose/intent for which we were made (ie. God made us) and why we exist at all (which includes why anything including God exists at all).

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What's the point of a God that can't protect you or seek revenge on your behalf? 

With that kind of question we're getting into theology/morality. To be honest I don't know all that much about that beyond the average person. I can't comment on why God should be this or that because I believe we're not really meant to know. I think part of the purpose of life is wondering about these questions in the first place.

If we're going to ask that question, then we could go around in circles and ask what is the point of anything really.

It took me many years to wrap my head around existence as a separate thing. I find it helpful to look at it as a structure. Some examples below, keep in mind, infinity when applying these structures.

A painting: Life is a painting and all its constituents are the brushstrokes. So existence is the canvas. Paint still retains its molecular structure on its own, but a painting (life) doesn't come into being unless the paint hits a canvas.

A game: Life is a game, and everything we are and do is how we play the game. If God is a sentient being with wants and desires, then God is playing the game too. The structure of a game is such that the players can never transcend the game while they are playing the game, and the game doesn't play itself. It is merely a structure. The question then becomes, what is the game?

A virtual world: There are some similarities to Godly creation and a programmer creating a virtual world. I've heard it said that if God exists then we would not be able to comprehend God in its true form. So God, therefore, has to appear to us in a material form we would understand. The same applies to a virtual world. If a programmer were to try and speak to their creations outright, they wouldn't be able to. So the only way you can manipulate/communicate with that virtual world is through programming language. Also, I think if the virtual inhabitants gained some kind of sentience, it would be relative to that virtual world. That is, we would have no idea that they had gained sentience, only that we programmed them to act as they are. But for all we know, they are essentially sentient beings within their own world. This also means that even though they are intelligent and sentient, they have no way of actually touching the fabric of their own existence, that is, the computer hardware.

Thoughts anyone?

[Lan Todak]

10 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I'm making the inquiry what is existence? Because I do think there is a very very subtle difference between the purpose/intent for which we were made (ie. God made us) and why we exist at all (which includes why anything including God exists at all).

That's Interesting inquiry but I believe in aliens or programmers over god or gods. I don't really care if they're powerful or not. 

Regarding your inquiry, you shouldn't take it lightly against gods in which you rely heavily on intuitions solely. Otherwise, it's a faith based opinion. Anyway, I still find discussing about existence is intriguing.

[Sensei]

Quote

A God Without Limitations

...you cannot change the result of a mathematical equation...

1+1=2

2+2=4

etc.

 

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

With that kind of question we're getting into theology/morality. To be honest I don't know all that much about that beyond the average person. I can't comment on why God should be this or that because I believe we're not really meant to know.

Of course we're meant to know, God is man made comfort blanket; he'll get the bully for you.

If we know he's limitated, the blanket won't cover every one.

Religion is designed to give (every) one peace of mind, and for that one must believe absolutely that God/karma/other mechanisism work's, to allay our fear of everyday life.

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

...you cannot change the result of a mathematical equation...

1+1=2

2+2=4

etc.

 

But you can change your mood... 😉

 

[beecee]

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

...you cannot change the result of a mathematical equation...

But god would be smart enough avoid the question with some vague philosophical utterence. 😉 

[Aman Uensis]

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course we're meant to know, God is man made comfort blanket; he'll get the bully for you.

If we know he's limitated, the blanket won't cover every one.

Religion is designed to give (every) one peace of mind, and for that one must believe absolutely that God/karma/other mechanisism work's, to allay our fear of everyday life.

 

I whole-heartedly agree. That is the one of the reasons why people turn to religion - for comfort. The hubris of man though, is that what we think we know might not necessarily be what actually is.

17 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

That's Interesting inquiry but I believe in aliens or programmers over god or gods. I don't really care if they're powerful or not. 

Regarding your inquiry, you shouldn't take it lightly against gods in which you rely heavily on intuitions solely. Otherwise, it's a faith based opinion. Anyway, I still find discussing about existence is intriguing.

I'm glad at least someone finds it intriguing. I posted the same on reddit and after replying back to everyone's arguments against, I get the same result as I ever did - being ignored. But that is the foundation of my theory. Rather than searching for hidden treasures and Golden Arks, I rather believe the keys to our existence are hidden in plain sight. In the mundane.

My confidence in my findings is underpinned by the fact that my system is grounded in a combination of faith, intuition, logic and empirical observation (of the nature of structures in general). I never discount somebody's belief in God because their belief system can still fit within mine.

[Aman Uensis]

16 hours ago, Sensei said:

...you cannot change the result of a mathematical equation...

1+1=2

2+2=4

etc.

 

Interestingly enough, it was from basic maths that I began my observations.

If one doesn't assume that this universe is the only universe in existence, then it means there are different universes each with their own different rules. Rules cannot operate in a vacuum. There needs to be a structure in place to enforce those rules, rules of physics, logic etc. In other words there needs to be a container that can isolate our universe's set of rules from all the others.

If we substitute each possible basic number with each thing that exists, we would have an endless set of numbers floating around. That is, if one believes existence to be infinite. Our universe then, would be a subset of those numbers, other universes would be other subsets.

Note that there can be no largest subset of numbers, because infinity. And as I said before, God is a player, not the game. The game, it would seem, is infinity.

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

My confidence in my findings is underpinned by the fact that my system is grounded in a combination of faith, intuition, logic and empirical observation (of the nature of structures in general). I never discount somebody's belief in God because their belief system can still fit within mine.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

― Douglas Adams,

[Aman Uensis]

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

― Douglas Adams,

Thank you for clueing me into this Anthropic principle. I had never heard of it until now. I'm assuming the principle applies not just for the observer within but the observer who created the container? That the compatibility of the world which contains the inhabitant observers is likely (at least partially) compatible for its creator?

I'm also assuming the author is suggesting that our world is not necessarily made for us? Perhaps not. But it might possibly have been made for the things that subsequently exist within it, whether or not humans came along or not. The world may not have been made for the puddle alone, but what of the combination of the puddle, the sun, the air, the hole etc? As I said before, there is a very subtle difference between the question of who created us and why anything exists at all, which I think brings the question of existence onto another level that transcends questions of God. One either sees it or doesn't. It's hard to grasp, like tendrils of smoke. This is something that even Richard Dawkins can't see, and I'm rather surprised that he would waste his energy on such an impassioned argument against God. Or maybe it's no surprise.

Absolutely no offence to those who dedicate their lives to the accumulation of knowledge, it takes skill and dedication, but I believe that is a trap unto itself. Take a rat in a cage for instance. If you wanted to observe the extent of its intellectual behaviour, you would inevitably place all manner of things inside the cage to distract it from the fact that it is simply a rat in a cage. Distract it and it won't go gnawing on the cage. Eventually, it rather forgets its just a rat in a cage. But one of the keys to its very origin of existence, is the cage itself. The rest is a distraction. A cunning misdirection.

[iNow]

If you wish to better understand your “creator,” then science is the single best path to doing so.

It’s a shame that you’ve fallen into the same trap as so many other creationists before you who seem to think that science is about “accumulating knowledge,” when in fact it’s about removing our biases and blinders when learning how nature operates and behaves. 

Thou dost project too much when accusing others being victims to a “cunning distraction.” One might argue that religion and claims of gods have perfected that exact process for millennia. 

[Aman Uensis]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If you wish to better understand your “creator,” then science is the single best path to doing so.

It’s a shame that you’ve fallen into the same trap as so many other creationists before you who seem to think that science is about “accumulating knowledge,” when in fact it’s about removing our biases and blinders when learning how nature operates and behaves. 

Thou dost project too much when accusing others being victims to a “cunning distraction.” One might argue that religion and claims of gods have perfected that exact process for millennia. 

On the contrary, I place equal importance on science as I do theology. As I would individual cogs in a machine. The machine needs the cogs in order to run, and without the machine the cogs wouldn't be able to operate in a consistent manner, an isolated environment. All cogs necessarily work with one another in order to make the machine go.

I don't really consider myself a creationist, although I don't necessarily disagree with the postulation that we were created by a sentient being. I don't really care either way.

And theologians can equally be attributed to "accumulating knowledge" in the same way. I've argued against my fair share who have tried to use theology against my very simple logic. My view is one doesn't need extensive knowledge in either field in order to think about the origins of our existence because I'm separating existence from questions of our specific creation. My view of separating the fabric of existence from both sides of the debate essentially equalizes them. Makes science and religion actors upon a stage, players within a game (or at least ways to play the game).

My inquiry is more toward the game itself.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Aman Uensis
Wanted to clarify my position.

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I'm also assuming the author is suggesting that our world is not necessarily made for us? Perhaps not. But it might possibly have been made for the things that subsequently exist within it, whether or not humans came along or not. The world may not have been made for the puddle alone, but what of the combination of the puddle, the sun, the air, the hole etc?

We can't exist without Earth but the Earth can exist without us.

[beecee]

57 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We can't exist without Earth but the Earth can exist without us.

And both were an accident of evolution.

[Aman Uensis]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We can't exist without Earth but the Earth can exist without us.

Agreed. But take out the puddle (which is us in the analogy??) and you still have the sun, the air, the hole etc? What I'm trying to get at through all my ramblings is that humanity are not important to the equation. I'm reducing humanity (and God if it exists) to just another "thing" that exists. On equal measure to a rock or a tree or Earth even.

Plus, it doesn't preclude the possibility that something could quite as easily have created the Earth or this universe without humanity. Whether we are here or not doesn't preclude the possibility that the universe was made as a container for specifically other things (rocks, trees, etc), much like we would make a sealed terrarium.

 

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

And both were an accident of evolution.

This is something I'm more inclined to believe as well.

[swansont]

On 4/21/2022 at 7:29 PM, Aman Uensis said:

basically I'm saying that the one limitation of God is that God cannot exist as anything other than God in essence or spirit. Not fully. In other words, existence imposes a condition on each and every thing (including God).

How do you test* this? If a supreme being is omnipotent, how do you distinguish between how they choose to behave, and how they are able to behave?

*and this is the underlying issue when it comes to these matters. There's no way to run a scientific test. You can explain away anything but prediction is not really something you can do.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I place equal importance on science as I do theology

Correction. You place YOUR theology on a pedestal while dismissing the theology of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Basically, you have an imaginary friend and you’re trying to convince us it’s as good as (or better) than our real friends. Yay you. 

5 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

I don't necessarily disagree with the postulation that we were created by a sentient being.

Yep. And who created THAT sentient being? You have answered no questions. You’ve merely displaced them and stopped searching for valid answers. 

5 hours ago, Aman Uensis said:

My inquiry is more toward the game itself.

Your game is boring. 

[dimreepr]

39 minutes ago, beecee said:

And both were an accident of evolution.

Only one of which know's or care's, the stage doesn't doesn't need too.

21 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

Agreed. But take out the puddle (which is us in the analogy??) and you still have the sun, the air, the hole etc? What I'm trying to get at through all my ramblings is that humanity are not important to the equation. I'm reducing humanity (and God if it exists) to just another "thing" that exists. On equal measure to a rock or a tree or Earth even.

Plus, it doesn't preclude the possibility that something could quite as easily have created the Earth or this universe without humanity. Whether we are here or not doesn't preclude the possibility that the universe was made as a container for specifically other things (rocks, trees, etc), much like we would make a sealed terrarium.

See above.

[Aman Uensis]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Correction. You place YOUR theology on a pedestal while dismissing the theology of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Basically, you have an imaginary friend and you’re trying to convince us it’s as good as (or better) than our real friends. Yay you. 

Nope. As I said, I can't really discount anything. I'm just looking for another path of enquiry considering we are at a stalemate in this God vs Science debate. I'm not saying I'm right. I mean, aren't we all throwing theories around in this debate? But if I am right, then all other beliefs can fit into my system. If I'm right. Big emphasis on the if.

Imaginary friend? You mean my separation of existence from all else? Believe me, I've often wondered whether I'm seeing something that I'm not for many years. But I don't think so. It just feels right to me. I'm not going to try and explain the rabbit hole that I went down here. Suffice to say, it all stems from infinity and an attempted examination of thereof. I told myself years ago that if I wanted to examine this, I had to start with something at least semi-plausible. And infinity is one of those things that does and doesn't exist, if you know what I mean.

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Only one of which know's or care's, the stage doesn't doesn't need too.

See above.

That is essentially my point, hence the title of my post. The stage doesn't care. It doesn't want for anything. It doesn't desire an outcome. But if God exists, and God is a thinking doing being then God is not the stage.

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

I can't really discount anything. I'm just looking for another path of enquiry considering we are at a stalemate in this God vs Science debate.

Why not unicorns or the tooth fairy then, since we’re “just looking for another path of enquiry?”

[Aman Uensis]

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you test* this? If a supreme being is omnipotent, how do you distinguish between how they choose to behave, and how they are able to behave?

*and this is the underlying issue when it comes to these matters. There's no way to run a scientific test. You can explain away anything but prediction is not really something you can do.

So, this is something that I've railed against on reddit to no avail. I don't believe an atheist can demand scientific proof of God any more than a theist can say God is all the proof I need of science. I can't remember precisely the argument that I made, just that the two were incompatible. There was a logical disconnect.

But isn't science the observation of phenomena and a prediction made from observed patterns anyway? All I'm doing is taking my observations of things and applying them to other things.

How to distinguish between how something chooses to behave over how they are able to behave? Great question actually. Obviously I can't know anything for sure. But if I am to assume God created us then God is able to touch the material world in some manner. I'm going to get slightly theological if I may, but if God created us then all that we are must be, at least, a part of God (but perhaps not its entirety).  "Click-the-fingers" type creation isn't for me, so I'm going to assume that God can get its hands dirty in earthly material to make stuff. That essentially posits God within some material plane of existence. Not necessarily ours, but an existence of some type. Also, if God chose to create us, then it shows God has a desire, a want to do things. That places God on our level of wanting things etc.

In short, if God exists, then it exists.

Suffice to say, if I am right about existence being a whole 'nother thing, then it would stand to reason that existence imposes its rules upon God as equally as upon humanity. And no one thing can "be" another thing. That would go against the rules of our very existence.

And it seems likely to me. Because if God is a thinking, desiring, doing being, then God is a player, not the game.

[dimreepr]

36 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

That is essentially my point, hence the title of my post. The stage doesn't care. It doesn't want for anything. It doesn't desire an outcome. But if God exists, and God is a thinking doing being then God is not the stage.

The fundamental question is, why me?

The fundamental answer is, why not?

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

I mean, aren't we all throwing theories around in this debate?

No, this is a false equivalence in multiple respects. YOU’RE throwing in unfounded assumptions based on wish thinking, fantasy, and human mythological thinking. I’m challenging those assumptions as not being worth the bandwidth you absorbed to post them. 

38 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

It just feels right to me. I

Precisely why you need science to reject your conclusions when they’re so clearly flawed. You’re fooling yourself and asking others to join you in being fooled. No thanks. 

39 minutes ago, Aman Uensis said:

And infinity is one of those things that does and doesn't exist, if you know what I mean.

No, I’m gonna need more dressing before I swallow this word salad.