g?d evolves!

[seattlegal]

Doesn't evolve mean to unfold, or to unroll?

[_Z_]

dauer

You said it doesn’t depend on our definitions and then gave two possible definitions. You just refuted yourself.

no i meant that reality remains so regardless of our definitions. it is not subjective only our definitions of it are. i have to say what i mean but that isnt itself a declaration of statement, itn is pointing to what is to be understood.

I think there are more possibilities than two which could have an effect on whether or not G!d changes.

indeed; if he thinks or acts in anyway then he changes.

if your premise is that G!d is identical with the world and the world itself changes then you’ve already answered your question.

is identical with eternity and within that the world. ...and yes i answered my own question in that sense i.e. i am right, but the idea is to provoke arguments against that idea as i may be wrong or what is meant may be developed.

do you mean that a universal intelligence is G!d or that an intelligent universe is G!d?

good point! everything is 'it' and the it that is it. is our body us? god is the mind that transcends its form as are we. just as our brains are intelligent but we are not our brain, god is the the being and entity where existence is his brain and body. contrarily we are our bodies and brains and god is his mind and body.

such a dichotomy arises as a construct of our terms we place on things, what we should look at is the naked truth, that there is a universe and it has intellect by way of its mechanisms [connections and communications etc]. the term god is but a distraction. we can then go on to ask [as i posited in the bottom half of the OP], if the intillect goes beyond the univese in its present incanation. if it relative to the universe as its direct intellect, and reality goes beyond this universe, then god must also transcend the universe.
‘universal’ is greater than ‘universe’!

seattlegal

Doesn’t evolve mean to unfold, or to unroll?

or to reveal! for me it just means; to change to a more advanced state relative to an environment. however an aware entity with infinite potential and universal intelligence, would be more advanced than anything it can arrive at in the limited world.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by _Z_

it is! from inside your innermost self to the world around you! nature is its body ~ as i see it. causation is a part of its workings, it is along with potentiality the connections between events, and hence part of the intelligent framework. we can see things as physics or we can see things as communications between things.

Even if the Universe, or multiverse for that matter, is a living sentient creature it strikes me as being irrelevant to us. From all the available evidence it does not interfere with us as a species let alone as individuals. I used the analogy elsewhere of bacteria in the gut. We may even be a requirement of something huge we cannot ever hope to understand, but to us, here, now, it is utterly irrelevant. I am suffering CR fatigue I think, I am becoming increasingly irritated by nonsense being passed as wisdom. And it is getting so bad even the word "God" has begun to annoy me. So do not think I do not see what you were saying, I did, it's just that I personally seem to be getting tired of trying to say the same old stuff and listening to others do the same. Its like, where is the point?

i wonder the same mate, like we could find all the answers while the world is ending and hence they make no difference. or did you mean something else?

Not ending, not yet, but being made miserable for 100s of millions of real people. I think we tend to overlook or somehow diminish the true scale of suffering, not just to humanity but to the natural world aswell. Sometimes I truly feel that religion is nothing but a sad veil of self-imposed ignorance that people use to medicate themselves from facing the cowardice their impotent lives. Rather than think and act on real issues, pursue truth and progress, we debate crap. Makes us feel all very smart and knowledgeable and like we really care, but we dont. We just say the same thing over and over like some loop tape. Its like a friggen nightmare.

hmm there are very few people who will go with you to find answers! we must all remember that we may not be entirely correct, yet i understand what you are saying about people not being willing to recognise truth when it is put in front of the. i hope i have not appeared so as i do listen and have learned much from what you say.

Well if you have learned anything from me it is by default not by purpose. For in the end I am the same as the rest of us here. I come, say what I have to say based on that which I have "selected" as truth. But I am doing next to nothing. I am not educated, or smart or anything, but I do know that every day that passes 1000s of people die needlessly while I come here and spraff my speil. And its all pointless, helps no-one, not one bit. But what makes me angry these days is that religion is seen as something good when it patently is not. Rather it is a cancer that afflicts man with terrible injustice and suffering, ignorance and lies. And why? Well increasingly I think it is because people are cowards. Real deep yellow cowards that are afraid to face the horrible truths of the world around them and their own existential selfishness. So they take crap from millenia ago, 2nd hand 3rd rate tales and debate them endlessly. Interpret, reinterpret, swallow, regurgitate and swallow again a bunch on nonsense that has already been established as nonsense by even their own eminent scholars. Debating the minutiae of context of a lie is crass. But for most its better than facing the truth they are doing bugger all to help even their own children. It is cowardice. And I, being here, am as guilty of it as anyone. I'm tired of that. I want to do something that really is not ignoring my deep seated drive to be a truly good and moral man. I cannot see that wasting 5 minutes on discussing religion aids one bit in that regard. This place is a hamsters wheel and its time I jumped off. I do so not with contempt for the people I have met and grown fond of here, whos opinions are almost invariably noble, but because it is all wasted on me. Its not where I am at. And I am tired of listening to it. I came here almost 5 years ago looking for some community that I could develop my knowledge of and spiritual inclinations toward the beauty I see in the world around me. But I am failing to find it here, quite the reverse, if it was not for reading here I would not be the atheist I now call myself. So this place has changed me, it has opened my eyes to the truth, even if it is not the truth one might expect to gain here.

In October I will be leaving the UK for an extended trip, or maybe even permanent move, to southern India. Until then I may well continue to pop in here but I am going to try and avoid doing so, and when I do stay off the religious discussion. It will not be easy as its a fire in my belly to say what I have to say. But hopefully I can muster the reserves of judgement that will be required.

Regards to all


tao

[dauer]

Z,

reality may maintain the same regardless of our definitions, but the word G!d is still subject to multiple definitions. It is not possible to discuss the subject of this thread clearly unless we begin with a particular definition.

indeed; if he thinks or acts in anyway then he changes.

or that G!d is separate from the universe and still changes, perhaps without any will at all.

is identical with eternity and within that the world. ...and yes i answered my own question in that sense i.e. i am right, but the idea is to provoke arguments against that idea as i may be wrong or what is meant may be developed.

Well, you are right according to your own definition. That's why I said defining G!d is necessary. According to other people's definitions you are wrong and according to other definitions you are right but for different reasons. If you're going with your definition with G!d then you're right and I don't see much room for discussion. If you're going with a different definition then there may be more room for discussion. I think, however, that once G!d is defined clearly enough there isn't going to be a lot of room to discuss whether or not G!d evolves.

good point! everything is 'it' and the it that is it. is our body us? god is the mind that transcends its form as are we. just as our brains are intelligent but we are not our brain, god is the the being and entity where existence is his brain and body. contrarily we are our bodies and brains and god is his mind and body.

I do not share your views of G!d and was not expanding upon them. I was seeking clarification about whether you mean a universal intelligence or an intelligent universe. By most people's definition I am an agnostic. However, I am glad you were able to draw something of value to you from what I said.

-- Dauer

[_Z_]

tao

Even if the Universe, or multiverse for that matter, is a living sentient creature it strikes me as being irrelevant to us. From all the available evidence it does not interfere with us as a species let alone as individuals.

the evidence is in the engineered universe which the tree of evolution is of.
it isnt irrelevant if it is interactive, we have but to listen to it telling us we need to change.

i hate to think i am saying all the same old stuff, i thought at least some of it was new or at least new perspectives. bacteria in the gut are part of a greater entity, as are we. but we are more relevant as we make a far greater utility of mind, which in turn makes for more interaction within the whole. i would go so far as to say that humanity is a goal, the human genome is 35% the same as a dafodil but how does evolution know that it can one day be human? the ingineering had to be there in some way to begin with all the way down the line to the very beginning of existence.

Rather than think and act on real issues, pursue truth and progress, we debate crap

i agree we should act on real issues, but we should also understand reality. never before in history have we been in such a good position to understand reality without blinkers on. religion may be out of date but it points to future understandings. when this phaze of human evolution is over your argument will be null and void ~ as we could go back to debating ‘crap’ without the risk of the world being destroyed around us.

what makes me angry these days is that religion is seen as something good when it patently is not

.

well i don’t like religion but it is born out of people wanting to do good and to know what that is. doing right isn’t written in stone, we have to learn it and re-learn it as things change. why does it matter if the world ends and people suffer if we don’t think that is wrong? humanity will grow up because of this phaze.

I came here almost 5 years ago looking for some community that I could develop my knowledge of and spiritual inclinations toward the beauty I see in the world around me. But I am failing to find it here, quite the reverse,

the real world is not always nice and many religious people are middle class and from rich countries with few real problems. there is beauty though and i think we don’t have to go far to find it. our minds are wonders of existence that have taken 16 billion years to be arrived at ~ why not use them in every field!

good luck on your move!

dauer

reality may maintain the same regardless of our definitions, but the word G!d is still subject to multiple definitions. It is not possible to discuss the subject of this thread clearly unless we begin with a particular definition.

my definition then is of a definitionless god. if anyone would care to give us a definition we would soon break it down to either an intelligence of existence or external to it. we just don’t have any evidence of an external god that has an effect, hence i am looking for an internal god of which the effect is self evident ~ perhaps.

I think, however, that once G!d is defined clearly enough there isn’t going to be a lot of room to discuss whether or not G!d evolves.

so god evolves if defined but if not defined then he doesn’t? there appears to be rakes of room for discussion.

I was seeking clarification about whether you mean a universal intelligence or an intelligent universe.

they are both the same thing; how can an intelligent universe not have universal intelligence, and how can universal intelligence not belong to the universe [even if it is also more than that]?

i am interested in what your views of god are?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Alex P

In mans mind, it seems god evolves...

yuppers...G!d is. Man's perception of G!d evolves. And I think as Dauer indicates, as does man's definitions.

[_Z_]

wil

perhaps we are both right, god both evlolves and does not evolve, just as we change yet remain us.

[dauer]

Z,

my definition then is of a definitionless god. if anyone would care to give us a definition we would soon break it down to either an intelligence of existence or external to it. we just don’t have any evidence of an external god that has an effect, hence i am looking for an internal god of which the effect is self evident ~ perhaps.

If you're working with a definitionless G!d then you can't assert that G!d has intelligence. You can't assert that everything is a part of G!d or that G!d is everything. That is all adding definition. Saying that G!d is internal is also adding definition to G!d. To refuse to define is one thing, but if you're refusing to define G!d then how can you discuss whether or not G!d evolves?

so god evolves if defined but if not defined then he doesn’t? there appears to be rakes of room for discussion.

I meant that whether or not G!d evolves is will probably be apparent with a given definition. For example, if everything is a part of G!d then there's change going on.

they are both the same thing; how can an intelligent universe not have universal intelligence, and how can universal intelligence not belong to the universe [even if it is also more than that]?

Your own explanation shows that they are different.

If an intelligent universe has universal intelligence then it is not equal to universal intelligence. It has it. The second part of your statement is saying the same thing in reverse order.

It is in the same way that you can say "my feelings" without saying that you and your feelings are the same. If G!d is universal intelligence then G!d is the intelligence of the universe, not the universe itself. That intelligence may itself be transcendent of the universe. If G!d is an intelligent universe, then G!d is the intelligence and a universe that the intelligence is enmeshed in. That is at least according to the definitions I gave for those terms.

i am interested in what your views of god are?

I wouldn't say these are my views of G!d. I don't know what G!d is as most people use the word and if anyone does know I don't think there's any way to objectively verify so. Rather, I would say that I redefine the word G!d in terms of a psychological understanding of spiritual phenomena in such a way that I can still relate to supernaturalists who use the term.

My redefinition is twofold. Firstly, G!d is everything. This is not to say what everything is. This is not to assign sentience to everything. This is not to assign some special quality to everything. It is a redefinition. If the material is all there is, the material is G!d. If there is something more, that is G!d too. I attach no additional attributes to this part of my definition.

The second part of my definition has to do with the filters we use to interface with the world, our reality maps and the way this colors our lives. This addresses the mythical and mystical elements of religion, the cosmologies and philosophies. On this level I see G!d as something co-created by our projection onto objective reality, whatever that is. In that way I can have a G!d-interface that is a particular archetypal myth or even something much more vague and that interface is subjective to me describing only the way I am experiencing reality in that moment.

-- Dauer

[wil]

G!d doesn't have intelligence G!d is intelligence

G!d doesn't love, G!d is love.

G!d is all there is.

How does that change?

[dauer]

All there is changes over time. What type of change are you looking for?

[wil]

Originally Posted by dauer

All there is changes over time. What type of change are you looking for?

All there is is always all there is, is it not?

As for G!d changing I hear it all the time, mostly from Christians who site differences from the OT G!d to the NT G!d. I think it is marketing hype.

Tis all opinion or conjecture anyway is it not. Now I don't mind discussing but thinking we will get to the bottom of it is not in my paradigm. Prophet v. Prophet, insight v. insight, I think v. you think, I understand v. you understand...lets quote old masters, or enjoy discussing but we'll finish it on the other side, or maybe not.

[_Z_]

dauer

if you’re refusing to define G!d then how can you discuss whether or not G!d evolves?

hmm, well 'definitionless' like 'timelessness' doesn’t mean ‘having no time’, it is usually taken to mean all or beyond any aspect of time. time can also have description whist being descriptionless. god has description in any shape he takes - so to say, if ‘he’ creates then in that he is a creator, if ‘she’ nurtures then she is an earth mother kind of deity, if god has intelligence within existence that he is the intelligence of the universe.

I meant that whether or not G!d evolves is will probably be apparent with a given definition. For example, if everything is a part of G!d then there’s change going on.

perhaps we may compromise by saying that god is both the unchanging and the transient, inner and outer. on the surface he evolves yet at the same time nothing changes about who god is.

Your own explanation shows that they are different.

If an intelligent universe has universal intelligence then it is not equal to universal intelligence. It has it.

given that a universal intelligence could be more than an intelligent universe yes.

ok then let us clarify it as universal intelligence. the problem is that the universe is greater than our present description ‘the universe’ as if it is a single incarnation separate from anything else. the universe should mean all of reality [whatever that may be] ie. all incarnations of it, the result of those and any other universes that may exist. in this case the universe and universal intelligence are the same thing.

It is in the same way that you can say "my feelings" without saying that you and your feelings are the same.

i may say it and think it, but my feelings are not something other than i. ..but i get the picture. let us say then that my definition of god is both kinds of universal intelligence.

My redefinition is twofold. Firstly, G!d is everything. This is not to say what everything is. This is not to assign sentience to everything. This is not to assign some special quality to everything. It is a redefinition. If the material is all there is, the material is G!d. If there is something more, that is G!d too.

sounds the same as mine.

In that way I can have a G!d-interface that is a particular archetypal myth or even something much more vague and that interface is subjective to me describing only the way I am experiencing reality in that moment.

indeed. should we not try to see god as beyond our subjective views e.g. if we see truth as reality as an entity, that is also descriptionless, thence that same truth which permeates everything is god. the intelligence belongs to the metaphor and the transience, our descriptions [all of science and philosophy] can only be of that fractional world.

wil

my word we will be here all day if we try to define love, lols. as for intelligence as i said above, wouldnt that be a secondary nature of god?
if god is all there is, would that be like renaming reality as god, there is then nothing left that we cannot attribute to him. however is reality god or does god belong to reality. can we say god is a tree or a brick and that those are parts of god?

i wonder if we should remove the notion of god and replace it with reality then say that that is the living truth and intelligence, but there is no other, no 'god'. it seams to confuse things once we use the term.

[wil]

Originally Posted by _Z_

wil

my word we will be here all day if we try to define love, lols. as for intelligence as i said above, wouldnt that be a secondary nature of god?
if god is all there is, would that be like renaming reality as god, there is then nothing left that we cannot attribute to him. however is reality god or does god belong to reality. can we say god is a tree or a brick and that those are parts of god?

i wonder if we should remove the notion of god and replace it with reality then say that that is the living truth and intelligence, but there is no other, no 'god'. it seams to confuse things once we use the term.

What is the line... G!d is not in things like a raisin is in a bun. The enormity and simplicity that is G!d is what is the tree, what is the brick, what is you and is me. It is the ocean wave, can you take the wave out of the ocean or the ocean out of the wave? Without G!d there is nothing, with G!d there is everything. That is why Dauer was working on definitions, that is why we all need definitions to communicate. If you define G!d anthropomorphically, while I don't see G!d that way, I can at least now have a discussion. If you veiw G!d as seperate, again we have a basis for discussion. G!d is not reality, reality is what we perceive it to be, from our perspective. From our perspective the our planet is enormous, but it has gotten smaller in regards to how long it takes one to circumnavigate it or how long information takes to get from one side to the other...a perspective of time and technology, but from the other side of the galaxy we are blip, if one has the capababilty to even notice us. But then how can things be so important here, like gas prices, or war, or famine, or my final exam grade...in their perspective we as individuals don't exist and our problems...poof.

[_Z_]

in a universal entity [that i think reality must be] we are both nothing and a part of everything, insignificant and the ultimate in significance.

perhaps we can see life as at once an ocean to which humans make great utility of mind [where mind is the ocean], and also as like biology; you get single celled animals that join together then together they equal one entity ~ like we are a collective of this and are only one being. what is the collective of all beings in all existent universes, do the individual cells in our bodies also think they are the whole being of their entity?

[wil]

Originally Posted by _Z_

what is the collective of all beings in all existent universes, do the individual cells in our bodies also think they are the whole being of their entity?

Do we? When we pinch our left arm with our right fingers do the right fingernails know they are hurting the entity they are part of? We do, we the higher entity.

But do we know that when we are hurting each other we are hurting ourcellves?