What Is Your Definition of "God"?

  • Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Definition
In summary, the atheist believes that there is no God, as defined by this thread's participants. The creator of the universe, as defined in this thread, is a being that does not exist outside of Earth.
  • #71
Heusdens, using my post as guide then,

1. Does God exist in time and space?

Short answer yes and no, God is thruout time and space and beyond.

2. If so, is God finite in size, or infinite?

See above, size seems inapplicable- 'God' is from < than Planck length to beyond the extent of space.Everywhere in between.

3. Is God able of changing?

No, if that were possible the answers to 1& 2 above would not be true.

4. If the universe had always existed and is infinite in size/extend, where would that place God?

If that where so then they would be one.

5. Is God inside or outside of the universe (the whole of totality)

As the whole of totality 'God' is both. Another way to see it is the universe is inside 'God'.

6. If it is assumed that time had a definite beginning, then what happened before that time?

There was only 'God'.

O'tay.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Amp...

Do you honestly believe your response to Heusden's questions...especially #3...that "God" is not capable of changing?

Even if the standard "personified God" were true, can you think of anything more BORING to an "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" "God" to STAY THE SAME FOREVER AND EVER, AMEN?

The Universe, in my opinion, is not "within God"...the Universe IS "God"...only better.
 
  • #73
I respect your concept M.G without deriding,

my conception(well I didn't originate it) may be at odds with generally accepted beleif systems, for instance I believe 'God' doesn't change but isn't static in the way you use the word. My comprehension is 'God' cannot cease to be 'God', circular to be sure but one does get the point. Thats why when I say something like 'God' is beyond our concepts of infinite it gets derided but I emphasize the thought by saying 'God' can produce an infinite amount of energy or matter or both and be undiminished.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74


Originally posted by amp
my conception(well I didn't originate it) may be at odds with generally accepted beleif systems, for instance I believe 'God' doesn't change but isn't static in the way you use the word. My comprehension is 'God' cannot cease to be 'God', circular to be sure but one does get the point. Thats why when I say something like 'God' is beyond our concepts of infinite it gets derided but I emphasize the thought by saying 'God' can produce an infinite amount of energy or matter or both and be undiminished.

OK.
 
  • #75
Basicly, god is anything you want because god only exist in your head (= has no equivalent in nature).

Thus, any definition of god is equally acceptable (as long as it does not contradict facts).
 
  • #76
paradox of Trinity

Most of the threads on these forums are about the same question: the degree (or density) of existence (reality, consciousness, nothingness, God, paradoxes, truth,...), it's interrelationship(s). When you see the discussions from a distance you will see that we are trapped in semantic frames with paradoxical implications.

When we just use words we will not come out.

THE NEED FOR OVERVIEW

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.
When we have such a mechanism then everyone can call that after his own believe system: GOD, Maya, nothingness, Logos, Jamjam, ...

Starting from pure logic - based on only one postulate (there is one unbreakable membrane) - such an mechanism can be imagined. This unbreakable membrane can manifold itself creating that way new layers which will separate (make isolated islands) but still will stay connected too to previous islands, and are still connected to the original starting 'something'. This means that the 'form' which contains 'essential movement' creates diversity.

DUALISM

This universal manifold (probably described by alpha: coupling constant) will create already on the second level the separation between basic ENERGY (3+) and basic MATTER (3-), which are in fact differently layered. From there the combinations are higher than traditional squared or factored.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposite views like Materialism and Idealism. The various explanations of the paradoxical Origin brought humanity : religious fanatics, Inquisition(s), wars and (auto) believes in superior races ('chosen' by GOD). So it's time to de-mystify!

From the monkey view we see 'islands of reality'.
We live on such an island. (this is my Universe).
Our body is such an island. (this is my Island).
But from the Eye of Ra we will say: an island is just an PART of the Earth surface (that is higher than the other surrounding Earth surface) that is surrounded by water. And we can see that all islands are connected by Earth but on another level separated by water.

LIFE.

The further this process of division (by adding new layers) goes the more complexity starts and conditions for 'life' appear on their level(s). Level dependent self-organizing will create collective and individual consciousness on several relevant levels.

This means also that spiritual energies (as emanations/infolding) of the basic energy (3+) has degrees of (relative) independence, which explain the possibilities in connectivity in consciousness systems.

Humans are thus each an individual universe with billions of combinations of internal isolated islands (fundamental particles which are 'boxed' in atoms, atoms which are 'boxed' in molecules, molecules which are 'boxed' in DNA, ... finally creating Jim, Alan, Mary, ...; but on down-levels they still are connected on common (collective) starting islands.
Inside they are still connected with the original movement, and internally there is still the original membrane between each layer.

The paradox of life (the connection of a physical body with spiritual body) can be analyzed and solved in the same way. The connection (starting life) happens with tiny white holes and de-connection (death) with tiny black holes.

MEMBRANE is GRAVITATION.

Trapped inside the human monkey view is the idea of gravitation. What we call gravity (fundamental connectivity) is only the result of the infolded membrane in every fundamental particle, subsequential atom, subsequential molecule, ...

The question of GOD is thus the ability to see with the Eye of Ra. ;-)

If you want to see a solution on the paradox of Trinity click on below image.
 
Last edited:
  • #77


Originally posted by pelastration


The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.

That is almost exactly what scientists do for living. But instead of imagination they use math (=logic) to compare proposed "mechanisms" with what we see and discard those which do not pass.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

Science does not use senses in investigating nature. Senses are useless for this purpose. Indeed, to someone a mountainn seems tall, but to someone else it seems small. So nstead, science uses independent on human senses tools: a kilogram, a meter stick, a balance, a stopwatch, a spectrometer, a thermometer, etc. Then mountain is same 1.5 km +/- 0.2 km for everyone: dino, alien, robot, etc.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposite views like Materialism and Idealism.

If by matter you mean fermions and by energy - bosons, then there is not much mathematical difference between them - they are both one and same object with slightly different parameters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78


Originally posted by Alexander
But instead of imagination they use math (=logic) to compare proposed "mechanisms" with what we see and discard those which do not pass.
Alexander check my thread on the maths forum (posted April 15 - 44 views - no reply).
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=14203

Can you do the maths?
I don't believe you can:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Oh, you did not do any math yet? Then you don't have a THEORY yet.


Why then you claim that your manifolds (which by the way topologically are just spheres) have anything to do with reality?
 
  • #80
In my view, religion was a way through which early man attempted to explain what he saw in the universe. His mental capabilities were very limited, the universe was so overwhelming that he attributed its existence to a supernatural being. He was not capable of explaining the universe through the scientific laws that govern it.
I have only been exposed to one religion i.e. Christianity. I think I read this on a post in PF2 - 'the paradox of an omniscient God allowing free will.' If s/he/it knows everything, why bother creating everything in the first place? Sounds like a crazy scientist carrying out a sadistic experiment, right?
How about if everything we have been taught/ have heard is wrong?( à la Albert Einstein - maybe religion needs a complete overhaul as well). For all we know, the bible was written by human beings who are extremely fallible.
Has anyone heard of Neale Donald Walsch?
 
  • #81
Originally posted by Alexander [/i]
Oh, you did not do any math yet? Then you don't have a THEORY yet.
Why then you claim that your manifolds (which by the way topologically are just spheres) have anything to do with reality?
Pathetic. [zz)]
Simplicity has merits and makes life easy.

Michio Kaku: "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping. "

Source: http://www.mkaku.org/articles/becoming-a-physicist.shtml [Broken]

That's what Einstein said ... but Alexander knows better.

Is mathematics everything? So if you believe that: God is mathematics just tell us that. We will respect that vision.

If you believe my manifold is not based on logic (including numbers) you should check my website ... .

And answer to my answer in the thread: Everything came from Nothing.- Speed of gravity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Originally posted by Cartesio
In my view, religion was a way through which early man attempted to explain what he saw in the universe. His mental capabilities were very limited, the universe was so overwhelming that he attributed its existence to a supernatural being. He was not capable of explaining the universe through the scientific laws that govern it.
I have only been exposed to one religion i.e. Christianity. I think I read this on a post in PF2 - 'the paradox of an omniscient God allowing free will.' If s/he/it knows everything, why bother creating everything in the first place? Sounds like a crazy scientist carrying out a sadistic experiment, right?
How about if everything we have been taught/ have heard is wrong?( à la Albert Einstein - maybe religion needs a complete overhaul as well). For all we know, the bible was written by human beings who are extremely fallible.
Has anyone heard of Neale Donald Walsch?
For sure humans want to "explain". This is called in psychology: a rationalization. Thus find with limited rational elements an explanation for an event. We do that every day.

On that paradox: this reasoning show that humans like to see "God" reasoning as humans.
 
  • #83
Pel, don't take it as offence, but you did not answer the key question: what is the relation between your hypothesis and physical world you claim it explains?
 
  • #84
Originally posted by Alexander
Pel, don't take it as offence, but you did not answer the key question: what is the relation between your hypothesis and physical world you claim it explains?
Pelastration concept shows how mass and thus matter is created (just by two parameters: motion and form. Thus pure kinetics.).
By restructering of the membrane all fundamental particles are created + they include already gravity (= the membrane).
Fundamental particles = the basis of the physical world.

This happens by adding layers (by a manifold that restructures the previous levels).

Adding a layer = extra dimension.

The creation: a new white hole (combination of two different hyperspaces) -> joint in new unity = pressure between those layers + friction between layers = internal motion.

Decay: black hole + dejoint back into two separate hyperspaces again .

Second law of thermodynamics is valid in complete system. There is only one system with billions of subdivisions. Each sub-division keeps his 'historical " layer structure. (some call that a HOLON).
 
  • #85
But these are only words, right? There is nothing to back them.

Say, none of kniown particles are derived and none of properties of any known force is explained, right?
 
  • #86
Originally posted by Alexander
But these are only words, right? There is nothing to back them.
I draw a plan. It's a pure logic.
I just need some numbers. They will prove it is a valid approach. The logic shows it.
The numbers will come soon. It's not because they are not here now that it makes the approach not valid. If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths. I know the result.

Originally posted by Alexander
Say, none of kniown particles are derived and none of properties of any known force is explained, right? [/B]
Gravity is explained. Quantum leap. Design of white/black hole.
To apply on specific particles the combinations will be extracted from the experimental data from CERN, FermiLab, etc. I am not capable to do that. If I would be able to that ... I have other priorities.

Don't know if you even checked my full website, but since you like maths check the webpage where I analyzed some basic numbers. It shows that by pelastration there are two 3's, five 4's and fourtheen 5's, each with another layering. Just count them (the basic math's!). That's basic logic. And Alexander this is not just theory, as an inventor I have already real applications under patent-applications for this approach. And I designed and applied for patent already new toys based on the manifold. So I apply it in the REALITY.
http://hollywood.org/cosmology/numbers.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Originally posted by CJames
I would define God as a creator of the universe, as that seems to be a very commong trend. Did Zues create the universe? Or his dad or whatever? Can't remember. I would call other godlike entities, supernatural beings. I believe in none of them.

This somehow states that all of the material world received it's existence due to the existence (acts) of a God.

This would imply that if God would not be existent or dit not create the material world, then there would not be a material world.

What would exist then?
 
  • #88
Originally posted by heusdens
This somehow states that all of the material world received it's existence due to the existence (acts) of a God.

This would imply that if God would not be existent or dit not create the material world, then there would not be a material world.

What would exist then?

What would exist if there were no "God"? ...the living, conscious Entity that is the Universe.

If this Entity is truly "eternal" ...then there is no need for a "creator".

Otherwise, why not ask the question: Who created God?

Shouldn't extraneous factors be reduced OUT of any equation?
 
Last edited:
  • #89
God is.


Are you?

If yoiu prove your existence; you have proved God's existence. Look in the mirror you will see his handiwork.
Shut down you mouth and mind and you will hear him talking to you. Most of us are shouting "I am" so loadly that we can't here God saying "I am."


PS
Don't blame me. It's all wuliherons fault. He turned me back onto Tao.
 
  • #90
Some say that you must listen carefully to hear the word of God. It's unfortunate that theists can't hear the word of atheism over the voices in their heads.
-Michael Pain
 
  • #91
Originally posted by pelastration

Gravity is explained. Quantum leap. Design of white/black hole.

Ok. How F=GMm/R2 (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?
 
  • #92
Originally posted by Alexander
Ok. How F=GMm/R2 (gravity force), or Shroedinger equation (quantum leap), or Einstein one (black/white hole) follow from your hypothesis?
I draw the plan. It's a pure logic.
I just need some numbers. They will prove it is a valid approach. The logic shows it.
The numbers will come soon. It's not because they are not here now that it makes the approach not valid. If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths. I know the result.

For your information:

Quote : In 1912, Einstein had another profound insight: If all accelerated frames of reference were equivalent then Euclidean geometry cannot hold in all of them. That is, the geometry of space is not necessarily Euclidean.
Einstein did not know the mathematics he needed to turn his idea into a physical theory so he turned to his friend Marcel Grossmann who directed Einstein to the works of Riemann, Ricci and Levi-Civita on differential geometry.
... In 1915, Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which provided a radical explanation of free fall motion and therefore of gravity. The free fall motion of objects depends on the geometry of the space through which they move. Objects in free fall move the same way simply because they experience the same spatial geometry Moreover, the geometry of space and time is determined by matter and energy.


If you really go inside the P-manifold approach you will see that the non-commonsense behavior of light in a inertia frame is not strange at all. Since the membrane is inside the inertia frame ... the same membrane stress is applicable. So light has it's standard speed in the inertia frame.

I repeat: If you doubt as a mathematician prove me that the approach is not valid through maths.
 
  • #93
That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith. [/B][/QUOTE]

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a beginning and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream.
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Royce
That statement has nothing to do with reason. It's a statement of blind faith.

It is only "Blind Faith" to those who refuse to see or to look.
It is reasonable to reason that we and the universe had a beginning and that something/someone began it. It is reasonable to reason the the immaterial exists and I have yet to experience a material idea, thought, theory or consciouness. It is reasonable to reason that I exist but not reasonable for me to reason that you exist. I can only take it on Blind faith that the irritant that is supplies foriegn thoughts is real, material and not just an unpleasant aspect of my dream. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gibberish.
 
  • #95
Hello !

Hello! Hiiiii.

I am THE MIND.
Nice to be here.
 
  • #96
LOL I guess that settles it, then. That's always what I thought you'd look like!
 
  • #97
"Proof for the existence of God", the revenge?
 
  • #98
When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly!

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty!
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #99
No "Buddy" Here!

Originally posted by BoulderHead
When I saw THE MIND become our most recent member I knew things would get interesting rather quickly!

Great big hugs and kisses for THE MIND.

[edit]
Say, I only just saw your avatar. I must say, it appears your MIND could only be surpassed by your beauty!
I have not seen such a combination of brains and beauty since I fell for Hedy Lamar!

So you'll know, not everybody feels this way.

I had enough VACANT CHAT on Yahoo's Physics Chat room!

Guess that's why they have "Ignore" buttons.
 
  • #100
Ok, here it goes. I would define God as such:

Any one of a variety mythological entities which have supreme power and abilities over all other entities in it's respective mythology.

This I have come to consider the best definition, give or take.

Here we can see this applies to christian mythology where God would have power over all other entities, including humans because in the Christian mythology, humans exist.

I could create a mythology where there only exists two snails, Phil and Ralph. Ralph has supreme power and abilities over all entities (Phil). Therefore he is the god.

Make sense?
 
  • #101


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So you'll know, not everybody feels this way.

I had enough VACANT CHAT on Yahoo's Physics Chat room!

Guess that's why they have "Ignore" buttons.
Come on, man, lighten up!
 
  • #102
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Make sense?
Would that sort of be like the United States being Godlike at this time in history?
 
  • #103
Boulder, not sure if you're asking me something serious or jokingly? If serious, explain a bit more so I can respond with a good answer. thanks!

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Would that sort of be like the United States being Godlike at this time in history?
 
  • #104
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok, here it goes. I would define God as such:

Any one of a variety mythological entities which have supreme power and abilities over all other entities in it's respective mythology.

This I have come to consider the best definition, give or take.

Here we can see this applies to christian mythology where God would have power over all other entities, including humans because in the Christian mythology, humans exist.

I could create a mythology where there only exists two snails, Phil and Ralph. Ralph has supreme power and abilities over all entities (Phil). Therefore he is the god.

Make sense?


Do you consider the universe a "mythological creature"?

Perhaps the "problem" has been that we keep making up stories about "The Great Outsider" that is all-powerful and all-knowing rather than considering that the the Universe is a living, conscious Entity unto ITSELF...One that doesn't need to be "worshipped" (like so many of us seemed COMPELLED to do)...but only to be APPRECIATED!
 
  • #105
Well, judging from the name you have chosen to use, I would guess that you don’t hold much stock in mythological entities. It sounds like big dog over little dog stuff (which sounds ok to me, btw) and made me think of nations for some reason (probably due to the Iraq war). It isn’t really deserving of serious consideration, however.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
779
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
995
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
603
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
74
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
726
Back
Top