g?d evolves!

[_Z_]

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 ourselves?

very good point wil. we are far more intelligent and perceptive, but i think your point still holds true.

[dauer]

wil,

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

It depends on how far away you view it from. If you get up close you see a lot of change happening. If you zoom away so you can't make out the details then there's not so much change. That is as a matter of perspective though. If both perspectives are taken into account, there is change.

Yeah I'm not really interested in finding answers either. I was just interested in clarifying what Z was saying.

Z,

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.

If you're saying G!d creates, you're giving definition. You're assigning that role. The same is true for the others. I just think it's a bit of a dodge to say that G!d is definitionless and then define G!d's role. This thread deals with defining something about G!d. It reminds me of the Jewish dodge where we say, "Oh we can't talk about G!d but we can talk about the ways in which G!d relates to the world." If you're talking about the ways G!d relates with the world then, before you say anything else, you're already giving some definition.

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.

Again, I don't share your view of G!d. I'm just asking questions to get more views out of you.

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.

I don't think we should. I see all of reality as colored by our own subjectivity. I don't see value in discussing an absolute Truth because all of our experiences of the world are at least partially subjective. Even the totality of human experience is still just a human perspective, the perspective of finite beings who engage with reality in terms of things like sight and sound and smell. I see even less value in identifying that absolute with G!d as G!d may only be a psychological construct with no existence outside of our own human perceptions, another mechanism designed to help us cope with the harshness of the world around us. Our very logic is rooted in the human experience of the world. I think it is better to be happy with one's own subjective experience of reality than to chase after absolutes.

At the same time, I think it is possible to discuss what is more true. However, more true is only an issue of likelihood and doesn't say what is actually the way things are.

[_Z_]

dauer

"Oh we can’t talk about G!d but we can talk about the ways in which G!d relates to the world." If you’re talking about the ways G!d relates with the world then, before you say anything else, you’re already giving some definition.

.
so god can have definition ~ so what, that doesn’t mean he is that definition it just means he can be, like an ocean can have a wave, or like an actor plays a role. are you now saying that6 god is definitionless
.

Again, I don’t share your view of G!d. I’m just asking questions to get more views out of you.

.
yet above you said this...
.

It depends on how far away you view it from. If you get up close you see a lot of change happening. If you zoom away so you can’t make out the details then there’s not so much change. That is as a matter of perspective though. If both perspectives are taken into account, there is change.

.
which would infer at least that you think changes happen to god in some way. hence you agree at least in part.
.

I don’t think we should. I see all of reality as colored by our own subjectivity.

.
in the main yes but not entirely, the brain is an instrument specifically designed to take in data, most of which we don’t even know about. the eye can be deluded e.g. with an optical illusion, this does not mean that all info it gives us is false, it just means that is is a tool with a limited functionality that can be fooled by non ordinary objects like an illusion.
.

I don’t see value in discussing an absolute Truth because all of our experiences of the world are at least partially subjective.

.
may i say that in the main our experience of the world is irrelevant! in that the truth is realisable in a purely intellectual manner. we can work out that meanings are not absolute and that one meaning connects to another, to this we can add that in science it is impossible to observe a particle as an absolute entity. after a long search there is only one reasonable option left; that truth doesn’t have edges, hence is an entity undescribable in the full.
thus i am not chasing after absolutes, quite the opposite.

ok what is more true:
god [by any given definition] changes and evolves with the universe [even if far greater than].
or
god does not change at all? if god doesn’t change at all then...

1. he has no functioning parts.
2. does not think.
3. does not act.

why should we give such an entity the definition of ‘god’, when god is usually a supreme being a creator or some such thing, not an impotent unintelligent no-entity. it would be more true to say that what we described would be an entity incapable of doing anything and that has no defining features. a god that is no-thing.
if we are going to use the term god, then should it not be something, anything? otherwise why use the term at all.

all anyone ever gives are vague descriptions of god, so my OP is based loosely on that, whilst trying to take in as many ideas about it as are currently considered to be so by some people.
any idea of god would fit into that vague idea, unless someone can name me a god that doesnt!

[dauer]

_Z_,

so god can have definition ~ so what, that doesn’t mean he is that definition it just means he can be, like an ocean can have a wave, or like an actor plays a role. are you now saying that6 god is definitionless

if you're saying that G!d can or does take a role, that alone is offering some definition.

which would infer at least that you think changes happen to god in some way. hence you agree at least in part.

I was answering him on his level, based on his definition of G!d. I haven't voiced my own opinion on whether or not G!d changes as I am not one to assume I have defined G!d and can say. I've only encouraged others to expand their own views and played the devil's advocate.

in the main yes but not entirely, the brain is an instrument specifically designed to take in data, most of which we don’t even know about. the eye can be deluded e.g. with an optical illusion, this does not mean that all info it gives us is false, it just means that is is a tool with a limited functionality that can be fooled by non ordinary objects like an illusion.

I didn't say it's all false, however if the brain itself has limited functionality then it cannot be relied upon to tell us when it is functioning and when it is not. To do so would be to submit to circular reasoning.

in that the truth is realisable in a purely intellectual manner

I disagree. I don't think the intellect can be entirely divorced from the human experience it is embedded in and I see the intellect as another human faculty, another faculty of a finite being as are the senses, also limited.

after a long search there is only one reasonable option left

For you that may be the case. For others who have journeyed equally long distances they have found different answers.

ok what is more true:
god [by any given definition] changes and evolves with the universe [even if far greater than].
or
god does not change at all? if god doesn’t change at all then...

Again it goes back to how you define G!d and again that would be your definition, not mine. I don't believe in G!d. I redefine G!d in ways that create an analogue for speaking to others about spirituality without compromising my somewhat rigid epistemology.

why should we give such an entity the definition of ‘god’, when god is usually a supreme being a creator or some such thing,

The definition of G!d varies quite a bit, however the definition you have supplied is yours, not mine. Personally I see the word G!d as fairly useless when trying to exchange ideas about G!d. It's a placeholder for something "greater than" in most cases and in that sense, without trying to define the word, it can sometimes be a good way to allow people to relate to each other. It can be a good word for the individual to use in practice as long as he knows what he means. But if you get to the point that you're trying to exchange ideas, I think it's more necessary to provide a clear definition of what you as an individual mean.

not an impotent unintelligent no-entity

That sounds like a bit of a straw man.

it would be more true to say that what we described would be an entity incapable of doing anything and that has no defining features. a god that is no-thing.

Interestingly that is the basic meaning of one of the Hebrew names for G!d, somewhat parallel to the Buddhist concept of sunyata. That is a hasidic concept that G!d made something from nothing so that man could make nothing from something.

if we are going to use the term god, then should it not be something, anything? otherwise why use the term at all.

As a placeholder. I tend to anthropomorphize the Divine. If you look at the re-definition I use, the second part of it is the co-created interface. That is to say, if I'm connecting with G!d as Mother or Father then that is my own psychological projection onto the world around me. If I experience G!d as nurturing or guiding me, again, psychological projection. If I experience G!d as a unified totality, again, projection, my own filtration and distillation of reality into something I, as a finite being, can connect with.

I'm not attempting to limit G!d to this redefinition but to suggest that, if such things are experienced, G!d is at least that much.

all anyone ever gives are vague descriptions of god, so my OP is based loosely on that, whilst trying to take in as many ideas about it as are currently considered to be so by some people.
any idea of god would fit into that vague idea, unless someone can name me a god that doesnt!

It is not clear to me what that vague idea is. Do you mean that you are accepting for this thread the definition of G!d as an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, omnipresent being who is not identifiable with the universe? That is the most common definition that I have come across from more mainstream sources.

[China Cat Sunflower]

My conception of God recedes. I suppose from my perspective that looks like evolution. Linear evolution. Straight backwards. Voooooompf- like a spaceship warping out over my shoulder. Like thinking about how old the light I see from a star is.

Chris

[_Z_]

if you’re saying that G!d can or does take a role, that alone is offering some definition.

.
yes and no. you could have an eternity of orange light yellow light etc until you have an eternal rainbow, one could then shape that light like a kaleidoscope would shape finite light. eventually images would be produce, but this being eternity they would be alive and have personas etc.

so eternity can change although it remains eternal

what if we add the two gods together as one!!!!!!!!!!!!! i.e. yours and wils eternal unchanging god with the everchanging living god i am describing?
.

however if the brain itself has limited functionality then it cannot be relied upon to tell us when it is functioning and when it is not.

.
within its limits it can especially when backed up by external instrumentation.
.

I disagree. I don’t think the intellect can be entirely divorced from the human experience it is embedded in and I see the intellect as another human faculty, another faculty of a finite being as are the senses, also limited.

.
it cannot be entirely divorsed from human experience, in that this is the source of its reasoning, but once a calulator is made it can perform calculations accurately.
the brain may be limited but the mind is not, it doesn’t have edges as such and hence is unlimited as like infinity is. hence ‘man is born in the image of god’ kinda thing.
.

For others who have journeyed equally long distances they have found different answers.

.
for example? i agree they have gone on perhaps even longer journeys, but we all have the same reality to deal with. if they have a different view they should say it.
.

if you get to the point that you’re trying to exchange ideas, I think it’s more necessary to provide a clear definition of what you as an individual mean.

.
oh i thought i had lols. your answer did seam evasive, you didn’t appear to answer the question. is there even a definition i can give?
.

Interestingly that is the basic meaning of one of the Hebrew names for G!d, somewhat parallel to the Buddhist concept of sunyata

.
that is interesting yes, also like the druidic meaning of the awen as source. the problem only arises when we take that essential entity and make it interact with the world. forgive me if i am wrong but that is very much what abrahamic religions are about. do jews not believe god is a creator or that he spoke to abraham and moses etc etc?
.

I’m not attempting to limit G!d to this redefinition but to suggest that, if such things are experienced, G!d is at least that much.

.
i agree.
.

It is not clear to me what that vague idea is. Do you mean that you are accepting for this thread the definition of G!d as an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, omnipresent being who is not identifiable with the universe? That is the most common definition that I have come across from more mainstream sources.

.
well i have seen many debates and read about philosophers who have shown ‘ omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence and omnipresence’ as false ideas, so i went with something that is not quite all these things but touches them.

---------------------------------------------------------

all that being said i will remove god from the equation entirely, and say that the universal intellect has by virtue of its very nature, infinite ‘intellect’, it both evolves yet remains ultimately eternal.
god by any definition is not present in anything, does not exist, does not have mind or body of any kind whatsoever, nor is nothing.

.

[dauer]

Z,

yes and no. you could have an eternity of orange light yellow light etc until you have an eternal rainbow, one could then shape that light like a kaleidoscope would shape finite light. eventually images would be produce, but this being eternity they would be alive and have personas etc.

so eternity can change although it remains eternal

Light has definition. In this case we are discussing a variety of colors of lights (definition) that, if I'm understanding you correctly, are being refracted (and it is another property of light that it can be refracted.) I have no idea what you're going on about at the end of that. What does it "being eternity" have to do with being alive, having personas, or the attributes of light?

within its limits it can especially when backed up by external instrumentation

That is your opinion.

it cannot be entirely divorsed from human experience, in that this is the source of its reasoning, but once a calulator is made it can perform calculations accurately

Could you stop using so many metaphors? They are not clear to me. Please just say what you mean.

the brain may be limited but the mind is not,

That is a belief. It does not make it true. It also assumes that there is a mind separate from the brain. You also ascribe infinite expansiveness to this so-called mind.

for example?

As I read your words it seems like you're playing with a lot of smoke and mirrors. You said, "that truth doesn’t have edges, hence is an entity undescribable in the full.
thus i am not chasing after absolutes, quite the opposite. "

However, you then go on to assert quite a few absolutes, including the one you asserted previously about the mind. Your defense seems to be that to you this is obvious, after a long journey. If I am reading you correctly, you're suggesting that your interpretation of reality is correct, and the reality we're all dealing with is reality as you perceive it. If this is the case, you treating your own perception like an absolute, and an obvious one at that which everyone of course should realize is correct.

I like paradox just fine in its place but right now I'm trying to understand you clearly and help you to understand me clearly. What you are saying just seems to contradict itself again and again.

your answer did seam evasive, you didn’t appear to answer the question. is there even a definition i can give?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Whether or not there is a definition you can give me is something you can answer but not me. I really don't care which definition you use. The word G!d is just too ambiguous to say whether or not G!d changes in the absence of some definition.

the problem only arises when we take that essential entity and make it interact with the world. forgive me if i am wrong but that is very much what abrahamic religions are about. do jews not believe god is a creator or that he spoke to abraham and moses etc etc?

1. What problem arises?

2. It depends on the Jew and I don't think I've ever seen it expressed in such simplistic terms in Jewish literature.

well i have seen many debates and read about philosophers who have shown ‘ omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence and omnipresence’ as false ideas, so i went with something that is not quite all these things but touches them.

And what is that? I was asking for clarification, not insisting you use that definition.

all that being said i will remove god from the equation entirely, and say that the universal intellect has by virtue of its very nature, infinite ‘intellect’, it both evolves yet remains ultimately eternal.

Okay, so instead of presupposing G!d you are presupposing a universal intellect. You used the word eternal here whose meaning is not the same as unchanging. There isn't really a conflict between eternal and evolving so there isn't really a need to use the word "yet."

god by any definition is not present in anything, does not exist, does not have mind or body of any kind whatsoever, nor is nothing.

That's not true at all. By some definitions G!d is present in some things, does exist, does have mind or body of some kind, or is nothing. That's the problem. There are so many definitions. I was asking you which one you were using. I thought that was a very clear question.

-- Dauer

[_Z_]

I have no idea what you’re going on about at the end of that.

.
it was an analogy or metaphor for how you may have an eternity that has form and hence you could have god as eternal and god that has form.
.

Could you stop using so many metaphors? They are not clear to me. Please just say what you mean.

.
i use them as we are talking about an ambiguous notion. because the mind is embedded in human experience, it doesn’t mean that the product of that is not an effective machine.
.

That is a belief. It does not make it true. It also assumes that there is a mind separate from the brain. You also ascribe infinite expansiveness to this so-called mind.

.
if we dissect the brain we don’t find mind ~ another debate eh!
.

If this is the case, you treating your own perception like an absolute, and an obvious one at that which everyone of course should realize is correct.

.
i thought i was saying that perception and subjectivity have nothing to do with the naked truth/reality beyond the absolute. the rest is simply saying that a) an intellect involved with existence is evolving... and gives reasons, b) that you may or may not agree with. hence one may debate such reasonings, i do feel quite sure that a is true but you are welcome to suggest why it is not, i.e. give a reason why a given intellect that is involved with existence would not evolve, that is the idea.
.

The word G!d is just too ambiguous to say whether or not G!d changes in the absence of some definition.

.
any definition of god as involved with existence changes, it doesn’t matter what definition one cares to give. you can have an ambiguous god all you like, but if by any definition it deals with existence then it changes or at least the part of it that does the dealings changes. how much clearer can i be?
.

1. What problem arises?

.
see above.
.

2. It depends on the Jew and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it expressed in such simplistic terms in Jewish literature.

.
does it not say such in the torah? ie that god speaks to people. sorry for my ignorance on the religion, i thought they believed in a god which communicated with people in some way. i also believed the religion considered god to be a creator. is it expressed in any terms in jewish literature, is anything about g?d expressed in it? i deconstructed it into simplistic meanings, you are of course welcome to give less simplistic ones, either way they will fall into categories of one kind or another; a god that interacts or one that does not.
.

Okay, so instead of presupposing G!d you are presupposing a universal intellect.

.
universal in simple terms means ‘all’. i agree that there may not be such a thing as universal intellect, in that it is unproven.
.

You used the word eternal here whose meaning is not the same as unchanging

.
define something that is unchanging. if you can, you will be left with the paradox that it can’t do anything, which is fine if you believe god has no qualities whatsoever and makes no interactions with anything. you would be the first person i have met that thought that to be so. secondly, the unchanging [whatever that is] does not come into the equasion or any equasion, and hence is irrelevant to this thread, any thread or anything else whatsoever.
.

That’s not true at all. By some definitions G!d is present in some things, does exist, does have mind or body of some kind, or is nothing. That’s the problem. There are so many definitions. I was asking you which one you were using. I thought that was a very clear question.

.
god the being of the whole. hows that? the unchanging ‘god’ has no bearings on the debate as it does not exist by its own definition, any other god can be brought into the debate.

_Z_

[dauer]

it was an analogy or metaphor for how you may have an eternity that has form and hence you could have god as eternal and god that has form.

I didn't say you couldn't. I said that it's still creating a definition.

i use them as we are talking about an ambiguous notion. because the mind is embedded in human experience, it doesn’t mean that the product of that is not an effective machine.

I've never seen the phrase effective machine used to refer to the mind before. What does it mean in that context?

If we are talking about something ambiguous, it's not going to help much to call it something it's not.

Whether or not it's not an effective machine, you still can't establish that it is an effective machine.

if we dissect the brain we don’t find mind ~ another debate eh!

You brought it into the conversation by going with the premise that mind exists and is some sort of infinite even though you hadn't established that as something accepted by all parties. I don't accept it as a valid basis for what you have to say.

Okay so

perception and subjectivity have nothing to do with the naked truth/reality beyond the absolute.

is violated by

an intellect involved with existence is evolving... and gives reasons,

if you can't objectively verify that the above assertion is more than your own perception. That is why I have stated you are asserting your own perception is reality, calling that the naked truth.

You're changing the conversation and putting words into my mouth. I never said that a hypothetical intellect would or would not evolve. I did say that knowing the definition being used for G!d one could answer that question.

any definition of god as involved with existence changes, it doesn’t matter what definition one cares to give. you can have an ambiguous god all you like, but if by any definition it deals with existence then it changes or at least the part of it that does the dealings changes. how much clearer can i be?

I get the sense you're only barely skimming what I'm saying and not actually responding to my words. Firstly, I did not say definitions of G!d that include involvement with existence. You changed what I said and then debated against that. A definition of G!d need not include involvement with existence.

Secondly, I never mentioned an ambiguous G!d. I said that the word G!d is ambiguous.

You haven't been clarifying. You've been ignoring what I've been saying and going off in another direction.

see above.

I did and I don't see the connection.

does it not say such in the torah? ie that god speaks to people. sorry for my ignorance on the religion, i thought they believed in a god which communicated with people in some way. i also believed the religion considered god to be a creator. is it expressed in any terms in jewish literature, is anything about g?d expressed in it? i deconstructed it into simplistic meanings, you are of course welcome to give less simplistic ones, either way they will fall into categories of one kind or another; a god that interacts or one that does not.

The Torah serves more as a starting point than as a solitary text. It is the beginning of a conversation rather than the final word.

In terms of belief, no not always. Reconstructionism does not hold such beliefs. Jewish humanism doesn't either but I don't factor them in much because they reject any role for G!d altogether.

universal in simple terms means ‘all’. i agree that there may not be such a thing as universal intellect, in that it is unproven.

Okay, that's all I was getting at.

define something that is unchanging. if you can, you will be left with the paradox that it can’t do anything, which is fine if you believe god has no qualities whatsoever and makes no interactions with anything.

That's assuming that the laws of the natural universe apply to G!d. There have also been various attempts in the history of religion to separate G!d from G!d's actions that you're throwing out the window.

you would be the first person i have met that thought that to be so.

I've already told you I don't believe in G!d.

secondly, the unchanging [whatever that is] does not come into the equasion or any equasion, and hence is irrelevant to this thread, any thread or anything else whatsoever.

How does it not? What about G!d? See my statements above regarding previous attempts in history to separate G!d from G!d's actions. Your responses tend to make so many assumptions that I have a hard time calling you out on all of them. It's like having a conversation with a labyrinth of assumptions.

god the being of the whole. hows that?

Only the whole and nothing more? No intellect, no special qualities, just everything that exists as it is? Please clarify.

the unchanging ‘god’ has no bearings on the debate as it does not exist by its own definition

No, it does not exist by your own definition. Yet again you claim your own view is the way things are and run with it.

Please just read what I say and answer me directly. If you're unsure what I mean, ask for clarification like I have with you.

-- Dauer

[_Z_]

Quote me:

god the being of the whole. hows that?

Only the whole and nothing more? No intellect, no special qualities, just everything that exists as it is? Please clarify.

the whole includes all.

Quote me:
the unchanging ‘god’ has no bearings on the debate as it does not exist by its own definition

No, it does not exist by your own definition. Yet again you claim your own view is the way things are and run with it.

an existence ‘is’, the unchanging is not a thing. i suppose it may exist as not-a-thing, without any qualities whatsoever. if so then my former statements about it stand.

[dauer]

god the being of the whole. hows that?

What do you mean by being? I'm asking you to provide a definition without room for interpretation, without ambiguity.

an existence ‘is’, the unchanging is not a thing. i suppose it may exist as not-a-thing, without any qualities whatsoever. if so then my former statements about it stand.

I agree that it could probably be called not-a-thing. In Judaism for example, when dealing with concept of Nothing, we would say that G!d lacks "thingness", that G!d is not a thing that can be described because G!d is beyond all duality, all distinguishing characteristics, not hot or cold, not good or evil. However with your last statement I and a good number of rationalist philosophers of religion would disagree. There are many places in the history of religious writing where G!d is distinguished as separate from G!d's actions, separate from G!d's will. If you don't agree with or like that definition it's fine. Your personal opinion on the matter doesn't make it a less valid definition of G!d yet you continue to behave as if your own view is the way things really are.

I would gladly enter a conversation that involves premises I don't agree with for the sake of conversation and the development of ideas. I would accept those premises from the get-go, in that conversation, even though I don't believe in them. My issue from the start is that your premises have left a lot of ambiguity.