God is...

[Age]

I said what I have said in the hopes that the world will be a little better than it was when I first encountered it. Or even if it merely continues another generation or more, that would be worthwhile also. Other than that, I don't know why else I've said what I've said.

I am still just referring to the 'OK' word that you said and wrote here before.

My reply includes that response of mine also.

you seem to have completely lost or misunderstood here.

I am wondering in what sense your 'ok' reply is in, exactly.

Now, if you do not 'want to' just be open and honest here, then that is perfectly fine with me.

[godelian]

In this case, God is merely a thought, an idea never a real physical entity.
For theists this idea or thought is reified as real and it works for them.

If we define God as a collection of positive qualities, then God is a Platonic abstraction.
If we define God as the creator of the heavens and the earth, then God is a Platonic abstract being.
Religion teaches both views simultaneously.

We can develop the understanding that this universe is just one of the universes in a multiverse by picking up subtle hints. We can see it from "Platonic shadows".

In the allegory, Plato describes people that have spent their lives chained in a cave facing a blank wall. They watch shadows projected onto the wall by objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and they give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality but not accurate representations of the real world. The shadows represent the fragment of reality that we can normally perceive through our senses, while the objects under the sun represent the true forms of objects that we can only perceive through reason.

It is a similar situation as in Ancient times when people somewhat suspected that the earth was round, just by picking up subtle hints:

7 ways to prove the earth is round

1. Watch a ship sail off to sea
2. Watch a lunar eclipse
3. Climb a tree
[4. Travel through, or even within, different time zones]
5. Watch a sunset
6. Measure shadows across the country
[7. Google "International Space Station photos"]

From these hints -- except for hint 4 and hint 7 -- even people in the Stone Age could actually figure out that the earth was round.

Concerning our universe, if free will exists, then this universe is not the only universe that interprets its theory.

We can see this subtle hint, i.e. this Platonic shadow, by looking at the natural numbers. Since there are facts about the universe of natural numbers that cannot be explained by arithmetic theory, we know that there exist nonstandard universes/models of numbers that interpret the same theory. Hence, the natural numbers are part of a larger multiverse.

If a fact cannot be explained by its theory, it means that this fact is true in one universe that interprets this theory, but not in other universes that also interpret it.

In religion, the nonstandard universes that interpret the same theory as our universe, are called "heaven" and "hell". From the structure that we can glean from the natural numbers, our free will, i.e. our own unpredictability from theory, is equiconsistent with heaven and hell.

Located as we are, in some very small part of our enormous universe, we can only see the subtle Platonic shadows of the remainder of our transcendental multiverse. Don't expect to see more than that. Furthermore, it is also very easy to just ignore these Platonic shadows.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case, God is merely a thought, an idea never a real physical entity.
For theists this idea or thought is reified as real and it works for them.

If we define God as a collection of positive qualities, then God is a Platonic abstraction.
If we define God as the creator of the heavens and the earth, then God is a Platonic abstract being.
Religion teaches both views simultaneously.

We can develop the understanding that this universe is just one of the universes in a multiverse by picking up subtle hints. We can see it from "Platonic shadows".

In the allegory, Plato describes people that have spent their lives chained in a cave facing a blank wall. They watch shadows projected onto the wall by objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and they give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality but not accurate representations of the real world. The shadows represent the fragment of reality that we can normally perceive through our senses, while the objects under the sun represent the true forms of objects that we can only perceive through reason.

It is a similar situation as in Ancient times when people somewhat suspected that the earth was round, just by picking up subtle hints:

7 ways to prove the earth is round

1. Watch a ship sail off to sea
2. Watch a lunar eclipse
3. Climb a tree
[4. Travel through, or even within, different time zones]
5. Watch a sunset
6. Measure shadows across the country
[7. Google "International Space Station photos"]

From these hints -- except for hint 4 and hint 7 -- even people in the Stone Age could actually figure out that the earth was round.

Concerning our universe, if free will exists, then this universe is not the only universe that interprets its theory.

We can see this subtle hint, i.e. this Platonic shadow, by looking at the natural numbers. Since there are facts about the universe of natural numbers that cannot be explained by arithmetic theory, we know that there exist nonstandard universes/models of numbers that interpret the same theory. Hence, the natural numbers are part of a larger multiverse.

If a fact cannot be explained by its theory, it means that this fact is true in one universe that interprets this theory, but not in other universes that also interpret it.

In religion, the nonstandard universes that interpret the same theory as our universe, are called "heaven" and "hell". From the structure that we can glean from the natural numbers, our free will, i.e. our own unpredictability from theory, is equiconsistent with heaven and hell.

Located as we are, in some very small part of our enormous universe, we can only see the subtle Platonic shadows of the remainder of our transcendental multiverse. Don't expect to see more than that. Furthermore, it is also very easy to just ignore these Platonic shadows.

I'll address these relevant points;
If we define God as a collection of positive qualities, then God is a Platonic abstraction.
If we define God as the creator of the heavens and the earth, then God is a Platonic abstract being.
Religion teaches both views simultaneously.

According to your holy texts you have to enter into a covenant [mithaq, - divine covenant] with your God to comply with all the terms of the contract [to the best of your abilities] in exchange of a promise of eternal life in paradise [some say with 72 virgins].

There is no "IF" you can exercise with your God.
According your God, HE is the creator and heavens and the Earth and HE is most real [as defined above].
It is an insult & blasphemous to identity your God as merely a Platonic abstract being.

I have not imagined any ordinary believer would think of the above like you do, thus that give me an idea to add another theme to my >1400 themes, i.e.
-verses that indicate God is as real as his creations but God is most perfect and the greatest.

[godelian]

It is an insult & blasphemous to identity your God as merely a Platonic abstract being.

Not true. God has no physical body. This is a similar situation as with numbers or sets. They do not have physical bodies either.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is an insult & blasphemous to identity your God as merely a Platonic abstract being.

Not true. God has no physical body. This is a similar situation as with numbers or sets. They do not have physical bodies either.

Your God has Face, Eyes, Hands, Fingers, Leg, Foot although they would be different from human ones.
https://preciousgemsfromthequranandsunn ... ing-allah/

To exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers.

[godelian]

To be exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers.

Science works like that, but mathematics does not.

I will give you an example that science cannot possibly handle:

The Galois connection. There exists an isomorphism between the tower of radical field extensions for the roots of a polynomial and the composition series of normal subgroups of its Galois group. This connection allows us to trivially conclude Abel-Ruffini's theorem, i.e. the firth-degree polynomial has no general solution in radicals.

Let's approach this physically.

Have you ever "observed" a tower of radical field extensions? Please, show me in the physical universe where this exists.
Have you ever "observed" a composition series of normal subgroups? Please, show me in the physical universe where this exists.

Conclusion: The Galois connection is utter nonsense because it describes a link between two things that are not directly or indirectly observable.

In other words, your way of thinking is totally ineffective when we investigate things that are observable only in an abstract Platonic universe.

Gödel's God theorem is a connection between the existence of a Godlike object and five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic. That is a innocuous Platonic shadow that is only visible to people who carefully look for it. There are probably more Platonic shadows, but we'll have to wait for someone to discover them.

[Gary Childress]

I am still just referring to the 'OK' word that you said and wrote here before.

My reply includes that response of mine also.

you seem to have completely lost or misunderstood here.

That's odd. I thought I said exactly why I said what I did. Can you think of another reason I said what I said? I suppose vanity is also a possibility. Why do you think I said what I did?

[Age]

My reply includes that response of mine also.

you seem to have completely lost or misunderstood here.

That's odd. I thought I said exactly why I said what I did. Can you think of another reason I said what I said? I suppose vanity is also a possibility. Why do you think I said what I did?

I do not know why you said what you said. The whole point of me asking you, 'In what sense are you saying, 'OK', here, exactly? is because I have no idea why you said what you did.

[Gary Childress]

you seem to have completely lost or misunderstood here.

That's odd. I thought I said exactly why I said what I did. Can you think of another reason I said what I said? I suppose vanity is also a possibility. Why do you think I said what I did?

I do not know why you said what you said. The whole point of me asking you, 'In what sense are you saying, 'OK', here, exactly? is because I have no idea why you said what you did.

It was just a dumb vain moment. I said it because I was being dumb and vain.

[Age]

That's odd. I thought I said exactly why I said what I did. Can you think of another reason I said what I said? I suppose vanity is also a possibility. Why do you think I said what I did?

I do not know why you said what you said. The whole point of me asking you, 'In what sense are you saying, 'OK', here, exactly? is because I have no idea why you said what you did.

It was just a dumb vain moment. I said it because I was being dumb and vain.

Thank you for attempting to, finally, clarify here now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers.

Science works like that, but mathematics does not.

I will give you an example that science cannot possibly handle:

The Galois connection. There exists an isomorphism between the tower of radical field extensions for the roots of a polynomial and the composition series of normal subgroups of its Galois group. This connection allows us to trivially conclude Abel-Ruffini's theorem, i.e. the firth-degree polynomial has no general solution in radicals.

Let's approach this physically.

Have you ever "observed" a tower of radical field extensions? Please, show me in the physical universe where this exists.
Have you ever "observed" a composition series of normal subgroups? Please, show me in the physical universe where this exists.

Conclusion: The Galois connection is utter nonsense because it describes a link between two things that are not directly or indirectly observable.

In other words, your way of thinking is totally ineffective when we investigate things that are observable only in an abstract Platonic universe.

Gödel's God theorem is a connection between the existence of a Godlike object and five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic. That is a innocuous Platonic shadow that is only visible to people who carefully look for it. There are probably more Platonic shadows, but we'll have to wait for someone to discover them.

What is not real [as defined] is illusory.
I have argued the scientific framework and system is the gold standard of reality.

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
What Other Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

While mathematics is credible and reliable, it is not realistic as with science.
For example, in geometry there is the perfect circle and other polygon, but they are impossible to exist as real in reality.
Perfect circle and other polygons exist only contingent upon the mathematics-geometry framework and system.
They are useful as guides to deal with empirical circles.
To insist perfect circles [illusory] exists as real is delusional.

It is the same with 'The Galois connection' which science cannot handle. If science cannot handle, then it is not real per se.

Whatever that is possible within a mathematic framework and system is at best an illusion relative to reality.

If you insist your God is mathematical, it cannot be real.
If it is not real, then it is illusory.

I have no issue if you accept your God is illusory and not real [as defined].

That is what Kant did, i.e. prove God is illusory [not real] but albeit a very useful illusion for therapeutic and other purposes.

[godelian]

To insist perfect circles [illusory] exists as real is delusional.

Mathematical realism is not delusional at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities.

Neither mathematical realism nor mathematical anti-realism are delusional. Depending on the problem at hand, they are relevant or irrelevant. Seriously, it is your own view on mathematical realism that is delusional.

It is the same with 'The Galois connection' which science cannot handle. If science cannot handle, then it is not real per se.
Whatever that is possible within a mathematic framework and system is at best an illusion relative to reality.

Most scientists know better than to attack mathematics as illusory. In fact, most scientists find your brand of scientism delusional.

If you insist your God is mathematical, it cannot be real.
If it is not real, then it is illusory.

We can use mathematics to investigate the subtle Platonic shadows that the rest of our multiverse leaves on our own universe. If we assume structural similarity between the universe of the natural numbers and our own physical universe, we can successfully detect these subtle Platonic shadows. Mathematics reaches further than the limits of science. We cannot always test. Eratosthenes could not test his findings. He could not circumnavigate the earth to verify that his calculations were correct. That does not make his calculations illusory. On the contrary, his calculations turned out to be surprisingly correct.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To insist perfect circles [illusory] exists as real is delusional.

Mathematical realism is not delusional at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities.

Neither mathematical realism nor mathematical anti-realism are delusional. Depending on the problem at hand, they are relevant or irrelevant. Seriously, it is your own view on mathematical realism that is delusional.

It is the same with 'The Galois connection' which science cannot handle. If science cannot handle, then it is not real per se.
Whatever that is possible within a mathematic framework and system is at best an illusion relative to reality.

Most scientists know better than to attack mathematics as illusory. In fact, most scientists find your brand of scientism delusional.

If you insist your God is mathematical, it cannot be real.
If it is not real, then it is illusory.

We can use mathematics to investigate the subtle Platonic shadows that the rest of our multiverse leaves on our own universe. If we assume structural similarity between the universe of the natural numbers and our own physical universe, we can successfully detect these subtle Platonic shadows. Mathematics reaches further than the limits of science. We cannot always test. Eratosthenes could not test his findings. He could not circumnavigate the earth to verify that his calculations were correct. That does not make his calculations illusory. On the contrary, his calculations turned out to be surprisingly correct.

I stated
"To insist perfect circles [illusory] exists as real is delusional."

Note the terms 'reification' and 'hypostatization' of the abstract as real where in this case, it is delusional.

Mathematics entities in essence are abstract entities.
In this case they are illusory in relation to what is real in the scientific empirical sense.

For example;
100-90=0 [a mathematical truth] by-itself is illusory and meaningless.

However $100 - $90 = $10 is real
where a thief stole $90 from someone who has $100.

As such, while your Godel's Argument for God is mathematically true, that God is not real.
If it is not real, then it is illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious.

Show me where any of the Abrahamic theists would accept their God is not real?

[godelian]

I stated
"To insist perfect circles [illusory] exists as real is delusional."

You attack mathematical realism, but your arguments are simply nonsensical.

As such, while your Godel's Argument for God is mathematically true, that God is not real.

You keep confusing "real" with "physical".

If it is not real, then it is illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious.

What you see on your computer screen, is not physical.
So, in your opinion, it is "illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious"?
Seriously, that is a you-problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated
"To insist perfect circles [illusory] exists as real is delusional."

You attack mathematical realism, but your arguments are simply nonsensical.

As such, while your Godel's Argument for God is mathematically true, that God is not real.

You keep confusing "real" with "physical".

I have stated in another post,
the gold standard of 'what is real' is contingent upon the scientific framework and system [FS].
Whatever is 'physical' can be verified and justified with the science-physics-FS is real.

Whatever is proven via the mathematical FS cannot be real per se like as with 'what is real' from the science FS.

If it is not real, then it is illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious.

What you see on your computer screen, is not physical.
So, in your opinion, it is "illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious"?
Seriously, that is a you-problem.

What I see on my computer screen is real and is physical as can be confirmed by the science-physics FS.
So, it is not "illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious" in the scientific sense.

Note:
in another meta-perspective, whatever is real [scientific or otherwise] is illusory, but this is another topic.