DescentBB

The word and concept of God can take many forms. Some argue that a God is a literary personification of an unknowable thing. Further, some would argue that a God is in fact not sentient*, utterly incapable of thought, acting as a force of the universe like onto gravity.

Do you buy this as a possibility?

*I deliberately avoid the word alive here, too many debatable fine points and implications

I'll go with the Buddhist thing. There is no God per se. What some would call God is a state of being that cannot be described in any language from this limited material world.

Yes, I view God as an omniscient, fully sentient being.

If God is not sentient, God is an automaton... which seems to imply God is really not God, but rather product of the universe, and thus utterly superfluous...

Excuse me if that makes no sense...

Sentience: consciousness. The question then becomes:

Is God aware?


If yes, then His creations are conscious acts. If no, then His creations are unconscious, unplanned, uncoordinated acts.

If no, then we as human beings possess a capability that God does not: for we are sentient. If yes, then God's experience would include and most likely surpass ours, in all its dimensions.

If yes, then God would be capable of relating to us as peers, and it would be possible to enter into some form of relationship with Him. If no, then He would not, could not be aware of us, care for us, relate to us, nor even recognize us.

If no, then God might be better labeled as a force of nature, and He may not be a god at all. If yes, then God must by definition embody all awareness and all consciousness, for if there is any knowledge or awareness that escapes Him, then He would not have domain in that area, and He may not be a god at all, but merely a "superior" being playing at god.

If yes, then consciousness itself would be the mark of divinity, and we would all be its children. If no, then consciousness and free will must be illusory, for they have arisen out of intersecting forces of nature, not by design but by confluence, programmed by the process of their origin and evolution to perform as any other mechanism: cause leading to effect. (The sentient way is conscious creation: intention to arrive at a desired effect leading to the genesis of the cause.)


This is an easy question. The only answers are yes and no. To pretend there might be a "yes, but we can't understand it" option is to fail to understand the nature of sentience itself.


- Sirian

Of course he is aware ... He watches my life and he communicates with me quite often for the purpose of drawing me nearer to him. God is ALIVE and WELL on this earth. I realize that many people do not see this and for that I am sad.

In my considered opinion, all the forces at work in the universe appear to behave in a consistent and predictable fashion. I see no evidence to suggest that they are in any way governed by an intelligence of any sort. Of course, I cannot prove that. Nor can I prove that there is no long-necked creature hiding in Loch Ness, or that no extraterrestrial ship crashed in Roswell. However, as I am not inclined to believe something is so simply because I cannot prove that it isn't, I'm going to answer the poll: "No".

edit: er.. I wonder if I should find a better analogy. Someone is probably going to take offence to the implication that believing in God is analogous to believing in the Loch Ness Monster. That is an oversimplification. Please, don't read too much into my analogies.

While I take no exception to the Loch Ness analogy, I DO take exception to your belief that the organization of the universe does not reflect intelligent design.

In fact, I find the statement somewhat contradictory, since you both state that the universe seems to be bound in a consistent and predictable fashion and that there's no evidence to suggest it took intelligence to make it that way!

Perhaps there is a word missing? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said.

I don't believe you have misinterpreted what I said. I don't see where it requires an intelligence to have "designed" the universe.

In fact, I believe that it is the idea of an intelligent design that is contradictory. If you assume that an intelligence was required to create the universe we see today, then where did that intelligence come from? What forces gave rise to that intelligence? If that intelligence simply "always existed", then why could not the natural forces of the universe simply have "always existed"?

In the case of a universe without an intelligent creator, only things that physics will support can exist at all, as anything that can't support itself fails and thus does not exist.

This arguement can be interpreted two ways.

The way that demands an intelligent creator IMHO fails in the face of probability. Things exist as something was bound to work within pure physics, our universe happens to be a possibility.

This specific arguement has always seemed weak to me.



Sirian:
In some eastern mythology, chi/life force is the all-powerful, the absolute, the source, but is not in fact intelligent at all.

Sirian you have a very limited definition of God in mind.
Our sentience could be anything from a byproduct of chemical reactions to a portion of a much larger intelegence trapped in a physical vessel. Imagine an infinitely powerful computer program that is limited by the hardware it is installed in. There are limitless possible explainations for our existence, they don't even have to make sense to us as we may be accidents of an experiment gone wrong. We have no way of telling.
Yes or no or pick your colour of grey.

scottris wrote:I don't believe you have misinterpreted what I said. I don't see where it requires an intelligence to have "designed" the universe.

There universe is not chaotic; it is sustained by physical laws that govern just about everything. You cannot have order in nature by chance, Mindless chance produces chaos. Only an intelligence can eliminate chaos. The structure of the universe, everything from galaxies to the detailed workings of the smallest living cell, exist and function not by chance, but by intelligent design. All our present day technology can not even come close to reproducing a self-replicating machine as complex as a living cell, and yet you imply that we exist by chance. That's nonsense.

. . . then where did that intelligence come from? What forces gave rise to that intelligence? If that intelligence simply "always existed", then why could not the natural forces of the universe simply have "always existed?

The "intelligence" we often refer to as GOD, exists outside our universe - he must if he created it. Being outside of our universe also means he is not restricted by the physical laws that govern it's existence. Therefore he is not effected by time, he is ageless. He created time along with everything else in this universe, so from our standpoint, God has always been. Where did he come from? Only God knows.

I think of it this way: if you see a finely constructed house, you KNOW there was someone who designed and built it. You will never assume that there was not intelligence behind its creation. How can we assume that there is LESS intelligence behind something infinitely more complex, precise and balanced as our planet Earth?

In fact, show me one thing you own that was not designed by someone.

I see it in every mirror.

Earth? Earth is nothing. It's not even a speck. It's not even a speck to a speck. It's smaller than a speck's speck's bellybutton lint. And that's over-exaggerating it's size.

shoku, you obviously are faithful to a god concept and that's fine, but when you start telling people you're right, they're wrong, and you offer no evidence, you lose credibility.

You look at the universe and see order. I look at the universe and see chaos. You see systems that would collapse without support. I see space/time that is not in acceleration (physics definition, a changing rate of change) and infer no force is being exerted. Maybe one of us is right and the other is not, but we are both making assumptions, don't forget that.

Phoenix Red wrote:shoku, you obviously are faithful to a god concept and that's fine, but when you start telling people you're right, they're wrong, and you offer no evidence, you lose credibility..

The physical laws are evidence. Our existence is evidence as per my statement above about the complexity of living cells, which are more advanced construction-wise than any of our present technology - whould you say man's technology happened by chance?. . . . but that's another discussion . . . the nature of God is evident in the things that exist, the predictability of physical laws, and the complexity, and order that exists in all physical objects, both animate and inanimate.

You look at the universe and see order. I look at the universe and see chaos. You see systems that would collapse without support. I see space/time that is not in acceleration (physics definition, a changing rate of change) and infer no force is being exerted. Maybe one of us is right and the other is not, but we are both making assumptions, don't forget that

Yes, we all make assumptions. My assumptions are based on what I observe. The universe is not chaotic; forces exist (although we may not totally understand how they work) that keep things in order.
Without these forces planets would not orbit suns, Suns would not even exist, and we would not be here to have this discussion.

Jagger wrote:I think of it this way: if you see a finely constructed house, you KNOW there was someone who designed and built it. You will never assume that there was not intelligence behind its creation. How can we assume that there is LESS intelligence behind something infinitely more complex, precise and balanced as our planet Earth?

In fact, show me one thing you own that was not designed by someone.

I've never heard it put that way. Nice point.

Just because humans make things doesn't mean that all things which exist must have been "made" in a similar fashion.

Given the extreme differences between the processes by which man-made and natural objects are formed, comparisons between the "complexity" of what man has created and that which exists in nature are irrelevant. Proverbial apples to oranges. No, actually more like comparing apples to asteroids. I could point out that cells have had many millions of years to evolve, where humans have been constructing things for but a tiny fraction of that time, but that really doesn't make the comparison any more relevant.

Shoku wrote:You cannot have order in nature by chance, Mindless chance produces chaos. Only an intelligence can eliminate chaos.

Whoa, wild assumptions detected! I mean, no offense intended, but I don't see this as a forgone conclusion and I doubt if you can find proof to back that up.

Shoku wrote:Being outside of our universe also means he is not restricted by the physical laws that govern it's existence. Therefore he is not effected by time, he is ageless.

No offense, but I believe your logic is flawed. You say the forces of the universe and the physical laws that govern them must have been created by God because they are too complex and well ordered to exist by "chance"? Well, intelligence also requires a rather high degree of complexity and order. If God is an intelligence or intelligent being, then by your logic God cannot exist by chance.

If an intelligence with such an order of complexity as would be required for God could have simply "always existed", then I submit that it is equally possible that the natural forces and physical laws of the universe could also have simply "always existed".

Shoku wrote:My assumptions are based on what I observe. The universe is not chaotic; forces exist (although we may not totally understand how they work) that keep things in order.

Big mistake. Forces exist that keep things in acceleration, not in order. They create chaos unless balanced (see atomic bomb) (edit: you will cite this as a thing of man, so see supernovas).

The reason the universe doesn't desintigrate is symmetry. Tension between forces.

You can argue that God must have made them because they work like this until you'r blue in the face. In my mind, they work like this by chance, if they worked another way, there would be a different tension and a different universe, not nothing.

In support of Phoenix Red's point, there are some very interesting sci-fi novels that examine the question of what a universe might look like if it ran on different physics.

If gravity were slightly stronger or slightly weaker...

If radiation decay rates were different because of changes in nuclear forces...

These are good books to seek out. They prompt a lot of thinking. No matter which side of the "god" issue you come down on, an examination of how things might be different under different rules can enlighten why things work the way they do under THESE rules.


- Sirian

You might also try "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. Not the world's easiest read for a very short book but he does give you the theory of how the physics of our universe were determined in the micro seconds after the big bang.
Interestingly Mr. Hawking counts himself as a Christian.