God would presumably believe God exists, making him a theist. — Coben

An atheist is one who does not believe in god. A theist is one who believes in god.

God does not believe in god. He KNOWS he exists. Faith or belief is not necessary for his knowledge to know he exists.

Theists don't know god exists. They believe in god.

If god-knowledge was possible for theists and atheists, the question "Is there a god and if we don't know, then should I believe in it?" would disappear overnight.

An atheist is one who does not believe in god. A theist is one who believes in god.

God does not believe in god. He KNOWS he exists. Faith or belief is not necessary for his knowledge to know he exists. — god must be atheist

In philosophy, knowledge is considered a subset, generally, of beliefs. Rigorously arrived at beliefs. It would be ridiculous to say God knows he exists, but does not believe it. Justified true belief and all that.

It would be ridiculous to say God knows he exists, but does not believe it. — Coben

I appreciate this is true. But I did not claim this. I said,

Faith or belief is not necessary for his knowledge to know he exists. — god must be atheist

In a sense, however, I believe you are right. "Atheist" means not that one requires no faith in god, but means one has a faith that there is no god. And a person or an entity would never believe that he, himself does not exist.

I admit you are right, I just think you did not put it forward properly, if you don't mind my saying so.

Your thoughts were right on, but your language did not cover your thoughts precisely? I don't know.

"Atheist" means (that) one has a faith that there is no god. — god must be atheist

I think this above is a better description what an atheist is, then this following:

"An atheist does not believe in god."

The two are not equivalent. As per the thought experiment derived from my moniker.

‘God’ cannot be shown or known, so ‘God’ is but wished for and hoped for, which is called ‘faith’, in short. ‘No God’ is also an unknown. The positions are not necessarily equiprobable.

You have come up with some interesting thoughts on 'God' and 'no God'. But from the position of someone who has given this a lot of thought in the past, I would say you can't achieve anything definitive with these thoughts. You will always end up with a don't know, anything other than that achieved through logic, would be deluding yourself. I realised a long time ago that if one is to answer this question a different approach to thinking on its own is required.

Has it occurred to you that you are not just a mind, you have a body to? And the important thing about your body is that it is independent of your mind, your reasoning. So you are a reasoning being, but you are also an agent operating, interacting in a place of existence. An interaction which can continue almost entirely in the absence of your thinking and experiencing 'realities', which you thinking is only aware of remotely, through your senses etc. An interaction which may be very different, or more subtle than your mind is aware of.

This realisation gives one an extra tool, besides one's thinking alone.

This realisation gives one an extra tool, besides one's thinking alone. — Punshhh

I am curious what further insight into the existence or nonexistence of god did you gain by realizing you have a body which is independent of your soul.

I will state objections, if I see anything, but I am actually this time genuinely curious how the knowledge of your physical existence in your quest of knowledge of swaying the "equiprobability" in either direction works in helping your to decide the god-nogod dilemma.

I appreciate this is true. But I did not claim this. I said, — god must be atheist

Right but I believe you said he doesn't believe, he knows, as if these were mutually exclusive.

Oh, now I've read the second part. I probably made leaps, pardon my jumpy mind. I often make leaps I think make sense, but people wonder how I got there. We seem to be on the same page, now at least.

I don't know if what I'm suggesting can help in the dilemma necessarily. But for me it allowed me to progress past the intellectual realisation of 'I don't know'.

I followed the thought process of realising that I am a body as well as a mind and that that body might also be God and I am unwittingly being God carrying out my purpose. There are many ways in which such insights can be approached, used and developed into schools of thought and practice. Personally I contemplate insights from studying eastern religions and my personal journey in creative ways.

I would say though that in this process the existence, or not of God, tends to become irrelevant.

Hey, another question... you are good at raising thoughts to ask questions.

If you are familiar with eastern and western ideology of religions, or simply put, you worshipped in both the western and the eastern tradition... then can you tell the difference? Between gods? Is the western god any different from the eastern god? If they are different, how does the difference manifest? and if they are the same, then why talk about eastern and western gods? thanks. It's quite a few questions, sorry, but you really peaked my curiosity.

It can’t have inputs, with no beginning;
So, what chose the song our universe sings? — PoeticUniverse

The Eternal BEING,
being whole & complete
and self-existent,
has no inputs or outputs.

But it may have self-reference,
creating the whirling turbulence
of dismayed dissonance.
rousing the question of "what if?"

That open-ended possibility
was the itching motive
for seeking an answer
to quell the vexed uncertainty.

Hence G*D said "Sing!",
and so it began
the ballad of evolution,
calculating endless possibilities,

Until it found the probability
of Love's permutations,
until the song has expressed
a feeling close to assuredness.

The Eternal is as a multiverse,
Potentially, with no information,
As in Bable’s Library of all books,
Being as useless as Nothing’s zero. — PoeticUniverse

The man-made meme of multiverse
'tempts to compute
the possibility of Love
from endlessly roiling & random static.

But G*D's song of Love
is enforméd by
the Intention to know,
which guides the world's enforming acts.

The infinite tower of Babel books
is incomprehensible until,
enformed by Intention,
'til Nil Nada now Knows facts.

Or, a Programmer sets if-then switches, — PoeticUniverse

Random 'verses will never reach Life
Unless a Selector's informed choice
sets the switch to "what-if?"
computing "what-is" from a zillion variables

Yet, the program lines are finite
because Intention defines the end
of heuristic lines of learning :
Livable, Knowable, and Lovable

Inintelligently prrogrammed, many climbs
Were the off-the-shelf reach of nature’s grimes,
A dickering Rube Goldberg ‘invention’,
Our nervous system now ruled by ancient times. — PoeticUniverse

Intelligence programmed evolution
as the mother of invention,
jerry-rigging neuron tangles :
ancient flukes now known as intention.

What is this sapiens mammal animal?
Still made from slime but of a higher call! — PoeticUniverse

Man is but a creature of flesh & blood
made of mundane matter
and icky sticky stuff,
which learns, by doing, to Live

But hearing a higher call still,
to progress from mud
to mind, soul and spirit,
able to Know and also to Love


Sorry! My poetic talent should be hidden under a bushel. But I was suddenly inspired to riff on your themes. :smile:

computing "what-is" from a zillion variables — Gnomon

Or, the superimposed paths that go on the longest are those that have uniqueness and so they may be the workable ones worth real-izing.

Random 'verses will never reach Life — Gnomon

The Permanent is all that there is,
It’s transmutations the temporary fizz.
It can’t have direction, with no inputs,
So, it multi verses, seeming as a Wiz.

Mathematics is just some kind of extensive bureaucracy of excruciatingly annoying formalisms, not particularly much different from other such obnoxious bureaucracies: — alcontali

I love it.

no longer relevant to the discussion

There needs to be a Fundamental capability for all that is, no matter the ‘how’ of it, whether supposed as spontaneous, from ‘Nothing’, permanent stuff or energy, or whatnot. If it had an opposite state, there wouldn’t be anything, and so the capability is of necessity; it cannot not be. — PoeticUniverse


Isn't that energy? Plus space? That's a good enough definition of God for me. I'm definitely not at all comfortable with any of the anthropomorphic conceptions--except maybe Mother Nature... — uncanni

No. As far as Science has been able to determine, Space-Time-Matter-Energy emerged in the Big Bang from nowhere & nowhen. Anything existing "prior" to that point-of-origin is inherently speculative and non-empirical (theoretical, philosophical), including notions of an eternal regression of mystical Multiverses within a self-existent Omniverse*1. Such world-creator concepts were traditionally called "God" and had to be taken on faith. Since the anthro-morphic gods are no longer tenable, I call that inscrutable enigma "G*D" -- defined as an abstraction like Logic or Mathematics : immaterial, but omnipresent in the world. You can call it "Mother Nature", if you prefer a personification.

Since Energy does not seem to be self-existent, we must assume an Unmoved Mover (First Cause) of some kind to get the ball rolling. Besides, your proposed Prime Mover, Energy, has an acute Achilles Heel : Entropy. Anything that starts strong and then simply fades away over time cannot be permanent or fundamental. As PU so aptly expressed, "if it had an opposite state, there wouldn't be anything". Entropy is the inverse of Energy, which is why they are canceling each other over time, fated to end in the Big Sigh, or the Heat Death of the universe.

Instead, there is an emerging opinion among Cosmologists and Mathematicians that the fundamental essence of our world is Information*2. And Energy is now viewed as a sub-form of Information*3. So, I have adopted a novel term "Enformy" to epitomize the YinYang nature of nature's dynamic forces*4. And EnFormAction is the "fundamental capability for all that is"*5. Hence, the eternal Enformer "cannot not be".


*1 Turtles all the way down : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page41.html

*2 Is Information Fundamental ? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

*3 Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

*4 Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*5 EnFormAction : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Isn't that energy? — uncanni

Information is subject, not object. We exist in an object.

mind, soul and spirit, — Gnomon

Life’s entities embrace one another:
Cell, organism, species, and biotope.

Life seems inspired, although not optimal;
All meaning cannot all be discovered
By observation, but by participation.

A living creature is more like a poem,
Revealing its further dimensions and
Expressing new properties/emergences
At every level of its organization:
Letter, word, phrase, sentence and [uni]verse.

In this lost haunt, out on the Orion arm
Of the Milky Way—as safe from the core’s harm;
The philosophers gather in the forum,
As new Sherlocks unweaving the Cosmic yarn.

We search for the start of the Universe,
The End, the Before, the After, the Kinds,
The Measures, and All That Lies Between—
The music of the Spheres’ Magnificat.

We follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,
Until cornered where the Truth is hiding.

Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
The Theory of Everything shines through!
…
Forum Eyes Only—Classified:
We’re hiding out in Timbuktu, Mali,
Africa, for we’re close to the Secret
And must protect it from evil doers.

From the hourglass of time, the desert’s grains
Ever blow, grind, and blast the camel trains
Loaded with opium, pot, and red wine,
These being the potions to jog our brains.

A snatch of poem the camel-driver sings,
And paints with sun-beams what his vision brings—
Of the waving veils adorning the tent,
Of the pipe-dreams floating up in smoke rings…

Which fumes are as sighs sent to Heaven far,
For consideration, from his altar
On this bubbled puff of a worldly sphere,
In case Destiny wishes to shake its jar.

Ramadan’s now past, and Shawwál comes back,
So feast, song, and pleasure no more we lack;
Now porters with their loads stand back to back,
‘Here comes the camel with his precious pack.’

I don't see a difference between eastern and western Gods, but rather the cultural interpretation and narrative by which they are referred to. But I was not referring to Gods, I was referring to the spiritual texts and ideology taught in those religions.

The idea being that one can answer the questions about Gods through spiritual, or mystical practice, while you cannot answer them through intellectual reasoning on its own.

For example spiritual and mystical practices involve the principle of self reorientation, in which the self ( the part of you which does the thinking, this is an oversimplification) forms a kind of narrative between the body and mind through a reorientation of the person and the person's sense of identity and presence in the world.

The idea being that the mind is informed by the body( the world) and that without the body, the mind would be empty, so everything in the mind is derived from the body and so the body is the source of the information in the mind and all the mind needs to do to understand the body is sort and integrate that information in the right way.

This is a different approach to understanding, than the approach of reason in isolation.

Space-Time-Matter-Energy emerged in the Big Bang from nowhere & nowhen. Anything existing "prior" to that point-of-origin is inherently speculative and non-empirical (theoretical, philosophical), — Gnomon

I assume that the big bang has happened endlessly in our corner of the cosmos; we don't know if the same phenomena are occurring beyond what we are able to observe, which at this point in time, is "expansion." I assume that at some point, the expansion will reverse itself, and all matter will be drawn back into a mega-black hole that will eventually explode into another big bang.

Yes: beyond the capabilities of our telescopes, we have no idea if the same laws are being followed. As for the nowhere and nowhen: it seems logical to me to assume that matter has always existed.

That is a perfect expression, my genius friend...

Information is subject, not object. We exist in an object. — Punshhh

Information is both Subject and Object, both Noun and Verb, both Matter and Energy. Information, according to current physics, is the essence of everything in the world. Or as the link below says : Information is the only thing that exists. So we, subjects and objects, exist within Information.

“IT FROM bit.” This phrase, coined by physicist John Wheeler, encapsulates what a lot of physicists have come to believe: that tangible physical reality, the “it”, is ultimately made from information, or bits.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

Yes: beyond the capabilities of our telescopes, we have no idea if the same laws are being followed. As for the nowhere and nowhen: it seems logical to me to assume that matter has always existed. — uncanni

That's an argument from ignorance. I could say that logically, G*D has always existed, and you could not refute that assertion with evidence. So. we are both speculating beyond the range of our empirical instruments.

Lucretius, in his 99BC ode to Materialism, asserted that Atoms were fundamental and eternal. But modern physics has unpeeled the Atom to discover that there is no end to its layers. The deeper they probe the less materialistic it seems. Current physics has replaced Atoms with Fields, as the fundamental substance of reality. But a field is just a theoretical abstraction, consisting of nothing but mathematical information. So, if anything has always existed, Holistic Information has a better claim than composite Matter.


Information :
• Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
• For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
• When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Isn't that energy? — uncanni

Energy is a form of Enformation.

The girl in a red dress is a form of Information. :love:

But a field is just a theoretical abstraction — Gnomon

That seems just about as ignorant as what you claim about my speculation. Your comments about peeling away at matter until we arrive at...??? don't negate the existence of matter.

Information is both Subject and Object, both Noun and Verb, both Matter and Energy. Information, according to current physics, is the essence of everything in the world. Or as the link below says : Information is the only thing that exists. So we, subjects and objects, exist within Information.

I don't disagree with what you are trying to say about information, but I want to make a semantic distinction, as it is conflating two different kinds of "information". You use the word enformation, I would agree with this and will point out that information as subject is a particular conscious knowing in a mind. This is a different thing to your, subjects and objects existing within information.

The enformation you are referring to is rather a quality of objects, such objects are not carrying information, but qualitative states. They are not carrying information, subjective knowing of things by a mind. The qualitative states they are carrying are not known, at any point, and there are no minds involved.

The idea being that one can answer the questions about Gods through spiritual, or mystical practice, while you cannot answer them through intellectual reasoning on its own. — Punshhh

Thanks, P, for answering my exhaustive question, to my satisfaction, actually.

There are many corollaries you instigated with this claim, and I mention only two of them:

1. If faith is primarily and overwhelmingly a mystical practice, and it does not rely on the intellect, and it is untouchable by reasoning (both of which I accept), then perhaps faith and man's relationship to an alleged god ought not to be discussed on a philosophy site, as philosophy is strictly an intellectual pursuit.
2. If faith is as above, then proselytizing with reason and intellectually convincing arguments ought not to work, and therefore it is futile when tried.

And a third question, which is the fundamental problem of a missionary: if faith is untouched by reason and by the intellect, how can you impress reasonable people?

@Punshhh, I think your observation is spot on. Very good insight, indeed.

If you think about it, the biggest topic and the source of strife on the pages of this site is religion, religiosity, and/or the lack of it. Why? Because 1 and 2 that you touched on are true.

And why have missionaries such a hard time converting anyone? because of the unnumbered point.

I wasn't thinking of faith at all. In my mystical practice there is no faith, belief, or worship. Rather it is a process like yoga of being myself, which involves the body and mind in a developmental process. So the intellect, thinking, is pivotal in this, but not in isolation.

Or in other words wisdom is not about being really clever and using logic, but being yourself in the world.

That seems just about as ignorant as what you claim about my speculation. Your comments about peeling away at matter until we arrive at...??? don't negate the existence of matter. — uncanni

The onion analogy does not "negate the existence of matter". It merely indicates that the essence of matter is Information. Matter is real; Fields are ideal. In current physics, fields are more fundamental than particles. If a field is not a mathematical abstraction, what is it? Is it made of matter? Or is matter made from fields? Mathematics = Information.

"Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/

Are Quantum Fields Real? : https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/17/ask-ethan-are-quantum-fields-real/#50c1bd6e777a

I don't disagree with what you are trying to say about information, but I want to make a semantic distinction, as it is conflating two different kinds of "information". — Punshhh

Your semantic insight is spot-on. That's because Information plays dual roles in the world. Originally the term referred to the immaterial contents of a mind, such as ideas. But since the advent of Quantum Theory, "Information" has also been described as the essence of matter : "It from Bit" (John Wheeler).

So I spell the word differently depending on which role I'm referring to. As ideal mind-stuff, I spell it with an "I" to indicate its traditional meaning. But when referring to real matter or energy, I spell it with an "E". When I'm talking about the ultimate unitary form of Information, I spell it "EnFormAction". In my thesis, EnFormAction is equivalent to Spinoza's "single substance" of the world.

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html