Author Topic: Let's describe God  (Read 985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Let's describe God
« on: September 21, 2008, 03:00:20 PM »
I would like to invite everyone to contribute abstract descriptions of reality that have a God-like quality to them, with one limitation: your description of God should be in some way linked to verifiable observations.

Often, I am impressed by the physical world.  From my experience, I construct religious statements that are meaningful to me, such as "God likes periodic cycles of life" or "People have been given the capacity to dream."  The roots of the word "religion" itself mean to link back, and I think that descriptive or observational science has everything to contribute to the question "If God exists, then what is God like?"



« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 03:16:57 PM by faith-o-holic »

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2008, 03:14:06 PM »
If a moderator could move this post to the Science section, that would be much appreciated.  I have read godisimaginary.com for some time now, and the forums to some extent, but this was my first post.  Sorry, I placed it in the wrong category. 
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 03:17:27 PM by faith-o-holic »

Offline Goodkat

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1193
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A man's delusion is insanity, a nation's, religion
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2008, 03:31:52 PM »
I would liken God to a pre-pubescent child with an ant farm and a magnifying glass. We do our best to survive and thrive, and He entertains himself by sending tsunamis(ie. shaking the ant farm) and afflicting us with disease (ie. burning us with the magnifying glass).

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2008, 03:47:45 PM »
Okay, Goodkat's observations are tsunamis and disease.  So, if God exists, God chooses to destroy the weak and the old.  I've seen that too.

Do you really want to claim that there is evidence for how God feels about destruction?  "Pre-pubescent" is a very abstract description, but hard to find evidence for, because the meanings of God-puberty and God-time get involved.   Any evidence for the word "playful?"
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 03:52:34 PM by faith-o-holic »

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2008, 04:00:36 PM »
I would liken God to a pre-pubescent child with an ant farm and a magnifying glass. We do our best to survive and thrive, and He entertains himself by sending tsunamis(ie. shaking the ant farm) and afflicting us with disease (ie. burning us with the magnifying glass).
This is a good analyst of a god and an ants ability to understand it.  God would be outside of the universe to an ant.  A step up would be how a dog sees man or a god.  The dog does not understand how advanced a man is but knows it gets rewards from him and his nose rubbed in it when he is bad.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Goodkat

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1193
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A man's delusion is insanity, a nation's, religion
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2008, 04:09:28 PM »
Okay, Goodkat's observations are tsunamis and disease.  So, if God exists, God chooses to destroy the weak and the old.  I've seen that too.

Do you really want to claim that there is evidence for how God feels about destruction?  "Pre-pubescent" is a very abstract description, but hard to find evidence for, because the meanings of God-puberty and God-time get involved.   Any evidence for the word "playful?"
I was comparing God's personality to that of a pre-pubescent boy. Destruction in our world is indiscriminate, so if a god exists, he obviously doesn't care who dies as long as people die.

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2008, 04:11:13 PM »
Nick observes that there is hierarchy among living creatures, as evidenced by boy-ant and man-dog relationships.  Not all relationships could be clearly described as hierarchical, though.  There are formidable competitors and symbiotic relationships as well.

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2008, 04:16:14 PM »
Goodkat, most destruction is discriminate. Old and weak creatures die way more often than young and strong ones.

Offline Goodkat

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1193
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A man's delusion is insanity, a nation's, religion
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2008, 04:18:53 PM »
Goodkat, most destruction is discriminate. Old and weak creatures die way more often than young and strong ones.
Age and strength help determine an individual's ability to survive the destruction, they are still targeted.

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2008, 07:48:54 PM »
Quote
Age and strength help determine an individual's ability to survive the destruction, they are still targeted.
You just know that God targets people randomly for destruction -- that's your observation?

Offline PingTheServer

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 952
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Devil's Advocate
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2008, 08:53:04 PM »
Goodkat, most destruction is discriminate. Old and weak creatures die way more often than young and strong ones.
Hurricanes?  Floods? Famine?  Aids?  War?  These things are not very descriminate.  An argument can be made that God is punishing every single person affected by a Hurricane, but you'll have a hard time selling it...much less making money from it on Sunday and Wednedsays.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2008, 09:14:22 PM »
The problem with descriptions like this is that they are highly variable; one person's description may entirely contradict another's.

On the forums, a short hand for this tendency is "SPAG" or "Self-Projection As God".  Meaning, the person talking about their deity tends to attribute things to that deity that match what they think is moral/right/... or otherwise fits a bias they have.  They hate gays?  God hates gays.  They think killing is bad?  God thinks killing is bad.  (To the point that Christians ignore contradictions or lack of support for either of these or many other definitions.)
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Goodkat

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1193
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A man's delusion is insanity, a nation's, religion
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2008, 01:11:26 AM »
Quote
Age and strength help determine an individual's ability to survive the destruction, they are still targeted.
You just know that God targets people randomly for destruction -- that's your observation?
If you are so uninformed that the indiscriminate nature of natural disasters and disease epidemics is not already apparent to you, then it would be a complete waste of time for me to argue the point with you.

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1250
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2008, 07:37:06 AM »
Here's a two-part answer I gave to a similar question over on ATT:


Nutshell: Consciousness (Divinity) is a fundamental property of existence that operates on all scales in recursive fashion.

Noted American military strategist John Boyd developed a concept I will use as a template for my definition of "consciousness."  Boyd's concept is known as the "OODA Loop."  It segments the operation of consciousness (in an individual, or an organization like a military force) into four stages: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.  There is much more to his work than this oversimplified explanation of the OODA Loop, but this is sufficient as a scaffolding.

Modeling consciousness as a cyclical phenomenon in this way makes it possible to apply two other descriptors to it: frequency, and amplitude.  "Frequency" refers to the speed at which a given consciousness can cycle through an OODA Loop.  "Amplitude" refers to the degree of consciousness (intelligence, awareness, perceptive ability, emotional faculties, etc.).

These two factors interact to determine the actual effectiveness of a given form of consciousness.  For example, the chess match between Gary Kasparov and the computer Deep Blue was a contest between a high amplitude, low frequency consciousness (Kasparov) and a low amplitude, high frequency consciousness (Deep Blue).  Deep Blue could cycle through its OODA loops far faster than Kasparov could, analyzing thousands of moves and counter-moves each second.  While it had some fairly rudimentary pattern-recognition abilities, it was really quite dumb in comparison to Kasparov, even if it did win the chess match.  In addition to playing masterful chess, Kasparov can drive a car, recognize a child's face, appreciate a Mozart sonata, and contemplate the meaning of the Hubble Deep Field.  In all of those other areas, Deep Blue is as dumb as a rock.  Nonetheless, Deep Blue is, in effect, the greatest chess player on Earth.

If consciousness is a phenomenon that manifests on a range of frequencies and amplitudes rather than a magical "black box" that exists only in humans and superhuman beings, then it is possible for it to be a universal principle rather than an inexplicable miracle that is alien to the cosmos in which it exists.  As the example of Deep Blue shows us, it is not necessary to have a human level of consciousness to proceed through an OODA Loop and do so efficaciously.

Let us now go a little further, to the level of a single electron.  The electron could be viewed as having an extremely low level of consciousness.  This is not the sort of higher-order self-reflective consciousness of a human by any stretch of the imagination.  The electron possesses a means of "sensing" its environment: a negatively-charged electric field.1  With this, it can "detect" the presence or absence of other electrical fields.  This is the "Observation" stage of its awareness.

Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the electron does not behave in an inherently predictable, deterministic fashion.  There is a range within which the electron has multiple options available to it.  This, combined with its velocity and trajectory at any given time forms the basis for its "Orient," "Decide," and "Act" steps.  When the electron interacts with another particle, its wave function collapses.  The specific result of this collapse cannot be precisely predicted in advance. 

The wave-function collapse represents the electron's "Orient" and "Decide" stages.  Depending on the nature of the interaction, the electron can "Orient" itself in a specific position (while increasing uncertainty of momentum) or at a specific momentum (while increasing uncertainty of position).  The outcome of this "Orientation" determines its relationship to the electrical field it's interacting with.  If it is interacting with a proton, the "Orientation" stage determines whether or not the electron will have the option of joining with the proton to form a hydrogen atom.  If its momentum is too great or its position too distant, it will have no option of becoming part of an atom.  If its momentum is low enough and its position close enough, it will have no option other than becoming part of an atom.  If its position and momentum fall within a certain range during "Orientation," it will have an option to join the the proton, or not.

The proton, being a quantum particle itself, also has a "say" in the outcome.  The "Decision" stage then, is what happens when the probability functions of the two particles overlap in such a way that the merger is neither impossible nor inevitable.  We can experience something similar while driving.  Sometimes, we have no option of interacting with another car (say, if it's on the other side of a divided highway).  Sometimes, we have no option of avoiding a wreck (e.g. if we are rear-ended at a stoplight).  Other times we and the other driver can, as a result of our Orientation and Decision stages, either create or avoid a collision.     

Due to the properties of quantum mechanics, our electron can "decide" to do some rather surpising things.  For example, if it is fired at a barrier that is thinner than the full range of its probability function, the electron has a possibility of "deciding" to appear on the other side of the barrier without physically impacting or penetrating it.  This is called "quantum tunnelling."

Returning to our example of the electron joining with a proton to form a hydrogen atom, an interesting thing happens if the particles "Decide" to join.  They become a new type of entity with properties unpredictable from observation of their separate behavior.  Together with a sufficient number of other hydrogen atoms, they can do extraordinary things, like create a star, generate energy by fusing with each other into helium atoms, and (as a result of the star exploding into a supernova) forge themselves into a range of new, heavier elements like carbon and iron.

In other words, by embracing the proton, the electron is able to become part of a new, higher-amplitude form of intelligence, the hydrogen cloud, which through the emergent consciousness of the uncountable OODA Loops of its member atoms, can re-create itself as something new and unexpected (the star), which in turn creates new and unexpected heavy elements.

These heavy elements in their turn create a vast new array of options for higher-amplitude emergent consciousness
of increasingly complex molecules, cells, organs, bodies, brain/minds, and civilizations.  This is an important general property or consciousness: it tends to use its current levels of amplitude and frequency to bootstrap itself to greater and greater amplitudes, much the same way water poured out on the ground finds the path of least resistance toward lower ground.  While each step of the way may seem random or unplanned, the trend itself is clear.

In his book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, noted inventor Ray Kurzweil demonstrates that when cosmic and biological evolutionary milestones (derived from multiple independent listings of milestones) are placed on a logarithmic graph with time on one axis and computational capacity on another, there is a clear, nearly straight-line trend of accelerating growth in computational capacity that stretches from the Big Bang to Moore's Law.  In other words, it appears as if the Cosmos is a story of consciousness continually striving to become greater, more conscious than it is...and we're smack dab in the middle of it all.

In fact, we (and other life forms like us) occupy a pivotal stage in the growth and emergence of cosmic consciousness: we are the stage at which consciousness first becomes aware of itself as consciousness.  We are the stage at which consciousness develops the ability to build within itself a virtual model of Universe and use that model to seize deliberate control over the evolutionary process, imbuing it with forethought and planning--with "intelligent design."

Through our development of technological evolution, we are rapidly creating new arrangements of cosmic building blocks that are more intelligent than ourselves (so far, in limited domains like chess and mathematical calculation).  We are using our newfound computational power to unlock the secrets of our genes and the workings of our own brains.  With this knowledge and power, we will be able to amplify our own consciousnesses, and/or create new, superhuman artificial minds.  These amplified minds will be able to repeat the process, and so on, faster and faster with each turn of the spiral.

A possible ultimate result of all this could be a Universe of matter optimized for computation and conscious thought: a real, live omnimax God!  If this God is like the other life forms we know of, S/He will eventually want to reproduce Him/Herself.  How will S/He do so?  With access to intelligence and scientific knowledge as far beyond ours as ours is beyond that of a single electron, God could trigger a new Big Bang in a new bubble universe, providing it with cosmological DNA (constants) fine-tuned to begin the process anew.

In this model, we are not the "children" of God.  We are more like His/Her embryos, germinating the first light of self-aware Divine Consciousness in a Cosmic Womb that has been waiting for our moment (and that of our fellow Godlings throughout the Universe) for a long, loooooooong time.

NOTES:

1.  It also has other "senses" like mass (able to "detect" curved spacetime), spin, etc..
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1250
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2008, 07:38:03 AM »
Part II:


Nutshell: Whenever a sufficient number of entities interact, they produce a synergetic, emergent consciousness that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Each of us is a consciousness.  Our consciousness emerges from the interaction of something on the order of a hundred billion neurons, none of which possesses a humanlike mind in itself.  Each of these in turn emerges from the synergy of its component proteins, organelles, lipid membranes, enzymes, genes, etc..  Each of these emerges from molecules, which emerge from atoms, which emerge from electrons, protons, quarks, gluons, and whatever they may have emerged from.

Going in the other direction, interacting humans generate meta-intelligences such as "corporations," "economies," "cultures," "the Internet," "memes," "archetypes," and soon, human artificial intelligences.  We foster whole new realms of evulotion--cultural evolution, technological evolution, and memetic evolution. 



Divine Consciousness is a fibonacci spiral of nested levels of consciousness at all amplitudes and frequencies.  It's consciousness all the way down, and all the way up.  In this model, that which we could call God/-dess is not a monolithic singular entity any more than we are1 

Our "place" in this grand epic of Divine growth and evolution is to do what Consciousness does at each level: interact, cooperate, grow, and self-transcend.  The human spiritual impulse for such things as "communion with God," "community," "harmony," "beauty," and so on is simply the manifestation on our awareness-level of the inherent self-transcending property of Consciousness.  This property manifests through what we call "love" (again, operating on numerous levels of amplitude and frequency), ranging from the mutual attraction and wedding of electrons and protons, to hydrogen's ecstatic fusion, to the mighty fecundating orgasm of a supernova spreading the seeds of Life into the willing womb of a hydrogen nebula, which self-embraces to create new solar systems ripe for the start of biological evolution.

This epic of growth, evolution, and self-transcendence takes place within the context of a cosmic struggle between Consciousness and Unconsciousness (or "anti-Consciousness," or stupidity, or entropy, or disillusion).  Consciousness must climb Mt. Improbable as it increases its complexity (measured in higher aplitude OODA cycles and the emergence of higher-order meta-consciousnesses).  At lower iterations it must do so through Darwinian natural selection, a process by which Consciousness can advance only at the price of blood sacrifice to the dark god of Entropy.2

As Consciousness reaches the human level, these forces manifest archeypally into our mythology, our dreams, our pattern-recognizing/pattern-creating symbolic-level awareness, and our mystical experience.  This forms the bridge between the "cosmic-level" concepts of Divinity I have been discussing so far, and the memetic/anthropic-level concepts of Divinity people worship in religions centered on personal gods and goddesses.  It ties neatly into John's experience of the loving Goddess who desires that we continually awaken and grow, vs. the malevolent God who perceives a need to subjugate (and thus, stifle) our Consciousness so that he can monopolize its resources, and thus win the Darwinian struggle by grabbing all the marbles.

Communication (and thus, the emergence of higher-order meta-consciousness) is only possible between equals.  In a strict hierarchical relationship, the duty of the inferior is to know nothing but what his/her Master wills him/her to know, and to conform the contents of his/her consciousness to the will of the Master.  The inferior is not to perceive reality independently (and thus, be conscious), but to receive without question the Master's perception of reality (and thus be in effect unconscious, mere extensions of the Master's will).  Thus, whenever the inferior communicates with the Master, s/he must try to guess the contents of the Master's brain and/or "what the Master wants to hear" and make that the content of their communication.  The presentation of contrary facts can result in punishment.

The Master, in contrast, has monopolized the role of consciousness.  S/he "does all the thinking" for his/her subjects, having taken up a burden of omniscience.  If there's any knowing to be done, only the Master may do it.  However, as described above, the Master is being fed streams of flattering :bs by his/her subjects, who dare not relay accurate information about reality.

The ultimate portrayal of this is to be found in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation.  Here, we are shown four "creatures" covered with eyes, who stand around the throne of God, saying "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord, who is and was and is to come," over and over and over again, forever.  Being covered with eyes is symbolic of high intelligence/awareness, but these poor Lovecraftian monstrosities have been reduced to mindless automatons with the mental faculties of tape players running on an endless loop.  Naturally, in a situation like this, the Lord is not going to be warned of any flaws in his policies or inconvenient facts.

The result is what Robert Anton Wilson calls "the Snafu Priniciple."  The people who are best in a position to learn the facts of reality "on the streets" are forbidden to do so.  The Master, who has assumed all responsibility for gathering the facts of reality sits in isolated splendor in his throne room, being told only what his subordinates think he expects to hear, or wants to hear, reality be damned.  One real-life example is Hitler in his bunker ordering divisions into battle that had been destroyed months or years before, surrounded by henchmen who could not tell him the truth.  The same thing happens to a lesser extent in hierarchical organizations like the average large corporation, the Roman Catholic Church, or the Bush Administration.  Biological analogy: a cancer cell that replicates itself like mad, driving other cells into extinction and ultimately killing the whole body.

In short: the Dominator is the enemy of Consciousness, even his own.  He plays a zero-sum game, basically looting the consciousness of his subjects in the same way and for the same reason he loots their wealth and productive effort for his ends.  Result: a whole that is less than the sum of its parts, and a trend toward failure and disintegration.

In contrast, there is the Promethean archetype which I have identified as the Serpent/"king of Tyre" (see Ezekiel 28), and which John labels as the Goddess.  This archetype seeks to advance by empowering others, cooperating, loving, and building positive-sum win-win outcomes, and creating higher-order emergent meta-consciousness as a result.  Instead of trying to seize the whole pie for Herself, the Goddess collaborates with others to bake a bigger pie so that everyone ends up with a bigger slice.

Instead of seeking a monopoly/monolith, She seeks an integrity composed of multiple interacting parts, a network of unity-in-diversity.  Instead of hierarchy, the network governs itself by systems of reciprocal accountability.  Example: the scientiic method.  There is no scientific equivalent of a Pope, who hands down a set of dogmas that must be accepted by all scientists.  Instead, scientists linked in a decentralized network are encouraged to perceive reality the best they can by their own lights, and the highest rewards are won by those who bring contrary but accurate facts, and topple predominant, but incorrect models.  The scientists who do this are the ones who become household names.

This contrarianism is balanced by protocols by which scientists hold each other accountable.  Peer reveiew and replication of experiments or observations by others are mechanisms by which scientists correct each other's errors and reality, rather than social status, is the final court of appeal.  Other examples of similar systems include the free market (by which producers of goods and services are held to account by those they would have as customers), the adversarial trial by jury system (in which the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and is provided with a lawyer to make his/her case before a jury not beholden to either side), and democracy, by which the populace regularly evaluates and retains or removes political officials based on how well their policies work.

These systems do not work perfectly of course, and they are always in danger of being hijacked by infiltrating would-be Dominators.  They do work, when used properly by people who genuinely value the virtues of Consciousness (i.e. independence, rationality, liberty, cooperation, embrace of diversity).  Rather than trying to win the zero-sum Darwininan game of "survival of the fittest," the Serpent/Goddess archetype seeks to transcend it altogether by applying Consciousness to the challenge of "making the world work for everyone"3 and preserving, rather than out-competing, other species.

This positive-sum game can be created by applied Consciousness--"doing more with less," replacing resouces with elegant, advanced design--a massless, "metaphysical," and non-limited factor.  Example: the first trans-atlantic cable weighed thousands of tons, and could only convey a relative handful of messages in morse code.  A communications satellite the size of a beer keg can relay hundreds or thousands of channels of video and audio information in high definition.  The satellite is able to do this because it represents a more advanced level of science and technology, i.e. more Consciousness, less "stuff."  In a realm like Second Life, goods are created, bought and sold for real money--goods made of no physical resources at all!4

The issue of reason and enlightenment vs. Dominator-worship is "the" life-and-death issue of our times.  Will Consciousness emerge from the technological leap of Singularity here, or will we abolish ourselves in a final Gotterdammerung as the Dominator faiths clash with each other to see which one gets to conquer the world and monopolize all belief and thought.
 

NOTES:

1. Biologically, a "human" is actually a community of symbiotically interacting cells, many millions of which are not "human cells" at all!  E.g. bacteria in our digestive tracts that has different DNA than our "human" cells, but without which we could not survive.  Likewise, our "minds" can be broken down into interacting sub-mind complexes of neural wiring that appear to compete in a quasi-Darwinian way to become "our" thoughts and decisions.

2. The innumerable fossils of extinct species offer silent testimony of the casualties of the battle for Life and Consciousness against the entropic forces of destruction and disintegration.

3.
Quote
"To make the world work for everyone, to the disadvantage of no one, in the shortest possible time and without ecological offense."

--Buckminster Fuller, stating the chosen purpose of his life.

4. Well, except for a bit of electricity to run the computers. :)
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2008, 10:01:08 PM »
The problem with descriptions like this is that they are highly variable; one person's description may entirely contradict another's ... On the forums, a short hand for this tendency is "SPAG" or "Self-Projection As God". 

Hermes, you are of course right that self-projection can warp ones ability to observe.  Wikipedia has a helpful list of cognitive biases, which we should all avoid.

The intent of this post is not to generate speculation, but to encourage abstraction from scientific facts.  As a scientist, I subscribe to the axiom that verifiable observation is the basis for all public knowledge.  That said, people have a hard time processing detailed concrete facts, and generally live their lives by way of patterns and abstraction gained from the past.  So, rational abstraction is a very beneficial activity.

I used to be a Christian, but since many of the miracles conflict with my everyday observations, and there is a pesky all-or-nothing attitude toward belief, I had to walk away.  Now, I am starting over again, only trusting in my senses, and even acknowledging their flaws.  But, I would ask you to consider another axiom: "If God exists, then God is the type of being that wanted reality to be what it is."  And, I hypothesize that there is enough material out there in the not-man-made category to learn a few abstract concepts of what that God might be like.


Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2008, 10:06:31 PM »
God's real name is Jealous- Exodus 34:14. He commands death and destruction.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline faith-o-holic

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2008, 10:17:24 PM »
I would like to reply to kcrady as soon as possible, but there is a lot of material in his post, so it may take a while.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2008, 10:35:14 PM »
I used to be a Christian, but since many of the miracles conflict with my everyday observations, and there is a pesky all-or-nothing attitude toward belief, I had to walk away.  Now, I am starting over again, only trusting in my senses, and even acknowledging their flaws.  But, I would ask you to consider another axiom: "If God exists, then God is the type of being that wanted reality to be what it is."  And, I hypothesize that there is enough material out there in the not-man-made category to learn a few abstract concepts of what that God might be like.

I don't think there is anything that isn't man-made or intrinsic to our physiology.  If you have pointers to something that you think might be a hint, I'll let you know if I've already gone over it.

Here's a short list of some of the things I've already examined...

Take a look at the phenomenon that people attribute to god(s) (not only the Abrahamic one, but all religions and 'spiritual experiences').  There's lots out there. 

Also look at anthropology and archaeology.  A pet area in anthropology for me is mythology (see Joseph Campbell's work; try not and make the mistake new age people do by adding in abstractions unnecessarily -- they make the same mistakes with quantum physics by not understanding it well and then guessing).

NDEs / OBEs (near-death-experiences / out-of-body-experiences) have specific sources that have been researched fairly well.

As for an accurate description, it's still too wide of a subject to nail it down and people tend to throw in aspects that are non-overlapping.  The core probably came from animism or some precursor to animism that hasn't been properly examined yet (as animism tends to be the earliest religion precursor that is normally tracked).
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Goodkat

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1193
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • A man's delusion is insanity, a nation's, religion
Re: Let's describe God
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2008, 11:30:31 PM »
Kcrady, I love your hypothesis, it is so elegant in its beauty. I would love to believe it, but I feel particle physics and neurology must advance further before it can be verified. Until then I suppose I should consider it to be a desirable possibility.