God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[Rhea]

Just doing a reality check here - Kharakov, does yourrt god have consciousness? Can it communicate with humans? Clearly? Unambiguously?

 

[Kharakov]

The evidence is that entities with working brains behave in ways that other entities do not.

Behavior does not indicate consciousness or non-consciousness- at the simplest level it indicates preference and ability in conscious beings.

Complexity is a necessary, but not a sufficient, requirement for consciousness.

No it isn't. Complexity, while it is a part of some conscious experiences, is not a requirement. To be conscious, one can simply be aware that others exist. This is the simplest form of consciousness.

Consciousness is a property of the specific class of highly complex arrangements of cells called 'brains'.

Of course it isn't. Consciousness is awareness of oneself or others. One doesn't need a brain to be aware of another, one simply needs the quality of being aware of another.

You might be a single electron that is within a highly complex self aware network (a brain + CNS) that feeds you (the electron) information and allows you to transfer information back out. An electron could have complicated hidden interactions with other particles which do not result in apparent changes to a physical system. - and decisions made are hidden in the complexity of the system, under the guise of quantum uncertainty. Poker face? Quantum face is the face of someone who doesn't take chances.

This is my hypothesis - consciousness cannot exist without a complex pattern of actively interacting parts (what we commonly call a 'brain'); you can falsify it by showing a single counterexample.

Yeah. As long as you define an electron reacting to an electron as a non-conscious reaction without any evidence whatsoever, you're going to claim that the counterexample is not a counterexample, because you say it isn't.

You define an electrons actions as non-conscious, without any evidence that anything acts without consciousness.

We still have the dichotomy:

1) Conscious energy has evolved into many different forms and can create and eliminate forms and formed our consciousness out of its action and inaction.

2) Non conscious energy has the ability to react to itself without consciousness, doesn't sense anything, yet reacts to itself. One of the pockets of energy that is formed by energies interplay of dividing and shaping itself, which has no properties that energy did not have before except being in a unique multidimensional shape, now has the additional quality of consciousness, unlike the energy that formed it and molds its actions.

 

[Juma]

To be conscious, one can simply be aware that others exist. This is the simplest form of consciousness..

To be aware is a very complex thing: you must be able to represent the immense complex states of your awarenesss.

That there seems to be something simple as awaresness is just a feature of our immensly complex brain.

 

[bilby]

Behavior does not indicate consciousness or non-consciousness- at the simplest level it indicates preference and ability in conscious beings.

Complexity is a necessary, but not a sufficient, requirement for consciousness.

No it isn't. Complexity, while it is a part of some conscious experiences, is not a requirement. To be conscious, one can simply be aware that others exist. This is the simplest form of consciousness.

Consciousness is a property of the specific class of highly complex arrangements of cells called 'brains'.

Of course it isn't. Consciousness is awareness of oneself or others. One doesn't need a brain to be aware of another, one simply needs the quality of being aware of another.

You might be a single electron that is within a highly complex self aware network (a brain + CNS) that feeds you (the electron) information and allows you to transfer information back out. An electron could have complicated hidden interactions with other particles which do not result in apparent changes to a physical system. - and decisions made are hidden in the complexity of the system, under the guise of quantum uncertainty. Poker face? Quantum face is the face of someone who doesn't take chances.

This is my hypothesis - consciousness cannot exist without a complex pattern of actively interacting parts (what we commonly call a 'brain'); you can falsify it by showing a single counterexample.

Yeah. As long as you define an electron reacting to an electron as a non-conscious reaction without any evidence whatsoever, you're going to claim that the counterexample is not a counterexample, because you say it isn't.

You define an electrons actions as non-conscious, without any evidence that anything acts without consciousness.

We still have the dichotomy:

1) Conscious energy has evolved into many different forms and can create and eliminate forms and formed our consciousness out of its action and inaction.

2) Non conscious energy has the ability to react to itself without consciousness, doesn't sense anything, yet reacts to itself. One of the pockets of energy that is formed by energies interplay of dividing and shaping itself, which has no properties that energy did not have before except being in a unique multidimensional shape, now has the additional quality of consciousness, unlike the energy that formed it and molds its actions.

You are abusing the word 'energy' here in such a way as to demonstrate that you don't know what energy is, and that you expect nobody else to know either.

The bad news is that others do know, and can see that you are just bullshitting.

It's probably quantum. Most unsupported woo about energy turns out to be quantum.

 

[Kharakov]

You are abusing the word 'energy' here in such a way as to demonstrate that you don't know what energy is, and that you expect nobody else to know either.

I know. I'm throwing the term around like a new ager at a crystal convention. Energy of a system or particle is only one part of the information contained in it.

I didn't just want to say "stuff", which would be more all encompassing, yet not capture the dynamic nature of what has always existed.

1) Conscious information has evolved into many different forms. It formed our consciousness out of its actions and continues to form and disassemble information.

2) Non conscious information has the ability to react to information without consciousness, doesn't sense anything or have any information about other information, yet reacts to information. One of the pockets of information that is formed by information's interplay of dividing and shaping itself, which has no properties that information did not have before except being in a unique multidimensional shape, now has the additional quality of consciousness, unlike the information that formed it and molds its actions.

I can't predict where this will go.

 

[Kharakov]

Just doing a reality check here - Kharakov, does yourrt god have consciousness? Can it communicate with humans? Clearly? Unambiguously?

Yes. Yes. No. No.

Last 2 are due to human error.

 

[Kharakov]

To be conscious, one can simply be aware that others exist. This is the simplest form of consciousness..

To be aware is a very complex thing: you must be able to represent the immense complex states of your awarenesss.

That there seems to be something simple as awaresness is just a feature of our immensly complex brain.

You could be a very simple structure in your extremely complex brain that exists primarily to keep the brain alive, and the rest of your brain is just partying and having a good time. In other words, it has 1000s of partying consciousnesses, and you do the work to feed it glucose.

 

[Cobalt]

Just doing a reality check here - Kharakov, does yourrt god have consciousness? Can it communicate with humans? Clearly? Unambiguously?

Yes. Yes. No. No.

Last 2 are due to human error.

So does your god lack the power, the knowledge, or the desire to compensate for human error in order to communicate unambiguously? All three?

 

[Kharakov]

So does your god lack the power, the knowledge, or the desire to compensate for human error in order to communicate unambiguously? All three?

I don't know that God belongs to me personally, so the whole "your" thing is a bit on the loaded question side. Anyway, some people just hate certain pieces of information, so reject them. This obviously makes it hard to communicate certain concepts.

So you either wait for them to come around or lure them in. It's not like strawmen are not useful.

 

[Rhea]

So does your god lack the power, the knowledge, or the desire to compensate for human error in order to communicate unambiguously? All three?

I don't know that God belongs to me personally, so the whole "your" thing is a bit on the loaded question side.

When you can present us with one other person who defines a god exactly the same way you do, then it will be something other than "your" god. Until then, this is "your" god because you made it up and defined it. So, "yours".

Anyway, some people just hate certain pieces of information, so reject them. This obviously makes it hard to communicate certain concepts.

Is this like an algebra teacher? Who is unable to make certain kids learn the quadratic formula because they "hate" it and reject it, so the teacher should give up teaching and wait for them to come around? Great teacher? Uh, no.

Remember, Kharakov, you are saying that your god is UNABLE to make itself believable to humans, which it ostensibly created from scratch. The atheists are not people who hate god(dess)(es), and your god seems to only be able to communicate through you. So, weird, so human.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't know that God belongs to me personally, so the whole "your" thing is a bit on the loaded question side.

When you can present us with one other person who defines a god exactly the same way you do, then it will be something other than "your" god. Until then, this is "your" god because you made it up and defined it.

You learn about someone's characteristics, you don't define them. Truthfully, if you looked in places other than the bible, or various other ancient scriptures, and did a bit of analysis....

Show

an aside: although the bible does have a quote in it that says if you look anywhere else, or teach people to rely on something other than what is written in the bible, you're evil and going to hell(or something like that), which I obviously take seriously. The Bhagavad Gita has a quote which I interpret to mean something along the lines of "relying on ancient scriptures is not a way to know a living God". For some reason I thought Muslims called Christians "People of the book" because they think xians put the bible above God (which is idolatry).

Is this like an algebra teacher?

It's more like a special needs teacher working with certain individuals who need a little more help accepting the truth.

Remember, Kharakov, you are saying that your god is UNABLE to make itself believable to humans, which it ostensibly created from scratch.

I am? I don't think God is unable to cause belief. I think the waters are a bit muddied by various humans (like me) talking about God and what God wants, but I feel no qualms speaking of God to those who are already talking about God as if God were not there. What I'm saying isn't going to interfere with your spiritual development: you have none.

God is apparently able to get you to believe in natural law, and love your children, which is enough, right?

The atheists are not people who hate god(dess)(es), and your god seems to only be able to communicate through you.

God doesn't communicate through me. Neither does Lao Tsu.

 

[Rhea]

What I'm saying isn't going to interfere with your spiritual development: you have none.

And you claim that your god is unable to overcome this language barrier. Leaving nothing and no one but you to attempt to communicate. It's like it is saying, "Autistic brains that require evidence? I have no language for that. Maybe Kharakov will take care of it, because I can't. And when he fails he can claim it is their own fault for hating me. Yeah, I'm going with that." This god, unable to communicate clearly to a fully functioning human, gives up, and leaves it to you because you're the best communication it can muster. Which is indistinguishable from it not existing in the first place and only being a figment of Kharakov's imagination. Which any deity worth its salt pillar knows is inadequate communication.

God is apparently able to get you to believe in natural law, and love your children,

Natural law gets me to believe in natural law. It does things, reliably and repeatably, so it's fairly straightforward to conclude that it is there.
Evolution resulted in a systematic lack of multigenerational reproductive success in those whose DNA does not tend toward affection toward offspring. So, as a surviving line, I tend to display that successful trait. (plus my children are remarkably exceptional, so, you know.)

which is enough, right?

The atheists are not people who hate god(dess)(es), and your god seems to only be able to communicate through you.

God doesn't communicate through me. Neither does Lao Tsu.

your god doesn't communicate at all.

 

[Kharakov]

And you claim that your god is unable to overcome this language barrier.

No, but your statement is a humorous D) example of a barrier to communication: Say you were talking to someone who generally acts (perhaps facetiously) as if they were antagonistic to certain ideas. They might say something like "you claim XXX" when you didn't make the claim. You even brought up the fact that certain ideas cannot be conveyed until one has a certain level of understanding. This doesn't indicate that you are claiming that the ideas cannot be communicated- it simply means there is information that must be learned prior to more complex communication being possible.

One makes many copies of one's self so that one can be with each individual, but introduces them to other similar individuals as well, and the hard part is learning to live with other inexperienced beings in a communal world.

 

[Rhea]

And you claim that your god is unable to overcome this language barrier.

No, but your statement is a humorous D) example of a barrier to communication: Say you were talking to someone who generally acts (perhaps facetiously) as if they were antagonistic to certain ideas. They might say something like "you claim XXX" when you didn't make the claim. You even brought up the fact that certain ideas cannot be conveyed until one has a certain level of understanding. This doesn't indicate that you are claiming that the ideas cannot be communicated- it simply means there is information that must be learned prior to more complex communication being possible.

Dood. You claim that your god cannot _currently_ make himself clear to most of humanity. And that most of humanity has died waiting for it to make itself clear. You claim your god is waiting for some thing to happen on its own, that your god is not capable of making happen, your god is forced to wait. For something. Because... your god can't overcome this barrier, it doesn't have the Skillz.

"Certain ideas can't be conveyed until..." means your god cannot overcome this communication barrier until something over which your god has no control happens.

Sad god. Skillz lacking. Waiting waiting waiting for the thing to happen to let it level up.

One makes many copies of one's self so that one can be with each individual, but introduces them to other similar individuals as well, and the hard part is learning to live with other inexperienced beings in a communal world.

That is hard, especially when the inexperienced being make up stories about something else very experienced, but lacking skills. A deity! But powerless. But a deity and it's your own fault it's powerless! Not its fault for not speaking clearly! Yours! For not understanding clearly!


Classic dodge.

But its a deity. So powerful... until it's not.
All it needs to do is speak.
Alas! it cannot.
Deity crumbles to dust.
So human.

 

[Kharakov]

Dood. You claim that your god cannot _currently_ make himself clear to most of humanity.

You are being very creative.

 

[free radical]

God doesn't communicate through me. Neither does Lao Tsu.

Are you sure?
How could you know?

 

[Rhea]

Dood. You claim that your god cannot _currently_ make himself clear to most of humanity.

You are being very creative.

And you are being humorously obtuse. I suspect it's on purpose to avoid having an actual substantive discussion about the nature of the deity you are claiming exists.

But I'll play along and make another go at a wording of the same question that's been proposed to you all along and that you have not yet answered.

Is there anyone on this planet who does not have a clear and accurate view of the existence and nature of your deity? And if so, why is your deity unable to communicate its existence and nature clearly to anyone/everyone? What prevents your deity, i.e. what barriers stop your deity, what communications obstacles is it unable to overcome, in presenting its existence and nature to all of humanity?

What's it's problem in this?

 

[Kharakov]

God doesn't communicate through me. Neither does Lao Tsu.

Are you sure?
How could you know?

Any sufficiently advanced being could communicate through me if they had the tech or know-how (understanding of the way the human mind works).

 

[Rhea]

Are you sure?
How could you know?

Any sufficiently advanced being could communicate through me if they had the tech or know-how (understanding of the way the human mind works).

So we're back to the OP, and your deity does not have sufficient tech or know-how to communicate clearly, even through you, its only apparent conduit.

Sigh. deities are so pathetic these days. Don't you yearn for the days of Hydras and monsters directed by the angry gods? No one had any doubt THEN!

 

[Kharakov]

But I'll play along and make another go at a wording of the same question that's been proposed to you all along and that you have not yet answered.

Is there anyone on this planet who does not have a clear and accurate view of the existence and nature of your deity God?
Yes.

And if so, why is your deity God unable to communicate its existence and nature clearly to anyone/everyone at all times?
Numerous reasons which depend on individual development, and current focus.

What prevents your deity God, i.e. what barriers stop your deity God, what communications obstacles is it unable to overcome, in presenting its existence and nature to all of humanity?
God isn't unable to overcome the obstacles. Like I said, people need to learn some basic stuff, and then a more encompassing worldview can be created within them.

What's it's<sic> problem in this?
Truthfully, some people have a bit of a bug up their ass. Some douchebags hate various things in life because they are douchebags. Someone hates or disbelieves in God because of cancer or starving children, yet would rather spend their time drinking beer than learning a cure for cancer or working with others to feed the children.

You either want God to take care of all the problems, or you're willing to help. If you want God to take care of everything, it's going to take a long fucking time. If you help, good for everyone.