What if God is weak?

[Lacewing]

I prefer not knowing to having made up answers.

Me too. "Not knowing" allows/acknowledges potentials bigger than myself -- which I would much rather have access to, than only that which I can come up with.

Adding a "God" to my model teaches me nothing of value.

Same here. The idea of a "God" begs to be known and defined, and (for me) in doing so, potential is limited to "that supposed known".

I arrived on this planet (as a human baby) open to the experience. Being open to the experience... observing and playing with it... is what I've come back to, after many explorations to "know" or figure out all sorts of things. I've experienced greater clarity and potential when I'm not trying to fit everything into a certain model.

It's strange that we can be so beautifully open as children, and then come to think that "growing up" means "knowing". We ask the adults "why" over and over, in order to understand the world humans have created. In other words: What is this place, who are we, and what do we do here? And the adults tell the new arrivals "how it is". If adults did not do that to such a limiting degree, what kind of awareness and openness might we retain and utilize for our experience here?

This natural and unrestricted quality must surely be a more pure form of an observing creative force in the Universe, than any God concept or agenda that humans have concocted. Since humans create their world with their "ideas", some think the Universe must have been created with ideas. But there is really no reason to know or to limit "existence" in that way. Doing so "resolves" nothing -- it only limits (to our own terms) what we believe/experience is possible.

[trokanmariel]

God is weak = weak is not God

weak is not God = not God is strong

not God is strong = reality is strong

reality is strong = strong is God

strong is God = God is God

God is God = inability to imitate reality

When God is weak, it means that reality can self-generate its power

[seeds]

...I prefer not knowing to having made up answers. Adding a "God" to my model teaches me nothing of value. Now I have to say "I don't know" twice.

Once to "Where does the universe come from?" and once to "Where does God come from"?
By adding 'God' to the equation you have turned 1 unknown into 2 unknowns. So, objectively I could say that you have made us twice as ignorant as before.

That may be so.

However, when it turns out that the first unknown (i.e., where did the universe come from?) is explained by using information that in no way, shape, or form actually resolves its mystery in an irrefutable fashion, then one should be open to other avenues of enquiry.

Furthermore, your reasoning is flawed in that you would still have only one unknown to contend with, and that is: “where did God come from?”

And that’s because it would then be known that the universe came from a source of living intelligence.

This pursuit for grounding, for foundationalism - it is turtles all the way down!

I agree. No matter what approach we take (be it material or spiritual) the problem of infinite regress will always be present.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you picture in your mind when you hear the word “God”?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

...and yet despite the fact that the raucous action of the movie is no longer appearing in its two-dimensional context up on a screen, the running DVD will still cycle through the movie’s algorithms.

You have ignored a few vital steps in the process. Encoding/decoding ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory ).

The movie has no algorithm. The data on the DVD is just data - without interpretation it is very difficult to extract any meaning from it.
All the RULES (algorithm) for turning that data into something else is in the DVD player itself.

And so the laser beam reads the DVD and converts it into a VIDEO data. Either digital signal (HDMI) or analogue signal (RCA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video ).

All that has happened is that the data on the DVD has been converted from one format to another. And if you add a TV into the equation - it converts the data into yet another format - analogue.

I am well aware of the basics of a DVD player as is loosely demonstrated in one of my personal illustrations:



And yes, I suppose I could have chosen a better word than “algorithm” in my response.

However, you need to realize that I was just trying to produce a visualizable metaphor to demonstrate that I agree with your assessment of the computational nature of the quantum underpinning of the universe.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Setting aside the DVD metaphor, in truth, my favorite metaphor for our situation can be seen in yet another of my oft used illustrations – the laser hologram...



...wherein the correlated patterns of information embedded in the photographic plate loosely represent the quantum, while the laser loosely represents consciousness.

The point is that it is the conjoined relationship between consciousness (life) and that of fields of dynamically moving information (the quantum) that creates what we call “reality” (i.e., three-dimensional phenomena suspended in a spatial dimension).

It is just an outward extension of the same process that occurs within our own minds as the “eye” of our mind (our central consciousness) merges with patterns of coded information in order to reveal (just like the hologram) the three-dimensional features of our dreams.

Yeah, but without an interpreter who transforms the data into something meaningful - it doesn't matter. It is as good as entropy.

Though I am certain that your obsessively strict left-brain thinking will never allow the intrusion of any right-brain flights of fancy,...

...nevertheless, it seems to me that when you use the word “interpreter,” and I use the word “consciousness,” in essence, we may be referring to the same thing.
_______

[TimeSeeker]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you picture in your mind when you hear the word “God”?

Everything and nothing.

One conception is a phenomenon outside of spacetime. Before the BigBang or after the Heat Death of the universe (should time be going in reverse by off-chance).
Another conception is the information required to seed any pseudo-random function ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed ) akin to cellular automata.

And if it is indeed cellular automata, we are still dealing with irreducible and irreversible complexity. Either way - it is untestable/unfalsifiable and so it is of no interest to me.

Suffice to call it a first-cause-without-a-cause. Which, by Occam's razor is the same as assuming the universe is without a cause.

...nevertheless, it seems to me that when you use the word “interpreter,” and I use the word “consciousness,” in essence, we may be referring to the same thing.

Since I don't know what consciousness is, and it is very difficult to speak about things I do not understand - I prefer to call it a Turing machine. We know how those work

[Dontaskme]

The mind needs to learn to distinction between what is real vs what is conceptual belief and imaginary.

God is this ''DIRECT ACTUAL'' mainfestation right NOW ..ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

Everything and Nothing is here right now all at once as this direct actual manifestation.

God is not what thought thinks or believes it is, which is just an imaginary world of concepts and belief. (dreamscape)

Only what is ACTUALLY here is here...prior to any thought, belief, or concept about HERE NOW

Only what is actualy here is here, this SILENT DIRECT EXPERIENCE...minus any thought about it...

The one (you) looking at the hand in front of your eyes is inseparable from the looked upon hand. There is no hand, the hand is a conceptual object superimposed by ''thought'' appearing separate from the one looking at it... but the separation is an illusion, the hand is an imagined part that is actually inseparable of the actual direct experience of manifestation that has no concept of the hand except in this imaginary world of belief and conception. Direct actual experience is auspicious seeing that everything is ONE aka God...aka nothing and everything.

There is no one having this direct actual experience..that's just another conceptual belief, something that you think is here which is not here. Only what is actually here is here...what is actual is prior to what is imagined.

What is real (God) cannot be spoken about. There is no one to speak about God, there is no one for there is no other than ONE

Conceptual imagined belief is Gods dream.

There is nothing outside of direct actuality. This is all ONE aka God.

There is no God for there is no other than God. No thing can know God, there is only God knowing no thing as God is not a thing.

.

[TimeSeeker]

The mind needs to learn to distinction between what is real vs what is conceptual belief and imaginary.

God is this ''DIRECT ACTUAL'' mainfestation right NOW ..ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

Everything and Nothing is here right now all at once as this direct actual manifestation.

God is not what thought thinks or believes it is, which is just an imaginary world of concepts and belief. (dreamscape)

Only what is ACTUALLY here is here...prior to any thought, belief, or concept about HERE NOW

Only what is actualy here is here, this SILENT DIRECT EXPERIENCE...minus any thought about it...

The one (you) looking at the hand in front of your eyes is inseparable from the looked upon hand. There is no hand, the hand is a conceptual object superimposed by ''thought'' appearing separate from the one looking at it... but the separation is an illusion, the hand is an imagined part that is actually inseparable of the actual direct experience of manifestation that has no concept of the hand except in this imaginary world of belief and conception. Direct actual experience is auspicious seeing that everything is ONE aka God...aka nothing and everything.

There is no one having this direct actual experience..that's just another conceptual belief, something that you think is here which is not here. Only what is actually here is here...what is actual is prior to what is imagined.

What is real (God) cannot be spoken about. There is no one to speak about God, there is no one for there is no other than ONE

Conceptual imagined belief is Gods dream.

There is nothing outside of direct actuality. This is all ONE aka God.

There is no God for there is no other than God. No thing can know God, there is only God knowing no thing as God is not a thing.

.

Is time real or just a conception?
Is mass real or just a conception?

How do you tell the difference ?

[Dontaskme]

Is time real or just a conception?
Is mass real or just a conception?

How do you tell the difference ?

Time is a known concept.

Mass is a known concept.

.

[TimeSeeker]

Time is a known concept.

Mass is a known concept.

Yes, but that is not the taxonomy you put forward.

The mind needs to learn to distinction between what is real vs what is conceptual belief and imaginary.

You drew a distinction between real, conceptual and imaginary.

So if time and mass are 'concepts' then they aren't real?

[Dontaskme]

Time is a known concept.

Mass is a known concept.

Yes, but that is not the taxonomy you put forward.

The mind needs to learn to distinction between what is real vs what is conceptual belief and imaginary.

You drew a distinction between real, conceptual and imaginary.

So if time and mass are 'concepts' then they aren't real?

That's right, known concepts are not real. For no one knows a concept. The illusion of a knower appears real, the appearance is a real illusion.

.

There is no difference between an image seen and the seer seeing the image. They're both the same emptiness appearing full.


Emptiness apearing full is actuality.

''Thinking'' about what is ''non-conceptual actuality'' is conceptual, and not actuality, that's the difference.
.

[TimeSeeker]

That's right, known concepts are not real. For no one knows a concept. The illusion of a knower appears real, the appearance is a real illusion.

.

There is no difference between an image seen and the seer seeing the image. They're both the same emptiness appearing full.


Emptiness apearing full is actuality.

''Thinking'' about what is ''non-conceptual actuality'' is conceptual, and not actuality, that's the difference.
.

OK, but if you put nothing in the category called 'real'. And everything in the category 'illusion'. Then why do you need the categories of 'real' and 'concept'?

[Dontaskme]

That's right, known concepts are not real. For no one knows a concept. The illusion of a knower appears real, the appearance is a real illusion.

.

There is no difference between an image seen and the seer seeing the image. They're both the same emptiness appearing full.


Emptiness apearing full is actuality.

''Thinking'' about what is ''non-conceptual actuality'' is conceptual, and not actuality, that's the difference.
.

OK, but if you put nothing in the category called 'real'. And everything in the category 'illusion'. Then why do you need the categories of 'real' and 'concept'?

Because the mind seeks to know itself, that's why philosophy (knowledge) was born, but even the ''thought'' that reality can be split into different categories is an illusion because opposites exist in the same moment, any divide is completely illusory believed to be real.

The real is actuality, it is not a belief. A concept is belief, not an actuality.

Nothing and Everything is the same One Reality albeit appearing split.

.

[TimeSeeker]

That's right, known concepts are not real. For no one knows a concept. The illusion of a knower appears real, the appearance is a real illusion.

.

There is no difference between an image seen and the seer seeing the image. They're both the same emptiness appearing full.


Emptiness apearing full is actuality.

''Thinking'' about what is ''non-conceptual actuality'' is conceptual, and not actuality, that's the difference.
.

OK, but if you put nothing in the category called 'real'. And everything in the category 'illusion'. Then why do you need the categories of 'real' and 'concept'?

Because the mind seeks to know itself, that's why philosophy (knowledge) was born, but even the ''thought'' that reality can be split into different categories is an illusion because opposites exist in the same moment, any divide is completely illusory believed to be real.

Nothing and Everything is the same One Reality albeit appearing split.

.

Ok, but YOU have two empty categories in your own mind.

If you aren’t going to put anything in them - why do you need them? Empty boxes?

[Dontaskme]

Ok, but YOU have two empty categories in your own mind.

If you aren’t going to put anything in them - why do you need them? Empty boxes?

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about, is this some secret language that only you understand?

All knowledge does is inform the illusion of conceptual reality to be a fiction.

What is actual is not a fiction.

.