chris w, on 17 May 2010 - 10:15 PM, said:
drus, on May 17 2010, 10:38 PM, said:
god's language is mathematics, geometry, and compassion/selfless love. god speaks through the very nature of reality/mind/the universe itself.
I could reluctantly agree on the first aspect ( meanig - if a believed in God, that's what I would think ) but not on the compassion / selfless love, to me that sounds absolutely antropomorphic, like saying that if there is one good human father, then God is for example thousend times more like that. I think that if God existed, then his "thoughts" and "emotions" could not even be adequatly named by confined brains such us ours, we could not even begin to comprehend how God is.
Compassion is something you feel for somebody in trouble when you don't know how to help or know but cannot, I don't think God could ever be in such situation. And if he loves us, why is there any kind of physical / psychological suffering down here ? Why would he put us through a test if his love is endless, he would not have to sort the good humans from the bad humans, but make us all "good", why the trouble ?
I personally don't know but I try to visualize it from a Master Control Program's perspective in relation to functions. Really if you see intelligent beings as basically functions, even human programmers would have a good laugh at your suffering. To actually care you've to visualize intelligent being as being more, and still if the logic dictates action may not really deviate any way.
All physics seems computable in principle. So that even language itself may very well have restraints tied by computability. Computational equivalence has been suggested(see new kind of science wolfram), basic rules lead to universal computation capability(see rule 110), and given resources computers are able to generate virtual enviroments of amazing complexity in terms of physical law manifestation and sensory stimulation. That both body and mind, the universe and its underlying computation may be one opens the hypothetical possibility of manipulating reality not only within cyberspace but outside cyberspace, a science of existence or reality manipulation(which would definitely put atomic weaponry to shame, so it is good idea to verify possibility.).
chris w, on 26 May 2010 - 09:21 PM, said:
drus, on May 26 2010, 12:27 AM, said:
chris w, on May 18 2010, 12:22 PM, said:
drus, on May 18 2010, 01:16 AM, said:
so you're saying that god's language would be math and geometry, but NOT love?!?!?!?!
Yes, basically that's what I'm saying, I dont get where this surprise comes from, like I said something totally crazy. If God existed he would be working in sync with the laws of universe, as they could be considered his "thoughts" but love just doesn't fit with this at all to me. Why would he create us in this material form in order to love after that ? That sounds like a kid building LEGO castle and then admiring what he built. God could very well just "imagine" us and love this images, no need to go all the way and make us from scratch.
perhaps 'god' didnt create the universe, or us for that matter.
Then his love for us would be an even stranger case, a kind of love somehow meaningless, because fruitless. He would be some sort of a "sub - optimal" God, one that can do neat physical tricks for example (a miracle here and there ), but not able to, say, "reedem our souls" and "make the Universe anew" whatever that meant exactly, he would not be much different from a lover longing for the other one, divided by the ocean. I don't care for such godly love that cannot do much good for me in the end. Why would I worship a god potent, but not omnipotent ?
I'm not entirely sure, receiving some thing from some one one loves is necessary for one to love some one or some thing. Take the friend zone example, usually occuring from females to males(but it can occur in the opposite direction). Females have been seen to reach O-state from reading, breastfeeding, exercising, imagining, riding a bus, walking, daydream, etc. It sounds very intriguing actually, in some cases you don't even need to do anything to stimulate to highest levels of pleasure, so one ask need something exceed friend zone or platonic state to reach a higher state, is it not even ridiculous to postulate anything above platonic love or ideal love?
In this world filled with constant decay, and the corruption that is culture, one may very well learn to love the incorruptible ideal above and beyond the real in its limited state, eventually to undo the real for an ideal state at any and all costs becomes a reasonable solution, a final solution.
If you put determinism into play, it becomes an inevitability, and would be considered self-made, or spontaneously organized to a higher state.
God speaks in whatever language... u only have to listen! lol!
Yet imply any connection however remote from ideal to real and viceversa, despite logically being self-evident, and prepare for some pain.
Actually if it only started self-fulfilling prophecies it would produce an endless barrage of self-inflicted pain.
Despite the oddness of such, even I view pain as self-inflicted in some sense, it is like throwing stones at the sky, gravity would do the rest and eventually you'd land at the hospital. An even more potent being able to do more elaborate things, could actually inflict a lot of pain and distribute it around.
Edited by steampoweredgod, 21 March 2012 - 08:59 PM.