Does God Think?

[Cottontop3000]

Omniscience means that God does not Think.
You can't have thought without action...

Omniscience means that God does not Think.
You can't have action without thought.

Omnipotence means that god does not act. (If you follow the logic above. There is the flaw in my logic, in my previous post, I think. GOD, I hate circles.)

If you are omnipotent, you don't need to act either, just as you don't need to think as an omniscient being.

So, no thinking, no acting.

Omnipresent (everywhere all the time).

If you are omnipresent, you don't have to be anywhere, any of the time -- you are just playing hooky and are never there.

There's the answer. God is not there. Dog, my brain rejects this kind of thought.

 

[Kibbles]

Quote Varda:
“do you think that thought is necessary for the existence of a mind and a consciousness?”

* I suppose all I can look to for answers would be my own conscious experience. I continually think, and this manifests my perceived consciousness. I cannot imagine how consciousness could manifest without some self realising process. Perhaps if you use the word “mind” rather, then perhaps thought is not necessarily essential, as in a brain dead person or a comatose person. But then, we cannot know for sure that even in that state there is not some basic thought processes. We just cannot see them from our side.

Quote Varda:
“i think that there is nothing left to the omniscient god besides being an observer... that merely observes everything that there ever was and will be at the same time... and doesn't influenciate the events, since all the decisions have already been made”

* This is fine in principle, but begs the huge question: “What then is the point?” (yes i know, does there HAVE to be a point?) I observe the world around me every day, and I do not necessarily interact, but I continually draw conclusions regarding this data. Perhaps if my conclusions could manifest in actions without direct or willing intervention on my part, this concept can stand.

Quote Varda:
“now, if having no thoughts is the same as having no counsciousness or perception or mind, what are the implications of that?”

* Lets define “thoughts’ as “idea produced by mental activity: an idea, plan, conception, or opinion produced by mental activity” and consciousness as: “being awake and aware of surroundings: the state of being awake and aware of what is going on around you”

Hmmm. It seems switching the one off, nullifies the other. They go hand in hand. For example, a computer program can have information of which it is not aware, but this negates a description of “intelligence”. Thus if an omniscient god does not need to think to be aware of everything knowable, then would this god be “intelligent”? Mmmm. (that would explain a lot!)

So the basis of this idea is that because god is simply omniscient (all aware, understanding and knowing, no thoughts are made)

In turn, this implies no consciousness.

But couldn't omniscience (and understanding or awareness without thinking) imply consciousness?

 

[Kibbles]

Omniscience means that God does not Think.
You can't have action without thought.

Omnipotence means that god does not act...

(I'm more used to the idea of actions as simply movement or a series of movements)

Your'e saying without thought, something is not an action. Is it simply an occurence?

God does not exist because he does not think and therefore does not act?
What of non-thinking things that exist?

Why does omnipotence mean God does not act?

 

[Cottontop3000]

Sorry, I'm a little tired. I'll think about it some more later, or tomorrow. However, would you say that if omniscience means no thought then it must follow that omnipotence means no power?

 

[Mythbuster]

He's also omnivorous.

 

[Kibbles]

Sorry, I'm a little tired. I'll think about it some more later, or tomorrow. However, would you say that if omniscience means no thought then it must follow that omnipotence means no power?

... Looks like either some sort of paradox or some sort of error.

Perhaps Action or does not require thought.
(Action simply being a natural or intuitive movement)
Perhaps Omnipotence does not require thought.
(inherently infinite power?)

Therefore Omnipotence can exist with Omniscience?

Perhaps I'm beginning to understand what I am talking about less and less

 

[duendy]

Ok. I was under the impression that we were discussing the genderless Mind aspect of God rather than God being LOGOS. I mean, wouldn't this idea of mind/male and body/female simply be patriarchal ideology.

me)))))but that is exactly what it is. as soon as we begin talking about 'the mind of God' thats what we doing. it IS patriarchal. because we have separated 'mind' from 'organic reality'. pre-patriarchal understanding didn't.

Under this framework, what would a feminine "God" be like? Would such a thing exist? Would it have any process resembling thought?

touch Earth, touch your body, FEEEL. THAT is more coming to the Goddess understanding. rather than imagining some kind of 'hovering detached mind'.
And the PROCESS of the former is the sense of UNION of mind and matter. spirit and Nature. rthe PROCESS then is te actual process of lifedeath and reggeneration. the process is unconscious from whihc consciousness gros out of, as self-reflection--as with. but ALL matter-energy is intelligent

 

[duendy]

by atributing omnisciency to god, we clearly gave him an atribute that is not human... or male ... this is exactly what we are discussing... isn't it?

look at your question. isn't it suggesting the opposite of what you deny, thus a contradiction.

 

[duendy]

Quote duendy:
“but if you see hoe bodies grow, trees grow etc. PROCESS. everyting is happening at ONCE”

* Not intending to be silly, but as far as cells, etc, multiply, and the tree grows from an acorn into a shoot, into a tree, is this not linear? All the processes that create the growth may be holistic, but the progressive growth seems linear. But I am keen to hear more of your thinking duendy, explain more.

well i didn't mean a tree, etc, can just 'pop' into exisence. But there IS sequence. and the complexity of say the formation o areries, capillaries, is just so extraordinarily complex it couldn't be created by 'thought' as we know i. in fact iwouod say THOUGHT is born from it--organic process-- rathe than other way round

 

[stretched]

Ah, I see what you mean Duendy. But if you look at great feats of engineering, they had a starting point. Concept, a design, and then construction. When you look at something as complex as the Pyramid of Giza, it seems miraculously magnificent, but it started with a thought. Are you saying the architect is a product of the pyramid?

 

[duendy]

Ah, I see what you mean Duendy. But if you look at great feats of engineering, they had a starting point. Concept, a design, and then construction. When you look at something as complex as the Pyramid of Giza, it seems miraculously magnificent, but it started with a thought. Are you saying the architect is a product of the pyramid?

matter-energy ITSELF, i believe, is sentient and naturally creative. there is no need for an 'outside agency' like a 'thinking god', who creates blueprints for p-otential architectural projects. the way we go about creating thngs. te human body is vastly more complex than a pyramid, or anything humans can make. as is a tree, etc.
our very bodies grow. we donthave to 'think' thwm to grow they just do. there is creation going on

i believe tat a patriarchalmindset projects their understanding of 'making' oto a disembodied 'god'. hene te concept of 'God' as 'Logos' and architect of the universe. tis is where we get te present emphasis on 'MEASURE'--in our materialistic paradigm, even to 'God' is supposed to be dead. yet still tis myth lives on. anything SUB-thought, SUB-measure as it were is highly distrusted both by the patriarchal religionist and the scientific materialist

 

[stretched]

Quote duendy:
“matter-energy ITSELF, i believe, is sentient and naturally creative”

* I can understand this line of thinking. Perhaps, in a sense the Universe is a living organism? But not consciously creative? Or interactive.

“there is no need for an 'outside agency' like a 'thinking god', who creates blueprints for p-otential architectural projects. the way we go about creating thngs. te human body is vastly more complex than a pyramid, or anything humans can make. as is a tree, etc.”

* Agree, there is not a definite NEED, but perhaps, if we take the living Universe analogy, the Universe has a self awareness?

“our very bodies grow. we donthave to 'think' thwm to grow they just do. there is creation going on”

* Our bodies grow only after the process is kickstarted. What/who`s foot is on the lever?

“i believe tat a patriarchalmindset projects their understanding of 'making' oto a disembodied 'god'. hene te concept of 'God' as 'Logos' and architect of the universe. tis is where we get te present emphasis on 'MEASURE'--in our materialistic paradigm, even to 'God' is supposed to be dead. yet still tis myth lives on. anything SUB-thought, SUB-measure as it were is highly distrusted both by the patriarchal religionist and the scientific materialist”

* I don’t quite follow here. Can you be clearer?

 

[duendy]

what i am meaning is that it seems clear to me, that a male mindset created IT's self into an image of 'God' rather than the oter way round as dogmatized in say, Genesis.
So men looking at himself--self-conscious/self-reflective, SSUMES a being LIKE 'HIMself' is in command of the very universe.
By doing this tis mindsets e,phasizes consciousness, an ignores/obviously, UNconscious process. so the latter becomes somewaht of a THREA to tis mindset. because he doesn't KNOW it. it is like 'SUB-thought'-----he actuallydemonizes/dismisses it as 'subconscious' as opposed to his deification of 'superconsciousness/'God'

how does this relate to secualar world of materilistic science? well, we see the emphasis on 'MEASURE' and anything which cannot be meaured is conisidered fallcy, non-existent' delusion, etc. so again we see this ongoing psychological division between 'consciousness/what is KNOWn about/measured' and unconscioueness/NOT known about/immeasureable' maintained throug different paradigms. same assumptions, prejudice, fear

As for you question about 'who kick started it' ie., process. this is like looking for a 'causer' to explain 'effect'. again this is a reason FOR a beliefe in A 'God' who kick starts universe, right? the 'prime mover' as it were. but i am saying that te evolving intelligence IS actual matter-energy which is always with consciousness and natrually creative. we, ar a part of this evolution in tat we are consciousness self-reflecting on itself....but as i understand, it IS. it is spontaneus creationing, rather than some entity that needs a 'kick starter. /the process IS it in action

 

[c7ityi_]

duendy, why is there something instead of nothing? nothing would be much more logical since it wouldn't require a cause. i don't understand.

 

[duendy]

duendy, why is there something instead of nothing? nothing would be much more logical since it wouldn't require a cause. i don't understand.

something and nothing arise toGETHER, obviously. you canny have one without the other

if we see space as a 'form' of 'nothing, try and imagine being able to observe a tree without space. could you? surely space and tree/thing arise togther, no?

 

[c7ityi_]

something can't exist without nothing but nothing CAN exist without something. these two are fundamentally different, and it doesn't make sense that something exists, unless 'something' is a 'form' of 'nothing'.

 

[duendy]

something can't exist without nothing but nothing CAN exist without something. these two are fundamentally different, and it doesn't make sense that something exists, unless 'something' is a 'form' of 'nothing'.

you are seemingly lost in abstracts

 

[iam]

Oh boy, now this thread is turning into a discussion of the intelligent design theory. I suppose that was inevitable. If that were true, who made the designer? And it becomes cyclical. Or for the sake of convenience, theists propose god always WAS. Conclusion, "god" does not think, it is. Big bang theory. If all you can possibly see or know is limited in the meantime, its always best to keep on the grounds of reality. Lose a foothold on reality and you won't be able to figure out where you are or what you've found when it happens.

 

[duendy]

Oh boy, now this thread is turning into a discussion of the intelligent design theory.

me))no, no, no. tis is not 'intelligent design' versus 'darwin'---for more in-depth, if u wish go here www.deepspirit.com and checkout article 'jesus or darwin?'. where it'l be explained the limitations of that ongoing duel.

I suppose that was inevitable. If that were true, who made the designer? And it becomes cyclical.

me)))becomes 'cyclical' precisely because your argument demanns a cocept OFa designer. what we're saying is that we dont NEED such a concept. NOr one of random accidentalness of 'blind' matter/energy, because mtter-energy IS active intelligence

Or for the sake of convenience, theists propose god always WAS. Conclusion, "god" does not think, it is. Big bang theory. If all you can possibly see or know is limited in the meantime, its always best to keep on the grounds of reality. Lose a foothold on reality and you won't be able to figure out where you are or what you've found when it happens.

what i am saying makes more sense than either your marerialist position, or the ptriarchal position wit teir architect'god

now your challenge is to prove it don't, init?

 

[Kibbles]

matter-energy ITSELF, i believe, is sentient and naturally creative. there is no need for an 'outside agency' like a 'thinking god', who creates blueprints for p-otential architectural projects. the way we go about creating thngs. te human body is vastly more complex than a pyramid, or anything humans can make. as is a tree, etc.
our very bodies grow. we donthave to 'think' thwm to grow they just do. there is creation going on

i believe tat a patriarchalmindset projects their understanding of 'making' oto a disembodied 'god'. hene te concept of 'God' as 'Logos' and architect of the universe. tis is where we get te present emphasis on 'MEASURE'--in our materialistic paradigm, even to 'God' is supposed to be dead. yet still tis myth lives on. anything SUB-thought, SUB-measure as it were is highly distrusted both by the patriarchal religionist and the scientific materialist

Well here's my idea on intelligence:

Intelligence comes in an infinite number of levels only a few of which we can understand.

Humans think, imagine, classify, creatively solve problems, and have all those other mental exercises that humans do.

Below that there is emotion and learning or mental conditioning. Humans have this too, of course, as do many animals of equal or greater complexity than an aomeba.

Below that, there are simple reflexive responses and natural living processes. This is the point that we no longer really consider intelligence. This is probably the prerequisite for being considered a living creature though.

Below that there are the supposedly unbreakable laws of physics. The realm of nonliving things.

Below this things get chaotic, messy, and unpredictable, and so far humans can no longer really understand this low a level of "intelligence". This trend continues downward into oblivion.

Above normal human thinking we have things like collective consciousness and thought that can influence reality. This is poorly understood and comes in a gazillion names from divine inspiration, genius, psychic powers, affirmations, etc. Basically, some sort of metaphysical reality exists that incorporates such things like how our nervous system incorporates intelligence and learning. It's just really hard to percieve and understand at our level of intelligence.

Above that there's nirvana, enlightenment, whatever that we cannot normally comprehend. These levels of intelligence presumeably continue onward into infinity.

Now perhaps they loop, perhaps not, but the collective intelligence of all things is what I am thinking about and not the disembodied intellect of the patriarchal God.

So I propose that God is the collective intelligence of eternity that neither thinks nor reacts nor understands but is instead aware at another level.

This isn't exactly the most helpful view of things but maybe we can understand levels of intelligence a few ranks above our own by trying to figure out how God "Thinks" (for lack of a better word)