God, Empiricism, and Thought

[Prince_James]

If:

"Nothing in the mind was not first in the senses".

If:

God is omniscient.

If:

God is omnipresent.

If:

All sensation necessitates an exterior souce, and even when we sense something interior to us (such as a pleasure or pain) it is as if such was distinct from ourselves to the mind.

If:

Omniscience implies knowledge before sense.

If:

All sensation entails ignorance before sensation.

If:

God is perfect.

And if:

God is said to be a thinking being.

Then it follows that:

The idea of God as a thinking being is, in fact, incorrect, for in order to think he must sense something as if exterior to himself (impossible if he was omnipresent), he must be ignorant in order to sense (impossible as he is both perfect and omniscient), and he must require sense for knowledge (impossible as omniscience implies that he does not).

That is to say, the idea of a God which is as described is fallacious. For God to think would be to invalidate himself as God. And indeed, omniscience even necessitates knowledge before the cause of said knowledge, implying a violation of causality to boot.

 

[Satyr]

The epistemology of believing demands that you cease thinking and begin feeling His ontology.

Being a new convert in the church of the Dim-Wit, I can offer a living, breathing testament to its truthiness.
Colbert taught me that word.

Truthiness implies that it doesn’t matter what the facts are, or if there are fact or facts are possible. All that matters is that you believe in them.
This makes them true.

 

[lightgigantic]

If:

"Nothing in the mind was not first in the senses".

Actually the mind exists in the sense objects and the senses exist in the mind, the soul however is transcendental to designations of mind and senses and thus by identifying with the soul one transcends the influence of mind and senses

If:

Omniscience implies knowledge before sense.

You have a fallible concept of the relationship between the knowledge and the senses
I could try and explain it but omniscience is kind of an advanced topic for discussion

All sensation entails ignorance before sensation.

ditto here

Then it follows that:

The idea of God as a thinking being is, in fact, incorrect, for in order to think he must sense something as if exterior to himself (impossible if he was omnipresent), he must be ignorant in order to sense (impossible as he is both perfect and omniscient), and he must require sense for knowledge (impossible as omniscience implies that he does not).

That is to say, the idea of a God which is as described is fallacious. For God to think would be to invalidate himself as God. And indeed, omniscience even necessitates knowledge before the cause of said knowledge, implying a violation of causality to boot.

No it doesn't - you constructed the premises from your own ontological standpoint.
First you would have to establish that god and the living entity operate out of the same ontological premise
-Kind of difficult when you don't even think he exists

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Actually the mind exists in the sense objects and the senses exist in the mind,"

The mind -exists- in the sense objects? In what way?

"the soul however is transcendental to designations of mind and senses and thus by identifying with the soul one transcends the influence of mind and senses"

So then the soul is possessor of no knowledge?

"You have a fallible concept of the relationship between the knowledge and the senses
I could try and explain it but omniscience is kind of an advanced topic for discussion"

I'd be glad to tackle it with you.

"No it doesn't - you constructed the premises from your own ontological standpoint."

Are we not to establish ontologies from our epistemologies?

"First you would have to establish that god and the living entity operate out of the same ontological premise "

Considering the living entity is supposively us, and we are constrained by such thought patterns, and the laws of mental interactions do not show any sign of being differnet for different beings in the senses referenecd here (sense knowledge before mental knowledge, et cetera, et cetera)....

perplexity:

"Actually it works the other way round.
It is impossible to recognise a pattern that you are not already familar with."

A blind man from birth is incapable of imagining sight and colour, is he not? What then would happen if he was instantly given the power to see perfectly? Would ht not immedialy have knowledge of sight and colour? And therefore, though he was never exposed to this pattern before and previously could not imagine it, he'd not be able to imagine it because he had such sense data?

"Thus what we call reality was created by the mind, not the other way around,
and thus was man made in the image of god."

Does the television make the transmissions it is to receive?

No?

Then assuredly the mind does not make the reality it perceives.

 

[Prince_James]

perplexity:

"That leads us on to the similarity of the senses.
Strangely enough those who thus gain sight have reported that they had a good idea of what to expect,
though without the qualia, this is difficult to imagine."

In so much as they were probably explained and inferred the notion of sight from others, is not so difficult to imagine. That is to say, they were given as good of a representation as possible, enough so that they could, once they experienced the sight, that they could tell what others were talking about.

"I know that when I have come around from a total faint it may take some time to put it all together again, so to speak:
"where am I?"."

Yes. One can often feel lost in such situations.

"Yes, in the sense that it is only ever going to recieve within a certain bandwidth and according to a certain system of modulation, while any number of transmissions might be underway at another level but not yet dreamt of. "

Yet barring the transmission's existence prior to it, would the tv even receive a thing? And would not, if it is responding to the waves, have to respond to the wave's nature in such a way as to connect with its reality to at least a limited extent?

 

[Prince_James]

Perplexity:

"Which leads me to a fascinating theory that I used to toy with, consciousness analogous to a transmitted TV signal, received when the set is in good order but otherwise lost, and especially well received when well tuned in, and with a good working knowledge of the TV program schedule."

This certainly explains sleep and death and the lack of consciousness, yes.

"Hence the notion of collective consciousness that often crops up, and the Buddhist Two Truth Doctrine "

I don't see where you make the jump to that?

"The greater truth would be the broadcast studio reality, and the lesser truth the pixelated version before us."

Is there a way to tune in so that the two are ultimately the same?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"Actually the mind exists in the sense objects and the senses exist in the mind,"

The mind -exists- in the sense objects? In what way?

"the soul however is transcendental to designations of mind and senses and thus by identifying with the soul one transcends the influence of mind and senses"

So then the soul is possessor of no knowledge?

No

"You have a fallible concept of the relationship between the knowledge and the senses
I could try and explain it but omniscience is kind of an advanced topic for discussion"

I'd be glad to tackle it with you.

Only if you are prepared to apply the correct epistemology

"No it doesn't - you constructed the premises from your own ontological standpoint."

Are we not to establish ontologies from our epistemologies?

Yes - but the problem is that the incorrect epistemology leads to the false or weaker ontology

"First you would have to establish that god and the living entity operate out of the same ontological premise "

Considering the living entity is supposively us, and we are constrained by such thought patterns, and the laws of mental interactions do not show any sign of being differnet for different beings in the senses referenecd here (sense knowledge before mental knowledge, et cetera, et cetera)....

So in otherwords since the president is an american all americans are presidents?

 

[RoyLennigan]

If:

"Nothing in the mind was not first in the senses".

If:

God is omniscient.

If:

God is omnipresent.

If:

All sensation necessitates an exterior souce, and even when we sense something interior to us (such as a pleasure or pain) it is as if such was distinct from ourselves to the mind.

If:

Omniscience implies knowledge before sense.

If:

All sensation entails ignorance before sensation.

If:

God is perfect.

And if:

God is said to be a thinking being.

Then it follows that:

The idea of God as a thinking being is, in fact, incorrect, for in order to think he must sense something as if exterior to himself (impossible if he was omnipresent), he must be ignorant in order to sense (impossible as he is both perfect and omniscient), and he must require sense for knowledge (impossible as omniscience implies that he does not).

That is to say, the idea of a God which is as described is fallacious. For God to think would be to invalidate himself as God. And indeed, omniscience even necessitates knowledge before the cause of said knowledge, implying a violation of causality to boot.

Ah, its good to see other people come to similar conclusions as I.

To completely know something is to be that thing. To know everything is to be everything.

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"So then the soul is possessor of no knowledge? ”


No"

What sort of knowledge can the soul have if it is not the mind?

"Only if you are prepared to apply the correct epistemology"

Aka: Accept the Vedas and your beliefs?

"Yes - but the problem is that the incorrect epistemology leads to the false or weaker ontology"

Where is the failure of my epistemology precisely?

"So in otherwords since the president is an american all americans are presidents?"

No, not in that sense at all.

More like:

The president of America must be American. George W. Bush is the president. George W. Bush is American.

Or:

Thought demands prior sensory knowledge. God has thought. Therefore, God must have prior sensory knowledge.

Also, note that knowledge before sensory perception requires a break in causality. From whence comes the knowledge?

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

YOUR MAKING ALOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT GOD.

and you know what happenes when you assume anything.

-MT

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

What sort of knowledge can the soul have if it is not the mind?

What sort of knowledge can the mind have if it is not the soul?

"Only if you are prepared to apply the correct epistemology"

Aka: Accept the Vedas and your beliefs?

There are many people who accept the vedas but are also outside the epistemology - basically it boils down not to knowledge but attitude - in other words how do you expect to understand God if you are adverse to the notion of his existence ?

"Yes - but the problem is that the incorrect epistemology leads to the false or weaker ontology"

Where is the failure of my epistemology precisely?

You think god is just as weak as you (even though I am sure you are quite the picture of youthful valour)

"So in otherwords since the president is an american all americans are presidents?"

No, not in that sense at all.

More like:

The president of America must be American. George W. Bush is the president. George W. Bush is American.

Or:

Thought demands prior sensory knowledge. God has thought. Therefore, God must have prior sensory knowledge.

In other word god thinks and has senses just like you?
How is that different from what I offerred originally?

Also, note that knowledge before sensory perception requires a break in causality. From whence comes the knowledge?

You base your understanding on how god interacts with his energies by your experience of how you interact with god's energies

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"What sort of knowledge can the mind have if it is not the soul?"

Sense knowledge, philosophical/logical knowledge...The full extent of knowledge, really.

"There are many people who accept the vedas but are also outside the epistemology - basically it boils down not to knowledge but attitude - in other words how do you expect to understand God if you are adverse to the notion of his existence ?"

Oh, I am quite open to his existence. I just simply must be demonstrated that this or that idea of God is right. I actually do believe in God, but on my Atheistic Pantheist manner, which essentially equates God and existence. I find this to be substantiated by philosophical and empirical reasoning.

"You think god is just as weak as you (even though I am sure you are quite the picture of youthful valour)"

In that I give certain foundations for beliefs of the impossibility in the mind being anything but? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, what else can I say? Moreover, I believe the notion of causality being violated by an omniscient being is of worthy note, specifically considering our previous unveiling of how it is manifestly impossible for God to exist outside of cause-and-effect.

"In other word god thinks and has senses just like you?
How is that different from what I offerred originally?"

Simply because I and God have thought that works on the same principles, does not mean that I am God anymore than it means that all Americans are George Bush. God would be distinct from other minds in power and scope, but certain things would be identical.

"You base your understanding on how god interacts with his energies by your experience of how you interact with god's energies "

No, I base it on necessity. We've gone over this argument before in regards to "whether God can cause the laws of cause and effect".

perplexity:

"Billions of channels are transmitted simultaneously and we recieve as many as we choose to cope with."

This does not seem to be the case at all. We are met with sensory data, take it in, and it is regardless of whether we can "Cope with it" or not, only if we can biologically register it in the way our senses work.

"What our choice of viewing may then have in common would amount to a communal conscience, locally."

How so? It does not stand to reason that someone else's "viewing choices" would make a "communal viewing choice" in oneself.

"They were already onto that possibility before we came.
That is what I would understand to be the Buddhist goal of Nirvana."

So you think nirvana is some achievement of ultimate truth? Yet is it not a process of annihilating the self and desire?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"What sort of knowledge can the mind have if it is not the soul?"

Sense knowledge, philosophical/logical knowledge...The full extent of knowledge, really.

I guess its easy for you to establish that these things are not present in the soul since you don't even think it exists

"There are many people who accept the vedas but are also outside the epistemology - basically it boils down not to knowledge but attitude - in other words how do you expect to understand God if you are adverse to the notion of his existence ?"

Oh, I am quite open to his existence. I just simply must be demonstrated that this or that idea of God is right. I actually do believe in God, but on my Atheistic Pantheist manner, which essentially equates God and existence. I find this to be substantiated by philosophical and empirical reasoning.

Thats also there in the vedas too - its called the brahmajyoti - basically its just the effulgence of the body of god - its kind of like that game "ok warmer your getting warmer , warmer , naah cold , oh wait warmer warmer etcetc"

"You think god is just as weak as you (even though I am sure you are quite the picture of youthful valour)"

In that I give certain foundations for beliefs of the impossibility in the mind being anything but? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, what else can I say? Moreover, I believe the notion of causality being violated by an omniscient being is of worthy note, specifically considering our previous unveiling of how it is manifestly impossible for God to exist outside of cause-and-effect.

Apparently god has a different opinion

"In other word god thinks and has senses just like you?
How is that different from what I offerred originally?"

Simply because I and God have thought that works on the same principles,

once again god hesitates to agree with you

does not mean that I am God anymore than it means that all Americans are George Bush. God would be distinct from other minds in power and scope, but certain things would be identical.

How do you establish what is identical and what is different? By what authority do you make these statements?

"You base your understanding on how god interacts with his energies by your experience of how you interact with god's energies "

No, I base it on necessity. We've gone over this argument before in regards to "whether God can cause the laws of cause and effect".

I guess we didn't reach a conclusion that we mutually agree on

 

[Gordon]

If:

"Nothing in the mind was not first in the senses".

If:

God is omniscient.

If:

God is omnipresent.

If:

All sensation necessitates an exterior souce, and even when we sense something interior to us (such as a pleasure or pain) it is as if such was distinct from ourselves to the mind.

If:

Omniscience implies knowledge before sense.

If:

All sensation entails ignorance before sensation.

If:

God is perfect.

And if:

God is said to be a thinking being.

Then it follows that:

The idea of God as a thinking being is, in fact, incorrect, for in order to think he must sense something as if exterior to himself (impossible if he was omnipresent), he must be ignorant in order to sense (impossible as he is both perfect and omniscient), and he must require sense for knowledge (impossible as omniscience implies that he does not).

That is to say, the idea of a God which is as described is fallacious. For God to think would be to invalidate himself as God. And indeed, omniscience even necessitates knowledge before the cause of said knowledge, implying a violation of causality to boot.

Sadly the logic falls at the first hurdle.

'If: "Nothing in the mind was not first in the senses".'

is not valid. Even humans can conceptualise abstractly. It is proven fact that people who have always been blind can dream with vision. Beethoven wrote music which by that time he could not hear but which he could conceptualise in his mind. So there can be lots of things in the mind that were not previously in the senses, even for us mere mortals. How much more could that be true for God?

regards,



Gordon.

 

[Prince_James]

Gordon:

"is not valid. Even humans can conceptualise abstractly. It is proven fact that people who have always been blind can dream with vision."

I would have you present the proof of this claim. I have, in fact, come upon many sources which claim the complete and utter opposite. If you are born blind, there is no dreaming of vision whatsoever. One's visual cortex may be fine and may even fire off like it would if it could, but no blind person has ever reported being able to see in their dreams that were blind from birth. We have just had a discussion about this in the philosophy section, with the scientific studies to back it.

Moreover, abstract conceptualization does not imply the content (sensory data rearranged) was not first found in the senses.

"Beethoven wrote music which by that time he could not hear but which he could conceptualise in his mind."

He was not born deaf. Moreover, he could feel the vibrations and was a musical genius beforehand, which knew extensively the instruments he wrote for.

lightgigantic:

"I guess its easy for you to establish that these things are not present in the soul since you don't even think it exists"

You claim the soul is not the mind. The mind is where knowledge is. Where then would the soul be?

"
Thats also there in the vedas too - its called the brahmajyoti - basically its just the effulgence of the body of god - its kind of like that game "ok warmer your getting warmer , warmer , naah cold , oh wait warmer warmer etcetc""

Yes, I am aware that there is a Hindu equivalent to my ideas. I find the Upanishads as mirroring my philosophy in many ways.

"Apparently god has a different opinion"

Only the unsubstantiated views of him.

"How do you establish what is identical and what is different? By what authority do you make these statements?"

The authority of reason based on necessity and truth. The greatest and most supreme authority. The support of reality itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

"I guess its easy for you to establish that these things are not present in the soul since you don't even think it exists"

You claim the soul is not the mind. The mind is where knowledge is. Where then would the soul be?

The soul is given a higher ontological status - just like the white flsh of a coconut is given a higher ontological status than the shell or husk, even though seeing a coconut complete with shell and husk we call it a coconut - in other words the knowledge of the mind is actually a glimmer of a reflection of the knowledge of the soul - because our mind is curently conditioned (ie like covered in dust) we cannot perceive th eknowledeg of the soul, hence the first injunction of spiritual endeavour is to come to the platform of purity

"
Thats also there in the vedas too - its called the brahmajyoti - basically its just the effulgence of the body of god - its kind of like that game "ok warmer your getting warmer , warmer , naah cold , oh wait warmer warmer etcetc""

Yes, I am aware that there is a Hindu equivalent to my ideas. I find the Upanishads as mirroring my philosophy in many ways.

The point is that such claims do not run contrary tot he idea of god - in fact they confirm it

Isopanisad

O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.

Iso 16: O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss. You are the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, like unto the sun, as am I.

"Apparently god has a different opinion"

Only the unsubstantiated views of him.

How do you determine that they are unsubstantiated (putting aside the LSD taking looney - which while cute, is not really indicative of the body of spiritual inquiry)

"How do you establish what is identical and what is different? By what authority do you make these statements?"

The authority of reason based on necessity and truth. The greatest and most supreme authority. The support of reality itself.

But the point is that such parameters of "reality and reason" are laid down by conditioned persons, albeit somewhat intelligent ones - in other words if god has a higher intelligence it also stands to reason that he has a higher understanding of reality and reason - If you don't know how "big" god is, how can you draw your own potency to his for the purposes of comparison?

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"The soul is given a higher ontological status - just like the white flsh of a coconut is given a higher ontological status than the shell or husk, even though seeing a coconut complete with shell and husk we call it a coconut - in other words the knowledge of the mind is actually a glimmer of a reflection of the knowledge of the soul - because our mind is curently conditioned (ie like covered in dust) we cannot perceive th eknowledeg of the soul, hence the first injunction of spiritual endeavour is to come to the platform of purity"

But what do you claim are the mind-like powers of the soul?

"The point is that such claims do not run contrary tot he idea of god - in fact they confirm it"

I agree in part. Only that I do affirm that the rest of God as imagined by yourself and certain segments of Hindu religious philosophy is unsupportable.

"How do you determine that they are unsubstantiated (putting aside the LSD taking looney - which while cute, is not really indicative of the body of spiritual inquiry)"

Contrary to the findings of philosophical reason and scientific empirical analysis.

"But the point is that such parameters of "reality and reason" are laid down by conditioned persons, albeit somewhat intelligent ones - in other words if god has a higher intelligence it also stands to reason that he has a higher understanding of reality and reason - If you don't know how "big" god is, how can you draw your own potency to his for the purposes of comparison? "

Were God a being, you would be correct. God would be a philosopher par excellence. However, it is found through rigorous reasoning and scientific understanding that God in such a way is impossible. He is contradicted by himself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"The soul is given a higher ontological status - just like the white flsh of a coconut is given a higher ontological status than the shell or husk, even though seeing a coconut complete with shell and husk we call it a coconut - in other words the knowledge of the mind is actually a glimmer of a reflection of the knowledge of the soul - because our mind is curently conditioned (ie like covered in dust) we cannot perceive th eknowledeg of the soul, hence the first injunction of spiritual endeavour is to come to the platform of purity"

But what do you claim are the mind-like powers of the soul?

well take away consciousness from the mind and see how mind like the mind is

"The point is that such claims do not run contrary tot he idea of god - in fact they confirm it"

I agree in part. Only that I do affirm that the rest of God as imagined by yourself and certain segments of Hindu religious philosophy is unsupportable.

The vedas ascertain that a conditioned living entity has no potency to ascertain the existence of god so your views don't contradict what it establishes

"How do you determine that they are unsubstantiated (putting aside the LSD taking looney - which while cute, is not really indicative of the body of spiritual inquiry)"

Contrary to the findings of philosophical reason and scientific empirical analysis.

Considering well over 60% of what we have in the way of philosophy and science owes its existence topersons who had a strong conviction in something transcendentthat can very easily fir the billof "god", what are you suggesting?

"But the point is that such parameters of "reality and reason" are laid down by conditioned persons, albeit somewhat intelligent ones - in other words if god has a higher intelligence it also stands to reason that he has a higher understanding of reality and reason - If you don't know how "big" god is, how can you draw your own potency to his for the purposes of comparison? "

Were God a being, you would be correct. God would be a philosopher par excellence. However, it is found through rigorous reasoning and scientific understanding that God in such a way is impossible. He is contradicted by himself.

Well god may disagree - inother words you would have to establish the paradigm you used to determine the nature of god's existence -if you use your own existence (which I am sure you have) then it is just like saying the president is an american therefore all americans are the president - in other words it is perfectly understandable why you would say such things given the vehicle of logic you insist on driving

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"well take away consciousness from the mind and see how mind like the mind is"

If you define "soul" as "consciousness", then you are right, the mind is incapable of doing anything outside of consciousness. But in what way can we truly say that consciousness is not an aspect of mind, when it is entailed by the mind?

"The vedas ascertain that a conditioned living entity has no potency to ascertain the existence of god so your views don't contradict what it establishes"

Let's reduce this to a more obvious form of what you are saying:

The Vedas are right.
Why?
Because they say so.

"Considering well over 60% of what we have in the way of philosophy and science owes its existence topersons who had a strong conviction in something transcendentthat can very easily fir the billof "god", what are you suggesting?"

I would argue that Aristotle, specifically, had a very minor view of God. In fact, he gave God basically the role of "flick the first domino" and that is about all.

But even if some philosophers and scientists have viewed God as part of the equation, this does not mean they are right in assuming this.

Even wise men may err.

"Well god may disagree - inother words you would have to establish the paradigm you used to determine the nature of god's existence -if you use your own existence (which I am sure you have) then it is just like saying the president is an american therefore all americans are the president - in other words it is perfectly understandable why you would say such things given the vehicle of logic you insist on driving "

I do not make recourse to my own existence. I do not give God a love for gingerale, for instance. I only look for things which must necessarily be so and that which necessarily must be not so. Evaluating God on such principles is the only way we can deal with God, and not only that, but the only way God can deal with himself.

The paradigm for determining God can not be anything but philosophy and/or science.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"well take away consciousness from the mind and see how mind like the mind is"

If you define "soul" as "consciousness", then you are right, the mind is incapable of doing anything outside of consciousness. But in what way can we truly say that consciousness is not an aspect of mind, when it is entailed by the mind?

Current empirical thought doesn't even have the terminology to explain these subtle points, what to speak of understanding them

"The vedas ascertain that a conditioned living entity has no potency to ascertain the existence of god so your views don't contradict what it establishes"

Let's reduce this to a more obvious form of what you are saying:

The Vedas are right.
Why?
Because they say so.

No - its more like - because you contravene the standards for proper understanding, established a s a prerequisite for understanding the vedas, your statements about god are not valid (notice how I didn't use the word epistemology and ontology)

"Considering well over 60% of what we have in the way of philosophy and science owes its existence topersons who had a strong conviction in something transcendentthat can very easily fir the billof "god", what are you suggesting?"

I would argue that Aristotle, specifically, had a very minor view of God. In fact, he gave God basically the role of "flick the first domino" and that is about all.

So god is still there - do you think he was also a drug user as well?

But even if some philosophers and scientists have viewed God as part of the equation, this does not mean they are right in assuming this.

Even wise men may err.

But you are trying to put such persons on the same level as derranged drug users

"Well god may disagree - inother words you would have to establish the paradigm you used to determine the nature of god's existence -if you use your own existence (which I am sure you have) then it is just like saying the president is an american therefore all americans are the president - in other words it is perfectly understandable why you would say such things given the vehicle of logic you insist on driving "

I do not make recourse to my own existence. I do not give God a love for gingerale, for instance. I only look for things which must necessarily be so and that which necessarily must be not so.

Yes thats the point - what may be so and not be so for you, may not be so for

god - just like what may be so and not be so for an american may not be so for the president.

Evaluating God on such principles is the only way we can deal with God, and not only that, but the only way God can deal with himself.

Just as there is a more sane way to deal with the president (ie approach him) there is a more sane way to deal with god

The paradigm for determining God can not be anything but philosophy and/or science.

Th eproblem is that the paradigm of philosophy is based on our own consciousness and the paradigm for science is dull matter - god however does not belong to either of these two catergories