Monk-Eye

"Current Motivation"
By "God" do you mean deism, as a willful autonomous entity that acts within the world? Or do you mean natural law?

__________________
Hanged Man
Melpomene

Lightdemon

Well, a God is a concept. As far as I can tell, there is no real evidence that we can actually measure to test that God exists.

So he doesn't exist in "our" world, which is the empirical world, where we can measure and see the consequences of our actions.

But math, like God, is a concept. We cannot take out a ruler and start measuring the concept of math. We can use math. But we cannot measure it.

With that said however, the fact that we cannot prove a God to exist in the material world, does not limit us to prove that a God CAN exist in an immaterial world. Like concepts.

__________________

Monk-Eye

"Indistinctions"
Perhaps customs of definition are getting in the way.

"God" is intrinsic and substantive as the entirety of nature.
An intrinsic "God", as a consequence of "natural evil", immediately leads to absurdism (link).

Absurdism is overcome by understanding that an eternal would have the quality of being and becoming. Emulation of being and becoming occurs by induction. Affirmation of being and becoming occurs by deduction.

Eventhough and therefore, typically "God" is considered extrinsic, an autonomous deity, a mindful interactor, a subjective decider of fate.
Such is a "God" of man's imagination, created by man as a mirror of his own mind-body self image, for affirming man's own empathy.

The extrinsic "God" supplants the intrinsic "God" of natural law through which man as an observer experiences cause and consequence.
Thus, man makes conjectures about natural law and fate as if it originates from an extrinsic will.

The anthropic principle is a structural inclusion.
Barrow and Tipler's Strong anthropic principle: "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."

Thus, all the contrivings of religion, and the efforts of mammon to establish custom and culture are designed to endow itself with survival through procreation thereby affirming the eternal by being and becoming.


Well, the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount.
But nothing really matters much, it's doom alone that counts.
And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn.
- Bob Dylan

Lightdemon

I sense this too. I don't really agree to the definitions that you give "god."
I don't believe in god, not the christian god, greek gods, nature's god, or any other god for that matter. But each god has thier own definitions, but that part is irrelevant to me. All gods in my opinion are mere concepts. Each concept of god is defined by thier creator/worshipers.

Almost all types of gods have one thing in common, which is to explain what is "good." Both God and "good" are concepts. We define these concepts, thus it is subjective. Unfortunately, many people act as if these concepts are always objective.

I believe Plato was one of the firsts to mastered this idea. He called it, "The form of the Good."

He states that the "form" of the good, does not exist in our realm. But it in fact does exist merely because we have an idea of what "good" means. For example, a chair maker has some kind of idea of what a chair looks like, and what kind of qualities a chair posses. But every time a chair maker creates a chair, it is just a representation of the "form" of the chair in his mind.

These "forms" exist in a different realm, and we can access them with our minds. Plato used "The Allegory of the Cave to explain this concept.

What about Manichaeism? The teachings of that religion suppressed people from having children. The dualistic system of Light vs. Dark did not encouraged people to have children. Every time a child is born, it is a victory for the Dark. Every peice of mass in this world covers light, and casts a shadow, therefore it was evil. Pure light was divine, and was "good."

Manichaeism was not designed to endow itself with survival, quite the contrary actually. It lost followers every time thier followers became more faithful, since they wouldn't procreate.

Monk-Eye

"Transliteration"
Although you seem to be rejecting gods as cognitive entitites, I will assume you mean deism, mythological and in allegory.

Perhaps my depiction failed to relate that "God" is a figurative description for a substrate, a base quality for provision, a form with function, not a cognizant entity.

It makes little sense to attribute similarity in quality to a "different realm"; the convenience is deprecative. Semantics and metaphor are used to apply pattern, to group, to describe form in phenomenon, to generalize similarities in nature, etc.

I entirely agree that the assessment of purpose is subjective. To state that an eternal substrate is indifferent goes beyond its ability to discern its own purpose, it is what it is (anake). There is no requirement for emulation of it. As stated, emulation occurs by induction, and affirmation is a deduction (demiurge).

Lightdemon

I still don't quite understand the difference you are proposing....

Isn't math some form with a function? Does math not act in our world? Isn't math one of the most fundamental structures of our society?

Sorry, I'm failing to see the difference. How is God different from math in terms of function?

I disagree. Consider the concept of infinity. Is there anything in the world that we can measure to an infinity? No. But that doesn't stop engineers from utilizing the concept of infinites and asymtotes and other things that do not exist. Calculus is based on the number we refer to as the "indeterminant" which is represented as 0/0.

These things do not exist in our world, yet we can measure things that are "good enough." For example, car parts that are manufactured must be made according to a rule. The less mistakes the better. One can assert that no mistakes, or something like 0.00000000...infinite milimeters away from the rule which a manifold is made, represents a "perfect" manifold. The closer to infinity the better because that means there are no mistakes in the production of the manifold. But we do not have to go to infinite to create a good product. We can go up to 0.001 milimeters and be satisfied. This would be close enough to our desired product.

The infinite does not exist, but we can make something close to it at least, which in a sense is "similar" to it. One can say that some of us strive for the infinite, although we know it does not exist. But I wouldn't call this illogical, no. One's sense of infinity comes from the concept itself. I do not know how this concept came to be, I don't know where it is, and I do not know how it really looks like. All I have is some idea of what it is. And this idea is a mere concept. What use is it to me or you will depend on our circumstances.

Monk-Eye

"Number"

A concept of infinite exists in real analysis. Some infinite series converge to discrete values. Most infinite series converge to values that would take an infinite amount of values to assume its full representation. Needed values are calculated within a precision of error.

When mathematicians say that the real number line is continuous, they rely upon impredicativity (link), literally stating that an infinite thing is complete and present and there are no holes in the set of real numbers. Some reject this notion. Following is one such reason.

Substantive monism presumes that there is one substrate - a monad, a smallest geometric identity. Everything is supposed to be comprised of multiples of this monad. Substantive monism proclaims that there is a grandoise of single identities; not that there is single grandoise identity (the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity).

Presume for agument that the monad is positive or negative square root of two divided by two. The square root of two is an irrational magnitude. It is a nonrepeating algebraic number(link). To represent its value requires an infinite series(link). In this case, the number of values required to represent the number is infinite. The number is bounded in that it does not grow to an infinite size, but it has infinitude, in that from each moment to the next it is addended, to without end. Thus an infinite basis, an eternal in property, as form and function is being and becoming.

Reiterating, an eternal (anake) has the property of being and becoming, emulation occurs by induction, and affirmation occurs by deduction (deimurge).


Here are a couple of anecdotes;
In contrast to contemporary lore, when it is stated that "God" is infinite the presumtion made is that of completenes rather than as chronos (link) a classic embodiment of perpetual time.

Plato ventured a substantive basis, the anake (link). But also proposed a supreme wisdom and intelligence, the deimurge (link), which organized the anake. Deism was a major part of greek cosmology.

Lightdemon

I think I see what you mean. The representation of the infinite is a form of the infinite.

The problem I am suggesting is that this copy of the concept is a replica, not the authentic one. From what I can understand, you are disregarding this notion, and instead you just lump these representations together and not draw distinctions.

So for instance, you are saying x=y, y=z, z=a, a=b, etc. There is no difference because they all represent each other. But I disagree.

When x = "indeterminant" we cannot use 0/0 to do mathematical calculations, it is impossible. But we can substitute 0/0 for x, and then solve for x to get around the problem of the "indeterminant." Though x = 0/0, the two have totally different functions, thus they are not the same. They are representations of each other, yes.


Isn't that a paradox? To state that something is infinite it excludes it from ever being complete because it is ever growing or ever changing. Thus, that leaves me to believe that the infinite is not something that actually exists in the material world, but it is a mere concept.

Monk-Eye

"Borromean Rings"

Is it essential that discontinuity exist? The formatives of sea have not been proposed.

--Indeterminant forms (mathematical) (link)

With respect to infinite as a concept, if infinite assumes incompleteness, can it pretense statefulness?

For silliness, in double entendre, the infinite is endless, is ouroborus.

Lightdemon

Sorry for being MIA. Getting ready for final exams and all that jazz....

I think it's very important. The catepillar may be the butterfly but is there not a deep contrast between the two? One would be foolish to not draw distinctions. But I agree that we should acknowledge that they are the same thing as well. But if the function is different for each representation then it should be noted.

The representations of God in the real world should be different than its "true" form in the immaterial world, since there are different qualities in the material world.

Hmmm, I didn't think infinite as some sort of cycle. I thought of it as linear. Such as an infinite number line:
<(infinite -)---4---3---2---1---0---1---2---3---4---(infinite +)>

Such as the infinite power of God. I don't think that power is some sort of cycle, rather it is a linear representation of weakness <------0------> powerful.