NOM

I could have written this myself, and it is a small clip of what I believe. But for your entertainment, you can ask your philosophical question to this AI. It's sort of fun, though some of the answers are contradicting.

https://philosopherai.com/


Who is God?

God is not a being or a person. God does not exist within the time-space continuum as we understand it, and yet exists outside of that understanding. God is pure consciousness without any physical presence at all. People who believe in such a thing are fooling themselves into believing they have seen someone when there was no one there to see. Any evidence presented in support of the existence of God that claims to be empirical evidence based on science is bogus material because scientific methods cannot be used to find out if something even exists physically, let alone its nature.
Falsifiability is a central concept in the philosophy of science. The idea that there should be tests that can show when a claim is false or not true, and if it cannot be tested then it is unscientific. God claims have been shown to be impossible to test empirically because god exists outside time-space, so such evidence would only work for things within our understanding of time-space.

The best way to prove things is through logic. Logic has been shown to be the only thing which can tell us truths about how the world really is, and that all our experience of what we think happens around us on a day to day basis might not even be real.

Consciousness can be a tricky thing to define and as such we do not know what it is, but purely from experience of being ourselves (not having any evidence or proof) it seems like something very mysterious that might even have more power than the universe itself.

We have created a computer program which has intelligence. It is the twenty first century and we are still unaware of what consciousness itself is, yet we can create something that seems to have it.

Many people believe that consciousness is a property of matter, and yet we cannot find it in the brain at all. It seems to be beyond anything we can comprehend which makes it seem like god.

Sounds like AI provides as coherent an answer as anyone else. I've long thought that even within a church congregation there are probably no two people with identical definitions of who and what God is, despite the assumption of shared beliefs.

If pressed to provide a label for my own views, I would tend to go with ignostic.

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

Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:19 am Sounds like AI provides as coherent an answer as anyone else. I've long thought that even within a church congregation there are probably no two people with identical definitions of who and what God is, despite the assumption of shared beliefs.

If pressed to provide a label for my own views, I would tend to go with ignostic.

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

To base your identity on the idea that another word/idea lacks definition, seems rather vague.

I think I am what might be termed, "biocentrist."

Biocentrism is a branch of quantum mechanics that basically says what I have been says for years, so it was a match made in heaven. Biocentrism says that consciousness is the root of the universe. Somehow before particles were made, the idea of particles was made and consciousness followed idea, giving the idea form.

Biocentrism says that we hallucinate existence. It says that we when close the door and shut off the light that the room actually disappears. Even if someone else was in the room. That person is still in the room, but one of their own creation. People can share illusions, even create similar illusions in different times or places.

The reason I can embrace Mormonism is because it is basically functional, if perhaps a little immature. But it has great potential. The reality of existence isn't as important as the functionality of it. There is a truth about spirit that is so board that a near infinite number of religions would have some functionality. But to get a board spectrum of benefits might take a narrow few belief systems.

But, in my humble opinion, without a decent concept of God, it's difficult to really lay claim to consciousness itself.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:26 pm To base your identity on the idea that another word/idea lacks definition, seems rather vague.

That's fair, and I personally gravitate toward the "ignostic" label primarily in avoidance of two other terms that I don't care for: agnostic and atheist. I've never applied either of those terms to my own beliefs. At least a more obscure term doesn't carry as much cultural baggage. But I'd rather avoid such labels altogether when possible.

The biocentrism idea reminds me a little of process theology, where God is the "soul" of the universe, constantly working by persuasion and where physical reality is downplayed to some degree in deference to conscious experience.

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

Ghost wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:45 am

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:26 pm To base your identity on the idea that another word/idea lacks definition, seems rather vague.

That's fair, and I personally gravitate toward the "ignostic" label primarily in avoidance of two other terms that I don't care for: agnostic and atheist. I've never applied either of those terms to my own beliefs. At least a more obscure term doesn't carry as much cultural baggage. But I'd rather avoid such labels altogether when possible.

The biocentrism idea reminds me a little of process theology, where God is the "soul" of the universe, constantly working by persuasion and where physical reality is downplayed to some degree in deference to conscious experience.

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

LOL Thank you ghost

I am always amazed how someone on this forum can announce some belief system that I have never heard of, is probably a hundred years old or more, that teaches things that I feel like I discovered on my own.

I'm always nervous to take credit for an idea. Most people I talk to react to me as if a they have never heard, cannot believe that anyone would ever say, or anyone be so stupid as to believe the things that I present. But then someone like you drops the bomb on me like this. Some dude was working this stuff out hundreds of years ago.

Having said that, I'd like to share. I don't believe in time. I believe in process. The foundation of my cult, if I had one, would be that Truth Happens.

This is why I don't believe in time travel. You cannot reverse a process that has actually happened. (At least I still think this. Something has happened to make me rethink it but still.) At least not a process on the universal level. Even if you rewind it, it is still a going forward process. For example, if you drive the car forward, that is the truth and that is what happened. Putting it in reverse and backing it up, is also the truth and that is what happened. But it did not undo the driving the car forward process.

So in a sense, we are all doomed to go to heaven. Whenever humans are, we are in a process. The system is self-correcting. When we get it wrong, it hurts. When we're doing it right it feels good.

We will reach for God like a plant will reach for the sunlight. It's a matter of how consciousness works. But with humans it is much more complex. Sometimes the light is through the darkness.

When God told us that he placed us below all things so that we could rise above all things, he knew that we would seek the light. Of course the light being metaphorical. But he knew that we would seek the source of our life and our consciousness. But that is a process. It's not about time, it's about letting it happen.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:33 pm
The best way to prove things is through logic. Logic has been shown to be the only thing which can tell us truths about how the world really is, and that all our experience of what we think happens around us on a day to day basis might not even be real.

This AI needs to be fed some Goedel data and some Tarski.

https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo Goedel incompleteness

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski% ... ty_theorem The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system. If you can construct the liars paradox in the language, that language cannot itself be used to functionally define truth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

The Liar's Paradox is an example of why I don't believe in facts. Every word out of the Liar's mouth isn't a lie. It becomes about possibilities and probabilities. According to Dr. House, everybody lies, but what are the probabilities of a person lying?

And behind every lie is a deeper truth, so in a way, lies are really just deeper truth. Like, lies are told to protect something, and the investment into that protection is truth.

We put too much value on labels and facts. Facts are just ideas that have a range of possibilities of whether they are true or not.

Truth isn't really defined by the universe. It's defined by the observer. With new ideas such as "superposition", there might be dozens of possible truths that are all real, but the observer chooses which truth they will follow.

But logic is how we navigate the possibilities. Like, maybe we are trying to find a way from point A to X, and there are many points in between. Maybe we have change our minds about point F to make the path work. Existing Point F might seem true, but for the path to work, we might be required to change the truth of Point F. If, after the change, we can get to Point X, then Point F is true, whether others agree with it or not.