God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[bilby]

Well, you could just call God the living energy of the universe that does all things, if you want a simple description.

Describing the same entity in different ways is fine; but if an entity has contradictory descriptions, then those descriptions are not all correct. And if ALL there is is contradictions, then you've got nothing.

So, if different beings, with different perspectives on a person say different things about the same person, this means that the person does not exist. That's a brilliant position. Absolutely fucking brilliant.

No, that's not what I said. Try reading it again, paying close attention to the capitalised word.

I have a mostly consistent idea of how things are - there are basics that are always true - Physical law - and there are local conditions that result - such as atmospheric pressure. There are some flaws and errors in my worldview, and some stuff I don't understand. But nowhere is there a gap that cannot be filled without recourse to the supernatural.

Sure. I can honestly say that there is more than one possible explanation for the being that I've called God. It could simply be a psychic being that guides and shapes the lives of those within its care. There could be multiple beings, who all try to shape the lives of those within their care, who work together to create better lives and sometimes present their unified goal (happiness for all) as a singular being.

However, we are still with the primal being that has existed since the beginning of time, and they are not going anywhere, so... I'm pretty sure you already know this.

You assert that I don't want to see God; but in fact I simply don't see God - and judging by your description, neither do you. If you could see something, you could make some kind of definite statement about what you see.

Unified actions of what exists. The implication of unified actions occurring is that something is directing the actions.

We are still connected to the source of all, to some extent, because we are not cut off from the primal energy of the universe, and are still one with it forever. God acts differently in different areas, so God has many different behaviors which cannot all be described in the exact same way.

We are never separate from God, even when we are ignorant of God's existence and intellect because we only understand minor details about God's actions.

So basically what you call 'God' is what I call a Physical Field - it is an eternal and all pervading thing that determines how particles move and interact.

Quantum Field Theory describes these fields in precise mathematical terms; they are not intelligent, and nor are they worshipful; they respond in precise and well understood ways in all circumstances - and one of the things that is known is that there cannot be any unknown ones that have an effect at human scales; the Higgs Field was the last one needed to make up the complete set.

If you want to call these fields 'Gods', then I guess you can - but as they bear little resemblance to anything else that gas previously been called a god, it seems rather silly and needlessly confusing to do so.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. QFT doesn't capture the consciousness behind the actions.

 

[Kharakov]

So, if different beings, with different perspectives on a person say different things about the same person, this means that the person does not exist. That's a brilliant position. Absolutely fucking brilliant.

No, that's not what I said. Try reading it again, paying close attention to the capitalised word.

Contradictions in what someone says about someone do not indicate that someone does not exist. Matter does not exist because people described it as being formed out of 4 elements: fire, air, water, and earth. Therefore, since there were imprecise definitions of what matter is, this means that matter does not exist.

Since matter takes on more than one form, and particles form more than one chemical, this means that matter does not exist. You know, because there are contradictory things said about matter: matter is water, matter is gasoline, matter is a sammich, matter is the moon, etc.

These contradictions indicate that matter does not exist, because matter cannot be both the moon and a sammich. It's a contradiction.


So, since God acts differently in different situations, with different people, this means that God does not exist. Because, if someone acts differently in different situations, and someone describes how they acted in scenario A, and someone else describes how they act in scenario B, and their actions do not precisely match, this is a contradiction, and means the person does not exist.

I ate some chili earlier. I am typing now. If you describe my behavior while eating chili, your description is going to contradict the description of me typing. So I do not exist.

 

[bilby]

Yeah. QFT doesn't capture the consciousness behind the actions.

Because there isn't one. If there was, we would have found it by now.

 

[bilby]

No, that's not what I said. Try reading it again, paying close attention to the capitalised word.

Contradictions in what someone says about someone do not indicate that someone does not exist.

No; but if the description of something is nothing but irreconcilable contradictions, then that does indicate that that thing does not exist - or that nothing at all is known about it, which amounts to the same thing.

Matter does not exist because people described it as being formed out of 4 elements: fire, air, water, and earth. Therefore, since there were imprecise definitions of what matter is, this means that matter does not exist.

No, that is not correct; matter does exist, because there are lots of things we can say about matter that we can test, and that we find to be non-contradictory of the rest of our knowledge.

Since matter takes on more than one form, and particles form more than one chemical, this means that matter does not exist. You know, because there are contradictory things said about matter: matter is water, matter is gasoline, matter is a sammich, matter is the moon, etc.

These contradictions indicate that matter does not exist, because matter cannot be both the moon and a sammich. It's a contradiction.

I don't believe that you are genuinely misinterpreting what I say to mean this. You seem to be using a very obscure meaning of the word 'contradiction', that is at odds with both the way i use it, and the way it is defined in the dictionary.

Perhaps you could point out why you imagine that there is a contradiction inherent in describing both the moon and a sandwich as 'matter'; Because I don't see any contradiction there at all.

So, since God acts differently in different situations, with different people, this means that God does not exist. Because, if someone acts differently in different situations, and someone describes how they acted in scenario A, and someone else describes how they act in scenario B, and their actions do not precisely match, this is a contradiction, and means the person does not exist.

I ate some chili earlier. I am typing now. If you describe my behavior while eating chili, your description is going to contradict the description of me typing. So I do not exist.

You seem to be making an enormous effort to misunderstand me here; I am not saying that a contradiction, or even a number of contradictions, mean that something does not exist; I am saying that if ALL statements about an entity are contradictory, that entity cannot exist.

And there is nothing at all contradictory about describing you eating chilli and describing you typing. However IF eating chilli required both of your hands, AND typing required both of your hands, THEN it would be impossible for you to do both SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Information about an object can allow us to determine further information about that object using logic; We don't need a complete and exhaustive description of you to know that you cannot SIMULTANEOUSLY type and eat chilli; just a handful of relevant facts. If one or more of the premises is incorrect, then the conclusion may be incorrect - but that doesn't affect the validity of the logic.

An all knowing entity that is sometimes all powerful, and at other times all loving, is not ruled out by the Problem of Evil; but as many people describe their God as an all knowing entity that is simultaneously all powerful, and all loving, that kind of God is logically impossible.

You have already said that your God doesn't fit that description, so that particular disproof doesn't apply; but unless you say something about your God that is, in principle, falsifiable, you are not saying anything substantive at all.

If the universe would look exactly the same without your God as with Him, then it is not sane to claim that your God exists. If the universe looks different with your God to how it otherwise would look, then you simply need to tell us what observation would demonstrate this difference.

If all of the things your God does are equally well explained by non-theistic mechanisms, then He is indistinguishable from non-existent.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. QFT doesn't capture the consciousness behind the actions.

Because there isn't one. If there was, we would have found it by now.

Not necessarily. You assume that there is no consciousness at the smallest level without any evidence. It's more likely that consciousness is a property of everything, except laws and patterns followed.

 

[bilby]

Because there isn't one. If there was, we would have found it by now.

Not necessarily. You assume that there is no consciousness at the smallest level without any evidence. It's more likely that consciousness is a property of everything, except laws and patterns followed.

It's not an assumption; It's an observation. If there is a consciousness affecting anything on a human scale, then it is deliberately and successfully hiding - which means you and I cannot possibly know about it, and might as well assume it isn't there - certainly we cannot say anything about what it is, what it does, or what it might want.

Quantum Field Theory explains everything that happens on scales that affect human beings. There is no room, and no need, for any Gods.

Who is the greater fool - he who, seeing no evidence that anything is there, assumes that nothing is there; or he who, seeing no evidence that anything is there, assumes that something is there, and purports to know something about it?

If you have evidence, present it. If you have no evidence, then you don't know, any more than I do, and all you are doing is disregarding parsimony.

If we throw out parsimony, then literally anything goes; and that which explains anything explains nothing.

 

[Kharakov]

Matter does not exist because people described it as being formed out of 4 elements: fire, air, water, and earth. Therefore, since there were imprecise definitions of what matter is, this means that matter does not exist.

No, that is not correct; matter does exist, because there are lots of things we can say about matter that we can test, and that we find to be non-contradictory of the rest of our knowledge.

Yeah. God can't behave in more than one way, but matter can. Makes total sense. The creator of everything is limited to only behaving in certain ways, but matter is not.

You seem to be making an enormous effort to misunderstand me here; I am not saying that a contradiction, or even a number of contradictions, mean that something does not exist; I am saying that if ALL statements about an entity are contradictory, that entity cannot exist.

That isn't remotely true- I can say that a swan is all black and say the same swan is all white. This doesn't mean that the swan does not exist, it means that I have said something untrue about the swan. The lies that exist about God do not indicate God does not exist, they indicate that certain things said are not true.

 

[Kharakov]

Not necessarily. You assume that there is no consciousness at the smallest level without any evidence. It's more likely that consciousness is a property of everything, except laws and patterns followed.

It's not an assumption; It's an observation.

It's a claim made without evidence, not an observation. You think that there is no consciousness behind the actions at the smallest level without any evidence whatsoever. The fact is, energy is aware of energy, and reacts to energy- energy is conscious. This isn't new-age bullshit, it's a simple fact.

Quantum Field Theory explains everything that happens on scales that affect human beings. There is no room, and no need, for any Gods.

Quantum field theory explains certain regular actions- it does not explain the motivation for regular actions, which is to create regular actions on larger scales.

If you have evidence, present it. If you have no evidence, then you don't know, any more than I do, and all you are doing is disregarding parsimony.

If we throw out parsimony, then literally anything goes; and that which explains anything explains nothing.

Yeah. So a consciousness that attributes non consciousness to other forms of the exact same stuff that it is made of is applying the law of parsimony. Riiigggghhhhtt..

Let's add non-conscious behaviors to the mix. Whenever I calculate 2+2 and get 4, the numbers are doing the regular behaviors, not a consciousness. Ohh, wait a second, even these regular behaviors are done by a consciousness following specific patterns of behavior- so these behaviors do not exist without a consciousness doing them.

Tell you what, I'll just make up a mythological property of stuff and call it "non-conscious" because, ya know, as a consciousness it's totally parsimonious to postulate the existence of other actors that are not conscious.

Don't bring up parsimony when you add the entity of a non-conscious actor, when you haven't ever witnessed one directly. You have absolutely no reason to think that any non-conscious actor exists anywhere. Conscious actors can engage in regular behaviors (1+1=2) but this does not indicate that the behaviors are done by someone who lacks consciousness.

 

[bilby]

No, that is not correct; matter does exist, because there are lots of things we can say about matter that we can test, and that we find to be non-contradictory of the rest of our knowledge.

Yeah. God can't behave in more than one way, but matter can. Makes total sense. The creator of everything is limited to only behaving in certain ways, but matter is not.

No, that's not what I am saying at all.

You seem to be making an enormous effort to misunderstand me here; I am not saying that a contradiction, or even a number of contradictions, mean that something does not exist; I am saying that if ALL statements about an entity are contradictory, that entity cannot exist.

That isn't remotely true- I can say that a swan is all black and say the same swan is all white. This doesn't mean that the swan does not exist, it means that I have said something untrue about the swan. The lies that exist about God do not indicate God does not exist, they indicate that certain things said are not true.

Yes.

And when EVERYTHING that is said is not true, then THAT indicates that God exists.

Whether a given statement is true is determined by observing reality to see if it matches the statement.

So your task (if you wish to assert the existence of a God or Gods) is to make a statement about God that can be checked against reality - ie is falsifiable - and which, when checked against reality, is found not to be false.

So far, you have completely failed to do this; so we remain at the starting line, with the default position that an un-evidenced entity is indistinguishable from a non-existent one.

 

[bilby]

It's not an assumption; It's an observation.

It's a claim made without evidence, not an observation. You think that there is no consciousness behind the actions at the smallest level without any evidence whatsoever.

In the absence of any evidence, the appropriate belief is that there is nothing there.

The fact is, energy is aware of energy, and reacts to energy

True, for a very broad definition of 'aware'

- energy is conscious.

False.

This isn't new-age bullshit, it's a simple fact.

That energy reacts to energy is a simple fact; awareness and consciousness are not in evidence, and smell very strongly of new-age bullshit.

Quantum Field Theory explains everything that happens on scales that affect human beings. There is no room, and no need, for any Gods.

Quantum field theory explains certain regular actions- it does not explain the motivation for regular actions, which is to create regular actions on larger scales.

How do you know this? I don't think that regular actions have motivation - that would imply consciousness, and I see no evidence for it.

If you have evidence, present it. If you have no evidence, then you don't know, any more than I do, and all you are doing is disregarding parsimony.

If we throw out parsimony, then literally anything goes; and that which explains anything explains nothing.

Yeah. So a consciousness that attributes non consciousness to other forms of the exact same stuff that it is made of is applying the law of parsimony. Riiigggghhhhtt..

Consciousness isn't a property of stuff; it is an emergent property of particular patterns of stuff. Brains can be conscious, and rocks cannot; in exactly the same way that cars can be self-propelled, and iron ore cannot; and for the same reasons.

Let's add non-conscious behaviors to the mix. Whenever I calculate 2+2 and get 4, the numbers are doing the regular behaviors, not a consciousness. Ohh, wait a second, even these regular behaviors are done by a consciousness following specific patterns of behavior- so these behaviors do not exist without a consciousness doing them.

There is nothing non-conscious about it; adding 2+2 to get 4 is a conscious activity.

Tell you what, I'll just make up a mythological property of stuff and call it "non-conscious" because, ya know, as a consciousness it's totally parsimonious to postulate the existence of other actors that are not conscious.

Categorisation is either helpful or unhelpful; parsimony doesn't enter into it. 'Conscious' is a category; if we put everything into a single category, than the categorisation is useless.

Don't bring up parsimony when you add the entity of a non-conscious actor, when you haven't ever witnessed one directly. You have absolutely no reason to think that any non-conscious actor exists anywhere. Conscious actors can engage in regular behaviors (1+1=2) but this does not indicate that the behaviors are done by someone who lacks consciousness.

What do you mean by 'actor'? If a rock is eroded by rain and falls from a mountain peak, is it an actor? is the rain an actor? This is something that happens, but it is not directed; it just complies with basic physical law. The rain falls due to physical law; the erosion occurs due to physical law, and the rock falls due to physical law. No consciousness needs to be involved at any stage, and it is pointless and foolish to assume that one is.

 

[Kharakov]

Consciousness isn't a property of stuff; it is an emergent property of particular patterns of stuff. Brains can be conscious, and rocks cannot; in exactly the same way that cars can be self-propelled, and iron ore cannot; and for the same reasons.

The rocks are comprised of particles behaving in certain ways. It doesn't mean that the particles are non-conscious.

The rain falls due to physical law; the erosion occurs due to physical law, and the rock falls due to physical law. No consciousness needs to be involved at any stage, and it is pointless and foolish to assume that one is.

Sure... riiiigggghhhttt.

A bunch of beings acting as a rock are not going to have the same effect as a bunch of beings acting as a brain. Doesn't mean that any of the actors involved are non-conscious.

Parsimony requires that you don't make up new types of actors- so all actors must be conscious, since the only actor you have ever directly witnessed first hand (you) is conscious. So anything that acts is conscious, unless you propose another type of actor without any evidence that non-conscious actors exist.

Regular behaviors do not indicate non-consciousness- they indicate regularity of behavior (which, in a conscious being, is generally an indication of discipline or preference).

 

[Kharakov]

So your task (if you wish to assert the existence of a God or Gods) is to make a statement about God that can be checked against reality - ie is falsifiable - and which, when checked against reality, is found not to be false.

So far, you have completely failed to do this; so we remain at the starting line, with the default position that an un-evidenced entity is indistinguishable from a non-existent one.

That's not true at all. I've already said that God is obviously not tri-omni. I've said that God directs events although this might not be exactly true- if God truly knows all paths through the multiverse, perhaps God selects individual paths for us. If this is the case, maybe on my path through the multiverse, your path doesn't have multiple intersections of events, which is why you don't have the same type of experience that I do.

 

[bilby]

The rocks are comprised of particles behaving in certain ways. It doesn't mean that the particles are non-conscious.

The rain falls due to physical law; the erosion occurs due to physical law, and the rock falls due to physical law. No consciousness needs to be involved at any stage, and it is pointless and foolish to assume that one is.

Sure... riiiigggghhhttt.

A bunch of beings acting as a rock are not going to have the same effect as a bunch of beings acting as a brain. Doesn't mean that any of the actors involved are non-conscious.

Parsimony requires that you don't make up new types of actors- so all actors must be conscious, since the only actor you have ever directly witnessed first hand (you) is conscious. So anything that acts is conscious, unless you propose another type of actor without any evidence that non-conscious actors exist.

Regular behaviors do not indicate non-consciousness- they indicate regularity of behavior (which, in a conscious being, is generally an indication of discipline or preference).

Don't be silly. Parsimony requires that you do not assume characteristics that are not needed for a system to behave as observed. Consciousness is a characteristic displayed by a small subset of all entities - all of which are living things. Only conscious entities are reasonably described as 'actors'.

Categories that contain all things are useless; if all things are conscious, consciousness is meaningless; if all things are actors, then 'actor' is meaningless.

Let us accept for the sake of argument that you are correct; what does that achieve? How are we better able to understand the world by eliminating the usefulness of a handful of descriptors? Apart from that, what else changes, if we accept your assertion that "all actors must be conscious"? If it changes anything, then it is worthy of debate; If it changes nothing, then it is just new-age woo.

Where is the evidence that rocks need to be treated, observed, handled, or related to differently due to consciousness on their part than would be the case if they were non-conscious? If stuff that obeys simple mechanical rules in an invariable way are conscious, then we will need a new word to describe the characteristic of things that behave with purpose such that they are not predictable by physical laws alone - if we wish to discuss such entities as a group.

Unless you have evidence of consciousness for inanimate objects, all you are doing is rendering bits of the English language useless, to no perceivable end.

 

[bilby]

So your task (if you wish to assert the existence of a God or Gods) is to make a statement about God that can be checked against reality - ie is falsifiable - and which, when checked against reality, is found not to be false.

So far, you have completely failed to do this; so we remain at the starting line, with the default position that an un-evidenced entity is indistinguishable from a non-existent one.

That's not true at all. I've already said that God is obviously not tri-omni. I've said that God directs events although this might not be exactly true- if God truly knows all paths through the multiverse, perhaps God selects individual paths for us.

So in summary, you don't know, but you are expecting me to agree with your ignorance-based guess?

If this is the case, maybe on my path through the multiverse, your path doesn't have multiple intersections of events, which is why you don't have the same type of experience that I do.

Or maybe you are projecting your vague guesses about reality as though they were fundamental truths.

You admit to not knowing; but rather than try to find out (or simply accept that you don't know) you guess what the answer is, and then defend your baseless guess as though it was a profound truth.

That's pretty silly. It would be silly if we lived at a time when little was known about how the universe works; it is a lot sillier when the evidence and the tools to find out a lot more are available to us right now.

 

[Kharakov]

Parsimony requires that you do not assume characteristics that are not needed for a system to behave as observed.

Exactly. It is not necessary to attribute non-consciousness to the actors in the system, so the assumption of non-consciousness needs to be proven.

Consciousness is a characteristic displayed by a small subset of all entities - all of which are living things. Only conscious entities are reasonably described as 'actors'.

Ok, right there you are assuming that subatomic particles, and spacetime itself, lack consciousness, without any evidence.

If the behaviors of subatomic particles do not create another consciousness (like ours) this does not mean that they are not conscious. It just indicates that their behaviors do not always support subordinate consciousnesses.

Categories that contain all things are useless; if all things are conscious, consciousness is meaningless; if all things are actors, then 'actor' is meaningless.

Yeah. A rock is a bunch of conscious beings acting in unison. This doesn't mean the rock is conscious. There are many things that are not conscious- however there is nothing that causes without being conscious. The rock, itself, is not the cause. The cause is the conscious beings acting as a rock.

Really, you need to show that these actors (subatomic level, which do act, and cause many things- atoms are always doing stuff) do not have consciousness if you are going to claim that something can act without consciousness.

Keep in mind that regular action in a conscious being indicates discipline and/or preference, it does not indicate that a being is not conscious.

 

[bilby]

Exactly. It is not necessary to attribute non-consciousness to the actors in the system, so the assumption of non-consciousness needs to be proven.

Consciousness is a characteristic displayed by a small subset of all entities - all of which are living things. Only conscious entities are reasonably described as 'actors'.

Ok, right there you are assuming that subatomic particles, and spacetime itself, lack consciousness, without any evidence.

If the behaviors of subatomic particles do not create another consciousness (like ours) this does not mean that they are not conscious. It just indicates that their behaviors do not always support subordinate consciousnesses.

Categories that contain all things are useless; if all things are conscious, consciousness is meaningless; if all things are actors, then 'actor' is meaningless.

Yeah. A rock is a bunch of conscious beings acting in unison. This doesn't mean the rock is conscious. There are many things that are not conscious- however there is nothing that causes without being conscious. The rock, itself, is not the cause. The cause is the conscious beings acting as a rock.

Really, you need to show that these actors (subatomic level, which do act, and cause many things- atoms are always doing stuff) do not have consciousness if you are going to claim that something can act without consciousness.

Keep in mind that regular action in a conscious being indicates discipline and/or preference, it does not indicate that a being is not conscious.

So how have you reached the conclusion that a rock is not conscious? Because I am using the exact same reasoning for the rock and for the atoms that comprise the rock, and I am concluding that neither is conscious. But you are obviously using some different reasoning, or different observations, because you are reaching different conclusions.

What evidence do you have that atoms are not like rocks, in terms of the two entities possession (or otherwise) of consciousness?

 

[Kharakov]

That's not true at all. I've already said that God is obviously not tri-omni. I've said that God directs events although this might not be exactly true- if God truly knows all paths through the multiverse, perhaps God selects individual paths for us.

So in summary, you don't know, but you are expecting me to agree with your ignorance-based guess?

I don't know what method God uses to accomplish stuff. This doesn't mean that God is not doing it.

You admit to not knowing; but rather than try to find out (or simply accept that you don't know) you guess what the answer is, and then defend your baseless guess as though it was a profound truth.

Ohh, I've told people many times that it is possible that it's other beings interacting with me. It just doesn't seem likely that other beings would do so.

It would be silly if we lived at a time when little was known about how the universe works; it is a lot sillier when the evidence and the tools to find out a lot more are available to us right now.

Well, whatever it is it is aware of various things I am doing and thinking. Could be other beings, but why, pray tell, would they?

It would require a level of technological sophistication that I am not aware of, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I mean, it has certainly presented itself as in control of many things in reality. Sooo....

 

[Kharakov]

So how have you reached the conclusion that a rock is not conscious?

I never said a rock was conscious. I said actors are conscious. The rock isn't being a rock- the particles are acting as a rock.

What evidence do you have that atoms are not like rocks, in terms of the two entities possession (or otherwise) of consciousness?

Well, subatomic particles act as different things. So, since they act, and the only first hand experience you have of anything acting is of your consciousness, you need to show that they are acting as stuff without consciousness.

You are making claims about stuff without any evidence.

The thing is, energy reacts to energy, and everything is energy in some form or another. You need to show that energy is not conscious, since the form that is your consciousness is the only form of energy that you have ever directly perceived, and it is in the form of consciousness now.

 

[bilby]

I never said a rock was conscious.

I know. And I am asking why not.

I said actors are conscious. The rock isn't being a rock- the particles are acting as a rock.

What evidence do you have that atoms are not like rocks, in terms of the two entities possession (or otherwise) of consciousness?

Well, subatomic particles act as different things. So, since they act, and the only first hand experience you have of anything acting is of your consciousness, you need to show that they are acting as stuff without consciousness.

You are making claims about stuff without any evidence.

The thing is, energy reacts to energy, and everything is energy in some form or another. You need to show that energy is not conscious, since the form that is your consciousness is the only form of energy that you have ever directly perceived, and it is in the form of consciousness now.

Subatomic particles don't 'act as different things'; they are what they are, just as rocks are what they are.

I don't have to show that energy is not conscious; You are asserting that it is, and the burden of proof lies with you. You have so far provided no evidence at all to support your assertion.