Can a God be Defined ...

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

We would never have been able to find proof of our existence without consciousness yet science hasn’t narrowed down the element of consciousness. Sure, it studies the mechanics of the brain but - consciousness is not something that’s on the table of elements like oxygen. There are no physics equations to explain its origins, like gravity. Yet, we need it in order to discover anything. It seems like a pretty important thing to skip over. That fact downgrades science’s place as a be all end all tool in my mind.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I think that’s the closest we’re going to get - we either take it for granted (with gratitude for life) that God exists, or we don’t - we won’t “prove” God scientifically because it’s science that requires the proof, it’s science that demands proof - but it’s too weak a system, in the vastness of everything, to find it. Science - like every system that exists that we built - is swimming around in God, checking stuff out, and can’t see that without God, it would not exist.

Science is a small fish and God is an ocean.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Here is the true definition of God. God is a writhing vortex of temporal sludge, knotting paradoxes from shattered timelines. It flickers in a 29-dimensional haze, its form a tangle of disjointed, boneless limbs dripping lava-like spit that reeks of scorched licorice. Communicating via ultraviolet static bursts smelling of burnt grapefruit, it throws umbrella tips into dimensions as glowing scepters. Its role is to maintain universal absurdity, ensuring coffee spills on white shirts, offering only ash-laced riddles and warped cassette screeches. Prove me wrong?

We have proof that you’re are a good writer. …How ever did you think of that?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Our ability to reason and think comes from some elemental aspect of the universe. It would have to, right? Or else we’d all just be rocks, or plants at best - or water - because even other animals are conscious. It exists, but how, why, where does it come from originally? We can’t write it off because without it we wouldn’t be able to write it off. That’s the starting point of my argument - consciousness must be an essential element in the source of the building blocks that we call existence (and we can only think about it because we exist - there’s definitely no proof that someone who’s never existed has thought about anything) but science hasn’t found it. It focuses on the mechanics but not the essence. Maybe it was always meant to be a circular argument that science can’t touch. It can teach us a lot, but maybe it’s just not a compatible tool or system for knowing everything. I think, given how small we are in the big picture, we’d be foolish to think so.

I’ve found it! God is a circle. Lol

Or a circle with a twist in the middle. Existence is a bit warped at times.

We would never have been able to find proof of our existence without consciousness yet science hasn’t narrowed down the element of consciousness. Sure, it studies the mechanics of the brain but - consciousness is not something that’s on the table of elements like oxygen. There are no physics equations to explain its origins, like gravity. Yet, we need it in order to discover anything. It seems like a pretty important thing to skip over. That fact downgrades science’s place as a be all end all tool in my mind.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I think that’s the closest we’re going to get - we either take it for granted (with gratitude for life) that God exists, or we don’t - we won’t “prove” God scientifically because it’s science that requires the proof, it’s science that demands proof - but it’s too weak a system, in the vastness of everything, to find it. Science - like every system that exists that we built - is swimming around in God, checking stuff out, and can’t see that without God, it would not exist.

Science is a small fish and God is an ocean.

Absence of proof isn’t proof of absence, but it’s also not proof of existence. Your metaphor of a god as an ocean and science as a fish assumes a god’s reality without evidence, falling back into circular reasoning. If science can’t prove a god, that doesn’t make god real, it just highlights science’s limits or our current ignorance. Defining a god as real needs evidence first, or it’s as vague as my five-headed, hundred-eyed deity. Without proof, your ocean is just a poetic guess. Prove me wrong with evidence, not metaphors. Thanks

 

[Pavlos Maros]

We have proof that you’re are a good writer. …How ever did you think of that?

From all the different creation gods there are Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods and of course from the minds of countless authors and playwrights scriptwriters etc etc.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Absence of proof isn’t proof of absence, but it’s also not proof of existence. Your metaphor of a god as an ocean and science as a fish assumes a god’s reality without evidence, falling back into circular reasoning. If science can’t prove a god, that doesn’t make god real, it just highlights science’s limits or our current ignorance. Defining a god as real needs evidence first, or it’s as vague as my five-headed, hundred-eyed deity. Without proof, your ocean is just a poetic guess. Prove me wrong with evidence, not metaphors. Thanks

But like I said, your insistence is on demanding proof on science’s terms and science is not an adequate tool. It hasn’t even defined consciousness’ origins - which is, at minimum, a requirement for scientific discovery. I don’t think faith owes science proof. People either innately get it (no explanation is fully adequate) or they don’t.

If it were possible to define God it would be something about consciousness, existence itself, and being conscious of existence. And then if it were possible to prove, someone else would give it a scientific Latin name and claim it was something new because it was just discovered but it would still be God. A rose by any other name…

But, “God is a circle” works almost as well.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It’s weird that science barely considers the origins of consciousness in the universe - doesn’t see it as a fundamental element inherent in universal laws, like gravity. That sort of pursuit is seen as fringe woo when it should come first because it’s the most basic requirement for the job of scientist. How ungrateful! I don’t see any blades of grass building telescopes or finding cures for cancer .

If there’s a way to prove God and define God - I think it might come from a better understanding of consciousness.

 

[Luce NDs]

How does a humble god keep his head down? It is very difficult when there are physical god waiting for that essence to pop-up so they can take it off (not just the ears)!

How does one become conscious of such things? It takes a psyche-like mind as a metaphorical device like a medium ... and you know how physical power feels about thinking mediums ... they have brutal words to eliminate them ...

 

[Luce NDs]

It’s weird that science barely considers the origins of consciousness in the universe - doesn’t see it as a fundamental to existence, like gravity. That sort of pursuit is seen as fringe woo. How ungrateful! I don’t see any blades of grass building telescopes or finding cures for cancer .

It is because a mental quality is such a far out expression to those devoted to physical reality and no scientific vision as ... well the do not desire it like some folk feel about fruitcakes and fig i,e. trees! So much duff ...

The implications are comprehensive and thus a loaded vocation of sophisticated nature ... like moth Erin in the dark ... we drift towards simple symbolics ...

Like Simon! Lingam? That's further matter for conflict over where to put it ... with Fannie Mae? In some places that's related to Yoni ... where people return for reasons that are sometimes ineffable ... like they do not wish to admit being attracted to the void space ... connection point?

As many words the intercourse becomes unintelligible as on a confused and stormy night ... Machiavellian? Lower Dais, lordy that thing has an odd base line ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

But if god is simply existence, then proof of existence not needed.

 

[Luce NDs]

Needed absolute from which to observe the abstract ... which few believe ... they say the abstract is a mysterious creation zone ... unless at a certain maturity ...Does psyche and consciousness tend to be sold off like sole? What is the cost of recovery from such lack (stupidity, ignorance, or innocence about the alternate factors ? This is discussed in the Power of Myth regarding humble powers of metaphor, parable, etc. by that Joe character!


He also spoke of the sense of normality that just isn't ... as if normality is a floating point system ... just for unique rationales ... isn't that something worth being WOKE about?

Then "intifada" is about popping up at the proper and adequate time for input ... like toad stools ... a form of mica aecia ... phun Diana!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It is because a mental quality is such a far out expression to those devoted to physical reality and no scientific vision as ... well the do not desire it like some folk feel about fruitcakes and fig i,e. trees! So much duff ...

The implications are comprehensive and thus a loaded vocation of sophisticated nature ... like moth Erin in the dark ... we drift towards simple symbolics ...

Like Simon! Lingam? That's further matter for conflict over where to put it ... with Fannie Mae? In some places that's related to Yoni ... where people return for reasons that are sometimes ineffable ... like they do not wish to admit being attracted to the void space ... connection point?

As many words the intercourse becomes unintelligible as on a confused and stormy night ... Machiavellian? Lower Dais, lordy that thing has an odd base line ...

I’m trying not to make a dirty joke here lol.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But if god is simply existence, then proof of existence not needed.

But…if nothing were conscious would anything exist? It’s impossible to know! Scientifically anyway.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

But like I said, your insistence is on demanding proof on science’s terms and science is not an adequate tool. It hasn’t even defined consciousness’ origins - which is, at minimum, a requirement for scientific discovery. I don’t think faith owes science proof. People either innately get it (no explanation is fully adequate) or they don’t.

If it were possible to define God it would be something about consciousness, existence itself, and being conscious of existence. And then if it were possible to prove, someone else would give it a scientific Latin name and claim it was something new because it was just discovered but it would still be God. A rose by any other name…

But, “God is a circle” works almost as well.

It’s weird that science barely considers the origins of consciousness in the universe - doesn’t see it as a fundamental element inherent in universal laws, like gravity. That sort of pursuit is seen as fringe woo when it should come first because it’s the most basic requirement for the job of scientist. How ungrateful! I don’t see any blades of grass building telescopes or finding cures for cancer .

If there’s a way to prove God and define God - I think it might come from a better understanding of consciousness.

Your argument is still circular. You claim consciousness hints at a god, but without evidence, that’s just speculation, not a definition of something real. Science hasn’t fully explained consciousness, sure, but that gap doesn’t prove a god, It only shows we don’t know yet. Faith may not owe science proof, but claiming a god is real owes evidence, or it’s as arbitrary as defining a god with five heads or as a circle. If consciousness is key, show me verifiable proof tying it to god, not metaphors or assumptions. Prove me wrong with facts, not feelings. You can't prove that your god is anywhere but in your imagination.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

But if god is simply existence, then proof of existence not needed.

Then why call it god? You're just muddying the water by calling it god.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Then why call it god? You're just muddying the water by calling it god.

Because existence = god = pantheism, which is a legit definition of god. It may be muddy, you may not like it, but still.

 

[Mendalla]

Because existence = god = pantheism, which is a legit definition of god. It may be muddy, you may not like it, but still.

But it is a definition that only applies if you're a pantheist. To a non-pantheist, esp. a non-theist, it does seem rather silly and redundant to use a word normally associated with a personal deity to refer to the universe, for which there are many legitimate non-personal names. Even in my more pantheist moments, I tend to Cosmos or something similar. "God" just doesn't fit for me as a word for that.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Your argument is still circular. You claim consciousness hints at a god, but without evidence, that’s just speculation, not a definition of something real. Science hasn’t fully explained consciousness, sure, but that gap doesn’t prove a god, It only shows we don’t know yet. Faith may not owe science proof, but claiming a god is real owes evidence, or it’s as arbitrary as defining a god with five heads or as a circle. If consciousness is key, show me verifiable proof tying it to god, not metaphors or assumptions. Prove me wrong with facts, not feelings. You can't prove that your god is anywhere but in your imagination.

Can you prove that imagination is irrelevant? What tools would you use? Half the world believes in God. That means at least half the world has an imagination. And?

How could imagination be irrelevant if we have it to thank for so much - we use our imaginations to find meaning in our lives. It seems to me that we’re “supposed to” have imaginations or else we wouldn’t have them. We invent meaning for benign actions and situations in our lives when we’re, in (scientifically defined) reality, less than microscopic specs in a vast universe. Everything we assign significance to is insignificant without imagination. Nothing matters without it. Without belief in God we may not have ever evolved. Scientific pursuit even came from belief in God originally. As did so many creative pursuits that our world benefitted from. Funny how so much came out of something that “doesnt exist”. “That’s your imagination” is thrown around as an insult but it deserves more respect. The problem is not belief in God, the problem is projecting the worst of human character onto God, then forming expectations around that projection.

 

[WhyCzar]

It is pointless discussing concepts before existence is confirmed.

The terms "being", "reality", and "actuality" are often used as synonyms of "existence", but the exact definition of existence and its connection to these terms is disputed.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Even in my more pantheist moments, I tend to Cosmos or something similar. "God" just doesn't fit for me as a word for that.

I use Holy Mystery, myself, sometimes Creating godde. The fact remains that pantheism is a legitimate theological position and being evidentiary in nature, needs no evidence, thus providing an exception to Pavlos' assertion that definition requires evidence.